On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster rate at
any time in the last 600,000 years.
Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png
from:
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is experiencing a rate of CO2
rise that is faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
Ahem...
http://www.junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature rise has been
closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.
Yep. Track volcanoes.
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale2.html
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale1.html
Ok, I'll be the first to mention that Steven Milloy may have taken
money from Exxon (indirectly), but it has never been proven. Decide
for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy
Since you're so sure that AGW is a proven thing, maybe you can collect
the $500,000 from Milloy? Send a few dollars my way if you succeed:
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to account for
the temperature rise over the last 200 years.
Maybe. The problem is that none of the satellites are able to measure
planetary albedo with sufficient accuracy to make a definitive
determination. We can do almost nothing in the way of measuring
albedo from the ground. The plan is for the satellite to measure how
much energy is reflected by the planet (which includes atmospheric,
ocean, ice, land, etc) and also solar output. The energy difference
is presumed to be what the planet absorbs. Note that all the energy
is not necessarily at IR (heating). Apparently it's sufficiently
important that NASA burned $424 million on the failed Glory launch,
and other global warming related birds. The current assumption that
solar variations do not account for the alleged rise in average
temperatures is based on computer models with some rather serious
potential errors.
There's also a rather odd problem of just what the satellites are
actually measuring. Temperature varies with altitude. Satellite IR
imagers measure through all the various layers of the atmosphere. If
there are clouds covering a land mass, the IR imager gets the
temperature of the clouds, not the ground. So, to prevent this
obvious anomaly, the computers are set to only read numbers where
there are no clouds. However, that discounts the effects of aerosols
and particulates (i.e. dust) in the upper atmosphere, which does a
marvelous job of reflecting sunlight into the IR imager. Volcanoes
make it really difficult to get accurate readings. Plenty of other
complications requiring the usual tweaks, adjustments, compensations,
normalization, and cherry picking. Oh well.
What Malloy has done with the "global thermometer" mentioned above is
to take as much of the METAR and NOAA temperature data as possible and
average all of it. The theory is that if you're faced with a large
number of potentially erroneous data points, and don't have the means
to reduce the errors, averaging all the bad data together will somehow
result in good data. That's because the errors will tend to be in
random directions and hopefully cancel. Since the IPCC uses the same
method, one can presume it to be valid. However, I have my doubts.
Anyway, I have not attempted to debunk anything that you've offered.
What I've done it attempt to undermine your apparently unshakable
certainty in AGW and the IPCC. If I've set you on the path of
critical thinking and academic skepticism, then I haven't wasted my
time.
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060
http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558