Page 6 of 228 FirstFirst ... 456781656106 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #51
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Yet, they can't refute his paper, which he wrote while he was there.

    Huh. Funny that.

    Same thing happened to Easterbrook. (Shrugs)

    Not a good environment out there for Skeptics. They even shot at Christy's office.

    Told ya, very interesting times in the science, and worthy of discussion.

    Oh, there was a rebuttal. Hmm:

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...tion-final.pdf

    Apparently, MIT didn’t like its name being used in petition to Trump. Dr. Richard Lindzen responds to that letter.

    March 9, 2017

    President Donald Trump
    The White House
    Washington, DC

    Dear Mr. President:

    On 2 March, 2017, members of the MIT Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate (PAOC) sent a public letter to the White House, contesting the Petition I circulated. The Petition, signed by over 330 scientists from around the world so far, called for governments to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

    Since MIT’s administration has made the climate issue a major focus for the Institute, with PAOC playing a central role, it is not surprising that the department would object to any de-emphasis. But the PAOC letter shows very clearly the wisdom of James Madison’s admonition, in the Federalist, 10:

    “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.”

    For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are.

    Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.

    The UNFCCC was established twenty five years ago to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.

    We note that:

    The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,
    It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2,
    Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed,
    The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments,
    Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide,
    Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.
    Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills.

    I hope these remarks help to explain why the over 300 original signers of the Petion (and additional scientists are joining them every day) have called for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.

    Respectfully yours,

    clip_image004

    Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences

    SUPPORTING SIGNERS:

    Most of signers of the Petition, agree with my remarks above. In the limited time available to prepare the letter, it has been reviewed and approved by the following:

    ABDUSSAMATOV, Habibullo Ismailovich: (Dr. sci., Phys. and Math. Sciences. ); Head of space research of the Sun sector at the Pulkovo observatory, head of the project The Lunar Observatory, St. Petersburg, (Russian Federation).

    ALEXANDER, Ralph B.: (Ph.D. ,Physics, University of Oxford ); Former Associate Professor, Wayne State University, Detroit, author of Global Warming False Alarm (2012).

    BASTARDI, Joseph: Chief Meteorologist, Weatherbell Analytics.

    BRIGGS, William M.: (Ph.D., Statistics & Philosophy of Science); Author of Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics.

    CLOUGH, Charles: (MS., Atmospheric Science); Founder and Retired Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Retired LtCol USAF (Res) Weather Officer.

    DOIRON, Harold H.: (Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston 1970 ); Retired VP Engineering, InDyne, Inc.; Senior Manager, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems; and former NASA Apollo, Skylab and Space Shuttle Engineer Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, composed of NASA manned space program retirees.

    EASTERBROOK, Donald J.: (Ph.D.); Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University; former president of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division of GSA, Associate Editor of the GSA Bulletin for 15 years, and many other professional activities. He published four books and eight professional papers in the past year.

    FORBES, Vivian R.: (BSc., Applied Sciences); FAusIMM, FSIA, geologist, financial analyst and pasture manager, author of many articles on climate, pollution, economic development and hydrocarbons. (Australia).

    HAPPER, William: (Ph.D., Physics); Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) Princeton University; Director of the Office of Energy Research, US Department of Energy, 1990-1993.

    HAYDEN, Howard “Cork”: (PhD.); Professor Emeritus, University of Connecticut.

    IDSO, Craig: (PhD, B.S., Geography, Arizona State University, M.S.,Agronomy, the University of Nebraska – Lincoln in 1996 ); Chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

    LEGATES, David R.: (PhD, Climatology, University of Delaware); Certified Consulting Meterologist.

    LUPO, Anthony: (Ph.D., Atmospheric Science); Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri.

    MARKÓ, István E.: (PhD,Organic Chemistry, Catholic University of Louvain); professor and researcher of organic chemistry at the Catholic University of Louvain ( Belgium).

    MOCKTON, Christopher: ; The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (United Kingdom).

    MOORE, Patrick: (PhD., Ecology, University of British Columbia, Honorary Doctorate of Science, North Carolina State University); National Award for Nuclear Science and History (Einstein Society).

    NICHOLS, Rodney W.: (AB Physics, Harvard); Science and Technology policy Executive Vice President emeritus Rockefeller University President and CEO emeritus, NY Academy of Sciences Co-Founder CO2 Coalition.

    SINGER, Fred S.: (Ph.D., Physics, Princeton University, BA, Electrical Engineering, Ohio State University); professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), which he founded in 1990 and incorporated in 1992 after retiring from the University of Virginia.

    SOON, Willie: (PhD); Independent Scientist.

    SPENCER, Roy W.: (Ph.D., Meteorology ’81; M.S., Meteorology, ’79; B.S., Atmospheric & Oceanic Science, ’78); Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville; co-developer of method for satellite monitoring of global temperature; author of numerous papers on climate and satellite meteorology.

    STEWARD, H. Leighton: (MS., Geology); Environmentalist, No. 1 New York Times Best Selling Author, Recipient numerous national environmental awards or directorships including the EPA, Louisiana Nature Conservancy, Audubon Nature Institute, the National Petroleum Council and the API. Former energy industry executive and chosen to represent industry on Presidential Missions under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.

    MOTL, Lubos: (PhD., Physics ); former high-energy theoretical physics junior faculty at Harvard University (Czech Republic).

    WYSMULLER, Thomas H.: (BA, Meteorology ); Ogunquit, Maine, NASA (Ret.); Chair, Water Day 2013, UNESCO IHE Water Research Institute, Delft, The Netherlands; Chair, Oceanographic Section, 2016 World Congress of Ocean, Qingdao China; NASA TRCS charter member.

    ZYBACH, Bob: (PhD., Environmental Sciences, Oregon State University); http://www.ORWW.org, author of more than 100 popular articles and editorials regarding forest history, wildfire mitigation, reforestation planning, and Indian burning practices.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 10-27-2017 at 04:35 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  2. #52
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Which paper? His 2011 paper was refuted here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...1GL049236/full

    I don't actually see any of the fundamental science here interesting at all. Yes, there are some interesting details to examine and uncertainties to refine but the basic science here is actually really boring.

    Look, I don't want to flex, but I have significantly more scientific and mathematical training than you do. That's just reality. When I read half the shit you post here (and I'll admit I only read half, because most of it junk and I'm just not going to read your walls of text) all I can think is "well, they didn't really mention effect size here" or "they're clearly cherry picking this data point here" or "there they're intentionally neglecting the time lag in climate forcing here"... it's all just nonsense.

    When I look at actual publications it's all sound, and conforms to back-of-the-envelope calculations that I've done. First order effects are correct. My training tells me I can't go much further than that without sitting down with R and a few datasets, but tbh there's just no point. Skeptics who are smarter than I am have done it and reached the same conclusion as the vast majority of people who work on the stuff.

    Most of the things you post are people who think it's appropriate to just extrapolate wherever is convenient for them without any rigorous analysis. Watts' website is riddled with red lines he's drawn over graphs in MS Paint. And somehow it's disproof of the liars! It's a global scientific conspiracy for the sake of the New World Order!

    And the other half of the stuff you post is just normal science getting done. If you read the FAR, they acknowledge massive amounts of uncertainty in the report. Repeatedly. Each subsequent report gets more specific. For example clouds have consistently been called out as one of the largest source of uncertainty in many of the predictions - but that's the thing, there are rigorous and well-documented methods to estimate that uncertainty and it goes into every calculation. CERN didn't just stumble on the cloud generation thing, they got funding and specifically undertook the experiment to better understand the effect of clouds. Direct solar radiative forcing has been thoroughly and rigorously ruled out as a factor. As Gordon said, changes in TSI (the direct measure of solar energy hitting the planet) just doesn't correlate.

    It's really actually uninteresting science. I promise.
    Last edited by PBSteve; 10-27-2017 at 05:33 PM.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Josh, you have many articles that discredit methane's contribution to our climatological dilemma?

    https://phys.org/news/2017-01-effect...r-thought.html


    Also, if we're going to ignore CO2 specifically as a cause of "global warming" there are other easier to prove issues with it. It decays into carbonic acid which is one of the contributors to acid rain. Though it doesn't contribute as much to the ph as some other fossil fuel emissions, you still have concentrations that are easy enough to correlate.

    https://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what-acid-rain

  4. #54
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Speaking of methane, climate change is going to significantly affect us but really it's just a proxy and confounding factor of an even larger problem that we more or less ignore, because it's even less comfortable to think about than climate change. I think this graphic puts it well.

    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  5. #55
    Hebrews 13:8 going_home's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    563
    Kill all the cows, theres where the majority of the methane comes from.

    So by eating, humans cause global warming.

    Now you can see where its all leading.

    Too many humans, is destroying the planet and climate.

    Let the countries all pay algore and that will fix it all....

    What a joke the whole theory is.
    endeavor to persevere.......

  6. #56
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by going_home View Post
    Kill all the cows, theres where the majority of the methane comes from.
    Melting permafrost contributes as well.

    I don't really follow any logic to what you just said, but mixing seaweed into cow feed would help significantly.

    But sure, Al Gore or something, so invalid.
    Last edited by PBSteve; 10-27-2017 at 08:12 PM.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  7. #57
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Which paper? His 2011 paper was refuted here:
    It discusses the forcing of clouds - but it doesn't refute the paper. Lidzen's work was on total exported radiation. It is empirical data. Good read though, thanks!

    This is a decent paper to look into the Lidzen Models, it sure mixes a lot of different parts to make a conclusion. But it can't really refute the Lindzen paper because the Lindzen paper is empirical data, and satellite data at that. Trying to counter it would need to do something more than running it against models only using surface station data (GISS/HADCRUT) when all of this is Satellite Data (RSS/UAH). If it at least used weather balloon data, data that runs the full depth of the Troposphere instead of just the bottom 6 ft, mostly in cities or airports, and mostly from poor sited surface stations that are now being removed from the dataset and homogenized to show warming where there isn't even data points.

    But you sure as heck are not even reading what you linked to, or comprehending. How do you expect me to believe that you when you say "When I read half the shit you post here" when you don't even begin to read or understand the counterpoint you use? I know more about the problems then you do, and this is your source.

    Your point is lost entirely by both being arrogant and ignorant in the same post. Grow up Steve. You don't know your shit on this to some point that I can't comprehend. Stop trying to pretend to have some higher ground. You are not. Mind you, short of my friend Tom, you are one of the few poeple who actually puts a good try in, and few laymen could understan this, so I appreciate it. But I don't dismiss it by saying "your side is shit" unless it is Cook. Because his work is shit. Total shit.

    [2] The usual way to think about clouds in the climate system is that they are a feedback — as the climate warms, clouds change in response and either amplify (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the initial change [e.g., Stephens, 2005]. In recent papers, Lindzen and Choi [2011, hereinafter LC11] and Spencer and Braswell [2011, hereinafter SB11] have argued that clouds are not an important source of radiative forcing for the climate — meaning that clouds are also an initiator of climate change. If this claim is correct, then significant revisions to climate science may be required.
    That is the introduction. The empirical data shows, again and again, the models need to be changed, and now, as I link in the first post, the AWG crowd says the same thing.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/an...05c15e2341159f

    Even leading alarmist Ben Santer, lead author of a paper in Nature Geoscience, now admits the world isn't warming as predicted by global warming models. Even Michael Mann, who produced the infamous hockey stick, has put his name to this paper.

    From the abstract:

    In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.

    The problem is the models on which the global warming scare is based were simply wrong:

    We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

    James Delingpole describes Santer's colorful history in the climate wars since he was outed in the Climategate scandal.

    Sceptical scientists identified this problem years ago:

    John Christy, who collects satellite temperature data out of the University of Alabama-Huntsville, has testified before Congress on the failure of models to predict recent global warming.

    Christy’s research has shown climate models show 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere than satellites and weather balloons have observed.

    You are still arguing a point that is a year in the past. Right now, Micheal Friggen Mann, who created MBH99, that was the REASON for the Kyoto Accord, the main graph we had in the IPCC reports for years, who just lost a few lawsuits to skeptics, he friggen disagrees with YOU.

    Dude, you fell BEHIND.

    Try to keep up.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 10-27-2017 at 10:03 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  8. #58
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Methane is about 1/10th of the CO2 output - so, important, significant if we look at the $100 ratio in my opinion. I would notice losing $10 - but only matters if you skip the importance of Water Vapor as the main GHG. It varies though, and is inconsistent. Up to 40,000ppm, but often far lower in cool regions, down to 1000pm. There is a strong correlation with warmth, and that is why there is the 3X forcing I mentioned before. That is actually where the models get the idea. Unfortunately, since the models use the Haas Method, they keep water vapor as a constant. You will notice this has been consistent in my replies, the problem with using the Haas Method. Part of the issue with using models to validate empirical date when you have one that is a variable and one that is a fixed constant.

    Water Vapor has the same ratio as CO2 (1 for CO2 per atom, 1 for Water Vapor, but Methane is 84 points per) for warming. It clogs and chokes out the outgoing spectrum almost totally. Same with CO2.

    But not methane! That is why the factor is 84. That is an opening spectrum, and hence, that is what makes methane a very powerful GHG, and up to 10% of CO2. But that is dwarfed by water vapor. This is in debate - hence, it is 60% to 95% depending on who you talk to. In fact, whoever linked to Skeptical Science, Gordon I think, had the beginnings of that in there?



    If you look, the section on the bottom of the Thermal IR, where Methane absorbs? That is where it gets more output, and hence can have a higher ratio of 84.

    Methane is then 4% to .5% of the total GHG equation, due to it's relative small amount total, but that open bandwidth of IR radiation to go out gives it the higher factor. If you notice, the bump in the Methan Graph that is further up? That spectrum is total eclipsed by Water Vapor.

    When we start adding natural variability, it becomes fairly small. Not totally insignificant, but not something I worry about too much. Because Termites.

    Yeah, termites. I consider this the Termite Equivalent (TE), similar to the Banana Equivalent with radiation.

    Termite and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Facts:

    Scientists have calculated that termites alone produce ten times as much carbon dioxide as all the fossil fuels burned in the whole world in a year.

    Pound for pound, the weight of all the termites in the world is greater than the total weight of humans.

    Scientists estimate that, worldwide, termites may release over 150 million tons of methane gas into the atmosphere annually. In our lower atmosphere this methane then reacts to form carbon dioxide and ozone.

    It is estimated that for every human on Earth there may be 1000 pounds of termites.

    On the average Termites expel gas composed of about 59% nitrogen, 21% hydrogen, 9% carbon dioxide, 7% methane, and 4% oxygen.
    We are, at total, affecting the world 1/10 as much as termites. That includes the cows and such, generally, when discussing CO2.

    Termites produce about 22 million tons a year in methane.

    Cows produce about 2.2 million tons a year, about 35% of total human output.

    They are 1/10 termite output. A .1 TE also in methane, where are humans are .3 TE or so in total for Methane, .1 TE in CO2.

    _______________________________

    While I do think about methane, I normally won't give it too much of a factor for a bit, due to it being, as I see it, just on the cusp of total significance. I still pay attention to it, like the release from the permafrost melting, but until it runs up a bit further I am not worried about it.

    So I would say: DO pay attention to total Methane release, that is a section of the outgoing radiation that is is NOT being used by dominate GHG and should be watched, BUT: Right now it is still just a small factor in the total mix. If that changes, I am game for assessing it more.

    _______________________________

    That being said, part of the reason I am not so worried about CO2 has to do with the fact it has already flooded the bandwidth, as has Water Vapor.

    Average CO2 has been in the thousands of parts per million for millions of years. Higher than 1000ppm is the normal for the earth. The earth spent most of the time at 25 degrees C. We are just at15 degrees C. And that is only now, while we sit in a warm period in an Ice Age, with CO2 levels at a historic low, that we humans exist. CO2 never had runaway warming in the past, in fact is shows robust negative feedbacks to remain at 25 degrees C. According to the models that is all run away warming, and instead we had very stable 25 degree weather. Those two positions can't both be right - so I have to choose empirical data.



    (Image from Skeptical Science. Yo)

    And for what it is worth, Normal Interglacials last 11,000 years or so. The last one? Warmer than now. This Interglacial was warmer than now, we are on the tail end, it was warmer 8000 years ago, and not because of us, but natural cycles. (shrugs). 1660 and 1850 are the coldest points in the last 8000 years. I hope we had some warming. If not, it will just slide on back to an Ige Age. All of this is within the normal range of the planet, and we have robust proof of that.



    (Image from Nasa. Yo.)

    This is just a warm blip every 10,000 years out of 100,000. The Earth is in an Ige Age. It will go down to freezing, Wisconsin will have a mile of ice on it no matter what we do. 400ppm, or 600ppm doesn't matter. We are fairly insignificant to that. There isn't enough CO2 to counter that.

    There just isn't enough CO2. The sun cools in 1000 year or so. We better make the most of it, get off earth, survive.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 10-27-2017 at 09:59 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  9. #59
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Since I have a significant amount of Martini's in my system, let me make one other observation.

    The outgoing spectrum is kinda eaten up by water vapor. I used this pic from above:



    Notice Water Vapor? That takes up a huge majority of the total outgoing spectrum. Hence why it is a large portion of the total GHG affect. Not only is it up to 100 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is also covering most of the spectrums. It eats up a huge portion of the bandwidth. CO2 has basically eaten up it's spectrum also:



    It is the classic discussion of diminishing returns. Hence, the factor of just 1 for CO2 and Water vapor. They are plentiful and already eat up the outgoing radiation.

    Interesting Side fact, which falls also under "Why isn't Josh worried": We do know that Venus has a 96% CO2 atmosphere, about 960,000 parts per millions, and it has about twice the solar input from the sun. And interestingly, at 1 bar (equal to Sea level), which is about 50 miles up the average temperature is.... well:

    Despite the harsh conditions on the surface, the atmospheric pressure and temperature at about 50 km to 65 km above the surface of the planet is nearly the same as that of the Earth, making its upper atmosphere the most Earth-like area in the Solar System
    2400 TIMES THE CO2 we have, and at the same level of air pressure, even though it has twice the solar TSI, it is about the same temperature as earth.

    By every model, that can't happen. By every single claim Steve or Gordon has made.

    But Empirically, it does.

    How about that? Can you explain that Steve? Gordon?

    960,000 ppm. 1 Bar. Twice the TSI. Same temp. Same gravity. Able to be colonized. Because it is exactly the same temperature range.

    ______________________

    Small sober morning addition: Mars is experiencing Global Warming

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...s-warming.html

    Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

    In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

    Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

    "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

    Solar Cycles

    Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

    Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

    "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

    By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
    Maybe Steve or Gordon can find a link to skeptic science that says otherwise.

    How about I save the time.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...ng-on-mars.htm

    The global warming argument was strongly influenced by a paper written by a team led by NASA scientist Lori Fenton, who observed that changes in albedo – the property of light surfaces to reflect sunlight e.g. ice and snow – were shown when comparing 1977 pictures of the Martian surface taken by the Viking spacecraft, to a 1999 image compiled by the Mars Global Surveyor.
    Wait. Those are different people. Huh. And 2005 data vs 1977/1999 data. And for more modern data. Hmm.... guess not.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 10-28-2017 at 08:22 AM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    I am still going through all this, but there is some interesting information there. Everything I've read says there's a 95% consensus that human "fingerprint" CO2 is the cause of global warming. I am having a hard time accepting 95% of scientists would be involved in a conspiracy or whatever. I can't rectify that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •