"James" wrote in message
...

"V for Vendicar" m
wrote in message news


I agree that humans are emitting large amounts of CO2.

alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.sk eptic,alt.conspiracy
That may be so, but unfortunately irrelevant.

Says the Lying Schizophrenic.



There is an 800 year lag between temperatures and CO2.

And zero lag between CO2 and temperature.

ROTFLMAO


Can you explain why this is so funny - or did you completely miss the point?


That confuses you doesn't it? **** Sack.

You confused yourself **** sack.


The climate system has many inputs, some major and some minor. Push on
the system with a non-CO2 input and the climate system's orbit changes
and CO2 and the other feedbacks follow. Push on the climate system with
CO2, and it must necessarily lead, the orbit changes and the other
feedbacks follow.

On Jan 20, 11:15*pm, Bill Ward wrote:


So are you claiming there are a number of factors other than CO2 that
significantly affect climate? * If so, can you list them all?

Excuse me for butting in, especially since I probably can't list all
of them. Also, I think you already know the answers to your own
question, Bill. Or some of the answers.

But among the factors that are widely agreed to affect climate,
besides the atmospheric concentration of "greenhouse" gases such as
CO2, are these:

(a) the 3 Milankovitch cycles, regarding changes in the Earth's orbit
and changes the tilt of the Arctic region towards the sun during the
Arctic summers;

(b) the albedo or reflectiveness of earth, oceans and sky -- a factor
that can be affected by major volcanic eruptions, intense air
pollution, the larger or smaller extent of floating Arctic sea ice
during the summers, and other climate-related changes (eg changes in
the extent of desert sands, light-colored tundra as opposed to dark-
colored taiga forests, etc);

(c) variations in the intensity of sunlight striking the upper
atmosphere

(d) the behavior of ocean currents and changes in how they circulate
warmth around the world

(e) the shifting of tectonic plates and the migration of the earth's
continents -- e.g., the coming together of North and South America,
two previously separated continents, several million years ago, which
had the effect of changing the circulation of major ocean currents

(f) the behavior of clouds, and the formation of clouds at lower or
higher altitudes, which can affect the albedo of the atmsophere and
hence have an indirect effect on climate .

There probably also are other factors I haven't mentioned. But you
can probably look them up.

Sources, for anyone who's interested:

see Robert Henson, National Center for Atmospheric Research, "The
Rough Guide to Climate Change,"

see also Spencer Wearth, the American Institute for Physics, "The
Discovery of Global Warming,"

see also A. Barrie Pittock, CSIRO, "Climate Change"

wrote:
On Jan 20, 5:44 am, Mr Right wrote:
Just how does this negate the greenhouse effect of the massive
amounts
of CO2 humans are emitting and the huge global warming anomaly of
the
last half century?

I agree that humans are emitting large amounts of CO2.

That may be so, but unfortunately irrelevant.

There is an 800 year lag between temperatures
and CO2.

The Medieval Warming Period (starting in 1000)
is causing an increase of CO2, and has been causing it
since 1800, even before the industrial revolution.

The problem is that the MWP was followed by a period of severe cooling
known as the Little Ice Age, which also happens to coincide with the
Maunder Minimum.
You still have to explain to us how any geophysical process that
conveniently "forgets" the LIA can suddenly spring into action 800 years
after the MWP set in.

T.

This fits the data much better than "humans
are causing CO2 increase". People who
say "humans are causing CO2 increase"
usually ignore the actual CO2 increase facts,
or just convince themselves because they
want to believe it.

["Unfortunately" irrelevant, because the CO2
is now going to start declining and going to
cause agriculture problems. If humans had
an impact on CO2, we could try to increase
the CO2 levels.]

wrote:
On Jan 20, 11:15 pm, Bill Ward wrote:

So are you claiming there are a number of factors other than CO2 that
significantly affect climate? If so, can you list them all?

Excuse me for butting in, especially since I probably can't list all
of them. Also, I think you already know the answers to your own
question, Bill. Or some of the answers.

But among the factors that are widely agreed to affect climate,
besides the atmospheric concentration of "greenhouse" gases such as
CO2, are these:

(a) the 3 Milankovitch cycles, regarding changes in the Earth's orbit
and changes the tilt of the Arctic region towards the sun during the
Arctic summers;

(b) the albedo or reflectiveness of earth, oceans and sky -- a factor
that can be affected by major volcanic eruptions, intense air
pollution, the larger or smaller extent of floating Arctic sea ice
during the summers, and other climate-related changes (eg changes in
the extent of desert sands, light-colored tundra as opposed to dark-
colored taiga forests, etc);

(c) variations in the intensity of sunlight striking the upper
atmosphere

(d) the behavior of ocean currents and changes in how they circulate
warmth around the world

(e) the shifting of tectonic plates and the migration of the earth's
continents -- e.g., the coming together of North and South America,
two previously separated continents, several million years ago, which
had the effect of changing the circulation of major ocean currents

(f) the behavior of clouds, and the formation of clouds at lower or
higher altitudes, which can affect the albedo of the atmsophere and
hence have an indirect effect on climate .

There probably also are other factors I haven't mentioned. But you
can probably look them up.

Sources, for anyone who's interested:

see Robert Henson, National Center for Atmospheric Research, "The
Rough Guide to Climate Change,"

see also Spencer Wearth, the American Institute for Physics, "The
Discovery of Global Warming,"

see also A. Barrie Pittock, CSIRO, "Climate Change"

I think one of the hazards of the kind of arguments going on here is the
attempt to force the opponent into a "False Dichotomy" situation where
only one hallowed explanation is supposed to be valid.
It must be pretty obvious to everyone that the climate changes
continuously over a timescale that can be measured in decades, hundreds,
or thousands or even millions of years depending on whatever argument is
being followed. The tree-ring record alone is sufficient to document
this fact for the past thousands of years.
Also for fairly obvious reasons, any factors of anthropogenic origin
can only have been introduced on a very recent timescale from the
geological standpoint - 100s of years in terms of fossil fuel usage,
1000s of years if we admit other factors such as agriculture.
We therefore have to agree that climate changes in the geologically
recent past (order 100,000 years) have non-anthropogenic causes. Of the
known causes, we have extraterrestial factors lke variable solar
radiation, and Milankovich cycles. Of terrestial origin we should
consider all the possible effects of volcanic eruptions - haze,
atmospheric gasses, dust absorption, albedo changes. The Holocene
Maximum may well be explained by the Milankovich cycle.

On the principle that nothing in the universe changes substantially in
only 100,000 years, you must also assume that these same factors are
still valid for our present-day climate.
If we restrict our perspective to the last thousand or few hundred
years, Milankovich is irrelevant, and only volcanoes or solar
variability are really relevant.
The LIA may well have been caused by volcanic activity, but there is no
known explanation for the Medieval Warming - which in any case by
comparision with current temperatures was not particularly warm at all.

The question AGW is not an either-or discussion, it is the question
whether the changes caused by human activity are significant or not.
The known measured changes in solar variability are so small that they
can hardly account by themselves for any significant climate change,
unless positive feedback effects come into play. If that is the case,
then any change due to GHGs will also be amplified by positive feedback
to the same extent.
T.

"Bill Ward" wrote
But trends don't really matter in
chaotic systems anyway.

Tell that to a cardiologist or to the scientists who compute space craft
trajectories. Both celestial mechanics, and heart rythms are chaotic.