Peter Pan wrote:

This is in response to a previos post
Myths / Facts
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.


Nobody has claimed that. It is, of course, very precedented. The problem
is that humanity will not easily survive global average temperature changes
of even a degree or two Celsius.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over
the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long
term rate of increase in global temperatures.

"Change in the rate"? Do you even know what that means? It means climate
is warming, and continuing to do so...

Average ground station
readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years,
which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last
millennium.

_not_ "well within", but not unreasonable.

The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution
across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban
and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher
readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

LOL. That line is taken directly from Michael Crichton's book on the
subject. Crichton argues quite convincingly that global warming isn't
happening - except for one small detail. Early in the book, he shows the
(increasing) average temperature curve for the last 100 years, and the CO2
curve that matches it almost exactly. We can go back 6000 years and show
that same relationship.

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

Just keep kidding yourself. We had a hurricane in Nova Scotia last week -
it's not supposed to happen in November. Tell the people in Mexico and the
Carribean that there's no catastrophe. Tell the folks in New Orleans, that
there's been no "catastrophe".

MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a
steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently
began a sudden increase.

Another myth you've just made up.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100
years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons,
human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the
beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere
has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased
from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which
growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is
no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming.

Who needs proof - the correlation is astonishing.

As measured in ice
cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down
AFTER the temperature has done so,

Another "fact" you've just made up. That's _not_ evident in the ice cores.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

yet another. Water has always been the most significant greenhouse gas.
However, the water vapour in the atmosphere is purely dependent on
temperature (the higher the temperature, the more evaporates from the
oceans), whereas other greenhouse gases - like CO2 and Methane _control_
temperature.

While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse
agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the
effect by their sheer volume and - in the end - are thought to be
responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".

LOL. And you were arguing the reversal of cause and effect for CO2...

Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important
fact.

CO2 is merely the most significant of the greenhouse gases we can control.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant
global warming.

FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver,
and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use
the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is
circular reasoning and is illogical.

Actually, you can. It's not circular, it's iterative, and quite logical.
However, nobody claims "models" prove global warming. "Evidence" is
accomplishing that.

Computer models can be made to
roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input
parameters and using strong positive feedbacks.

LOL. "Strong positive feedbacks" is another way of saying "circular
reasoning". It's _how_ models work.

The
sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its
received radiation changes all the time,

Do you have a clue what "greenhouse gas" means? The _only_ source of
warming due to greenhouse gases is, by definition, solar radiation. The
question is how much heat is retained, and how much is re-radiated into
space.

This happens largely in cyclical
fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated
very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age
and the Medieval Warm Period.

That is, indeed, true. However, if sunspots were causing the current
warming, we should be getting _cooler_.

Varying intensity of solar heat radiation
affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer
ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2.

Give me a break. If you're going to argue natural sources of CO2 (which,
I'll remind you, you've already told us _isn't_ causing warming), at least
don't argue for the oceans as a source, as they produce a fraction of the
CO2 & methane belched from volcanos.

Solar radiation
interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized
nuclei which control cloud cover.

"control"? Dust & ice crystals create far more clouds than ionized nuclei.

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man-made CO2 causes global warming.

Why do you keep making up these myths?

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
deleted from the final draft. Here they a

The two statements were _inserted_ by politicians _against_ the wishes of
the scientists who wrote the draft. And I think that you'll find that
while they _were_ removed from the final "draft", they're still in the
published report.

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2
causes significant global warming.

And there's no "proof" that we evolved from a pre-hominid ape or that
smoking kills. The preponderance of evidence, though, is clear.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true.

Of _course_ it's true. Anything that we put into the environment that
wasn't there before is a pollutant. If we act responsibly, we can prevent
those pollutants from fouling our nest so badly as to cause complete
climate collapse.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that
supports such claims on a global scale.

Yeah, you'll keep arguing that until it kills you.

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of
global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of
years.

Of course. Clearly, it's evidence that the climate is warming.

Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very
cool period of the Little Ice Age.

I.e., we're warming...

Besides, glacier's health is dependent as
much on precipitation as on temperature.

??? Do you have a clue how this affects your argument?

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat
warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the
Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder.

Huh? Now you're making up even the basics of your argument. Please try to
convince somebody in our Eastern Arctic that they're getting colder. Our
permafrost is melting, and our Polar Bears are starving.

Ice thicknesses are increasing both on
Greenland and in Antarctica.

Figures please? That's not what I hear about Greenland.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives)
has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

LOL. "Sea level monitoring" in the Maldives, at least, would be a little
awkward - the Maldives are _sinking_. Whether there's more water in the
Indian Ocean is irrelevant, because the plate the Maldives sit on is
subductive and the whole archipelago will be flooded eventually, regardless
of overall sea levels.
--
derek