[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 16:41:47 +1000
Paul says,
I'll accept for the moment at face value your reference to water vapour being
the most effective contributor to greenhouse warming (GHW). (Strictly this is
not accurate -- increasing H2O vapour contributes to warming, stable means no
change in temperature). I cannot get your drift. All of the statistics, from
the ice cores show that over the millenia the co2 rises after temperature
increase, not the way you are saying , which is the major error Gore made. You
asked for a hint why. Let us assume global temperature were to rise as it did
after the little ice age, due to solar activity (most probable) or
geological/volcanic or what ever, then human and animal activity and indeed
plant life increases naturally. More carbon is made, and as a consequence more
co2.follows.
If the effect is positive going up -- worrying -- it will be negative --
comforting -- coming down
And this depends upon what part of History, or what part of the world where you
live. If you were in the age of the mini ice age, as much as London enjoyed
skating on the thames river, much of Europe suffered accute famine. I'm sure
the following increases in warmth were not worrying. One may say likewise today
for the people of Greenland, or Northern Canada and Russia who would love to
see a return of the warmer climates they enjoyed in the past. I also would ask
you who is being "sensational" in talking of rising seas, particularly when
this affects only those who took advantage of settling land that came from the
sea during the mini ice age. The point is that climate change is natural, just
as the sunspot cycle is today very active, solar mininum almost nonexistent, a
point I have been driving home here even on this list I should think for many
years, the real obvious reason for our climate. The sun is doing its normal
thing, however much I don't particularly like it.
Philip.
PS The wiki statement below is another of the few I have found on wiki that
has politically biased overtones. I don't object. they do give the alternative
elsewhere, which is why we can not place our entire faith on any side.
'anthropogenic gases' =
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html lets look at this site
and later I will show the not so much BS but misinfo.. from basic science.. end
of post script.
Referring to the panel below from Wiki, it is stated that increased water
vapour is caused by increased 'anthropogenic gases'. H2O vapour may be more
effective as a GHW agent but it is caused by increased evaporation caused by
increased temperature caused by (among others) increased CO2. Get the CO2 down,
the temperature will fall, evaporation will fall and less H2O vapour will
decrease the temperature further. If the effect is positive going up --
worrying -- it will be negative -- comforting -- coming down.
All of the ice core samples from around the world show an exact correlation
between temperature warming and CO2. EXCEPT that the temperatue rise precedes
the CO2 by many years, and that by the way is a natural expectation.
No mechanism for this suggests itself to me. How about a hint?
Further, I do not believe these facts because of the notable scientists
saying so.. I have never heard of these people.. I believed these facts from my
own physics training and knowledge, and have always ever since the scam was
first promulgated along with the Ozone hole fiasco, known it to be false
science. It is because I have none of the accepted credentials (other than
trade, technical and teacher) necessary to add to the debate, that I use those
who do have such qualifications. Because they are correct and the others are
very wrong,
I suggest a read of basic physics printed pre 1950/60, on the effects of
Gases specifically water vapour in the atmosphere, including the relationships
of Oxygen, ozone and UV radiation. There is only one greenhouse gas worthy of
the name... Its water vapour, and its technically not a gas.
But Philip, science moves on like everything. Basic principles I agree do not
change, however when change is introduced, especially to complex models, it is
rare that perfect (or nearly so) predictions are made. Something nearly always
jumps up and bites you on the ankle. Such was the phenomenon of chlorine in the
atmosphere and its disastrous effect on O3. Besides -- the eternal question --
who, and how could there be, profit from such a cry of 'Wolf!'?
Other related posts:
