Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Shotsky and the Global Forecast

Expand Messages
  • shotsky1
    <Shotsky what you re asking is in essence how does science know anything. Science doesn t deliver abolute truth. Whether that s good enough depends on what
    Message 1 of 3962 , Oct 2, 2001
      <Shotsky what you're asking is in essence how
      does science know anything. Science doesn't deliver
      abolute truth. Whether that's good enough depends on what
      question you want to answer. What would you like to know
      about the climate in advance and how much risk are you
      willing to take?><br><br>This seems to be a forest and
      trees issue. In simplest possible terms, climate has
      warmed, cooled, then warmed in the last 100 or so years.
      During that time, CO2 was always rising, although faster
      now than before.<br><br>When people look only at the
      last warming cycle and point to CO2 as the cause of
      that warming, I simply say 'why?'. And the answer is
      'because I think so - I have no proof'. <br><br>There is
      no explanation for the cooling in mid century, and
      there is no proof that CO2 is involved in either of the
      warming periods. I continue to believe that CO2 is a 2nd
      order effect, and that much larger controls exist on
      our climate that are not under our control. And, I
      restate that, if we ceased ALL human CO2 contribution, I
      doubt that climate temperature would be affected (by
      that action alone), even accounting for the longevity
      of the existing CO2 in the atmosphere. <br><br>In
      short, I don't believe that CO2 causes earth's climate
      to warm at all, particularly because of the feedback
      mechanisms that are not yet well modelled. There is plenty
      of evidence that CO2 levels should be much higher
      than they are, and scientists cannot say where that
      carbon is going with certainty.
    • Salvador Santayana
      This group started in 1999 and got its first posting on volcanos in 2001. BUT you got nothing nada on the underwater volcano that erupted or formed off Oregon
      Message 3962 of 3962 , Mar 5, 2008
        This group started in 1999 and got its first posting on volcanos in
        2001. BUT you got nothing nada on the underwater volcano that
        erupted or formed off Oregon Coast.

        Let me check if you got anything on NOAA.

        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, shotsky1 wrote:
        >
        > This is an interesting article which describes
        > the difficulty encountered in recreating a
        > temperature profile over the last century. Of course the
        > temperature profile is how we determine whether, and how
        > much, the global climate is changing. Very interesting
        > reading.<br><br><a
        href=http://www.microtech.com.au/daly/graytemp/surftemp.htm
        target=new>http://www.microtech.com.au/daly/graytemp/surftemp.htm</a><
        br><br>Summary:<br>The records of annual global surface temperature
        > anomalies and their regional distribution are not
        > explicable by a theory of steady almost uniform global
        > temperature increase, such as the supposed effects of
        > increases in greenhouse gases. The surface temperature
        > behaviour is much more readily explained by local effects,
        > particularly heating, which can take place in both urban and
        > rural sites, and is most likely in cold locations.
        > <br><br>The MSU satellite temperature records of the lower
        > troposphere detect important climate effects also evident in
        > the surface record, such as those of volcanos, ocean
        > circulation (El NiƱo, and ocean cooling) and the sun. They do
        > not detect, however the regional hotspots which are
        > largely responsible for the rise in surface temperature.
        > The differences between the surface temperature
        > record since 1978 and that recorded by the MSU
        > satellites in the lower troposphere must therefore be
        > largely due to local heating which is highly regional,
        > and is particularly evident in cold climates.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.