"Bill McKee" wrote in message
.net...
"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:WZplf.138403$y_1.48075@edtnps89...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:YG8lf.137006$y_1.73889@edtnps89...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
k.net...
"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:G76lf.136987$y_1.135187@edtnps89...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png
http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html
http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a
traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the
news for the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question
regards Global Warming is what is the cause?
What specifically did you find wrong with the evidence and
explanation I presented?
You need more proof than what you post
Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence (proof, if
you prefer)?
....
CO2 a adjunct. If it was so simple, then all the scientists, or at
least a supra majority could agree on the causes.
It is not simple, but it is reasonably well understood. And lets see,
NOAA, GISS, IPCC, BAS, EPA, NAS, RS of UK, and every
other major scientific institution and 95+% of atmospheric, oceanic
and climate scientists do believe that anthropogenic CO2
is driving the current global warming, so the agreement you seek is
already here.
Maybe it is the fact that we are overdue for a magnetic poll shift and
more UV is reaching the earth. You only want to believe in your preset
ideas. You are not open to real science.
Present some.
You present proof that CO2 is the culprit. Not someone's opinion.
I prefer to call it solid evidence, but so far so good.
And since we have had global warming and global cooling cycles longer
than homo-sapiens has been here, prove that the CO2 is the cause, and not
the sun cycles, etc.
It is not required that CO2 be the root cause of every climate shift in
history in order for it to be the cause of today's. Similar natural events
can have different causes, besides today's event is not similar to many past
events.
You give a lot more power to man than we have.
This is an assumption you prefer to believe in, however the evidence
contradicts it.
One large volcanic eruption dumps more chemicals into the atmosphere than
man has done in the last 100 years.
This is untrue. I respectfully suggest that you check where ever you heard
that from and mentally flag every other "fact" you got from there as
unreliable, this is undoubtably a simple lie at whatever its original
source. Volcanic action results in emissions of around 1/150th of human
emissions.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
Krakatoa caused freezing temps in July in the mid-west.
I have not heard this before. Do you have a reference? Regardless, the
cooling effect of large volcanic eruptions is short lived (a few years) and
is the result of dust cast high into the atmosphere reducing sunlight to the
surface. It is true a nice constant series of major eruptions, perfectly
timed could offset the warming of CO2 rises. Not very likely to work out so
well.
There is nothing that I could say or post to change your mind.
I agree this is looking pretty unlikely at the moment.
You have accepted junk science and your mind is locked.
I have presented references to all the best scientific organizations that
deal with climate. You don't read it, call it "junk science" and then tell
*me* that *my* mind is locked?? Very rich...
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")