Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
I haven't seen peer-reviewed scientific reports which attribute solar forcing to cloud formation.The Danish tried to make a case,but when sulfate aerosols were added to the climate models in the late 1990s,there wasn't any need for a competing theory for global warming.Radiometer data was flawed at the time.The discrepancy between greenhouse gases and global temperatures finally 'fit.' There was no need to look at the stars, or cloud condensation nuclei,or anything else to explain warming.It wasn't clouds.It wasn't solar wind.It wasn't cosmic particles or secondary particles.
|
I posted this before but nobody commented on it.
Maybe it was to long for the attention span of those in this thread...
Anyway, there’s this guy.
Physicist Freeman Dyson.
Maybe you heard of him?
He’s some smuck from the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton.
From his study on Co2 and his limited understanding of science and access to unfettered data from others in the field of climate research.
He thinks that...
Computer models do a good job of helping us understand climate but they do a very poor job of predicting it.
That
cosmic energy does effect our clouds and therefore our climate.
That our climate is very complex and not controlled by any one thing.(Co2)
That greening of the world in general, is a good and positive thing.
And that the positives out weigh the negatives...
Quote:
Dyson says, As measured from space, the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide, so it’s increasing agricultural yields, it’s increasing the forests and it’s increasing growth in the biological world, and that’s more important and more certain than the effects on climate.
He acknowledges that human activity has an effect on climate but claims it is much less than is claimed. He stresses the non-climate benefits of carbon are overwhelmingly favourable.
|
But all that is from some old man...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
>
