Read RSS Feed


Only solar energy controls climate

8:10am Monday 8th February 2010 in Read

SIR – The recent letter from S W Clayton only partially opened the door to reveal the false information that atmospheric carbon dioxide affects climate and global warming. The control of both is entirely by solar energy.

Carbon is the basis of all forms of life. In the atmosphere, as carbon dioxide, it is only 0.001 per cent of the total present in many forms on earth where natural processes provide the source.

To a small extent human activity in dense urban and industrial activities can affect local climate. Overall, it is the sun which has provided the basis for every earthly development.

A C Osman
Pershore

Comments(16)

crowquill says...
10:55am Mon 8 Feb 10

Err......I thought the whole crux of the 'climate change debate' (note climate change not global warming-so last year!) was the effect of solar radiation on the increased levels of CO2 due to man made activity. It is hard to understand exactly what your point is?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Common Sense says...
3:56pm Mon 8 Feb 10

I think Mr.Osman means our climate it dictated solely by the sun, not by so-called "man-made-activity" - and I agree with him.

It also gives us all in Pershore, the clarity of air to think clearly - long may it last.

(Excellent comment Crowquill, in the letter before this one!)

CS.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

topspin says...
5:08pm Mon 8 Feb 10

The Earth's temperature is the result of various factors, including the sun, but also greenhouse gases. Without greenhouse gases, the planet would be about 30C lower.
CO2, methane and some other greenhouse gases have been increasing due to us.
The recent increases in global temperatures cannot be explained, according to climatologists, without including this artificially enhanced greenhouse effect.
I understand that following the issues at UEA and at the IPCC, and after a cold spell, that more people are questioning whether there is such a thing as man-made climate change. However, there is still a vast amount of evidence to support it.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Energetic says...
5:26pm Mon 8 Feb 10

No, topspin you are wrong. UEA cite "independent databases in the USA" to support their views but those are linked to UEA/CRU being run by Jim Hansen and Michael Mann, both noted warmists mentioned in the crooked e-mails. Because of tampering with and suppression of inconvenient terrestrial temperature measurements by warmists, there is now increasing doubt that there was any increase in global temperature during the 20th century (see recent publication by Watts & D'Aleo). And please don't mention "peer review" after the conspiracy at East Anglia shows what that has meant in climate science.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

topspin says...
10:50pm Mon 8 Feb 10

Energetic, you won't be surprised to find that I disagree with you on this one.
Climate sceptics have been coming out with different, and often contradictory, criticisms of the claims of climate change scientists such as Mann and Hansen. However, invariably these criticisms have been shown to be flawed. On the other hand, you have large numbers of peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting climate change.
As soon as there is some criticism of these, the sceptics cry out that the whole climate change theory is a scam, a hoax, a conspiracy with no foundation whatsoever. This seems somewhat unfair.
The peer-review process is not perfect, but it's the best there is. Once the two retired weathermen you referred to produce some peer-reviewed papers, then I'll take them more seriously.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Energetic says...
11:43am Tue 9 Feb 10

Oh dear, topspin. Have you not seen the list of over 500 peer-reviewed ( ... independently, not by the CRU/Met Office "Club" ...) papers repudiating the UN-IPCC view of global warming and much of the data upon which it is based?

Keep a tight hold on your hockey-stick while the AGW ship goes down!
And "Hide the Decline" ...

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Common Sense says...
10:56pm Tue 9 Feb 10

30:15, Energetic!

CS.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

topspin says...
10:54am Wed 10 Feb 10

To answer your 500 peer-reviewed articles claim, it appears to have a few holes in it. Such as including non-peer-reviewed journals and articles that have been resoundly rejected, either because they are wrong or because they have lied. I could go on.
Sceptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet eagerly embrace any argument, blog or study that refutes global warming.
Within the science of climate change there is a healthy debate about the rate of warming, but with more research our understanding of the climate will increase.
With the Earth supporting an increasing population, coupled with declining resources, the speed of this temperature increase could cause serious problems. Hopefully, the increase will be towards the lower end of the forecasts, but even that would cause many problems, mostly in the poorest parts of the world.
How we act to help those worst effected over the coming years is another debate, one which, in my view, is far more important than the pro v anti climate change debate.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Common Sense says...
1:37pm Wed 10 Feb 10

"30 all"

CS.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Energetic says...
6:49pm Thu 11 Feb 10

No tie-break this time! Sorry to spoil the game CS but topspin really hasn't grasped the crucial evidence of cooling during the past decade. Only Gore's man, Hansen, reports any warming and that is slight even though based on adjusted data.

Even UEA/CRU, in a sudden fit of contrition, reports "no warming". UAH and RSS (satellite data) both report (peer-reviewed) "cooling".

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

topspin says...
10:34pm Thu 11 Feb 10

What cooling!!! By every measure of global temperature the past decade was the warmest on record. Please tell me where you get your facts from. Where is this crucial evidence you mention?
I thought that even those most critical of climate change did believe that the temperature was rising, but were claiming that it was for reasons other than us increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
What about the acidification of the oceans due to CO2 - or do you not believe in that either?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Energetic says...
1:23pm Fri 12 Feb 10

http://wattsupwithth
at.com/2008/02/19/ja
nuary-2008-4-sources
-say-globally-cooler
-in-the-past-12-mont
hs/

will give you all the references and the names of the scientists at each institution should topspin wish to question them.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

topspin says...
3:05pm Fri 12 Feb 10

Thanks for the reference to this blog, Energetic.
2007 and 2008 were the coolest years of the last decade, largely due to La Nina (the opposite of El Nino), which has caused cooling in the past (e.g., 1999).
The fact that temperatures may fluctuate from year to year does not imply global cooling. You have to look at the trend over the past decades, and this is definitely upwards.
And don't forget, surface temperatures can show short term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Energetic says...
4:47pm Fri 12 Feb 10

"You have to look at the trend over the past decades, and this is definitely upwards"

We have fairly reliable terrestrial data from about 1850 but this has latterly been "adjusted" by our politico-scientists to suit the taxation ambitions of their paymasters. When the raw data are de-massaged, they only show the expected slight recovery from the Little Ice Age when Londoners used to skate on the Thames.

Please forgive me for not detailing the malign adjustments which are fully reported in many blogs with genuine peer-reviewed references, not including those of the CRU club.

I cannot countenance your presumption that all warming is "climate" but any cooling is "weather". Viva La Nina!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

topspin says...
5:11pm Fri 12 Feb 10

If you have to resort to such far-fetched, internet-inspired conspiracy theories that claim that all the data has been altered to support global warming, then I don't think we can can have a reasoned debate about climate change.
If you want to believe this, then fair enough, but I just hope that anyone (if there is anyone other than us two) reading your comments is highly sceptical of them and questions any claims you make.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Energetic says...
5:58pm Sat 13 Feb 10

Topspin, why not wake up and read about the ongoing public enquiry into the conspiracy e-mails of UEA/CRU, GISS, Michael Mann and others. This is about the base data which is used to calibrate the Met Office computer which forecasts runaway global warming.

What happens every time this come on to TV news, particularly C4? Or do you watch only BBC, whose Pension Fund is mostly invested in renewables, and keep your head down?

I am sad that you have joined the other Greens in descending to lame personal abuse rather than continuing to research this fascinating and important subject. There is no point in continuing this debate now that your mind is closed.
Nice knowing you!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

click2find

Most popular


About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree