Global warming ... don't blame it on the sunshine
in...@economicdemocracy.org
By DAVID BRAITHWAITE
September 21, 2005
A NEW University of Wollongong study could fire the global warming
debate with suggestions the sun may not be the villain some have
claimed.
Solar activity, such as sun spots, has been linked to the cooling and
warming of the Earth by studies downplaying the impact of humankind.
But research by radiocarbon expert Dr Chris Turney (pictured) has found
no simple link between the sun's output and climate change in Northern
Europe.
"Many who don't believe humans are causing what is happening in today's
climate blame the sun, but it's not as simple as that," he said.
Dr Turney peered 10,000 years into the past using data from Irish bog
oaks, which capture precise records of climatic and solar activity.
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/articles/2005/09/20/1126982063383.html
====================
=============
DON'T MOURN, ACT! WEBSITES FOR ACTION:
http://www.earthshare.org/get_involved/involved.html
http://www.gristmagazine.com/dogood/climate.asp (not working, 05 apr)
http://www.greenhousenet.org/
http://www.solarcatalyst.com/
http://www.campaignearth.org/buy_green_nativeenergy.asp
Overview and local actions you can take: http://www.PostCarbon.org
=============
= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =
Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org
More news: UseNet's misc.activism.progressive (moderated)
= = = =
Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)
** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don't work. Email
instead
** to m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org
Roger Coppock
this forum all the time. They never produce a comparative
record of solar increase Vs. Increased greenhouse gas
forcing, or any other relevant fact. Their masters have
told them what to think, and to blame the sun for global
warming.
The following data, abstracted from NASA GISS data
(Please see: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/),
tabulate the changes in forcing from both the
anthropogenic greenhouse gases and the sun since 1850.
In the year 2003, greenhouse gas forcing was almost 17
times the solar forcing! You can't blame the sun.
Radiative Forcing (W/m2)
Year GHGs Solar
1850 .000 .000
1851 -.001 -.007
1852 -.001 -.028
1853 .000 -.048
1854 -.001 -.064
1855 .005 -.071
1856 .013 -.065
1857 .019 -.045
1858 .027 -.015
1859 .033 .016
1860 .041 .024
1861 .047 .006
1862 .051 -.020
1863 .055 -.039
1864 .058 -.056
1865 .062 -.072
1866 .066 -.082
1867 .070 -.089
1868 .076 -.066
1869 .079 -.030
1870 .086 .005
1871 .091 -.001
1872 .095 -.008
1873 .101 -.038
1874 .107 -.062
1875 .113 -.089
1876 .117 -.099
1877 .122 -.096
1878 .137 -.095
1879 .151 -.088
1880 .168 -.065
1881 .183 -.043
1882 .198 -.038
1883 .211 -.031
1884 .221 -.051
1885 .231 -.076
1886 .244 -.110
1887 .250 -.124
1888 .253 -.132
1889 .258 -.136
1890 .264 -.126
1891 .270 -.084
1892 .277 -.065
1893 .276 -.039
1894 .280 -.020
1895 .282 -.037
1896 .286 -.067
1897 .288 -.095
1898 .290 -.103
1899 .300 -.113
1900 .311 -.117
1901 .325 -.123
1902 .336 -.113
1903 .348 -.073
1904 .363 -.026
1905 .376 -.055
1906 .389 -.023
1907 .400 -.047
1908 .415 -.042
1909 .428 -.065
1910 .440 -.087
1911 .454 -.097
1912 .467 -.099
1913 .477 -.091
1914 .484 -.077
1915 .492 -.028
1916 .505 .006
1917 .518 .027
1918 .532 .022
1919 .541 -.015
1920 .554 -.037
1921 .565 -.047
1922 .578 -.059
1923 .591 -.048
1924 .604 -.040
1925 .617 -.007
1926 .632 .010
1927 .646 .042
1928 .658 .022
1929 .674 .018
1930 .686 .022
1931 .701 .011
1932 .711 .000
1933 .728 -.016
1934 .741 .004
1935 .753 .037
1936 .765 .097
1937 .780 .083
1938 .792 .073
1939 .802 .073
1940 .806 .070
1941 .804 .069
1942 .802 .064
1943 .802 .049
1944 .801 .060
1945 .806 .102
1946 .813 .113
1947 .821 .148
1948 .828 .172
1949 .843 .157
1950 .857 .123
1951 .874 .087
1952 .888 .087
1953 .904 .064
1954 .925 .069
1955 .943 .086
1956 .962 .165
1957 .983 .219
1958 1.002 .215
1959 1.030 .178
1960 1.058 .165
1961 1.081 .108
1962 1.107 .076
1963 1.133 .068
1964 1.156 .071
1965 1.182 .081
1966 1.225 .114
1967 1.255 .147
1968 1.285 .159
1969 1.327 .174
1970 1.372 .172
1971 1.409 .123
1972 1.452 .129
1973 1.511 .085
1974 1.549 .073
1975 1.594 .046
1976 1.625 .068
1977 1.682 .100
1978 1.735 .168
1979 1.789 .222
1980 1.845 .224
1981 1.897 .230
1982 1.944 .163
1983 1.985 .152
1984 2.039 .092
1985 2.086 .069
1986 2.138 .068
1987 2.189 .092
1988 2.259 .134
1989 2.314 .219
1990 2.354 .205
1991 2.398 .187
1992 2.425 .168
1993 2.445 .128
1994 2.480 .093
1995 2.528 .078
1996 2.567 .064
1997 2.589 .084
1998 2.647 .139
1999 2.692 .182
2000 2.718 .224
2001 2.747 .205
2002 2.785 .187
2003 2.833 .168
For extra credit, compare the growth rates of GHG and solar forcing.
These data are accepted by the scientific manstream.
Similar data appear in many peer reviewed papers, and
are available on the internet at these URLs:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
and
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/forc-total-4_12_01.txt
raylopez99
examined the models yourself, have you? You just accept blindly what
others, with an agenda, say.
Fact are: sunlight indeed is a forcing factor, mini-Ice Age in
medieval ages proves that; "Northern Europe" is not the world, hence
report at best incomplete; computer models are just that--models; CO2
as trapping agent never proved outside a test tube (CO2 is but a minor
part of GW anyway--water vapour much more common); instruments have
errors--as "corrected" by AGW advocates; UHI is real and ignored by AGW
advocates as "existing but not measurable" (proving their instruments
are bad); Sierra Club budget for lobbying is 10x that of ExxonMobil;
Monte Carlo simulations in IPCC's own report say only a 30cm rise in
sea levels in 100 years (i.e., trivial); computer simulations
notoriously prone to errors--it is estimated that 1 bug per 1000 lines
of code is common (recall Mars expeditions that crashed due to software
bug--and why should GW models be any different?); AGW programmers admit
they do not model cloud cover in their simulations, and cloud cover
tempers GW; if GW was a problem both Wall Street and Main Street would
have taken notice by now; Kyoto Treaty is ineffective even if
implemented; El Nino also a proximate cause of the less than degree
change in temperatures since 1980; temperature actually _cooled_ in
mid-20th century when industrialization was full swing; and the list
goes on.
How long will this disinformation campaign of propaganda last?
RL
James
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127310627.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
As long as the enviro groups keep working their indentured scientists
Roger Coppock
Ray Lopez lives an a fossil fool fantasy.
raylopez99 wrote:
> Roger, you are like Owl, parrotting received wisdom. But you've never
> examined the models yourself, have you?
Error #1)
Not only have I examined the models at the source code level,
I have run them for the last couple of years.
You just accept blindly what
> others, with an agenda, say.
>
> Fact are:
You mean "fact IS."
sunlight indeed is a forcing factor,
Error #2)
I never said sunlight wasn't a forcing factor.
In fact I listed it in a table of forcing factors
mini-Ice Age in
> medieval ages proves that; "Northern Europe" is not the world, hence
> report at best incomplete; computer models are just that--models; CO2
> as trapping agent never proved outside a test tube
Error #3)
CO2 forcing is directly measured.
Check the literature.
This organization does it:
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program Instruments
http://www.arm.gov/instruments/instclass.php?id=9
We also look down from the top: for instance, instruments like
CERES, IRIS, ERBE, and HIRS.
(CO2 is but a minor
> part of GW anyway--water vapour much more common);
Error #4)
You need to learn about water vapor feedback.
Consult almost any college level text on climate.
instruments have
> errors--as "corrected" by AGW advocates;
Error #5)
You've obviously never operated a scientific instrument and
taken a measurement. Instruments frequently require corrections.
Try to use a sextant to locate your position, without corrections.
UHI is real and ignored by AGW
> advocates as "existing but not measurable" (proving their instruments
> are bad);
Error #6)
No climate scientist ignores UHI, they apply corrections for it.
Sierra Club budget for lobbying is 10x that of ExxonMobil;
Error #7)
We've disproved this lie before on this forum. "Exxon" has a
very small lobbying budget. However, "Exxon," through various
channels, funds many things like the "Exxon Education Foundation,"
which together have a HUGE PR budget. This is a case of ENRON
accounting.
> Monte Carlo simulations in IPCC's own report say only a 30cm rise in
> sea levels in 100 years (i.e., trivial);
Error #8)
Sea level rise is accelerating. Wait till the 22nd century.
Sea level rise is the last effect of global warming we will
see, until
computer simulations
> notoriously prone to errors--it is estimated that 1 bug per 1000 lines
> of code is common
Error #9)
But, are these bugs influencing the result or do they lie
in some unsaid feature. (I won a student paper competition
while I was in grad school on just this topic.) There are
many models written by many people ALL, that right EVERY
ONE of them, report warming as greenhouse gas concentrations
increase. All the models can't be in error.
(recall Mars expeditions that crashed due to software
> bug-
Error #10)
It was DATA bug, the difference between the metric and English systems.
and why should GW models be any different?);
Error #11)
THEY, the many of them, are different.
There was only ONE data base for the Mars program.
There are MANY climate models, and they ALL say, "warming."
> AGW programmers admit
> they do not model cloud cover in their simulations,
Error #12)
WHAT? GIve several citations from these many "programmers,"
please. The model code I have, CSCM 3, models clouds.
and cloud cover
> tempers GW; if GW was a problem both Wall Street and Main Street would
> have taken notice by now;
Error #13)
They have. I have posted several stories about this during this month.
Kyoto Treaty is ineffective even if
> implemented;
Error #14)
United Nations FRAMEWORK Convention on Climate Change.
Kyoto was meant to be a first step. Kung-fu-Tze has
said, "A journey of a 1000 yojanas, begins with a
single step.
El Nino also a proximate cause of the less than degree
> change in temperatures since 1980;
Error #15)
Just plain wrong. Just plain dumb. El Nino is not
a cause, it is an effect.
temperature actually _cooled_ in
> mid-20th century when industrialization was full swing;
Error #16)
Try to demonstrate this one with an actual measurement series
and produce a statistically significant result.
> and the list
> goes on.
Error #54795487439058743)
Oh, I hope not. People unconnected to any facts
probably need medical attention, lest they hurt
themselves or others.
>
> How long will this disinformation campaign of propaganda last?
Buddha as said, "A full cup is hard to fill."
Empty yourself of these false things, Ray.
W. D. Allen Sr.
Roger gets all upset whenever told the truth about GW. He believes the
solution to GW is unlimited taxpayer money for him and his ilk to play with!
end
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127310627.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
owl
<ball...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>Roger gets all upset whenever told the truth about GW. He believes the
>solution to GW is unlimited taxpayer money for him and his ilk to play with!
>end
The only one who brings out that boogeyman is you.
Same old inner child Sr. - wants someone else to pay for his party.
raylopez99
Roger Coppock wrote:
> Look at the LARGE number of false statements!
> Ray Lopez lives an a fossil fool fantasy.
>
No need to call me names. You don't want to be branded a flamer do
you?
>
> raylopez99 wrote:
> > Roger, you are like Owl, parrotting received wisdom. But you've never
> > examined the models yourself, have you?
> Error #1)
> Not only have I examined the models at the source code level,
> I have run them for the last couple of years.
>
Really? I'm impressed; I thought you were a high-school science
teacher. Score one for you.
> You just accept blindly what
> > others, with an agenda, say.
> >
> > Fact are:
> You mean "fact IS."
>
OK a solecism. No foul here. Thanks Mr. Grammarian. I speak three
languages, and you?
> sunlight indeed is a forcing factor,
> Error #2)
> I never said sunlight wasn't a forcing factor.
> In fact I listed it in a table of forcing factors
OK, score one for me then.
>
> mini-Ice Age in
> > medieval ages proves that; "Northern Europe" is not the world, hence
> > report at best incomplete; computer models are just that--models; CO2
> > as trapping agent never proved outside a test tube
> Error #3)
> CO2 forcing is directly measured.
> Check the literature.
> This organization does it:
> Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program Instruments
> http://www.arm.gov/instruments/instclass.php?id=9
> We also look down from the top: for instance, instruments like
> CERES, IRIS, ERBE, and HIRS.
C'mon Roger, do I actually have to look at data? That's hard work.
Can't I just rebut you in words, with a thought experiment, like
Einstein? OK, like physicist turned biologist Leo Szilard (1898-1964),
who mentioned that biology requires data and not just logic, I'll take
a peak, since climateology is not a hard science like physics is
(<--what is that sentence, a dangling participal or something bad).
DAMN IT ROGER I WAS ABOUT TO FLAME YOU BIG TIME FOR SUCH A LAME WILD
GOOSE CHASE OF A WEBSITE UNTIL I FOUND THESE GEMS, which prove my
point. Dang Roger you are stu-pid! Never, ever give an adversary an
opening like this. Check out these damning papers from the ARM.GOV
website!!!
Exhibit A: read carefully this abstract (remember the big deal you
guys make about the "Artic" being a canary in the coal mine):
http://www.db.arm.gov/cgi-bin/IOP2/selectPreProposal.pl?proposalNo=3120
Scientific Requirement (succinct statement of underlying hypothesis or
technical goal for proposed research):
One of the greatest challenges facing the arctic climate modeling
community is the lack of data and knowledge about atmospheric processes
in the Arctic. There are very few long term, high quality datasets for
the Arctic Region. Most existing datasets are collected on a campaign
basis and designed for process studies with duration of a few weeks.
Atmospheric processes are very different in the arctic compared to
lower latitudes due to the extreme temperatures and sun conditions
allowing for unique processes to take place. Existing climatologies
(like ISCCP) of clouds and surface conditions are known to have large
errors but is still extensively used in lack of better datasets. The
largest errors in GCM model results are anticipated to be caused by the
treatment of clouds and aerosols and corresponding feedbacks in the
models (Tao et al., 1996; Stamnes et al., 1999, Yan et al., 2002). The
discrepancy in cloud radiative forcing in terms of response to CO2
increase is large, both in sign, amplitude, and between long-wave and
short-wave radiation. This reflects the sensitivity of the simulated
feedbacks to model formulation (ICCP, 2001; Watterson et al., 1999; Yao
and Del Genio, 1999; Meleshko et al., 2000).
Score one for ME, BIG TIME!!! I should stop my rebuttal here, buttal.
But let's continue. [BTW, I do note this paper is a HYPOTHESIS but not
theory--OK?--the point being the very fact this research is ongoing is
that the issue of errosrs, including cloud cover and CO2 feedback is
NOT settled. "Further research is needed"]
>
> (CO2 is but a minor
> > part of GW anyway--water vapour much more common);
> Error #4)
> You need to learn about water vapor feedback.
> Consult almost any college level text on climate.
No, Roger you're lying or misunderstood. This is elementary--GW is
largely driven by water vapour. Don't even try to argue this one.
What you are TRYING to say is that manmade CO2 is the 'straw that broke
the camel's back" or the tipping weight in the Roman scales. Since I
believe you misunderstood my point, rather than score another point
here I'll call this a draw.
>
> instruments have
> > errors--as "corrected" by AGW advocates;
> Error #5)
> You've obviously never operated a scientific instrument and
> taken a measurement. Instruments frequently require corrections.
> Try to use a sextant to locate your position, without corrections.
Same as before--you misunderstood. I'm not saying corrections are
unnecessary, but the UHI is NOT corrected correctly. Draw.
>
> UHI is real and ignored by AGW
> > advocates as "existing but not measurable" (proving their instruments
> > are bad);
> Error #6)
> No climate scientist ignores UHI, they apply corrections for it.
>
Same as before--misunderstanding by you. Draw.
> Sierra Club budget for lobbying is 10x that of ExxonMobil;
> Error #7)
> We've disproved this lie before on this forum. "Exxon" has a
> very small lobbying budget. However, "Exxon," through various
> channels, funds many things like the "Exxon Education Foundation,"
> which together have a HUGE PR budget. This is a case of ENRON
> accounting.
This is a tough call. I see your point, but mine is that the ENTIRE
budget of the Sierra Club is essentially lobbying (by indoctrinating
new members during those nature hikes, with Green propaganda. Let's
call this a draw, since an AGW idiot, I think it was Lloyd or Coby,
actually made the absurd argument that the entire revenue stream of
ExxonMobil should be counted as lobbying revenue (ie. including
drilling for oil).
>
> > Monte Carlo simulations in IPCC's own report say only a 30cm rise in
> > sea levels in 100 years (i.e., trivial);
> Error #8)
> Sea level rise is accelerating. Wait till the 22nd century.
> Sea level rise is the last effect of global warming we will
> see, until
Lost your train of thought there... 'until' what? I say I won this
one. 30 cm is 12 inches, nothing to write home about unless it's your
member.
>
> computer simulations
> > notoriously prone to errors--it is estimated that 1 bug per 1000 lines
> > of code is common
> Error #9)
> But, are these bugs influencing the result or do they lie
> in some unsaid feature. (I won a student paper competition
> while I was in grad school on just this topic.) There are
> many models written by many people ALL, that right EVERY
> ONE of them, report warming as greenhouse gas concentrations
> increase. All the models can't be in error.
OK, I'll grant you this one. That every model has a bug, but we assume
the bugs are undiscovered 'features' and/or not important in the long
run. Score one for you (BTW, who approved such a trivial grad school
paper? You should not have won anything but the booby prize).
>
> (recall Mars expeditions that crashed due to software
> > bug-
> Error #10)
> It was DATA bug, the difference between the metric and English systems.
>
> and why should GW models be any different?);
> Error #11)
> THEY, the many of them, are different.
> There was only ONE data base for the Mars program.
> There are MANY climate models, and they ALL say, "warming."
>
I will not give you two points for the same topic. They all say
"warming" but they all DON'T say "warming that is dangerous". 30 cm
Roger.
> > AGW programmers admit
> > they do not model cloud cover in their simulations,
> Error #12)
> WHAT? GIve several citations from these many "programmers,"
> please. The model code I have, CSCM 3, models clouds.
OK I'll grant you some do model clouds, but you have to admit that the
literature says negative feedback from clouds is weak in the models.
Draw.
>
> and cloud cover
> > tempers GW; if GW was a problem both Wall Street and Main Street would
> > have taken notice by now;
> Error #13)
> They have. I have posted several stories about this during this month.
>
Roger, "Mother Jones magazine" or the equivalent is not serious
journalism. Draw.
> Kyoto Treaty is ineffective even if
> > implemented;
> Error #14)
> United Nations FRAMEWORK Convention on Climate Change.
> Kyoto was meant to be a first step. Kung-fu-Tze has
> said, "A journey of a 1000 yojanas, begins with a
> single step.
Draw. What is 'first step'? Ambiguous.
>
> El Nino also a proximate cause of the less than degree
> > change in temperatures since 1980;
> Error #15)
> Just plain wrong. Just plain dumb. El Nino is not
> a cause, it is an effect.
According to received wisdom you are correct. As I posted the night I
drank that bottle of Chianti by myself (the one with the clown
motif--not the reserva, but the cheaper one--found in your local
Safeway store--quite good), perhaps El Nino is NOT a cause but an
effect. You have to measure outgassing during an El Nino event, which
nobody has yet done. But I'll give you this point since my theory is
unproved. Score one for you.
>
> temperature actually _cooled_ in
> > mid-20th century when industrialization was full swing;
> Error #16)
> Try to demonstrate this one with an actual measurement series
> and produce a statistically significant result.
Yes, it's been done. U stupid or what? That's the point, it cooled.
Score one for me.
>
> > and the list
> > goes on.
> Error #54795487439058743)
> Oh, I hope not. People unconnected to any facts
> probably need medical attention, lest they hurt
> themselves or others.
>
Let's tally the scorecard:
Points won by Rodger: 3
Points won by Ray: 4
Points drawn: 8
I win, you lose.
> >
> > How long will this disinformation campaign of propaganda last?
> Buddha as said, "A full cup is hard to fill."
> Empty yourself of these false things, Ray.
Buddha wears a Greek robe BTW, did you know that? The folds in his
robe are modeled after Greek gods, and were done by Greek sculptures.
The historic Buddha, Shakyamuni Buddha of 500 bc, not the God (who has
come back from the afterlife how many times now? I've lost count).
The stylistic folds of Buddha's robe made it to China--another legacy
of ancient Greece, LOL.
Later Bozo. You try hard, I'll give you credit for that, and you'd
make a good high school science teacher. A bit too dogmatic though to
be a real good scientist.
Ray
Wm James
>Global warming ... don't blame it on the sunshine
>
>By DAVID BRAITHWAITE
>September 21, 2005
>
>A NEW University of Wollongong study could fire the global warming
>debate with suggestions the sun may not be the villain some have
>claimed.
>
>Solar activity, such as sun spots, has been linked to the cooling and
>warming of the Earth by studies downplaying the impact of humankind.
>
>But research by radiocarbon expert Dr Chris Turney (pictured) has found
>no simple link between the sun's output and climate change in Northern
>Europe.
>
>"Many who don't believe humans are causing what is happening in today's
>climate blame the sun, but it's not as simple as that," he said.
>
>Dr Turney peered 10,000 years into the past using data from Irish bog
>oaks, which capture precise records of climatic and solar activity.
The earth is still wet and CO2 is still not a relevant facor in
earth's temperature.
The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all concentrations
expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural
additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 99.438%
Methane (CH4) 0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.084%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.007%
Total 100.000%
Here's the reality you don't understand and the chicken little
peddlers don't want you to know:
Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on
concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
% of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
Misc. gases 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
Total 100.000% 99.72% 0.28%
William R. James
Wm James
wrote:
>Yep! We get fossil fools who are blinded by sunlight on
>this forum all the time. They never produce a comparative
>record of solar increase Vs. Increased greenhouse gas
>forcing, or any other relevant fact. Their masters have
>told them what to think, and to blame the sun for global
>warming.
Unlike the parrots who think the sun has nothing to do with it, and
that water at 95%+ of the greenhouse gasses and the sole regulator of
how much of the sun's energy reaches the planet has no effect at all,
but anthropogenic CO2 at 0.117% is making the sky fall!
William R. James
Wm James
wrote:
When the flaws are intentional, it's fraud, not error. They don't
include clouds because they want the "model" to match their preformed
conclusion that the sky is falling. It's not science, it's fraud.
William R. James
raylopez99
Perhaps you can argue that mankind contributed to the increase in CO2
due to 'cutting down the forests' (change in albedo,
non-sequesterization of carbon), which also was the basis for a report
that indicated dam building results in flooding and release of CO2 from
drowned trees.
But in any event, it is clear industrial emissions of CO2 are
negligible.
Another inconvenient fact the AGW crowd has to explain away with
hand-waving. Owl, Roger, Z, Eric?
RL
Roger Coppock
Look me up, I'm in many standard references.
Also, try to practice your arithmetic,
your point totals need corrections, Ray.
Wm James
wrote:
>computer simulations
>> notoriously prone to errors--it is estimated that 1 bug per 1000 lines
>> of code is common
>Error #9)
>But, are these bugs influencing the result or do they lie
>in some unsaid feature. (I won a student paper competition
>while I was in grad school on just this topic.) There are
>many models written by many people ALL, that right EVERY
>ONE of them, report warming as greenhouse gas concentrations
>increase. All the models can't be in error.
If it's intentional fraud, it's not error, is it? Any "model" which
ignores water vapor execpt for where it fits the conclusion the model
is designed to promote (the tiny insignificant positive feedback,
while disregarding the emmense negative feedback) might earn a student
a good grade from a quack kook instructor, but it's not a model of
anything but fantasy.
William R. James
Wm James
wrote:
>> Kyoto Treaty is ineffective even if
>> > implemented;
>> Error #14)
>> United Nations FRAMEWORK Convention on Climate Change.
>> Kyoto was meant to be a first step. Kung-fu-Tze has
>> said, "A journey of a 1000 yojanas, begins with a
>> single step.
>
>Draw. What is 'first step'? Ambiguous.
Marxism 101 socialism is the first step to communism.
Kyoto is designed to do nothing more than transfew wealth from free
nations to third world dictators using ridiculous pseudoscience
quackery Chicken Little scams as a basis for scaremongering.
William R. James
Wm James
wrote:
>Excellent work Wm James. Seems to me that CO2 is mostly natural.
>Perhaps you can argue that mankind contributed to the increase in CO2
>due to 'cutting down the forests' (change in albedo,
>non-sequesterization of carbon), which also was the basis for a report
>that indicated dam building results in flooding and release of CO2 from
>drowned trees.
>
>But in any event, it is clear industrial emissions of CO2 are
>negligible.
So are all other sources, including natural. ALL the CO2 is a mere
3.618%, No matter how you twist the figures, even if you could blame
100% of that on man, it would still be negligible compared to the
water vapor at 95%. And unlike CO2, water exists in al three states,
the ratio of which is a function of the energy recieved from the sun
and unlike CO2 water controls how much energy reaches the earth. Water
and ONLY water (and the sun) regulates the temperature of the earth.
As far as the temperature is concerned, the CO2 is irrelevant and
would remain irrelevant even if it were to rise to toxic levels.
>Another inconvenient fact the AGW crowd has to explain away with
>hand-waving. Owl, Roger, Z, Eric?
>
>RL
The CO2 is irrelevant. That's simply a fact, and will remain a fact
unless and until one of the pseudoscience peddling Chicken Little
parrots actually manages to come up with some evidence to support
their quack religion.