Global Warming is Caused by guess what

Global Warming is Caused by guess what

There are 59 comments on the John Dvorak story from Sep 3, 2011, titled Global Warming is Caused by guess what. In it, John Dvorak reports that:

This story must be bogus since we all know that the science is in and every known scientist agrees that man's activities causes global warming.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at John Dvorak.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
bronck burger

Fair Lawn, NJ

#1 Sep 3, 2011
aliens ARE THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING.
NobodyYouKnow

Nepean, Canada

#2 Sep 3, 2011
Yes. Correct. AGW is caused by Solar cycles (a small amount, now cooling ), Aerosols (limited by clean air regulation) and GHGs ( expanding fast, open ended and hard to remove)

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhan...

Not sure why they include the CERN story. That ionization from cosmic rays help nucleation should not be a surprise. Of course, the nuclei produced are too small to form rain droplets by about an order of magnitude and the cloud formation ( and cosmic rays) have not changed in recent eons so there is NO evidence that they are making changes to the clouds. Nor is there any data suggesting change in cloud cover globally. All in all, two factors (solar insolation and cloud cover) that have no recent changes. Without a change in the cause, you cannot have the change in the effect (AGW) so these are NOT components of the causation.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#3 Sep 4, 2011
NobodyYouWantToKnow wrote:
Yes. Correct. AGW is caused by Solar cycles
I see, so solar cycles are anthropogenic?
That reminds me of something your alter ego wrote:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Deforestations is a consequence of AGW,....
NobodyYouKnow

Nepean, Canada

#4 Sep 4, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>I see, so solar cycles are anthropogenic?
Still not able to read simple sentences huh? Solar cycles are only a small factor in the current balance. And they are currently cooling after a period of warming. That is what a CYLCE does. Up and down. Up and down. Minor bit.

Now the Aerosols are a mix of natural and anthropogenic sources. However, again, self limited by the low persistance. If we stopped emitting them from industy, they would go back to 'natural' levels in a few weeks.

GHGs are primarily anthropogenic and they are both persistant and open ended. They form the majority of CURRENT warming and will increase in proportion of the total as the other factors cannot grow this way.
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That reminds me of something your alter ego wrote:<quoted text>
Your mental disturbances do not interest me.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#5 Sep 4, 2011
NobodyYouwantToKnow wrote:
Still not able to read simple sentences huh?
Your sentences come from a 'simple' minded source.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
Solar cycles are only a small factor in the current balance. And they are currently cooling after a period of warming. That is what a CYLCE does.
Who or what on Earth is a, "CYLCE?"
NoFactNoHope wrote:
Up and down. Up and down. Minor bit.
Your sex life is of no interest to me.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
Now the Aerosols are a mix of natural and anthropogenic sources.
Well spotted.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
However, again, self limited by the low persistance.
Bafflegab.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
If we stopped emitting them from industy, they would go back to 'natural' levels in a few weeks.
Well that's a brilliant observation, how did you work it out?
NoFactNoHope wrote:
GHGs are primarily anthropogenic
Are you completely stupid, or just plain dumb?
"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not."
Fun Facts

Albuquerque, NM

#6 Sep 4, 2011
Cosmic rays haven't changed. The magnitude of the sun's magnetic field has changed. It is the intensity of the solar mag field that determines just how many cosmic rays enter our solar system.

Our sun has just completed 30 to 50 years of very high levels of solar activity. During that time, the heliosphere was expanded limiting the amount cosmic rays entering our system.

The measured solar magnetic activity is now lower that we have seen in the time period we have been able to measure. This will result in a reduction of the heliosphere and an increase in cosmic rays.

An increase in cosmic rays causes an increase in clouds which causes decreases in temperatures as the clouds reflect solar insolation back into space before it can be absorbed by the earth's oceans.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#7 Sep 4, 2011
Fun Facts wrote:
Cosmic rays haven't changed. The magnitude of the sun's magnetic field has changed. It is the intensity of the solar mag field that determines just how many cosmic rays enter our solar system.
Our sun has just completed 30 to 50 years of very high levels of solar activity. During that time, the heliosphere was expanded limiting the amount cosmic rays entering our system.
The measured solar magnetic activity is now lower that we have seen in the time period we have been able to measure. This will result in a reduction of the heliosphere and an increase in cosmic rays.
An increase in cosmic rays causes an increase in clouds which causes decreases in temperatures as the clouds reflect solar insolation back into space before it can be absorbed by the earth's oceans.
Haven't you had your mind altered yet?
The Sun has nothing to do with warming Earth, only GHGs are capable of achieving that result.
Got it yet?
Ö¿Ö
NobodyYouKnow

Nepean, Canada

#8 Sep 4, 2011
Fun Facts wrote:
Cosmic rays haven't changed. The magnitude of the sun's magnetic field has changed. It is the intensity of the solar mag field that determines just how many cosmic rays enter our solar system.
Sort of. But to say how many affect earth , you also have to deal with the earths magnetic field and the geomagnetic cutoff E(sub)0

And while there is evidence that the ionization from cosmic rays helps the nucleation process, there is little evidence of change to cloud formation correlated to cosmic ray levels. It is much more likley that even the weakest ionization is adequate to encorage nucleation particles, so the intensity would make no difference.

However, it is also an area that is not yet refined well enough to detect such small factors. Unlike the solar constant, aerosols and GHGs which are much more dramatic in their forcing and are fully adequate to explain the general graph of AGW temperatures.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#9 Sep 4, 2011
NobodyYouWantToKnow wrote:
Sort of.
Just one question, for now, why have you ditched LessFactMoreHype, was he too much of an embarrassment, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?
Jonny

Belconnen, Australia

#10 Sep 5, 2011
People who deny global warming think they are armchair climate scientists.

In truth, they lack the mathematical/statistical skills, the technical skills, and the knowledge to be qualified to have an opinion.

The fact of global warming isn't subject to your opinion or personal preference or what you think. Leave climate science to the climate scientists.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#11 Sep 5, 2011
Jonny wrote:
People who deny global warming think they are armchair climate scientists.
In truth, they lack the mathematical/statistical skills, the technical skills, and the knowledge to be qualified to have an opinion.
The fact of global warming isn't subject to your opinion or personal preference or what you think. Leave climate science to the climate scientists.
You are no different from a bible thumper with your "belief" in the gods of science. You fear mongers didn't love the planet, you hated humanity.
Republican or not, and“science bible thumper” or not, we all know the CO2 science of unstoppable warming was a tragic exaggeration and 25 years of needless panic has made fear mongering neocons out of all of us.“SCIENCE” gave us pesticides too don’t forget so bowing in pure belief to our gods of science made us look like goose-stepping Greenzis, not rational progressives. Let me make this clear; climate change wasn’t “sustainability”, it was a specific Human CO2 END OF THE WORLD death threat to billions of children and dressing it up as anything else is the real lie that has left climate change being our Iraq War of climate WMD lies and fear mongering. The undeniable proof of scientific exploitation is fact that thousands of scientists strangely outnumbered the protesters and they refused to march in the streets with us and are NOT acting like it’s the danger they said it was even after Obama didn’t mentioned the “crisis” in his State of the Union Address. We and the thousands of scientists should have all been acting like this was the comet hit of an emergency that we all cried it was. Fear is always unsustainable and now CO2 “science” has done to science what abusive priests did to religion We have condemned billions of children to a catastrophic CO2 demise with such childish glee and selfish flippancy that I can no longer look my children in the eyes and tell them to SAVE THE PLANET from evil Human CO2 or they will experience the worst disaster imaginable; climate crisis.
I am a former believer and this planet lover will continue stewardship of the planet but without the CO2 mistake. Face it; nobody was going to vote YES for taxing the air to make the weather colder anyways.
Man can only destroy what HE creates as only immortal Gods and comet hits can destroy entire planets. Our insignificance amounts to passing gas in a tornado, so get over it.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#12 Sep 5, 2011
Jonny wrote:
People who deny global warming think they are armchair climate scientists.
I do believe you'll find that the armchair scientists here are all believers in a science still in its infancy, yet to take its first baby steps.
Jonny wrote:
In truth, they lack the mathematical/statistical skills, the technical skills, and the knowledge to be qualified to have an opinion.
Agreed.
This is a public internet forum, not quite the meeting place of great minds where decisions can or will be made.
Are you 'qualified' to have an 'expert' opinion on the subject of climate science, Jonny?
Jonny wrote:
The fact of global warming isn't subject to your opinion or personal preference or what you think.
True, it's based on the findings of those who believe they are qualified.
Jonny wrote:
Leave climate science to the climate scientists.
Thanks for your input.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#13 Sep 5, 2011
all the hot air from all the politicans !
Greece Goomah Squad

Rochester, NY

#14 Sep 5, 2011
caused by eating foods that make you fart and burb alot
Northie

Spokane, WA

#15 Sep 5, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>I do believe you'll find that the armchair scientists here are all believers in a science still in its infancy, yet to take its first baby steps.<quoted text>A
Are you 'qualified' to have an 'expert' opinion on the subject of climate science, Jonny?
No one here is "qualified to have an expert opinion on the science". The only question is whether we trust the united judgement of every freaking scientific academy and scientific society that matters.

As for the science being in its infancy, two centuries is a long infancy.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#16 Sep 5, 2011
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
No one here is "qualified to have an expert opinion on the science". The only question is whether we trust the united judgement of every freaking scientific academy and scientific society that matters.
As for the science being in its infancy, two centuries is a long infancy.
"belief" is for bible thumpers.And "reason" says the consensus scientists exaggerated. What else is a lab coat consultant going to say when they pay you to study the effects of climate change, not the causes, "sure its real".

Since: Aug 08

Arlington, WA

#17 Sep 5, 2011
piddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:
...... why have you ditched.....
Why haven't you ditched 'slimy filthy vile pukey proud racist pig, piddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling, corrected your error of 500 million TIMES, & your 92% error on a subject you introduced.
litesong

Arlington, WA

#18 Sep 5, 2011
piddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:
Your sex life is of no interest to me......
Your sex life is of no interest to.....yourself.
litesong

Arlington, WA

#19 Sep 5, 2011
me me me getting mine in the 69 position wrote:
.....a lab coat consultant.....
..... is far superior to a lab rat like you.....

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#20 Sep 6, 2011
mememine69 wrote:
"belief" is for bible thumpers.And "reason" says the consensus scientists exaggerated. What else is a lab coat consultant going to say when they pay you to study the effects of climate change, not the causes, "sure its real".
Well put.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 17 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 11,298
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) Tue John 37,131
Global Cooling (Apr '15) Jul 20 Into The Night 2,530
News Global warming made Paris floods far more likel... (Jun '16) Jul 20 Into The Night 152
2016 year to date (Apr '16) Jul 19 Patriot AKA Bozo 195
News Soros Says U.S. Carbon Cap Would Spur Billions ... (Jan '10) Jul 19 Mail order bride 39
Professor denies global warming theory (May '09) Jul 19 Conspiracy Among ... 2
More from around the web