On Mar 8, 1:35Ā*am, :ŠŠµŠ°ŠŃŠ°ŠøŠ½ wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:00Ā*pm, mg wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:41Ā*pm, ŠŠŠ'ŠŠ¾Š½Š¾Š²Š°Š½ wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:08Ā*pm, mg wrote:
On Mar 7, 1:43Ā*pm, :ŠŠµŠ°ŠŃŠ°ŠøŠ½ wrote:
Solar Influence On Climate Confirmed
"..researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in
Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60
years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earthās
temperature over the last 100 years.
.................................................. .......................... Ā*......................................... R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-
Carleton Geoscience Center of Canadaās Carleton University, says that
āCO2 variations show little correlation with our planetās climate on
long, medium and even short time scales.ā
.................................................. .......................... Ā*.................................... Ā*"Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and
better āeyesā with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact
on Earthās climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our
planet combined.
And theyāre worried about global cooling, not warming."
.................................................. .......................... Ā*...................................... "Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar
System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany said:
"The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now
be affecting global temperatures... the brighter sun and higher levels
of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the
Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the
greater impact.[73]
.................................................. .......................... Ā*.............................................
.................................................. ..........................Ā*...................... ............................. google: "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planetās
climate on
long, medium and even short time scales.ā
About 101,000 results (0.39 seconds)
.................................................. ..........................Ā*.................... "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into
its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to
unusually cool conditions on Earth.ā
āSolar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before,
and it most likely will again, If we were to have even a medium-sized
solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than
āglobal warmingā would have had"
As I said, Max Planck Institute agrees with the scientific consensus
that the marked upswing in temperatures since about 1980 is
attributable to human activity.
In regard to R. Timothy Patterson's denial of Global Warming theory,
he's part of a small minority.
.................................................. ..........................Ā*...................... .........................
"In the scientific literature, there is
a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in
recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced
emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4] No scientific body of national
or international standing disagrees with this view,[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
Natural CO2 emissions completely swamp manmade CO2 emissions in our
atmosphere
Its something we've always know that the manmade CO2 emissions are
completely dwarfed by the Natural CO2 emissions from the ecosystems.
But for the lurkers that dont know here is a refresher.
Total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.039%, that percentage right
so total amount is 0.00039 out of 100.
From this total amount 97% comes from the ecosystems (sea, land and
animals/plants) thats 97%.
From this total amount 3% is manmade CO2 from fossil fuel emissions.
The IPCC through their parametric computer generated projections are
telling us that the 3% will destroy the Earth unless we are all
committed to financial slavery through the carbon tax to reduce our
CO2 emissions.
Depending on what phase our sun is in and our position on our
eliptical orbit around the sun and whether we are having a el nino or
a la nina.
The ecosystems have the potential to throw up even more CO2 in our
atmopshere which can eclipse any manmade CO2 emissions.
Any punter seeing this evidence will know straight away that AGW is a
lie and the carbon tax is a scam.
Proffessor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie
University and he has been researching CO2 in our atmosphere.
He has come to the conclusions that,
Itās not just that man-made emissions donāt control the climate, they
donāt even control global CO2 levels.
There goes another āfingerprintāā¦
Judging by the speech Murry Salby gave at the Sydney Institute,
thereās a blockbuster paper coming soon.
Listen to the speech: āGlobal Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The
Contribution from Natural Sourcesā
Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie
University. Heās been a visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm,
Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and heās spent time at the Bureau of Meterology
in Australia.
Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and
CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-
made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. Itās not
just that man-made emissions donāt control the climate, they donāt
even control global CO2 levels.
The higher levels of CO2 in recent decades appear to be mostly due to
natural sources. He presented this research at the IUGG conference in
Melbourne recently, causing great discussion and shocking a few
people. Word reached the Sydney Institute, which rushed to arrange for
him to speak, given the importance of this work in the current
Australian political climate.
The ratio of C13 to C12 (two isotopes of carbon) in our atmosphere has
been declining, which is usually viewed as a signature of man-made CO2
emissions. C12 makes up 99% of carbon in the atmosphere (nearly all
atmospheric carbon is in the form of CO2). C13 is much rarer ā about
1%. Plants donāt like the rarer C13 type as much; photosynthesis works
best on the C12 -type -of-CO2 and not the C13-type when absorbing CO2
from the air.
Prof Salby points out that while fossil fuels are richer in C12 than
the atmosphere, so too is plant life on Earth, and there isnāt a lot
of difference (just 2.6%) in the ratios of C13 to C12 in plants versus
fossil fuels. (Fossil fuels are, after all, made in theory from
plants, so itās not surprising that itās hard to tell their
āsignaturesā apart). So if the C13 to C12 ratio is falling (as more
C12 rich carbon is put into the air by burning fossil fuels) then we
canāt know if itās due to man-made CO2 or natural CO2 from plants.
Essentially we can measure man-made emissions reasonably well, but we
canāt measure the natural emissions and sequestrations of CO2 at all
precisely ā the error bars are huge. Humans emits 5Gt or so per annum,
but the oceans emit about 90Gt and the land-plants about 60Gt, for a
total of maybe 150Gt. Many scientists have assumed that the net flows
of carbon to and from natural sinks and sources of CO2 cancel each
other out, but there is no real data to confirm this and itās just a
convenient assumption. The problem is that even small fractional
changes in natural emissions or sequestrations swamp the human
emissions
Read the rest here
The Wikipedia article entitled "Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere"
explains it all very well, including the issue of natural vs. manmade
CO2. Here's a small excerpt from Wikipedia's report:
"While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of
natural processes, the recent drastic rise in CO2 levels in the
atmosphere is known to be entirely due to human activity.[20]
Researchers know this both by calculating the amount released based on
various national statistics, and by examining the ratio of various
carbon isotopes in the atmosphere,[20] as the burning of long-buried
fossil fuels releases CO2 containing carbon of different isotopic
ratios to those of living plants, enabling scientists to distinguish
between natural and human-caused contributions to CO2 concentration.
Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause
of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major
cause. In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (33.5 gigatonnes of CO2)
were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide,
compared to 6.15 gigatonnes in 1990.[21] In addition, land use change
contributed 0.87 gigatonnes in 2010, compared to 1.45 gigatonnes in
1990.[21] In 1997, human-caused Indonesian peat fires were estimated
to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions
caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single
year.[22][23][24] In the period 1751 to 1900 about 12 gigatonnes of
carbon were released as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning
of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2008 the figure was about 334
gigatonnes.[25]
This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions as of 1997, is
sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[26] As a result,
carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of
2009, its concentration is 39% above pre-industrial levels.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...27s_atmosphere