Global Warming Website I Found..!?

Question

Is this website legitimate? http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html
Check it out and let me know, I may be using it for a project so its important I know. Please dont be bias, if the site has legitimate sources then let me know, its important.

Answer 1

No, that site has all the facts wrong. I can't even figure out the sources of its misinformation. It seems to all come from this Gary Novak guy, who simply claims to be an "independent scientist." Looking at his information, the guy has no education in climate science, or even anything related to climate science. He studied mushrooms in school (I wonder what kind of 'shrooms').

http://www.nov55.com/abt.html

And it shows. I don't want to waste the time going over why all of his "critical facts" are wrong, but for example he has no idea what he's talking about with regards to water vapor. It seems like he's just making stuff up.

Here's another: "4. The reason why CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been increasing is because warmer oceans release more CO2."

Wrong. While it's true that CO2 is less soluble in warmer water, we haven't reached the temperature point where oceans start to release more CO2 than they absorb. Isotopic analysis has proven that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.

"12. The claimed 0.6°C atmospheric temperature increase is a contrivance. Satellites show less, and thermometers are worthless for the purpose."

Wrong. Satellites and surface measurements show almost identical warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png

And since when are thermometers worthless for measuring temperatures?? Last time I checked, that's what they were invented for!

Novak also thinks the Big Bang theory is wrong. Glad he knows more about the universe than cosmologists and astrophysicists!

The website is bogus. It's just an amateur making ignorant guesses about science he doesn't understand. Don't use it for school.

Answer 2

I don't recommend it. I noticed quite a few mistakes as I brushed through it. For instance, the site claims that "Everything in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas." Well, no, there are lots of things in the atmosphere that aren't greenhouse gases. Most of the atmosphere is made up of nitrogen, for example (about 78%), but nitrogen does not absorb energy at infrared wavelengths, thus it can't possibly be a GHG.

As for the sources the site links, I clicked on two. The first went to an Internet news site, the second went to a press release from Senator Inhofe. To put it mildly, I could think of few worse sources of information.

Overall, the site's pretty much a bust. I've listed a few better ones in the sources section.

Answer 3

It's complete nonsense. Use it in a school project at your peril.

Let me pick just one idea as an example. The rest is similarly nonsense.

"Humans add 3% of the CO2 to the atmosphere, while nature adds 97%. To claim the human addition accumulates to 30%, while the nature addition does not is absurd."

Flat wrong. There's a natural cycle that recycles CO2. The problem is that we dig up carbon the natural cycle buried thousands of years ago, and release that.

Cover your ears, I'm going to shout. SCIENTISTS HAVE PROVEN THE ADDED CO2 IS MOSTLY FROM FOSSIL FUELS BY USING "ISOTOPIC RATIOS". Details here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

This site is nothing but a complation of arguments that scientists know all about, and have disproven. Hopefully, people here will debunk more of them.

EDIT - Found one more sitting duck. "Arctic ice is melting faster than expected, because oceans are heating more than the atmosphere."

Flat wrong. The reverse is true. The oceans have a lot more "thermal mass" and are heating more slowly. For it to be otherwise is physically impossible.

This site is SO wrong.

Good websites for good scientific information. Be sure to check out the last one, which refutes most of the arguments this guy makes.

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Answer 4

This is my favorite:

http://www.nov55.com/crunch.html

There's not one true thing on that page. Such as this statement he makes:

"Most of the heat leaves the earth's surface through conduction, convection and evaporation (about 95-99%), while very little leaves as infrared radiation (about 1-5%)."

He's clearly never made heat flux measurements or even looked up what is known about heat flux budgets because it is patently false. Google "net heat flux components" and you can find things like this:

http://eic.ipo.noaa.gov/IPOarchive/SCI/atbd/msoFC63C.pdf

Go look at Figures 3, 4, and 5. The actual fraction for the outgoing longwave infrared radiative flux is 30%, not 1-5%, and the sensible and latent heat from the surface get transferred to outer space radiatively anyway. If the net transfer of latent heat to space were not radiative then the planet would be a dessicated husk in very short order (and this process is the basis for Lindzen's Iris Hypothesis). With a little thought, you can figure out why this is so for yourself.

Each argument he makes is wrong. Why on earth would you believe him rather than the IPCC?

Answer 5

Its all a scam for money for the authorities.. RUSH LIMBough or maybe if.. the significant communicate radio guy that has tens of millions of listeners has sciencetists that proved its a Hoax and that there has aactually been chillier years now then 100 years in the past and that the polar caps are growning and not in any respect melting.. there melting in some spots and growning in others.. its all bull for tax money on reasearch and bull thats no longer needed

Answer 6

the sites that Bob give you are better sources of information. this guy is doing the equivalent of throwing rice at a wall knowing at least some of it will stick and making money or prestige from the parts that do.

Answer 7

Its hard to know who is right. There are scientist on both sides of the arguments, who you believe is the only factor. I don't know how to find out who is right and I don't think they do either. My decision is that there are too many people and too many cars so any method to reduce either is good, but it won't change anything.
One thing I have noticed is that all those who believe in global warming say it will take hundreds of years to reverse the effects no matter what we do, so no matter what we do we will still not know who is right.

Answer 8

Yes the site seems to be very informative.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll plan to reference it in the future.

Never forget that socialism only exist to protect the interest of the wealthy.

Answer 9

I wonder which fossil fuel burning machine was responsible for killing the last ice age?!?!

Answer 10

i'm not sure...