global warming hoax

Are you sure about that?

http://tinyurl.com/ykktag

Oh, and it's not like there isn't a current, and repeated, cycle going on right now.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/V...pertatures.gif

No, nothing of the sort. Today's climate is 100% unique and man made, right?


"BradGuth" wrote in message ...

Your form of obfuscation and denial is polished to a bright shine
that's as good as any mirror.

Add 10% to the ongoing thaw since the last ice-age this planet w/moon
is ever going to see, and you'll get my vote.

~ BG

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 23:18:20 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

As I understand it, climate science cannot
explain any of the last 500 million years of climate change, except
miraculously the the last - what - 100 years?

And that lack of understanding goes a long way towards explaining
your
grossly incorrect views on the subject.

If there was no anthropogenic CO2, would the earth be warming or
cooling?

If there was no anthropogenic CO2, the rate of change of the Earth's
temperature would be much lower. It's the rate that matters to us,
not
the direction. This is extremely well established by very high
quality
observations and solid theory.


OK, so if it wasn't for anthropogenic CO2, the temperature would
still be rising?

We keep hearing of the terrible things that will happen if we don't
limit CO2.

What would happen if we stopped all anthropogenic CO2 tomorrow? What
are the predictions for the earth's temperature and sea levels with
no further anthropogenic CO2 ? The warming which you say is occuring
even without anthropogenic CO2 - when would it finish, and at what
global temperature and sea level?


You ask lots of questions. Is this because you don' t know much about
the subject?

No, I ask them because climate science has no good answers for these
questions, which discredit its claim to be a valid scientific theory.

What makes you think that you are qualified to judge whether climate
science has no good answers to these questions?



Because whenever I ask these questions, they are not answered by the many
"climate science" believers in this group.

Why would you ask an amateur astronomy newsgroup serious questions about
climate science?


Somebody else started the discussion.

Then I noted that several people who believed in AGW and claimed to know
about it were posting in the thread, and I thought I would ask them some
questions about climate science.

Did I do wrong to question the AGW theory? Is there some form I need to fill
out first?


Including you.

As far as I'm concerned you are have asked some questions based on false
premises. What's to answer?


Science largely runs on "what if" questions.

If I was asking (say) a physicist what would be observed by a person
travelling at 0.8 of the speed of light relative to the earth, I would
hardly expect to get back an answer "This is a false premise - people don't
travel at 0.8 of the speed of light relative to the earth".

Real science embraces "what if" questions, as it provides a means of testing
(disproving) theories. Climate "science" does the exact opposite; unless the
questions support their position, believers offers excuses why the theory
cannot be tested.

This "false premise" crap may be acceptable if you are a religious leader
being asked questions on matter of faith, but if you deny people the right
to ask questions of a theory then you cannot claim it is a science.


Strange that you question my competency to ask a question rather than
simply answering it. People who believe in "climate science" seem as
reluctant to explain data that contradicts their model as do people who
believe in "creation science"; whenever a hard scientific question is
asked, they try and change the topic.

How does warming and cooling in the pre industrial era 'contradict a
model' that links industrial era CO2 emissions with climate change?


Because it shows 4 billion years of climate change in the absense of
anthropogenic CO2.

The only evidence of AGW is that the earth is warming (if it in fact is), if
it turns out that this occurs anyway in the absence of anthropogenic CO2
then there is no evidence at all for the "A" bit of AGW.









That they largely lie unanswered rather proves my point: climate
science is not science.

You've asked for climate science to explain the warming after 1850. No
wonder climate science couldn't explain it, it didn't take place between
1850 and 1920.


OK, explain the temperature changes between 0AD and 1900 AD. Happy now?


You asked for 'the AGW explanation' for climate change that wasn't
caused by AGW.

Nobody claims that climate change is only due to anthropogenic causes;
we know it changes for several reasons, one of which (anthropogenic
generation of CO2) is occurring now and causing climate change now.

What are the other factors which mean the earth is warming now?

What is the percentage contribution to the change in temperatures since
1850 deriving from sources other than anthropogenic CO2 (I assume the
earth has changed in temperature between 1850 and now, that is correct,
right?) and at what temperature and when would it peak and the earth
starts cooling again, in the absence of anthropogenic CO2?

What assumptions are you making when you ask that question? (other than
the one that significant warming started in 1850)


None, other than those I explicitly stated. If you think I am making
assumptions, what are they?

I am asking you a "what if" question. Happens all the time in real science.
Aren't people allowed to ask scientific questions about AGW theory?



Lets see what the baseline case is without anthropogenic CO2 before we
decide if reducing CO2 will help much or at all. What is it, exactly?

Good - now you are asking serious questions. What data is there to allow
us to answer those questions?


Gee, I thought you were the person who believed in AGW.

I would have thought that 4 billion years of temperature changes in the
absence of anthropogenic CO2 would be a good place to start, but its your
theory, you tell me.

If you don't know what the temperature of the earth would be in the absence
of anthropogenic CO2, then perhaps you can explain to me how you can
calculate the temperature with anthropogenic CO2.

When Einstein predicted the precession of Mercury's orbit using GR (and
helped "prove" GR), he started with a baseline case of no GR effects, then
calculated the GR contribution, and added it in. If he had been unable to
determine what the precession was in the absence of GR, there would have
been no proof.

Unless AGW can predict what the temperature change would be in the absence
of anthropogenic CO2, then it can't predict the temperature with
anthropogenic CO2. Obviously.

If you have no data, and need to ask me for it, you should ask yourself why
you believe in a theory which has no experimental data to support it. Same
issue that I have with people who believe in "intelligent design", you
pretend to be a scientific theory then you must be evaluated as a scientific
theory. This means (amongst other things) supporting experimental evidence.
It would be pretty laughable if I asked a "creation scientist" something
about their theory and they asked me what data there was which could be
used. Its equally laughable when a "climate scientist" does it.

On Dec 4, 2:53*pm, "Nightcrawler" wrote:
Are you sure about that?

http://tinyurl.com/ykktag

Oh, and it's not like there isn't a current, and repeated, cycle going on right now.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/V...20Global%20Tem...

There are perfectly natural cycles, whereas even Earth w/o moon and w/
o as much seasonal tilt had many ice-age cycles that had little or
nothing to do with the sun or that of our elliptical orbit.

However, Sirius B is worth considering.


No, nothing of the sort. *Today's climate is 100% unique and man made, right?

How about 10% man made and 90% moon made.

How much energy does it take in order to thaw a billion tonnes of ice
per day?


"BradGuth" wrote in ...

Your form of obfuscation and denial is polished to a bright shine
that's as good as any mirror.

Add 10% to the ongoing thaw since the last ice-age this planet w/moon
is ever going to see, and you'll get my vote.

*~ BG

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 23:18:20 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

As I understand it, climate science cannot
explain any of the last 500 million years of climate change, except
miraculously the the last - what - 100 years?

And that lack of understanding goes a long way towards explaining
your
grossly incorrect views on the subject.

If there was no anthropogenic CO2, would the earth be warming or
cooling?

If there was no anthropogenic CO2, the rate of change of the
Earth's
temperature would be much lower. It's the rate that matters to us,
not
the direction. This is extremely well established by very high
quality
observations and solid theory.


OK, so if it wasn't for anthropogenic CO2, the temperature would
still be rising?

We keep hearing of the terrible things that will happen if we don't
limit CO2.

What would happen if we stopped all anthropogenic CO2 tomorrow? What
are the predictions for the earth's temperature and sea levels with
no further anthropogenic CO2 ? The warming which you say is occuring
even without anthropogenic CO2 - when would it finish, and at what
global temperature and sea level?


You ask lots of questions. Is this because you don' t know much about
the subject?

No, I ask them because climate science has no good answers for these
questions, which discredit its claim to be a valid scientific theory.

What makes you think that you are qualified to judge whether climate
science has no good answers to these questions?



Because whenever I ask these questions, they are not answered by the
many "climate science" believers in this group.

Why would you ask an amateur astronomy newsgroup serious questions about
climate science?


Somebody else started the discussion.

Then I noted that several people who believed in AGW and claimed to know
about it were posting in the thread, and I thought I would ask them some
questions about climate science.

Fair enough

Did I do wrong to question the AGW theory? Is there some form I need to
fill out first?

No, any fool can ask questions. But if you want to be taken seriously it's
better if you ask genuine questions rather than asking why warming took
place during periods when it didn't, or ask why warming didn't take place
during periods when it did.

Including you.

As far as I'm concerned you are have asked some questions based on false
premises. What's to answer?


Science largely runs on "what if" questions.

A 'What if' question is different to a question based on a false premise.

If I was asking (say) a physicist what would be observed by a person
travelling at 0.8 of the speed of light relative to the earth, I would
hardly expect to get back an answer "This is a false premise - people
don't travel at 0.8 of the speed of light relative to the earth".

No, your question is more like asking "when the Apollo astronauts landed on
Mars why didn't they...'

Real science embraces "what if" questions, as it provides a means of
testing (disproving) theories. Climate "science" does the exact opposite;
unless the questions support their position, believers offers excuses why
the theory cannot be tested.

This "false premise" crap may be acceptable if you are a religious leader
being asked questions on matter of faith, but if you deny people the right
to ask questions of a theory then you cannot claim it is a science.

No, you can ask plenty of questions, and plenty of questions have been
asked. But they have been questions based on knowledge, not ignorance.

Strange that you question my competency to ask a question rather than
simply answering it. People who believe in "climate science" seem as
reluctant to explain data that contradicts their model as do people who
believe in "creation science"; whenever a hard scientific question is
asked, they try and change the topic.

How does warming and cooling in the pre industrial era 'contradict a
model' that links industrial era CO2 emissions with climate change?


Because it shows 4 billion years of climate change in the absense of
anthropogenic CO2.

Which does not disprove that anthropogenic CO2 is capable of causing
warming.

The only evidence of AGW is that the earth is warming (if it in fact is),
if it turns out that this occurs anyway in the absence of anthropogenic
CO2 then there is no evidence at all for the "A" bit of AGW.


Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Do you deny that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising as a result man's
activities?

If you accept both, then the corollary is that the *current* warming pattern
is at least to some degree driven by anthropogenic CO2. Knowing the increase
in CO2 means we can put reasonable figures on the overall impact and this is
generally accepted as good science. If you are really interested you ought
to find out the facts.




That they largely lie unanswered rather proves my point: climate
science is not science.

You've asked for climate science to explain the warming after 1850. No
wonder climate science couldn't explain it, it didn't take place
between 1850 and 1920.


OK, explain the temperature changes between 0AD and 1900 AD. Happy now?


You asked for 'the AGW explanation' for climate change that wasn't
caused by AGW.

Nobody claims that climate change is only due to anthropogenic causes;
we know it changes for several reasons, one of which (anthropogenic
generation of CO2) is occurring now and causing climate change now.

What are the other factors which mean the earth is warming now?

What is the percentage contribution to the change in temperatures since
1850 deriving from sources other than anthropogenic CO2 (I assume the
earth has changed in temperature between 1850 and now, that is correct,
right?) and at what temperature and when would it peak and the earth
starts cooling again, in the absence of anthropogenic CO2?

What assumptions are you making when you ask that question? (other than
the one that significant warming started in 1850)


None, other than those I explicitly stated. If you think I am making
assumptions, what are they?

I am asking you a "what if" question. Happens all the time in real
science. Aren't people allowed to ask scientific questions about AGW
theory?



Lets see what the baseline case is without anthropogenic CO2 before we
decide if reducing CO2 will help much or at all. What is it, exactly?

Good - now you are asking serious questions. What data is there to allow
us to answer those questions?


Gee, I thought you were the person who believed in AGW.

I would have thought that 4 billion years of temperature changes in the
absence of anthropogenic CO2 would be a good place to start, but its your
theory, you tell me.

If you don't know what the temperature of the earth would be in the
absence of anthropogenic CO2, then perhaps you can explain to me how you
can calculate the temperature with anthropogenic CO2.

When Einstein predicted the precession of Mercury's orbit using GR (and
helped "prove" GR), he started with a baseline case of no GR effects, then
calculated the GR contribution, and added it in. If he had been unable to
determine what the precession was in the absence of GR, there would have
been no proof.

Unless AGW can predict what the temperature change would be in the absence
of anthropogenic CO2, then it can't predict the temperature with
anthropogenic CO2. Obviously.

Really? How about if it can predict the difference that anthropogenic CO2
can cause?

If you have no data, and need to ask me for it,

I'm not asking you for it for me. I'm asking you to find out for yourself

you should ask yourself why you believe in a theory which has no
experimental data to support it. Same issue that I have with people who
believe in "intelligent design", you pretend to be a scientific theory
then you must be evaluated as a scientific theory. This means (amongst
other things) supporting experimental evidence. It would be pretty
laughable if I asked a "creation scientist" something about their theory
and they asked me what data there was which could be used. Its equally
laughable when a "climate scientist" does it.

No, you want to use the scientific method to argue against climate science.
So where else do you start than with the data? You are the one who is
denying the data, putting forward moveable arguments and showing your
ignorance about the science behind climate science.

What makes you think that you are qualified to judge whether climate
science has no good answers to these questions?



Because whenever I ask these questions, they are not answered by the
many "climate science" believers in this group.

Why would you ask an amateur astronomy newsgroup serious questions about
climate science?


Somebody else started the discussion.

Then I noted that several people who believed in AGW and claimed to know
about it were posting in the thread, and I thought I would ask them some
questions about climate science.

Fair enough

Did I do wrong to question the AGW theory? Is there some form I need to
fill out first?

No, any fool can ask questions. But if you want to be taken seriously it's
better if you ask genuine questions rather than asking why warming took
place during periods when it didn't, or ask why warming didn't take place
during periods when it did.


OK. In the absence of anthropogenic CO2, why has the earth warmed and cooled
over (say) the last 100,000 years minus the last 100 years?

Had there been no anthropogenic CO2, what would the earth's temperature bo
today compared to those in 1900 AD ?



Including you.

As far as I'm concerned you are have asked some questions based on false
premises. What's to answer?


Science largely runs on "what if" questions.

A 'What if' question is different to a question based on a false premise.


Yeah, so some body says to Einstein, "what would be the closing velocity of
two bodies approaching each other at 0.8c" and the Einstein says "that a
false premise, nobody can travel at 0.8c"

Simple fact is this "false premise" stuff is just ****.

You trotted it out to object to my dates for when the earth started to warm,
rather than address the actual question which was why the earth has warmed
and cooled in the recent historical past in the absence of anthropogenic
CO2.

Sure, I posed 6 questions and none were answered; you had to think of
something, but a "false premise" based upon disputing a date mentioned in my
question.

If I was asking (say) a physicist what would be observed by a person
travelling at 0.8 of the speed of light relative to the earth, I would
hardly expect to get back an answer "This is a false premise - people
don't travel at 0.8 of the speed of light relative to the earth".

No, your question is more like asking "when the Apollo astronauts landed
on Mars why didn't they...'


You were objecting to the date I picked for when warming commenced.



Real science embraces "what if" questions, as it provides a means of
testing (disproving) theories. Climate "science" does the exact opposite;
unless the questions support their position, believers offers excuses why
the theory cannot be tested.

This "false premise" crap may be acceptable if you are a religious leader
being asked questions on matter of faith, but if you deny people the
right to ask questions of a theory then you cannot claim it is a science.

No, you can ask plenty of questions, and plenty of questions have been
asked. But they have been questions based on knowledge, not ignorance.



Huh? You are accusing me of asking "questions based on knowledge, not
ignorance"?

You say I know too much?

Here is an example.

I asked for the climate science model which best predicted today's actual
climate.

Yes, I know that no climate model has ever been the least bit accurate at
predicting anything, ever.

But in the context of what is being discussed - whether there is any reason
to believe the climatic predictions of climate science models - its
absolutely key.

There have been many thousands of computer models of the climate done over
the last 30 years, and it appears that virtually every one of them
overstated future temperatures. I am assured that some understated what
actually happened, but no link has ever been forthcoming. If some or many
did understate future temperatures, presumably some must also have gotten
close.

Predictive ability is the single characteristic of a science. Climate
"science" does not pass this test. Brilliant at predicting the recent past,
hopeless at predicting the future.


Strange that you question my competency to ask a question rather than
simply answering it. People who believe in "climate science" seem as
reluctant to explain data that contradicts their model as do people who
believe in "creation science"; whenever a hard scientific question is
asked, they try and change the topic.

How does warming and cooling in the pre industrial era 'contradict a
model' that links industrial era CO2 emissions with climate change?


Because it shows 4 billion years of climate change in the absense of
anthropogenic CO2.

Which does not disprove that anthropogenic CO2 is capable of causing
warming.


No, it doesn't disprove AGW.

But it does show the fact that the earth is warming says nothing about
whether anthropogenic CO2 plays a role.



The only evidence of AGW is that the earth is warming (if it in fact is),
if it turns out that this occurs anyway in the absence of anthropogenic
CO2 then there is no evidence at all for the "A" bit of AGW.


Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Do you deny that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising as a result man's
activities?

If you accept both, then the corollary is that the *current* warming
pattern is at least to some degree driven by anthropogenic CO2. Knowing
the increase in CO2 means we can put reasonable figures on the overall
impact and this is generally accepted as good science. If you are really
interested you ought to find out the facts.


Hmm ... the current warming is "at least to some degree driven by
anthropogenic CO2".

Well, I don't see that immediately follows from your two premises. In
complex chaotic systems all kinds of counter-intuitive things happen. Nobody
knows what actually drives temperature change, that is why none of the
models has ever had predictive validity.

I could quite plausibly believe that anthropogenic CO2 has caused 0.2
degrees of warming since 1900, but that the earth in 2010 starts a natural
cooling cycle and we have an ice age. And nor, as far as I can tell, can
climate science rule out this scenario.

Now, from a scientific viewpoint, this is very unsatisfactory. The real
guilty secret of climate science is that it does not attempt to model the
climate per se, it rather models the changes caused by anthropogenic CO2
over the natural variability of climate. This immediately renders it
unverifiable, because whatever the future temperature ever turns out to be,
the claim can be made that this much was due to anthropogenic CO2 and the
rest due to natural variability. Hell, the earth could drop 3 degrees over
the next 100, and you could claim that it would have been 6 degrees without
anthropogenic CO2. Scientific theories must be capable of disproof. AGW
fails this basic test of being a scientific theory.




That they largely lie unanswered rather proves my point: climate
science is not science.

You've asked for climate science to explain the warming after 1850. No
wonder climate science couldn't explain it, it didn't take place
between 1850 and 1920.


OK, explain the temperature changes between 0AD and 1900 AD. Happy now?


You asked for 'the AGW explanation' for climate change that wasn't
caused by AGW.

Nobody claims that climate change is only due to anthropogenic causes;
we know it changes for several reasons, one of which (anthropogenic
generation of CO2) is occurring now and causing climate change now.

What are the other factors which mean the earth is warming now?

What is the percentage contribution to the change in temperatures since
1850 deriving from sources other than anthropogenic CO2 (I assume the
earth has changed in temperature between 1850 and now, that is correct,
right?) and at what temperature and when would it peak and the earth
starts cooling again, in the absence of anthropogenic CO2?

What assumptions are you making when you ask that question? (other than
the one that significant warming started in 1850)


None, other than those I explicitly stated. If you think I am making
assumptions, what are they?

I am asking you a "what if" question. Happens all the time in real
science. Aren't people allowed to ask scientific questions about AGW
theory?



Lets see what the baseline case is without anthropogenic CO2 before we
decide if reducing CO2 will help much or at all. What is it, exactly?

Good - now you are asking serious questions. What data is there to
allow us to answer those questions?


Gee, I thought you were the person who believed in AGW.

I would have thought that 4 billion years of temperature changes in the
absence of anthropogenic CO2 would be a good place to start, but its your
theory, you tell me.

If you don't know what the temperature of the earth would be in the
absence of anthropogenic CO2, then perhaps you can explain to me how you
can calculate the temperature with anthropogenic CO2.

When Einstein predicted the precession of Mercury's orbit using GR (and
helped "prove" GR), he started with a baseline case of no GR effects,
then calculated the GR contribution, and added it in. If he had been
unable to determine what the precession was in the absence of GR, there
would have been no proof.

Unless AGW can predict what the temperature change would be in the
absence of anthropogenic CO2, then it can't predict the temperature with
anthropogenic CO2. Obviously.

Really? How about if it can predict the difference that anthropogenic CO2
can cause?

Completely useless.

AGW might be right or wrong, but we have another ice age anyway.



If you have no data, and need to ask me for it,

I'm not asking you for it for me. I'm asking you to find out for yourself

you should ask yourself why you believe in a theory which has no
experimental data to support it. Same issue that I have with people who
believe in "intelligent design", you pretend to be a scientific theory
then you must be evaluated as a scientific theory. This means (amongst
other things) supporting experimental evidence. It would be pretty
laughable if I asked a "creation scientist" something about their theory
and they asked me what data there was which could be used. Its equally
laughable when a "climate scientist" does it.

No, you want to use the scientific method to argue against climate
science. So where else do you start than with the data? You are the one
who is denying the data, putting forward moveable arguments and showing
your ignorance about the science behind climate science.


Ahhh, my ignorance of the science behind climate science; indeed, my
ignorance of the science behind astrology, for that matter.

I don't think my arguments have been moveable at all; the central premise
has always been that in order to qualify as a scientific theory it has to be
disprovable, and to be a correct theory it has to predict the ourcomes of
new experiments. Climate science fails this.

On Nov 22, 1:58*am, Thad Floryan wrote:
On 11/21/2009 10:39 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

[...]
* On USENET, I'm not seeing any credible arguments against global
* warming... and I'm not seeing any credible arguments against the
* warming being driven by CO2 liberated from the burning of fossil
* fuels and cement production.
[...]

You might want to expand your "view" to include the 1000s of known
active under-sea and under-ice volcanos.

These are being found in the eastern Pacific basic (over 1,600 just
a short bit off the coast of Peru), under the North Pole, under the
South Pole, under Greenland, and many, many other places by ESA's
satellites and many countries' research vessels and submarines. One
correspondent at the ESA wrote he was amazed to see volcanic fires
through miles of clear ice at the South Pole in their sat's imagery.

Think what happens to a pot of ice placed on a kitchen stove after
the stove's burner is turned on -- it melts.

And volcanos emit a LOT of CO2 (among other things).

Thad I suggest you read what the US Geological Service has to say
about how CO2 and H2SO4 volcanos emit. Each year volcanic eruptions
spew 130 million tons of CO2 into the air on the other hand in 2005
humans emitted 27 billion tons of CO2 into the air. To save you doing
the math humans push 207 times more CO2 into the air than volcanos.
Come back when you have FACTS to talk about rather than uninformed
opinion

On Dec 2, 10:45*pm, Milton Aupperle wrote:
In article
,





Jax wrote:
On Dec 2, 10:30*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

We know exactly how much CO2 is released by human activity. We know
exactly how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and its rate of change. We
understand the major carbon sinks, and can measure the carbon absorption
rate. We know what the major natural sources of CO2 are, and we measure
those. It isn't even science, it's just grammar school arithmetic.

The CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from natural sources is well
understood, and is accounted for. They haven't changed in a long time..
There are carbon sources, and there are carbon sinks. Normally, over
millennial (and certainly decadal) time periods these are in
equilibrium. Right now, the only thing significantly increasing is CO2,
and that is increasing by just the amount you'd expect given human
inputs. And the carbon cycle is no longer in equilibrium as a result.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Google "missing sink" and tell me how precisely we know the arithmetic
of the carbon cycle.

I concur. It isn't vaguely true at all that we know all the sinks and
sources of GHG.

The increase in temperature across the tundra over the past 1,000
years has added a huge amount of new sources for methane and C02.The
perma frost melting release enormous amounts of *gases to the mix, from
rotting vegetation that has been frozen since the last ice age.

Each volcanic eruption blasts mega tonnages of S02, *C02, CH4 and
Flouro carbons into the upper and lower atmosphere. The amount and
quantity varies with the type of eruption and parent source of the
melt. there is no way to predict this until after it erupts.

And lastly, if we knew exactly how much C02 was man made and not man
made, then NASA would never have launched that C02 measuring satellite
that unfortunately crashed into the ocean.

All we have is guesses and a few hundred sampling points around the
world.

Milton Aupperle
Geoscientist.and Software developer.


Milton because you are a geoscientist) as opposed to a meteorologist
I'll cut you a little slack. Do a google-scholar search on the
difference in origins of C12/C13/C14 isotopes. Then do another google-
scholar search on the change in the measured C12/C13 ratios. At that
point you will find out exactly how we know exactly how CO2 is man-
made and how well it tracks current climate changes.

On Nov 29, 12:03*pm, "Nightcrawler" wrote:
"Quadibloc" wrote in ...

On Nov 21, 4:00 pm, "David Staup" wrote:

Anthropogenic global warming is not junk science.

Wrong.

*It is recognized as *valid* science by the overwhelming majority of scientists.

Wrong.

Please supplies us with the facts and process that you used to arrive
at this conclusion. Do not use statements by known stupids such as,
but not limited to, Miloy, Watts, Spencer, Christy, Ball, McIntyre,
McKitrick, Michaels, Avery, Monckton, Soon and Baliunas Otherwise you
are just another stupid spoiled brat screaming into the air.

On Nov 27, 9:08*am, Jax wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:52*pm, yourmommycalled wrote:

On Nov 24, 2:12*pm, "David Staup" wrote:
scientists who are studying the temperature proxy records wrote a
paper that actually points out the problem and supplies the analysis
tools and data to show that the divergence exists.

What reasons do they give for continued use of tree ring data as a
proxy for historical temperature if they do not match the modern
temperature records?

The simple answer is that only a few locations showed the divergence
problem in the tree-ring data. Further there were indications that the
cause of the divergence at these locations had nothing to do with
climate, but due to increases in SO2 emissions. Further the divergence
was greatest where tree were stressed.

There is a longer more complicated discussion in On the ’divergence
problem’ in northern forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and
possible causes (D’Arrigo 2008) and Briffa (2004)

On Nov 24, 1:08*pm, Thomas Womack
wrote:
In article ,

David Staup wrote:
this graph (below) shows how closely the global temp changes match the co2
level changes ...NOT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644060/posts

I notice that there's no uncertainty plotted for the temperature
curve, which you'd expect to wiggling like nobody's business on
ten-kiloyear timeframes due to variations in Earth's orbit.

Try a period in which you can be reasonably sure that solar irradiance
hasn't changed much, and that the continents are in much the same places
as they are today:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Tom

Yet another geologist taking about something he knows nothing about