 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Global Warming and Cooling - The Reality... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Last Post... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Global Warming and Cooling - The Reality
by Stephen Wilde
Stephen Wilde has been a Fellow of the
Royal Meteorological Society since 1968.
Wilde explores the mechanics and mechanism
involved that are attributed to the Earth's
Warming and Cooling.
Global Warming and Cooling - The Reality.
It’s all very well doing what alarmists do which is
to say that Co2 is rising and temperatures are
rising so in the absence of any other known cause
it must be man made CO2 that is warming the
planet. That approach ignores both the differing
scale of the possible influencing factors and the
clear historical relationship between cooler
climates and periods of a less active sun. The
presence of the sun must be a much bigger
influence on global temperatures than the
greenhouse characteristics of CO2 on it’s own.
At most the greenhouse effect can only be
marginal though some have tried to talk it up by
asserting that the planet would be very much
colder without a greenhouse effect, which is
correct, but avoids the issue of the rather small
proportion of the overall greenhouse effect
provided by CO2 and the even smaller proportion
provided by man. It also begs the question as to
whether the oceans are slowly releasing CO2 as a
result of natural warming. If the oceans warm for
any reason they will release CO2 into the
atmosphere because water holds less CO2 at
higher temperatures.
The greenhouse effect, as a whole, may smooth
out rises and falls in temperature from other
causes but is not itself the determining factor for
global temperature. If the heat from the sun
declines the global temperature will fall with or
without any greenhouse effect and if the heat
from the sun increases the global temperature
will, of course, rise. The greenhouse effect does
not create new heat. All it does is increase the
residence time of heat in the atmosphere.
climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1041&linkbox=true
In the ice core record, CO2 increase has always
lagged behind temperature rises and the lag
involved is estimated to be 400 to 800 years.
There has never been a period when a CO2 rise
has preceded global warming. I have seen it
argued that the past 30 years has been so
exceptional that it MUST, for the first time in the
history of the globe, be CO2 driving the warming
trend. That is an assertion of such low probability
that it should require very powerful evidence to
support it. I have seen no such evidence. Indeed,
on a cursory inspection the slow but steady
increase in atmospheric CO2 is clearly not
coming through in a slow but steady rise in
global temperatures. Instead we see rises and falls
in global temperatures that bear no obvious
relationship to the steady rise in CO2 unless one
puts the cart before the horse and announces that
there is no other possible reason and the trend
period adopted is carefully chosen to suit the
proposition.
All it needs to cast doubt on the CO2 theory is an
alternative possibility to explain a rising global
temperature trend over the past 500 years and
there is one. Everyone will have heard of the
Little Ice Age and the global temperature would
appear to have been recovering from it ever since.
On a balance of probability is that not the more
likely explanation of an overall warming trend
ever since? Why introduce manmade CO2 at all
except for politically motivated reasons? By all
means exclude a recovery from the Little Ice Age
as the reason if one can but the burden of proof is
heavy and probably impossible to discharge with
current knowledge. There was also a Mediaeval
Warm Period (MWP) that preceded it. It has
been asserted by some that the MWP was not as
warm as the planet is now but there is evidence
to the contrary such as Viking settlements in
Greenland at the time. It has also been asserted
that the MWP was not worldwide but some recent
indications have been found in South America
that it was warm there at about the same time. In
any event it is unlikely that such a warm period
affecting Greenland and Western Europe would
not be worldwide. The heavy burden of proof is
on those who would seek to deny it.
Be that as it may, there is a probability rather
than a possibility that the warming trend since
the lowest point of the Little Ice Age is
continuing to this day and is the real cause of
recent observed warming with only a minimal
contribution, if any, from man made CO2
emissions.
Then there is the matter of scale. The greenhouse
effect is mainly a phenomenon of the land surface
and the atmosphere because more of the incoming
heat is absorbed by water as compared to land and
a lower proportion is reflected to participate in the
greenhouse effect. However the surface of Earth
is 70 % water. Water has a hugely greater heat
carrying capacity than the land or the atmosphere
above it. Land loses most of the heat it receives
during the day via overnight radiation and the
atmosphere loses heat rapidly via convection,
rainfall and radiation to space despite the
greenhouse effect. The true heat store that we
need to consider, dwarfing by far any
atmospheric greenhouse effect is all that water. I
describe the implications of that below.
It seems so complex but the global heat balance
only comes down to three parameters that swamp
all others.
Heat from the sun.
The fact that 70% of the planet is water covered.
Heat, radiating out to a very cold Space.
Extra heat is constantly being generated within
the Earth by convection and movement caused by
external gravitational forces from the sun and
other planets but that only seems to disrupt the
basic scenario intermittently.
The heat from the sun varies over a number of
interlinked and overlapping cycles but the main
one is the cycle of 11 years or so. That solar cycle
can last from about 9.5 years to about 13.6 years
and appears to be linked to the gravitational
effects of the planets of the solar system
combining to affect the sun’s magnetic field
which seems then to influence the amount of heat
generated and incidentally affects the number of
sunspots. For present purposes I will concentrate
on the past 1000 years during which the 11year
cycle has been the main factor linked to observed
temperature changes. For pre thermometer
numbers we have to rely on less reliable indicators
of past temperature.
It is clear that temperatures have varied so much
over the past 1000 years that there have been
substantial effects on human societies so
disruption caused by weather and climate is by
no means unusual. Many civilisations have fallen
as a result of entirely natural changes in climate.
Interestingly, they often blamed themselves for
offending the Gods, nature or the planet (that
sounds familiar!).
It is necessary to note that those disruptive
changes have occurred quite quickly. A decade
or two is quite enough to see changes that result
in considerable hardship.
Because 70% of the planet is covered by water
most heat from the sun is accepted by water. The
seas take a long time to warm up or cool in
comparison to land. Heat reaching the land by
day is soon radiated back out to Space at night.
Water has a much greater lag both in warming
and cooling which also means that as a store of
total heat the oceans are hugely effective. The
strongest sunlight reaching the Earth is around
the Equator that is primarily oceanic. The
equatorial sun puts heat into the system year in
year out whereas loss of heat is primarily via the
poles with each alternating as the main heat loser
depending on time of year.
The Earth therefore accumulates or loses heat to
and from, primarily, the oceans. The land and the
atmosphere are largely an irrelevance. That heat
then has to find it’s way out into Space over time.
Before it can be radiated out into Space heat has
to pass through the atmosphere.
The planet cannot maintain and does not maintain
a constant temperature. It is not even possible to
identify a specific current temperature for the
whole planet and for present purposes there is no
need to do so.
All I need to assert at this point is that whatever
the Earth’s temperature is at any given moment
it will always be in the process of warming or
cooling and, of course, the rate of that warming
or cooling is highly variable.
Because the Earth is always either warming or
cooling the point of balance could well be very
fine so to attribute ‘blame’ to any particular
factor we have to ascertain the scale and degree
of sensitivity of each factor we wish to consider.
The point I need to make here is that on the basis
of historical evidence from weather and solar
cycle records the largest single factor influencing
global temperature, whatever it might be at any
time, is variations in the input of heat from the
sun.
It is clear from the historical record that warmer
weather accompanies short solar cycles and
cooler weather accompanies longer solar cycles.
Although I refer to weather the fact is that
weather over time constitutes climate so for
present purposes they are the same. During the
recent warming the cycle lengths were less than
10 years so that meant we were getting more
heat from the sun whatever the alarmists say
about Total Solar Irradiance (a flawed and
incomplete concept).
So far, the current solar cycle (number 23) is into
the 12th year in length and may go to the full
13.6 years for known astronomical reasons. The
very fact that it is longer than the previous two
cycles suggests we are getting less solar energy
already and, surprise, surprise, it is now being
accepted by alarmists that warming has stalled
and the planet may be cooling for the next 10
years at least. All they can do now is bleat that
the underlying man made warming signal is still
there but they cannot prove that to be the case
nor can they demonstrate the scale of it in
relation to natural causes.
As far as I can see nobody seems to be able to
say why the observed changes in weather that
accompany changes in solar activity actually
happen. They seem to be disproportionate to the
changes in heat coming from the sun. This is
where I feel the need to make a suggestion.
The ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) Cycle
has been heavily investigated for many years but
seems to be looked at as a freestanding
phenomenon that just redistributes heat around
the globe, sometimes warming and sometimes
cooling.
I think that is wrong. I believe that ENSO
switches from warming to cooling mode
depending on whether the sun is having a net
warming or net cooling effect on the Earth. Thus
the sun directly drives the ENSO cycle and the
ENSO cycle directly drives global temperature
changes. Indeed, the effect appears to be much
more rapid than anyone has previously believed
with a measurable response occurring within a
few years of a change in solar energy input.
Indeed I see some evidence for the proposition
that for various reasons cooling occurs faster
than warming but I will save that for another time.
It was no coincidence that during the years from
1975 to 2000 we had a strong emphasis on El
Nino with warming-also known as a period of
positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and
now, with an emphasis on La Nina we have
cooling or at least a stall in the warming (a period
of negative PDO).
As regards the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that is
simply a periodical change in the predominance
either of El Nino (positive mode) or of La Nina
(negative mode). El Nino events can occur in a
positive PDO mode and vice versa.
I believe that both ENSO and PDO are
manifestations of the same process and are
directly driven by shifts in the balance of heat
output from the sun as it switches to or from net
warming and to or from net cooling effects on
the Earth.
It was no coincidence that the change from one
ENSO mode to the other was approximately
contemporaneous with the extension of solar
cycle 23 to a period longer than the preceding
two solar cycles and at about the same time the
PDO switched from positive to negative.
Although there are similar periodic oscillations in
other oceans such as the Atlantic and the Arctic I
believe that they follow the lead of ENSO and
PDO. In effect they simply continue the
distribution of the initial warming or cooling state
around the globe and of course there are varying
degrees of lag so that from time to time the other
lesser oceanic oscillations can operate contrary to
the primary Pacific oscillations until the lag is
worked through.
I believe that this is a clear and simple theory of
solar driven global climate change which should
now be tested empirically.
Just looking at the activity levels of the past few
solar cycles and the temperature and ENSO
changes that occurred at about the same time
would have revealed the truth if those who
should have known better were not trying to
implicate man generally and western nations in
particular. Refer to my two earlier articles for
fuller detail.
The fact is that the Earth could well be a highly
sensitive water based thermometer as far as solar
input is concerned. The balance between overall
warming and overall cooling is probably finely
linked to the energy received or not received from
the sun over decadal time periods or possibly
even less.
Advances have been made in predicting the
likely activity levels of the sun so it should be
possible to make general predictions as regards
the onset of warming or cooling trends on Earth
from solar observations and astronomical
measurements of planetary influences on solar
cycles.
Finally, one should consider whether other
warming or cooling influences might have any
significance to humanity and the environment.
The fact is that the solar effect is huge and
overwhelming. Other influences can only ever
delay or bring forward what would have
happened anyway because of the time scales
involved with solar changes that tend to
develop and intensify over centuries. One
must also remember that, the warmer the
Earth gets, the faster the radiation of heat to
Space because of an enhanced temperature
differential so it would be false to propose an
ever increasing positive differential as a result of
adding any warming effect of man made CO2 to
the effect of solar changes.
The length and intensity of a solar cool down
would strip out the human portion of any extra
CO2 quite ruthlessly because the cooler
temperatures would increase the amount of CO2
absorbed by the oceans and oceanic life would
flourish to lock it away in the carbon cycle again
in the form of organic calcium carbonate from a
multitude of tiny sea creatures (which generally
prefer cooler waters) falling to the sea bed.
In effect, all life on Earth has the benefit of an
oceanic and atmospheric air conditioning system
that clears out excess CO2 as well as well as dust,
other particulates and noxious substances created
by either the planet itself or the life forms on it
from time to time.
Of course a single organism can upset the balance
of it’s own environment for a time but the planet
always renews itself and repopulates with new life
forms if necessary. The solution is always a new
balance between numbers and lifestyle for any
particular organism and that includes us.
That is why, despite hugely different
environmental conditions in the past, including
far higher CO2 levels, there has never been a
‘tipping’ point that changed the pattern of
glaciations and interglacials that have occurred
with clockwork precision based on astronomical
movements throughout the historical record.
Nor need we fear any man made addition to
solar warming because the proportion of the
warming which we would be responsible for
would be insignificant against the scale of the
solar induced portion.
In any event, since cooling is worse than
warming for humanity and most life on the
planet, our production of CO2, however large in
our puny terms, would be wholly beneficial for
life on Earth.
–– ––
. In real science the burden of proof is always
. on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
.. neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
.. iota of valid data for global warming nor have
.. they provided data that climate change is being
. effected by commerce and industry, and not by
.. natural phenomena. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Last Post... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Global Warming and Cooling - The Reality
by Stephen Wilde
Stephen Wilde has been a Fellow of the
Royal Meteorological Society since 1968.
Wilde explores the mechanics and mechanism
involved that are attributed to the Earth's
Warming and Cooling.
Global Warming and Cooling - The Reality.
It’s all very well doing what alarmists do which is
to say that Co2 is rising and temperatures are
rising so in the absence of any other known cause
it must be man made CO2 that is warming the
planet. That approach ignores both the differing
scale of the possible influencing factors and the
clear historical relationship between cooler
climates and periods of a less active sun. The
presence of the sun must be a much bigger
influence on global temperatures than the
greenhouse characteristics of CO2 on it’s own.
At most the greenhouse effect can only be
marginal though some have tried to talk it up by
asserting that the planet would be very much
colder without a greenhouse effect, which is
correct, but avoids the issue of the rather small
proportion of the overall greenhouse effect
provided by CO2 and the even smaller proportion
provided by man. It also begs the question as to
whether the oceans are slowly releasing CO2 as a
result of natural warming. If the oceans warm for
any reason they will release CO2 into the
atmosphere because water holds less CO2 at
higher temperatures.
The greenhouse effect, as a whole, may smooth
out rises and falls in temperature from other
causes but is not itself the determining factor for
global temperature. If the heat from the sun
declines the global temperature will fall with or
without any greenhouse effect and if the heat
from the sun increases the global temperature
will, of course, rise. The greenhouse effect does
not create new heat. All it does is increase the
residence time of heat in the atmosphere.
climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1041&linkbox=true
In the ice core record, CO2 increase has always
lagged behind temperature rises and the lag
involved is estimated to be 400 to 800 years.
There has never been a period when a CO2 rise
has preceded global warming. I have seen it
argued that the past 30 years has been so
exceptional that it MUST, for the first time in the
history of the globe, be CO2 driving the warming
trend. That is an assertion of such low probability
that it should require very powerful evidence to
support it. I have seen no such evidence. Indeed,
on a cursory inspection the slow but steady
increase in atmospheric CO2 is clearly not
coming through in a slow but steady rise in
global temperatures. Instead we see rises and falls
in global temperatures that bear no obvious
relationship to the steady rise in CO2 unless one
puts the cart before the horse and announces that
there is no other possible reason and the trend
period adopted is carefully chosen to suit the
proposition.
All it needs to cast doubt on the CO2 theory is an
alternative possibility to explain a rising global
temperature trend over the past 500 years and
there is one. Everyone will have heard of the
Little Ice Age and the global temperature would
appear to have been recovering from it ever since.
On a balance of probability is that not the more
likely explanation of an overall warming trend
ever since? Why introduce manmade CO2 at all
except for politically motivated reasons? By all
means exclude a recovery from the Little Ice Age
as the reason if one can but the burden of proof is
heavy and probably impossible to discharge with
current knowledge. There was also a Mediaeval
Warm Period (MWP) that preceded it. It has
been asserted by some that the MWP was not as
warm as the planet is now but there is evidence
to the contrary such as Viking settlements in
Greenland at the time. It has also been asserted
that the MWP was not worldwide but some recent
indications have been found in South America
that it was warm there at about the same time. In
any event it is unlikely that such a warm period
affecting Greenland and Western Europe would
not be worldwide. The heavy burden of proof is
on those who would seek to deny it.
Be that as it may, there is a probability rather
than a possibility that the warming trend since
the lowest point of the Little Ice Age is
continuing to this day and is the real cause of
recent observed warming with only a minimal
contribution, if any, from man made CO2
emissions.
Then there is the matter of scale. The greenhouse
effect is mainly a phenomenon of the land surface
and the atmosphere because more of the incoming
heat is absorbed by water as compared to land and
a lower proportion is reflected to participate in the
greenhouse effect. However the surface of Earth
is 70 % water. Water has a hugely greater heat
carrying capacity than the land or the atmosphere
above it. Land loses most of the heat it receives
during the day via overnight radiation and the
atmosphere loses heat rapidly via convection,
rainfall and radiation to space despite the
greenhouse effect. The true heat store that we
need to consider, dwarfing by far any
atmospheric greenhouse effect is all that water. I
describe the implications of that below.
It seems so complex but the global heat balance
only comes down to three parameters that swamp
all others.
Heat from the sun.
The fact that 70% of the planet is water covered.
Heat, radiating out to a very cold Space.
Extra heat is constantly being generated within
the Earth by convection and movement caused by
external gravitational forces from the sun and
other planets but that only seems to disrupt the
basic scenario intermittently.
The heat from the sun varies over a number of
interlinked and overlapping cycles but the main
one is the cycle of 11 years or so. That solar cycle
can last from about 9.5 years to about 13.6 years
and appears to be linked to the gravitational
effects of the planets of the solar system
combining to affect the sun’s magnetic field
which seems then to influence the amount of heat
generated and incidentally affects the number of
sunspots. For present purposes I will concentrate
on the past 1000 years during which the 11year
cycle has been the main factor linked to observed
temperature changes. For pre thermometer
numbers we have to rely on less reliable indicators
of past temperature.
It is clear that temperatures have varied so much
over the past 1000 years that there have been
substantial effects on human societies so
disruption caused by weather and climate is by
no means unusual. Many civilisations have fallen
as a result of entirely natural changes in climate.
Interestingly, they often blamed themselves for
offending the Gods, nature or the planet (that
sounds familiar!).
It is necessary to note that those disruptive
changes have occurred quite quickly. A decade
or two is quite enough to see changes that result
in considerable hardship.
Because 70% of the planet is covered by water
most heat from the sun is accepted by water. The
seas take a long time to warm up or cool in
comparison to land. Heat reaching the land by
day is soon radiated back out to Space at night.
Water has a much greater lag both in warming
and cooling which also means that as a store of
total heat the oceans are hugely effective. The
strongest sunlight reaching the Earth is around
the Equator that is primarily oceanic. The
equatorial sun puts heat into the system year in
year out whereas loss of heat is primarily via the
poles with each alternating as the main heat loser
depending on time of year.
The Earth therefore accumulates or loses heat to
and from, primarily, the oceans. The land and the
atmosphere are largely an irrelevance. That heat
then has to find it’s way out into Space over time.
Before it can be radiated out into Space heat has
to pass through the atmosphere.
The planet cannot maintain and does not maintain
a constant temperature. It is not even possible to
identify a specific current temperature for the
whole planet and for present purposes there is no
need to do so.
All I need to assert at this point is that whatever
the Earth’s temperature is at any given moment
it will always be in the process of warming or
cooling and, of course, the rate of that warming
or cooling is highly variable.
Because the Earth is always either warming or
cooling the point of balance could well be very
fine so to attribute ‘blame’ to any particular
factor we have to ascertain the scale and degree
of sensitivity of each factor we wish to consider.
The point I need to make here is that on the basis
of historical evidence from weather and solar
cycle records the largest single factor influencing
global temperature, whatever it might be at any
time, is variations in the input of heat from the
sun.
It is clear from the historical record that warmer
weather accompanies short solar cycles and
cooler weather accompanies longer solar cycles.
Although I refer to weather the fact is that
weather over time constitutes climate so for
present purposes they are the same. During the
recent warming the cycle lengths were less than
10 years so that meant we were getting more
heat from the sun whatever the alarmists say
about Total Solar Irradiance (a flawed and
incomplete concept).
So far, the current solar cycle (number 23) is into
the 12th year in length and may go to the full
13.6 years for known astronomical reasons. The
very fact that it is longer than the previous two
cycles suggests we are getting less solar energy
already and, surprise, surprise, it is now being
accepted by alarmists that warming has stalled
and the planet may be cooling for the next 10
years at least. All they can do now is bleat that
the underlying man made warming signal is still
there but they cannot prove that to be the case
nor can they demonstrate the scale of it in
relation to natural causes.
As far as I can see nobody seems to be able to
say why the observed changes in weather that
accompany changes in solar activity actually
happen. They seem to be disproportionate to the
changes in heat coming from the sun. This is
where I feel the need to make a suggestion.
The ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) Cycle
has been heavily investigated for many years but
seems to be looked at as a freestanding
phenomenon that just redistributes heat around
the globe, sometimes warming and sometimes
cooling.
I think that is wrong. I believe that ENSO
switches from warming to cooling mode
depending on whether the sun is having a net
warming or net cooling effect on the Earth. Thus
the sun directly drives the ENSO cycle and the
ENSO cycle directly drives global temperature
changes. Indeed, the effect appears to be much
more rapid than anyone has previously believed
with a measurable response occurring within a
few years of a change in solar energy input.
Indeed I see some evidence for the proposition
that for various reasons cooling occurs faster
than warming but I will save that for another time.
It was no coincidence that during the years from
1975 to 2000 we had a strong emphasis on El
Nino with warming-also known as a period of
positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and
now, with an emphasis on La Nina we have
cooling or at least a stall in the warming (a period
of negative PDO).
As regards the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that is
simply a periodical change in the predominance
either of El Nino (positive mode) or of La Nina
(negative mode). El Nino events can occur in a
positive PDO mode and vice versa.
I believe that both ENSO and PDO are
manifestations of the same process and are
directly driven by shifts in the balance of heat
output from the sun as it switches to or from net
warming and to or from net cooling effects on
the Earth.
It was no coincidence that the change from one
ENSO mode to the other was approximately
contemporaneous with the extension of solar
cycle 23 to a period longer than the preceding
two solar cycles and at about the same time the
PDO switched from positive to negative.
Although there are similar periodic oscillations in
other oceans such as the Atlantic and the Arctic I
believe that they follow the lead of ENSO and
PDO. In effect they simply continue the
distribution of the initial warming or cooling state
around the globe and of course there are varying
degrees of lag so that from time to time the other
lesser oceanic oscillations can operate contrary to
the primary Pacific oscillations until the lag is
worked through.
I believe that this is a clear and simple theory of
solar driven global climate change which should
now be tested empirically.
Just looking at the activity levels of the past few
solar cycles and the temperature and ENSO
changes that occurred at about the same time
would have revealed the truth if those who
should have known better were not trying to
implicate man generally and western nations in
particular. Refer to my two earlier articles for
fuller detail.
The fact is that the Earth could well be a highly
sensitive water based thermometer as far as solar
input is concerned. The balance between overall
warming and overall cooling is probably finely
linked to the energy received or not received from
the sun over decadal time periods or possibly
even less.
Advances have been made in predicting the
likely activity levels of the sun so it should be
possible to make general predictions as regards
the onset of warming or cooling trends on Earth
from solar observations and astronomical
measurements of planetary influences on solar
cycles.
Finally, one should consider whether other
warming or cooling influences might have any
significance to humanity and the environment.
The fact is that the solar effect is huge and
overwhelming. Other influences can only ever
delay or bring forward what would have
happened anyway because of the time scales
involved with solar changes that tend to
develop and intensify over centuries. One
must also remember that, the warmer the
Earth gets, the faster the radiation of heat to
Space because of an enhanced temperature
differential so it would be false to propose an
ever increasing positive differential as a result of
adding any warming effect of man made CO2 to
the effect of solar changes.
The length and intensity of a solar cool down
would strip out the human portion of any extra
CO2 quite ruthlessly because the cooler
temperatures would increase the amount of CO2
absorbed by the oceans and oceanic life would
flourish to lock it away in the carbon cycle again
in the form of organic calcium carbonate from a
multitude of tiny sea creatures (which generally
prefer cooler waters) falling to the sea bed.
In effect, all life on Earth has the benefit of an
oceanic and atmospheric air conditioning system
that clears out excess CO2 as well as well as dust,
other particulates and noxious substances created
by either the planet itself or the life forms on it
from time to time.
Of course a single organism can upset the balance
of it’s own environment for a time but the planet
always renews itself and repopulates with new life
forms if necessary. The solution is always a new
balance between numbers and lifestyle for any
particular organism and that includes us.
That is why, despite hugely different
environmental conditions in the past, including
far higher CO2 levels, there has never been a
‘tipping’ point that changed the pattern of
glaciations and interglacials that have occurred
with clockwork precision based on astronomical
movements throughout the historical record.
Nor need we fear any man made addition to
solar warming because the proportion of the
warming which we would be responsible for
would be insignificant against the scale of the
solar induced portion.
In any event, since cooling is worse than
warming for humanity and most life on the
planet, our production of CO2, however large in
our puny terms, would be wholly beneficial for
life on Earth.
–– ––
. In real science the burden of proof is always
. on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
.. neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
.. iota of valid data for global warming nor have
.. they provided data that climate change is being
. effected by commerce and industry, and not by
.. natural phenomena. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ouroboros Rex... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Last Post wrote:
[quote]Global Warming and Cooling - The Reality
by Stephen Wilde
Stephen Wilde has been a Fellow of the
Royal Meteorological Society since 1968.
Wilde explores the mechanics and mechanism
involved that are attributed to the Earth's
Warming and Cooling.
Global Warming and Cooling - The Reality.
It's all very well doing what alarmists do which is
to say that Co2 is rising and temperatures are
rising so in the absence of any other known cause
it must be man made CO2 that is warming the
planet. That approach ignores both the differing
scale of the possible influencing factors and the
clear historical relationship between cooler
climates and periods of a less active sun. The
presence of the sun must be a much bigger
influence on global temperatures than the
greenhouse characteristics of CO2 on it's own.
At most the greenhouse effect can only be
marginal though some have tried to talk it up by
asserting that the planet would be very much
colder without a greenhouse effect, which is
correct, but avoids the issue of the rather small
proportion of the overall greenhouse effect
provided by CO2 and the even smaller proportion
provided by man. It also begs the question as to
whether the oceans are slowly releasing CO2 as a
result of natural warming. If the oceans warm for
any reason they will release CO2 into the
atmosphere because water holds less CO2 at
higher temperatures.
The greenhouse effect, as a whole, may smooth
out rises and falls in temperature from other
causes but is not itself the determining factor for
global temperature. If the heat from the sun
declines the global temperature will fall with or
without any greenhouse effect and if the heat
from the sun increases the global temperature
will, of course, rise. The greenhouse effect does
not create new heat. All it does is increase the
residence time of heat in the atmosphere.
climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1041&linkbox=true
In the ice core record, CO2 increase has always
lagged behind temperature rises and the lag
involved is estimated to be 400 to 800 years.
There has never been a period when a CO2 rise
has preceded global warming.
[/quote]
Lie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:51 am
|
|