View Full Version : Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting

12-10-2009, 21:50

12-10-2009, 22:01

Look man, it's really easy try and follow along plz.

Obama said it, it must be true.

Thanks, glad I could clear that up for you.

12-10-2009, 22:34
if its on the internet it must be true!

12-10-2009, 22:36


12-10-2009, 22:39
good article on climate change skeptics


12-10-2009, 22:50
"I disagree with op so im just going to post a bunch of unrelated stuff to prove my own point instead of making another thread lololololol"

btw lol @ blaming Exxonmobile. Exxon is working to push this legislation.

12-10-2009, 22:53
" I assume what someone else means by there posts and create a strawman to put them down."

being a skeptic means looking at both sides and trying to make sense out of it all. not just looking for information that back up your opinions.

where did I say anythign about exxon?

did you actualy read any of what I posted? there is alot of great information on that david suzuki site from one of the most respected scientists and activists in the world.

12-10-2009, 22:55
" I assume what someone else means by there posts and create a strawman to put them down."

being a skeptic means looking at both sides and trying to make sense out of it all. not just looking for information that back up your opinions.

Actually I do look at both sides. I used to be pretty environmentalist. And then I read up on a lot of the skeptic research and looked into the Medieval Warming Period.
Do you do the same?

The website you linked said ExxonMobile was behind climate skeptics, thus "lol they follow oil companies"

12-10-2009, 23:02
actualy I have looked into the medevil warming period.

you choosing to beleive anecdotal evidence of grapes being grown in england and norse farmers in england do not make a global warming period theory correct.

good info on it here


12-10-2009, 23:03
The website you linked said ExxonMobile was behind climate skeptics, thus "lol they follow oil companies"

you obviously skimed over the linked sources for every single claim made in the article.

"Not surprisingly, the skeptics have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connections with public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to - in the words of one leaked memo - "reposition global warming as theory (not fact).""

12-11-2009, 12:55
Sorry for the shitty formatting of copy+paste. Full document can be found here: http://petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Linked section starts on page 7 (of 12), section title "Global Warming Hypothesis"

The greenhouse ef fect amplifies so lar warm ing of the earth.
Greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2, and CH4 in the Earth’s at mosphere,
through com bined convec tive readjustments and the radi ative
blanketing ef fect, essentially de crease the net es cape of ter restrial
thermal infrared radiation. Increasing CO2, therefore, effectively increases
radiative en ergy in put to the Earth’s atmosphere. The path of
this radi ative input is complex. It is redistrib uted, both ver tically and
horizontally, by vari ous physi cal processes, including advection,
convection, and diffusion in the atmosphere and ocean.
When an in crease in CO2 in creases the radiative in put to the at -
mosphere, how and in which di rection does the at mosphere re spond?
Hypotheses about this response differ and are sche mati cally shown
in Figure 18. Without the wa ter-vapor green house effect, the Earth
would be about 14 ºC cooler (81). The ra diative con tri bu tion of dou -
bling atmo spheric CO2 is minor, but this ra di ative greenhouse effect
is treated quite differ ently by dif fer ent cli mate hy potheses. The hypoth
e ses that the IPCC (82,83) has chosen to adopt predict that the
effect of CO2 is am pli fied by the at mosphere, es pecially by wa ter va -
por, to pro duce a large tem per ature in crease. Other hy poth eses,
shown as hy pothesis 2, pre dict the op posite – that the at mospheric re -
sponse will coun ter act the CO2 increase and result in insignifi cant
changes in global tem perature (81,84,85,91,92). The experi mental
evidence, as de scribed above, fa vors hy pothesis 2. While CO2 has
increased substantially, its ef fect on tem perature has been so slight
that it has not been ex perimentally detected.
The com puter cli mate models upon which “hu man-caused global
warming” is based have sub stantial un certainties and are mark edly
unreliable. This is not sur prising, since the cli mate is a cou pled,
non-linear dy nam i cal sys tem. It is very com plex. Fig ure 19 illustrates
the diffi culties by comparing the radi ative CO2 green house ef fect
with cor rec tion fac tors and un cer tainties in some of the pa rameters in
the com puter cli mate cal culations. Other fac tors, too, such as the
chemical and clima tic influence of volcanoes, cannot now be reliably
com puter modeled.
In ef fect, an ex periment has been per formed on the Earth dur ing
the past half-century – an ex periment that includes all of the com plex
factors and feed back ef fects that de termine the Earth’s tem perature
and climate. Since 1940, hy dro carbon use has risen 6-fold. Yet, this
rise has had no ef fect on the tem per ature trends, which have con tinued
their cy cle of re covery from the Lit tle Ice Age in close cor relation
with increasing solar activity.
Not only has the global warm ing hy poth esis failed experimental
tests, it is the oretically flawed as well. It can rea sonably be ar gued
that cooling from negative physi cal and biological feedbacks to
greenhouse gases nul li fies the slight initial tem per ature rise (84,86).
The reasons for this fail ure of the com puter cli mate models are
subjects of scientific de bate (87). For ex am ple, wa ter va por is the
largest con tributor to the overall green house effect (88). It has been
suggested that the cli mate models treat feed backs from clouds, water
vapor, and related hydrol ogy incor rectly (85,89-92).
The global warm ing hypothesis with respect to CO2 is not based
upon the radi ative properties of CO2 it self, which is a very weak
green house gas. It is based upon a small ini tial in crease in tem per ature
caused by CO2 and a large theo retical amplification of that temperature
increase, primarily through increased evapora tion of H2O, a
Figure 19: The radiative greenhouse effect of doubling the concentra tion of
atmospheric CO2 (right bar) as com pared with four of the un certainties in the
computer climate models (87,93).
Figure 18: Qualitative illustration of greenhouse warming. “Present GHE” is
the current greenhouse effect from all atmospheric phenomena. “Radiative
effect of CO2” is the added green house ra diative ef fect from dou bling CO2
without consideration of other atmospheric components. “Hypothe sis 1
IPCC” is the hypothetical ampli fication effect assumed by IPCC. “Hypothesis
2” is the hy pothetical moderation effect.
– 7 –
strong greenhouse gas. Any comparable tem perature increase from
another cause would pro duce the same calculated out come.
Thus, the 3,000-year tem perature record il lustrated in Figure 1
also pro vides a test of the computer models. The historical temperature
re cord shows that the Earth has previously warmed far more
than could be caused by CO2 itself. Since these past warming cy cles
have not initiated water-vapor-mediated atmo spheric warming catas -
trophes, it is ev ident that weaker ef fects from CO2 can not do so.
Methane is also a minor green house gas. World CH4 lev els are, as
shown in Figure 20, leveling off. In the U.S. in 2005, 42% of hu -
man-produced methane was from hydrocarbon energy production,
28% from waste management, and 30% from ag riculture (95). The
total amount of CH4 pro duced from these U.S. sources de creased 7%
between 1980 and 2005. Moreover, the re cord shows that, even
while meth ane was increasing, tem perature trends were be nign.
The “human-caused global warming” – often called the “global
warm ing” – hypothesis depends entirely upon com puter model-generated
sce narios of the future. There are no em pirical records that
verify either these models or their flawed predictions (96).
Claims (97) of an epidemic of in sect-borne dis eases, extensive
species extinction, cat astrophic flooding of Pacific islands, ocean
acidifi cation, increased num bers and severities of hurricanes and tornados,
and increased hu man heat deaths from the 0.5°C per century
tem perature rise are not consistent with actual observa tions. The “human-
caused global warming” hypothesis and the computer calculations
that sup port it are in error. They have no empirical sup port and
are inval idated by numerous observa tions.