Here's my response and it's short. I haven't time to provide backup (as you haven't for your assertions).
>1. long term out of sync sinks (limestone) are not responsive >to to excess CO2 but they are responsive to excess heat. Most >effective sink is southern Oceans.
It's well known that the Oceans are a CO2 sink, which is becoming overfilled to the point of overflowing. It's well known that the buffering capacity of the oceans is rapidly receding (pH is rising). There are many dead zones completely depleted of O2 which are rapidly increasing in size and number.
>2. Relatively low concentration of CO2.
And?
>3. High CO2 follows warming periods, does not lead them.
This has been addressed and debunked. Take the time to find it yourself.
>4. Feedback system would have run away long ago. (Dinosaur >era was lousy with CO2)
How so?
>5. proven systems of climatic variation have land mass and >ocean current long term to very long term cycles.
And this man-made spike is a very short term one. It's not a cycle but a step change with no recovery.
>6. sun radiation waxing and waning is very hard to quantify >but may be very significant. Moreover it appears to match >climatic cycles.
Solar radiation variations are not linked to the current warming. NASA has addressed this one.
>7. unknown effect of man's interaction with vegetation and >animals, oil slicks on oceans, and jet contrails not modeled >properly.
It's been documented that there is a dimming/cooling effect of jet contrails and particulates. Thank God it's there to reduce the extreme warming effect of CO2 that would otherwise come to fruition. The dimming effect is not strong enough to fully counterbalance it tho. Some nutcases are proposing spraying the atmosphere with SO2 if GW gets to a critical state (already there).
>8. methane far more important and far more potent greenhouse >gas, animal origin most important, being ignored.
Not true, the models are incorperating CH4 in their assesments. Concern is being raised about the prospect of CH4 leaching from the arctic soils when the perma frost dissappears.
>9. CFC's are falling into disfavour suddenly as being >important but nobody tells us why.
There is an international ban on CFC usage. I don't see why one would want to reopen the debate on CFC usage.
>10. relative humidity of upper atmosphere not included in >conventional computer models.
Not true at all.
>11. previous very hot and dry cycles of long ago, unexplained >by 'exogenous' carbon excesses. i.e. there were none >seemingly, yet climate changed.
There are many variables affecting climate. The important one now is CO2.
>12. arm waving is not science.
Arm waving is a result of science.
>13. correlation is not proof of cause and effect.
The models aren't based purely on correlation but make use of empirical relationships.
>14. more plausible explanation of excess CO2 is that ocean >currents cause local warming of the southern seas, causing >less CO2 to be absorbed.
Not true.
>15. We are all going to die anyway so why worry about whether >it's fire or ice. As far as the human race goes, when I am >gone I care not a wit what happens to the rest of them. >Serves them right for not liking me more.
Are you rapture-ready? Cynic you are and nobody should like you LOL.
>16. Canuck Dave and Rocket Red say I am right. So there.. splltttt!
If they're your role models, then you're in deep trouble. |
