AndyRadstock wrote:
j.prescott wrote:
is there actually any positive proof that Global Warming is Man made?
(a) Direct radiative measurements.
(b) The pattern of changes, with the greatest increases in the polar regions, is a confirmation of model predictions.
(c) Solar proxies have been flat since 1950 or so, temperatures haven't.
(d) Successful preditiction of the cooling effects of the Pinatabu eruption.
(e) Impossibility of accounting for the past 150 years of climate without man-made GHGs.
j.prescott wrote:
If not why for the last God knows how many Years have I been paying that 5% VAT on my energy bills for Man made Global Warming?
You see, we invested all of that cash in building out an all-nuclear electric grid so that you could have relatively cheap electricity and heating without emitting GHGs or selling the country to the Russians.. oh, wait, that was the French.
We lost it down the back of the sofa, or gave it to some IT consultants, or something.
j.prescott wrote:
can I now claim it back?
Ahhh.. Taxpayers say the cutest things, don't they?
Your 'proof' statements seem a bit nebulous to me; perhaps a little more detail is in order - we're all quite clever here, you know!
MGBGT wrote:
In (a), which 'direct radiative measurements' are you referring to? Atmospheric or terrestrial? Wm^-2(IR)/Wm^-2(UV) {reflected/impinging}, {absorbed/impinging}, {reflected/absorbed} or {absorbed/absorbed}? They all give different numbers that the statisticians have to massage with different techniques to 'fit the bill'.
I'm referring to the measured properties of CO2. The derived numbers have not changed much in the past 100 years.
MGBGT wrote:
In (b), averaging the thermal flow in a system invokes a black body and thus, Stefan-Boltzmann. More effect of thermal flow to the poles will be observed as the entropy gradient is the greatest there.
I'm trying to find anything in that statement that makes any sort of sense. Really, I am.
MGBGT wrote:
In (c), Apart from the combined photospheric and coronal maxima in 1992, when an auroral corona was photographed on November 17th over Derby and I recorded oxygen and nitrogen auroral displays over my house at Lat 51 deg N the same night. Solar activity is never 'flat' - it's about to 'cut up rough' again soon...
There has been no trend in the solar constant over the last 60 years. We know about the 11-year cycle.
MGBGT wrote:
In (d), cooling from the 3 cubic kilometres of ash and pummice ejected, but no warming effect from the 60 million tons of gaseous aerosols ejected into the stratosphere, 90% of which was CO2 (we were being told to fear 'acid rain' then...)
The aerosols were SO2, not CO2. BIG difference. These aerosols inviked a cooling effect, as predicted by the models.
MGBGT wrote:
In (e), and what of the great warming 60,000 years ago, when the current interstitial started and the human population of Northern Europe was less than Birmingham today, the glaciation retreating from Southern England to Iceland in less than two centuries?
The last glaciation ended between 12000 and 8000 years ago, not 60,000. Yes, apparently small pertubations - in this case changes in orbital dynamics - can induce large changes in climate as you say. And if such an event happened as a result of our activities we would be in a lot of trouble.
MGBGT wrote:
The scientific community should be left to sort this mess out by comparison of observation within disciplines and correct scientific procedure. We aim for the truth, the bloody politicians aim for your wallet...
The scientific community has sorted this out to a large degree, and technical solutions exist; and if you are not worried about AGW, then how about giving the Russians the 'on/off' switch to the national grid?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
(story not online at their site but mentioned 
