Antropomorphic Global Warming may not be a serious problem.
Posted September 28th, 2007 at 03:08 PM by Epidemic
Updated October 9th, 2007 at 02:13 PM by Epidemic
Updated October 9th, 2007 at 02:13 PM by Epidemic
The following is a list of unanswered questions that keep me from being an AGW cheerleader.
1) 800 year temp rise before co2 rise (ok the claim is that a small environmental temp change kicked this off and caused runaway process releasing more co2)
2) CO2 amplifier scenario (ok settled) then how do we have 5000 year cooling during PEAK co2 levels?
3) What mechanism makes co2 rise like clockwork?
4) What mechanism stops co2 rise and ultimately allows co2 to fall again?
5) Why coincidentally do we see signs of extraterrestrial warming on our neighbors
6)What could possibly cause CO2 to rise on a hundred thousand schedule like clockwork. Do volcano's spew in concert that regularly? can you schedule random biological processes to happen on a clock 4 or 5 times in the past 500,000 years? This leads me to think that perhaps co2 is more of a byproduct of warming than cause. The only clockwork events in the universe are solar and orbital. biological processes do not happen on a schedule like that.
Quote:
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
I concede (and have never denied) that co2 is a global warming actor in that it can add to warming effects that is beyond reproach. However is it the main player in global warming or even significant in its effects?
interesting links
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1363818.ece
not everyone is in agreement (warning alex jones info wars nutjob site)
Total Comments 0
Comments
Recent Blog Entries by Epidemic
- If it is Co2 then we are simply accelerating Ice ages. (October 2nd, 2007)
- Antropomorphic Global Warming may not be a serious problem. (September 28th, 2007)
