Skip to comments.Arguments that Prove that Climate Change is driven by Solar Activity and not by CO2 Emission
Posted on 05/26/2008 4:09:08 PM PDT by Delacon
Conveyor of a super-Einsteinian theory of gravitation that explains, among many other post-Einstein-effects, the Sun-Earth-Connection and the true cause of the global climate changes.
As the glaciological and tree ring evidence shows, climate change is a natural phenomenon that has occurred many times in the past, both with the magnitude as well as with the time rate of temperature change that have occurred in the recent decades. The following facts prove that the recent global warming is not man-made but is a natural phenomenon.
1. In the temperature trace of the past 10 000 years based on glaciological evidence, the recent decades have not displayed any anomalous behaviour. In two-thirds of these 10 000 years, the mean temperature was even higher than today. Shortly before the last ice age the temperature in Greenland even increased by 15 degrees C in only 20 years. All of this without any man-made CO2 emission!
2. There is no direct connection between CO2 emission and climate warming. This is shown by the fact that these two physical quantities have displayed an entirely different temporal behaviour in the past 150 years. Whereas the mean global temperature varied in a quasi-periodic manner, with a mean period of 70 years, the CO2 concentration has been increasing exponentially since the 1950s. The sea level has been rising and the glaciers have been shortening practically linearly from 1850 onwards. Neither time trace showed any reaction to the sudden increase of hydrocarbon burning from the 1950s onwards.
3. The hypothesis that the global warming of the past decades is man-made is based on the results of calculations with climate models in which the main influence on climate is not included. The most important climate driver (besides solar luminosity)...
Note from Mod: The source has pulled the article from their web site. Could be a hoax
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
|· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·|
And I'm the Devil With the Blue Dress On!
We’re supposed to take your word for it? ;’) Not the part about the devil... ;’) ;’) ;’)
>>Humans can *and do* effect the climate. The Ozone hole is a good example of a relatively uncontroversial and measurable example of human’s changing the composition of the earth (via CFCs). The climate and atmosphere of the earth have changed significantly over the history of the earth too.>>
This is a convoluted non sequitur. UV causes CFCs to dissociate, creating free chlorine ions which cause ozone to dissociate, in the laboratory. And CFCs, which are all manmade, are found in the atmosphere. Also the climate and the atmosphere have indeed changed in major ways. That much is rather well-accepted science today.
How CFCs get carried over the Antarctic where the Ozone hole appears, or how they are carried into the mid-latitude stratosphere where the layer is thickest, how much get exposed to UV and dissociate, how much that causes O3 to break down, and how much that affects the O3 layer are all by models, of course. But some of these models are quite coarse, and all are no more than hypotheses. What is lacking is a climate model that actually works.
O3 layer thinning has been measured by satellite, but reported to the public after being subjected to a series of regressions on natural phenomena (e.g., solar activity, seasonal cycles), plus regression on a boot strap prediction from the coarse models of how much free chlorine is present. The result is to show that the layer has thinned around 4% per decade and, not surprisingly, resembles (i.e., is subjectively correlated with) CFC emissions. The data and statistical reduction need an objective scrubbing.
Then the models need to be improved to the extent that they fail to reproduce the closed loop effect of the creation of O3 by UV. As the O3 layer thins, more UV gets through it to create more O3. Is there any evidence that anyone has developed such a model? Is it discussed anywhere? Assuming that it has not been developed, isn’t the model for O3 depletion open loop?
The bottom line for O3 layer depletion is the fear that excess UV reaches the little children. Unsubstantiated claims notwithstanding, this effect has not been measured. Instead of showing measurements confirm their depletion model, investigators rely on UV exposure estimates calculated from the unvalidated depletion model.
Humans probably do affect (not effect) the climate, but the amount is far too small to be measured. And ozone depletion is linked to neither global surface temperature nor global precipitation, the principal climate macroparameters. Not even the IPCC, the rabid promoter of AGW, reaches that claim.