Yuku free message boards

No Manruss, it has not been thoroughly debunked. Just because it has its critics doesn't mean it has been debunked, let alone thoroughly. And as more scientists are coming out to argue against GW's popular science, more real science will be brought to bear on it.

Let me start with Svensmarks and Cosmic rays. For those not in the know, it is suggested that cosmic rays assist cloud formation. During high solar activity cosmic rays are less effective in this regard, leading to decreased low cloud cover, leading to more than usual warming. Thats the simple explanation. I could go more detailed if you want, but better to read one of the more recent extracts for an accurate picture of whats being said. Svensmarks and his team at the Danish National Space Center have been working on cosmic ray theories for a few years.

Most of the criticism Ive read are targeted at Svensmarks 2004 theoretical work on this and largely dismissed the theory as either wrong or of negligible effect. Most commentators Ive read are not current on this. It has been largely left to the 2004 critique whereas their 2006 published experimental data has been either ignored or the critics are unaware.

I did find one critic, but while he turns up his nose at the findings, he also uses statements like in fact could have in his arguments to disprove Svensmarks.

As it stands, the author (Gavin) makes in part a reasonable case for further study on the issue, but his article could by no means be considered a total debunking of it. Somewhat independently, heres a link to another scientist who has produced a report demonstrating evidence for Svensmarks theory.

The whole thrust of this is not that this is conclusively proven, but that it has certainly not been conclusively disproved as you might prefer us all to think.

Quote:

---

besides, if an increase in solar radiation were responsible for the warming, one would expect to find it not only on Earth and Mars, but on every planet in the solar system

---

Not that they can be sure about every other planet (or moon) in the solar system, but there is evidence for global warming on Mars, Pluto, Titan, Saturn.

CO2 Lag.

The readings regarding CO2 lag suggest a couple of things. Firstly I was amused to read that your critics said that while they agreed that the lag was generally around 800 years, if you overlay the full 400/800 kyr of ice core record, you can't even see the lag because its so small. So what!? Just because its hard to see detail over the full span of time doesnt mean that 800 years of lag is of no consequence.

Reading further, and into the links, its suggested that the lag starts the CO2 production, but then the CO2 production feeds back to keep the warming happening. The correlation is 800 years where warming kick-starts the CO2 production and then 4200 years where CO2 causes the warming. But if that were true, the graph would predominantly show CO2 in the lead by a factor of 42/8, which it simply doesnt. Not even close.

The arguments include statements such as if we assume that the average of current climate models is right, and From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. No definites here, but words like this lead to conclusions that CO2 is definitely the cause of GW. Popular science compiles a lot of assumptions and probables and comes out saying that CO2 is definitely the cause.

John T. Houghton, was co-chair of the IPCC Scientific Assessment working group. He acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature, but then he writes "I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide." So if it isnt proof, then why were we shown it as proof?

Whatever the evidence, we can go back and forth throwing links and quotes at the wall, but the evidence is, that the evidence is very much inconclusive. You can be unscientificly closed minded if you like, that's your choice.

Quote:

---

Is it? Then three questions:

1. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

2. Is there more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there was 200 years ago?

3. If there is, where did it come from? If not, are you on Earth?

---

1. Yes, apparently it is. Albeit a minor GHG, some 0.03% or some such.

2. I don't recall the answer to your second question right at this moment (hey, I'm at least honest about it), but proponents of the "other" theory suggest that elevations in CO2 do not so much cause GW, but are historically more the result of warming. i.e. CO2 follows warming, not the other way around.

3. Where did it come from? Now that's a smart question. A good one to ask. Sure, man outputs CO2, but so does vegetation as it rots, so does volcanic activity, so do the ocean when they warm. Man-made production of CO2 is rather minor compared to the amount the earth produces, and that's a minor addition to a very minor percentage of atmospheric CO2. Multiply two minors and you get a miniscule.

The greatest GHG is apparently water vapour. It has the greatest effect on reflecting and trapping heat. Checkout "global dimming" to see just how significant water vapour can be.

Keep asking such questions Birthmark. It's when you stop asking questions that you find yourself being unscientific.