Re: OT: Al Gore has completely lost his mind!

On Mar 24, 8:32 pm, Cessna 310 <jolene...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Phil Newnham wrote:
Duck wrote:
Phil Newnham pnewn...@xxxxxxxxx said:
Explain the difference between weather and climate, in terms of the
suns' influence?

A guide to facts and fictions about climate change - The Royal Society
- Englands
foremost Science Establishment

Misleading arguments 4.
-----------------------

The Earth is getting hotter, but not because of emissions of
greenhouse gases from human activities. Carbon dioxide makes up such a
tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make
little difference to the climate.

This is clearly wrong - it's like saying, there's not much arsenic in an
apple, so it would be safe if the amount of arsenic was to double.

Actually, CO2 is not even in the top 5 of the greenhouse gases.

Actually, that's stupid. CO2 is the main cause of the current
warming. Fact.

And
there is a big question of the relative amount of CO2 that man has
actually contributed relative to other sources such as bacterial
respiration (clearly and by far the greatest source).

No there isn't. It's up 35% or so, due to human activities.



Variations in the sun are more likely to be the cause of climate
changing than increases in
greenhouse gases.

It's this premise that annoys me; as if the answer could be that there
is only one main cause. Given the complexity of the problem, it seems
far more likely that there are several main causes all superimposed at
once.

Likely true. But the historic cycles noted in the past had nothing to
to with man since man was not on earth at that time.

There are likely a lot of possible causes. That man can be solely
blamed is like blaming man for increased sunspot activity.


No, it's that the increased CO2 is the cause.

Man's biggest fault is their gluttonous consumption of fossil fuels.
But that is not the cause of global warming and likely not a major
contributing factor.


And your scientific qualifications to make this judgment are?
Especially when 90% and up of the world's scientists say you're wrong.





<snip>
A recent study by Solanki and others, published in the journal Nature,
found that
the level of solar activity during the past 70 years has been
"exceptional" when considered over the period of the last 11,400
years. However, they concluded that "although the rarity of the
current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the
Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth
century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been
the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".

This is another thing that annoys me. The summary of the article by
Solanki states that the solar activity is unusually high, and it is
already known that the sun's energy is what is trapped by the greenhouse
gases and causes the earth to be 20 degrees warmer than it would
otherwise be, but they confidently state that the solar variability is
unlikely to be the dominant factor. By what margin? How far away from
the curve are we compared to where we should be given this exceptional
and therefore difficult to model solar activity? With what level of
confidence and how large an error? I guess I'd have to read the article
but sadly I lack a subscription. However, blindly accepting Solanki's
conclusions without seeing the data on which it's based is something no
serious scientist would do, even if it has been published by Nature.

All this and I still believe that man's contribution is neither
insignificant nor irrelevant; my point is merely that it is not the only
contribution, and the model should be more complicated than CO2 = bad

Studies on both sides of man-caused global warming are flawed for the
same reason. Nobody has quantified the impacts.

Wrong.

Some studies have
quantified the effects of variations in solar activity. No studies have
quantified the contribution of warming of CO2 without manipulating their
math models. (hint: look at the appendices of the various studies.)


Wrong.

CO2 is not a bad thing. Its quite naturally occurring.

So is arsenic. Like some in your water?

The issue may
be that the reduction of rain forest or othermay be limiting the amount
of CO2 that can be naturally processed.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Global Warming...
    ... Global warming is not a myth. ... 1% of the atmosphere contains all the greenhouse gases. ... approximately 300 million tons of CO2 is released into the ... The usual method is to measure before and after concentrations ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: TK was exactly right. OT
    ... the earth's warming cycles correspond almost perfectly with solar ... but not so perfectly w/ human behavior or CO2 emission ... The SST temperature is still almost 1 ... shows global sea-land temperature, solar activity, and CO2 level. ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Ahhhh...govt regulation at its finest....
    ... :long-term picture - it's completely obvious there is a correlation. ... But when you look at the long term data, the warming appears to ... it seems more reasonable that increasing temperatures cause rising CO2 ... See the correlation between solar activity and temp? ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: Why Liberals Fear Global Warming Far More Than Conservatives?
    ... runaway feedback cycle that is the cause of any concern about warming. ... One must believe that no other factors will counteract the radiative heating of CO2 and that warming will inevitably produce more CO2. ... There is ample reason to believe that other greenhouse gases as well as convection currents has a much greater role to play than CO2 and it's greenhouse effect. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: TK was exactly right. OT
    ... the earth's warming cycles correspond almost perfectly with solar ... but not so perfectly w/ human behavior or CO2 emission ... The SST temperature is still almost 1 ... shows global sea-land temperature, solar activity, and CO2 level. ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
Loading