In message lgate.org,
Michael Mcneil writes
"Alan LeHun" wrote in message
In article lgate.org,
says...
Someone tell me where "they" proved that fossils were responsible for it
all.
Traditionally, the isotopic composition of carbon within the atmosphere
was accepted as being 99% C13 and 1% the radioactive C14.
I don't want to get into global warming debates either nor history ones,
come to that.
Nor the facts or anything involving the determining the scientific truth
- just like a lawyer.
People blindly using the phrase "fossil fuels" goad me though. If they
are fossil fuels, why did the sulphur and phosphorous beds separate out
from them and migrate to pastures new?
And how?
Ever heard of chemistry?
But it all become irrelevant when the whole crux is not atmospheric
pollution but the solar heat output that must have changed.
The solar flux is being measured and has been accurately monitored by
satellites over the past 3 decades. There is no scope for using that as
a way to pretend that effects of increasing anthropogenic CO2 are
negligible.
and very noticeable change in solar output measured at source.
Something which has been continuously monitored by satellites for more
than thirty years. It has increased by a small amount, but nothing like
enough to explain the observed global warming.
Baliunas and Soon (two global warming sceptics) have various papers on
reconstructing the solar constant over the past century and were forced
to conclude that without including the contributions of greenhouse
gasses it is impossible to obtain energy balance in the latter part of
the 20th century.
Regards,
--
Martin Brown