AGW was not accepted by the scientific community until every known natural variable that drives global temperature – including every known cyclical variable – had been repeatedly tested and shown not to be the cause of the observed temperature data.
No “cyclical warming” pattern ever identified by any human who has ever lived explains the empirical evidence. All of them, individually and in every possible combination, have failed every scientific test to find out if they were the cause. If you know of a climate cycle that explains the temperature data then why don’t you tell us what it is and put an end to all of this?
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-ass...
I suggest you educate yourself on what is known by the greatest scientists in the world. A nation's science academy is where their greatest scientists come together to advise their nation on matters of complex science. America's National Academy of Sciences and UK's Royal Society have come together to make it easy as possible for you to understand. That's the link at the top. Learn if you want.
Somebody indeed may be causing embarrassment to your school. But you don't know what you are talking about and yet claiming that physics is wrong. Either commit yourself to learning or just drop-out now. If you can't learn from the greats then just stop wasting your time.
http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/careers.h...
I used to have the greatest respect for science and scientists but that has taken a real blow now that I have been looking at climate science.
Compare two fields:
In 1998, climate scientists were putting some tree-ring data into a computer program. They achieved some controversial results and have spent all the time since trying to justify them. All the time they complain that they can't do real climate experiments without another copy of the earth.
Meanwhile, engineers and other scientists built the Large Hadron Collider and simulated events of the Big Bang and found the Higgs Boson. All without a parallel universe.
Real science (not the IPCC brand) recognizes that we are emerging from an Ice age (they taught that in grade school, remember?).
Now watch carefully maxx's math, and realize that Co2 does not create heat, it's the other way around. As global temperatures rise, Co2 closely follows. Seeing as how we are emerging from an ice age the college educated among us can easily figure out that our climate is warming, naturally, and it does so on 100,000 year cycles as proven by the Vostok ice core experiments (see Milankovich eccentric Earth orbit plots and Tschumi-Stauffer papers on age and composition of ice cores), This is the "science" that Al Gore and his toadies refuse to debate.. The Gore fraud took our most recent upswing, the last 20 thousand years or so of the 20 million year old global temperature record with it's natural 100,000 year cycles and voila, massive perceived increase. Imagine that...
Consider this: An average hurricane (1.5 cm/day of rain, circle radius of 665 km), we get a gigantic amount of energy: 6.0 x 10^14 Watts or 5.2 x 10^19 Joules/day!
This is equivalent to about 200 times the total electrical generating capacity on the planet being expended each day the hurricane exists! NASA says that "during its life cycle a hurricane can expend as much energy as 10,000 nuclear bombs!" And we're just talking about average hurricanes here, not Katrina."
How many cars does it take to release an equivalent amount thermal energy to 1 average hurricane? I think your friend is delusional and politics is impairing his judgement.
It takes a special amount of willful ignorance to reject the consensus of thousands of specialist scientists and expert reviewers. What make you so special?
The amount of heat made my people is insignificant. Consider how much energy it takes to keep our planet warm. It would take worldwide electricity production more than 200 years to make enough energy to equal the amount of heat the Sun sends the Earth in a single day.
You can see the calculation here: https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/in...
-----------------------
I dont know what the fuss is about, a little warming would be nice, and now even the most extreme climate scientists admit that runaway global warming is not going to happen.
Co2 values have and always will have unexplainable resonance. You can't equate regions as absolution...which (all) alarmist do.
This environmental science major at my own school told me that humans create heat on earth with combustion and "other things" which is why atmospheric co2 levels are not comparable to past values. Is this what these people are being taught? I mean you have to be some kind of idiot to believe that nonsensical bullshit but maybe this is just one instance of the downfalls of affirmative action. This is really embarrassing to my school.
What do you think of the qualifications of the environmental scientists? Even the ipcc conclusions really seem to be illogical. They just disregard the records that we have of a cyclical warming and trust their failed models. A high schooler could predict the stand-off period in the last 20 yrs if schools would teach all the data, and exclude the political nonsense.
