Conservatives, if we're not the catalyst for global warming, why did 9/11 affect the climate?

Question

Do you remember 9/11 when all the planes had to be grounded for a few days? This gave scientists the opportunity to test whether our emmissions really do affect it. As it turned out, the sky was brighter than normal and the temperature was cooler by about 1 degree C, I think. I saw this from a NOVA episode. It does show how POWERFUL humans are. This question is MAINLY for conservatives and global warming deniers. I might give TEN POINTS if someone can give credible evidence to prove against this theory.

Answer 1

To test your theory, you would have to measure the number of planes that flew in the USA. Planes were not grounded in Europe, or other parts of the world. By knowing the number of planes that were grounded, you could measure the amount of kerosene fuel that was not spent.

In the meantime, factories were still operating, stacks were smoking, cars were being driven (because you could not fly anywhere in the USA). This likely increased the VOCs in the atmosphere because 250 people are driving in less efficient cars in their own directions as opposed to flying in the same plane.

Lets say that airplanes contribute 1% of all emissions. So for 1 week, there were 1% less emmissions than before. How many factories are closed on holidays like Christmas, or the week between Christmas and New Years?

Could it be said that that loss (because the factories are closed) is also a 1% loss? Shouldn't you be able to measure the same results? Therefore, you would be able to duplicate the results that activists reported on NOVA. Becasue the results can not be measured or the conclusions directly attributed to the loss of VOCs into the atmosphere.

But to answer your question: 9/11 affected the environment because the destruction of the towers released several tons of toxins into the atmosphere. This is why the on-site rescuers are suffering respiratory illnesses now. They were exposed to these toxins that were yielded by nasty, non-environmentalist, terrorists that only want you dead because you are an American.

Answer 2

No it didn't effect 'climate', but it did effect 'temperature range' significantly. The termperature range (temp difference between night and day) changed dramatically for those days.

So, it does imply that humans can effect climate, but 9/11 did not impact the climate overall, just the 'temperature range' for those days planes were grounded. It'll be hard to deny global warming now days. Even Bill O'Reily said on interview global warming is 'here' and all those people 'running around saying it is not are crazy.'

Answer 3

you could't "settle for" the theory of climate substitute without accepting the theory of international warming. If we had climate substitute without ever having international warming, the Earth's ecosystem will be at 0°ok and the elements would now no longer exist. if you're asking, "Do you settle for the theory of climate substitute, yet no longer *Anthropogenic* international Warming?" My answer will be "extra regularly than not sure." The climate is continually replacing. it continually has and continually will. without perpetual climate substitute for the time of geologic historic past, we would haven't any sedimentary rocks. Anthropogenic events do influence the technique of climate substitute. In some localities (i.e. cities) AGW is genuine and regularly very stated. Deforestation and different land use transformations honestly influence the organic technique of climate substitute. Anthropogenic greenhouse gasoline emissions minimally make a contribution to the Earth's organic greenhouse result. Mankind's presence on earth alters the ecology of the Earth. it really is not any longer conceivable for us to exist in a equipment without replacing that equipment. it really is life. The Enviromarxists favor to settle for that truth and depart the effective portion of society the heck on my own.

Answer 4

This could be mistaking correlation with causality. A case study is presented by your argument and you are trying to generalize it as A therefore B. That is a classic AB error and I just do not believe that is good science. If the opportunity avails itself so that the same conditions can be monitored on a number of occasions, hopefully not as in 911, then that would give some credibility to your observation. Good Luck.

Answer 5

global warming is just about making an emissions tax, so governments can get more money, thats why. the climate is warming because of the sun's activity.