Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 217
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Global Warming...

    ...not so much:

    Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

    No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

    ...The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

    Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
    Debate settled?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    No, science is built off of long term goals, not one years worth of data.

    Fluctuations exist in all data; this isn't going to settle the debate.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    I agree with Goldy - it will take many years to settle this debate.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    American Southwest
    Posts
    663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    The debates not over 'til the fat man (Gore) sings.

    But seriously, The fanatics are going to say they need more evidence. Approx. 50 years should do it. And until then, we are all going to die...soon.


    And no matter how scientifically factual the data is; no matter how the data is backed up, unless it is published in the Journal Science, it didn't happen.


    It's like trying to tell a religious fanatic there is no God.
    "A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way." - Mark Twain

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    I think we can pretty much dispense with the "Earth in crisis" / "Inconvenient Truth" mumbo-jumbo, at this point.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    American Southwest
    Posts
    663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I think we can pretty much dispense with the "Earth in crisis" / "Inconvenient Truth" mumbo-jumbo, at this point.
    Not going to happen. Didn't I hear recently that Califonia is going to start requiring classes on global warming? They are indoctrinating an entirely new generation to be victims of Western culture.

    My son came home from school today and told me his science class is more like a global warming class.
    "A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way." - Mark Twain

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    I could take all of that a lot easier--even though the Intelligent Design / Global warming comparison is dismayingly similar--if the Left didn't refuse to listen to the other side. Global warming skeptics are reviled in the media; various figures call for their academic credentials to be taken away, call them dishonest, etc. I think healthy debate is necessary...but all the Left wants me to hear is preaching.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    American Southwest
    Posts
    663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    Well, I think you fail to understand this is really a new age movement (fraud) perpetrated on the common folk to inspire fear and gain control. Gore et al have no intention of debating the issue. Those found to be dissenting from the established 'truths' will promptly be declared a witch and according to the dictates of Monty Pythons' Holy Grail, the offending participant will be made into a bridge, assuming he/she floats like very small pebbles.
    "A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way." - Mark Twain

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Underneath the mountains
    Posts
    313
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan View Post
    The debates not over 'til the fat man (Gore) sings.

    But seriously, The fanatics are going to say they need more evidence. Approx. 50 years should do it. And until then, we are all going to die...soon.
    First, there's a good chance that I'll still be living and breathing in 50 years.

    Second, 1 year anomally doesn't trump a heating trend of 100. At least a 5 year downward trend would be nice

    Also, many of the arguments used against global warming have been addressed by proponets, including the theory given by the article. Of course the sun has a major effect on our climate (and existance, for that matter) but it's temp hasn't changed significantly in years, while our temperature kept on rising. Besides, if this is caused by a cooler period for the sun, then I'd assume it will be a relatively short period of reprieve before the heat starts hitting yet again.


    With luv,
    BD
    Last edited by BlueDreams; February 28th, 2008 at 11:20 AM. Reason: terrible grammar...that's what i get for writing so late.
    We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are.

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    Erm, so the conclusion of the article is that factors apart from CO2 have acted to cool the planet this year. I've never heard global warming activists claim that CO2 was the only influencing factor of global climate, and this evidence specifically mentions that it does not refute the influence of CO2 on warming the planet, so I don't see how this affects global warming theory whatsoever. The point of global warming theory is that CO2 will raise the average temperature of the planet over the long term, year over year, not that it will rise every single year without exception. A single exception shouldn't cause us to throw out a trendline that has been consistent over the past hundred years.

    Secondly, science is certainly not my domain, but I'm fairly sure the time frame of a year is insufficient to disprove studies dating back decades. The evidence for global warming in the greater marketplace is phenomenal, however, with the vast majority of scientists accepting it. Certainly, there are a few fringe scientists who continue to deny it, along with conservative politicians who continue to cast it in doubt for their own political and economic interests, but neither poses a threat to the validity of the claim. The first group can join the young earth creation scientists. And the second, well...these are the same religious zealot politicians who believe in young earth creation and want ID in schools. They're hardly advocates of science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clive
    I could take all of that a lot easier--even though the Intelligent Design / Global warming comparison is dismayingly similar--if the Left didn't refuse to listen to the other side. Global warming skeptics are reviled in the media; various figures call for their academic credentials to be taken away, call them dishonest, etc. I think healthy debate is necessary...but all the Left wants me to hear is preaching.
    Now I've heard everything - allegations of political bias because the "DailyTech Science Blog" isn't given the same airtime as the American Journal of Science. If your point is that the scientific marketplace - left and right - cares about long-term evidence over short-term anomalies, then I don't see any problem. Why should we take into consideration arbitrary claims with little to no evidence? You may as well be criticizing the "left" for not hearing out UFO believers and young earth creationists. All theories are held to the same standard of evidence, and decrying global warming just isn't meeting that standard among most scientists. Scientists didn't just wake up one day and "want" to believe that our climate was changing - they accept it because there is evidence that demonstrates it is true.
    [CENTER]-=] Starcreator [=-

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    Quote Originally Posted by starcreator View Post
    Scientists didn't just wake up one day and "want" to believe that our climate was changing - they accept it because there is evidence that demonstrates it is true.
    Of course it's true. What's also true is that solar activity plays a much bigger part than our SUVs. Scientific consensus changes. This information of the drastic temperature drop in the past year is likely to affect that consensus in the future.

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    I've never heard global warming activists claim that CO2 was the only influencing factor of global climate, and this evidence specifically mentions that it does not refute the influence of CO2 on warming the planet, so I don't see how this affects global warming theory whatsoever.
    Have you also never heard global warming activists say that CO2 plays a primary role in climate change? If they had an accurate idea about the role of CO2, they'd understand that any warming effect it has is largely irrelevant.

    Why then, if they do not place such primacy on the role of CO2, do they insist on the government forcing citizens to abide by their environmentally-friendly prerogatives?

    Now I've heard everything - allegations of political bias because the "DailyTech Science Blog" isn't given the same airtime as the American Journal of Science.
    Hmm, I don't remember saying that.

    If your point is that the scientific marketplace - left and right - cares about long-term evidence over short-term anomalies, then I don't see any problem. Why should we take into consideration arbitrary claims with little to no evidence? You may as well be criticizing the "left" for not hearing out UFO believers and young earth creationists. All theories are held to the same standard of evidence, and decrying global warming just isn't meeting that standard among most scientists. Scientists didn't just wake up one day and "want" to believe that our climate was changing - they accept it because there is evidence that demonstrates it is true.
    The evidence demonstrates that climate change primarily depends on factors outside of human control. If people were truly interested in the science, they wouldn't dismiss new evidence as being "short-term" and an "anomaly" since it doesn't fit with the pre-determined politically-correct metanarrative.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    What kind of horrible website design is that? My browser almost froze because of so many comments, you'd think they would implement a feature that minimizes the comments if they get too large.

    Oh well, on topic now.

    Without having spoken to the professional organizations and enough leading
    scientists in this issue, I find it difficult to get a good picture of where science stands right now because any second-hand information are prone to tweaks and misinterpretations. First, any scientists quoted/interviewed by media are likely to be chosen by the media in the first place, so there's a bias factor there, and then the media is also likely to exaggerate the exact quote of the scientist, so there's a bias factor there.

    But honestly, what's the big deal? It seems to me that we started with the situation where we had a limited understanding of how the climate works, but understood enough to conclude that alarming worst-case scenarios are indeed possible and probable enough to be a concern. Politicians then jumped on that and started advocating for preventative measures, a reasonable thing to do. As time goes on, our understanding of the climate would go deeper and deeper, and even if it turned out that the human factor isn't as great as we thought, it still doesn't mean that back when we didn't have the new information, we should've ignored the current science at the time and went with speculations. The question is, what decisions should we make given limited knowledge and a perceived undesirable consequence? And would such decision-making tactics change in principle if our knowledge becomes less limited?

    The other question is, who did the interpretation of data here? Michael Asher interpreted the graphs compiled by Anthony Watt from raw data. Who are these people? A quick google search has shown that although I couldn't find Anthony Watt's location or profession (since all traces only points to "dailytech.com") He is a pretty active global warming skeptic himself. Anthony Watt's google showed just as ambiguous results, although he doesn't seem to be as outspoken on the internet as Michael Asher.

    Yet, it's also interesting to note that the compiler of the graphs from data, Anthony Watt, doesn't even agree with Michael Asher's interpretations. Following the "compiled list of all sources" link provided in Michael's article, we come to Watt's graph page. On the bottom, I quote this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Watt
    The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:

    Quote Originally Posted by Asher
    “Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”
    I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”

    There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.
    In response to this, the article was edited with this:

    Update 2/27: The graph for HadCRUT (above), as well as the linked graphs for RSS and UAH are generated month-to-month; the temperature declines span a full 12 months of data. The linked GISS graph was graphed for the months of January only, due to a limitation in the plotting program. Anthony Watts, who kindly provided the graphics, otherwise has no connection with the column. The views and comments are those of the author only.
    I am getting the sense that there's a great deal of bias in this article. But even if it wasn't so, still, who are these people? We do not know their credentials. So why do we blindly trust their interpretation of data? None of us (I'm guessing) are climatologists working with the world's leading research. None of us truly understands the details of the current climate model. None of us really knows what some set of given data really means to the current climate theory. In fact, if I were to ask you to write an 100-page thesis on the technical side of the current climate theory, you probably can't. Yet, we claim we can interpret the data. By what standard are we judging the data? Because the data looks cooler, therefore the mechanisms that scientists hypothesized for global warming must be nonexistent or insignificant? That's like saying "because complex numbers are not real, therefore there are no real use for them," yet any electrical engineer would tell you that much of signal processing and circuit theory depends on them.

    Who has expertise here? Non-technical experts in the field certainly don't. As for technical experts in the field, they have the expertise and education, certainly, so at least we can be assured that they are probably using proper methods and interpreting the data properly to come to proper conclusions. However, climate science is a relatively new field, and the nature of science dictates that not all results will be the same. Merely the conclusions and studies from one, two, or three scientists or research groups, in a field of knowledge where results vary so much, clearly isn't conclusive in the big picture. Yet despite this, you'll find news articles and advocacy groups continue to quote single people to support their claims. They're doing this to look scientific, but if you really think about it, you'll need a lot more to really be conclusive. This is why the views of professional scientific organizations who represent thousands of scientists (such as AAAS) carries a lot more weight than individual researchers. They're also less likely to be biased or lying, since whatever the truth is, it will eventually be found out, and professional organizations of this caliber has a lot more stake than any individual or small parties. If there is indeed significant data that refutes the current theory, these professional organizations will change their stance, and perhaps then we'll get a clearer picture of where the science does lie.

    Lastly, let's take a step back and look at what the world is capable of now. Our science and technology has advanced so much that they are now capable of global impacts. We're now at a time when we must think things through before doing anything or the result may be irreversible. Awareness is becoming more and more important of a topic in the fields of science, technology, and engineering. At the same time, the climate isn't the only part of the environment that we hypothesize to be suffering at an alarmingly rate. So even if global warming turns out to be a big mistake, it still serves as a kick in the right direction. Despite the numerous scientific fallacies in Gore's film, you can't deny that it was the reason for many people to change their incandescents to squiggly bulbs, to use public transit more, etc... etc... This "rethinking" about the way we work with the environment has to come eventually anyway, and I'd much rather have it come earlier due to a nonexistent threat than to have it come later due to an actual existing threat.

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post

    Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.[/INDENT]
    Debate settled?
    The Earth's climate has always been in flux. Greenland, which today grows only lichen and only the hardiest of plant life, was once a land covered in temperate forest when the Earth's temperature was estimated to be 5c warmer......HHHMMM if man was not polluting the Earth 125,000 years ago, I wonder what made the Earth warmer then?

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0705153019.htm

    "Global Warming" is a political issue -- not a scientific one. Solar and volcanic activity have much greater impacts on the atmosphere than man does.

    There are a bunch of scientists getting together in New York starting on Sunday to present some "Inconvenient Facts" in an effort to debunk the Global warming hype.

    Does anyone here remember the "Ice Age" scare of global cooling in the 70s that was all the rage?


    I copied a partial list of the speakers at this conference below:


    The Other Side of the Global Warming 'Crisis'

    Written By: Harriette Johnson
    Published In: Heartland Perspectives
    Publication Date: February 14, 2008
    Publisher: The Heartland Institute

    (Chicago, IL - February 14, 2008) Global warming from greenhouse gases remains one of the most controversial policy issues of the day. Although many scientists support the view that climate change is a crisis, many--including highly regarded scientists at major universities around the world--are skeptical that this is the case.

    Their case, "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle," will be presented at an international conference scheduled for March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott Marquis Times Square Hotel in New York City, sponsored by The Heartland Institute. Hundreds of the world's leading scientists, economists, and policy analysts will explore the key issues overlooked by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming:

    * How much of global warming is natural and how much is man-made?

    * How reliable are forecasts of climate 10 or 100 years in the future?

    * How costly would it be to realistically reduce emissions?

    * Would "cap-and-trade" programs work as well as their advocates predict?

    * Who profits from global warming?


    Among the internationally renowned speakers at the conference will be:

    * Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama - Huntsville

    * Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

    * Dr. Tim Ball, former Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg, Canada

    * Dr. Vincent Gray, Executive Director, New Zealand Climate Coalition, New Zealand

    * Dr. S. Fred Singer, Distinguished Research Professor, George Mason University

    * Dr. Willie Soon, Chief Science Advisor, Science and Public Policy Institute

    * Dr. Robert Balling – Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

    * Dr. Bob Carter, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia

    * Dr. David Legates, Professor of Climatology, University of Delaware

    * Dr. Paul Reiter, Professor, Institute Pasteur, Paris, France

    * Dr. George Taylor, Professor of Climatology, Oregon State University

    * Dr. David Henderson, Visiting Professor, Westminster School of Business, London, England


    For more information on The Heartland Institute and the conference program visit http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm.
    Last edited by Spartacus; February 28th, 2008 at 09:27 AM.

  15. #15
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    I've see a few people responding that one year doesn't counter act a century of warming.
    I don't think I understand this.
    If the earth warms 1degree over 100 years, then cools 1degree in 1 year.

    How has that one year not made the 50 years of warming ... Irrelevant?
    Or how has it not debunked the idea that the world will warm to much?

    If it is the position that we don't know how much it has cooled or can't be sure. Then On what basis do we trust that it is warming?

    Or have I misunderstood?
    To serve man.

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

    No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

    ...The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

    Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
    One very important fact is being ignored here.

    La Nina 2007-2008, it causes temps in the Pacific to drop, which in turn has global climatic effects, namely cooler and wetter climate. This alone is enough to explain record snow cover in numerous places, as well as record cold in China.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    I am getting the sense that there's a great deal of bias in this article. But even if it wasn't so, still, who are these people? We do not know their credentials. So why do we blindly trust their interpretation of data? None of us (I'm guessing) are climatologists working with the world's leading research. None of us truly understands the details of the current climate model. None of us really knows what some set of given data really means to the current climate theory. In fact, if I were to ask you to write an 100-page thesis on the technical side of the current climate theory, you probably can't. Yet, we claim we can interpret the data. By what standard are we judging the data? Because the data looks cooler, therefore the mechanisms that scientists hypothesized for global warming must be nonexistent or insignificant? That's like saying "because complex numbers are not real, therefore there are no real use for them," yet any electrical engineer would tell you that much of signal processing and circuit theory depends on them.
    So because you aren't convinced that the people who recorded temperatures had Ph.D's...we should believe in global warming? Despite the lack of science behind it, and the evidence against it?

    If we don't have the expertise to interpret global temperatures as either rising or falling, why should we believe either?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    One very important fact is being ignored here.

    La Nina 2007-2008, it causes temps in the Pacific to drop, which in turn has global climatic effects, namely cooler and wetter climate. This alone is enough to explain record snow cover in numerous places, as well as record cold in China.
    Chad, the real question is:....What caused the waters in the Pacific to cool?

    Is this cooling effect limited only to the Pacific Ocean?

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus
    Chad, the real question is:....What caused the waters in the Pacific to cool?

    Is this cooling effect limited only to the Pacific Ocean?
    La Nina is a periodic event, similar to El Nino.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    La Nina is a periodic event, similar to El Nino.
    that's a given Chad.....but what causes La Nina and El Nino?

    It's Solar activity. Solar flares and sun spots. Heat does not emit from the Sun uniformly. It never has. This fluctuation in Solar activity is what has been responsible for the Earth's climate fluxuation (Fluxation is a more accurate word than change) throughout its entire history -- not man.

    The last Ice Age did not end because of man's polution did it?

 

 
Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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