skspurling
Silver Member
...
The Nature paper certainly doesn't contain anything damning of AGW greenhouse gas hypothesies. Kirkby in the lecture he gave (I posted the link last night) makes zero claims about dismissing CO2 as a major factor in AGW and in fact shows a graph demonstrating what a big impact CO2 has on warming. He doesn't address either the continued warming trend over the past 25 years in a period of increasing cosmic radiation which should, by the cosmic ray theory, result in cooling. ...
.
Okay, this is the question I have about this CO2 issue that no one has been able to answer. What is the mechanism? All studies I have glossed talk about a relationship, but according to studies about the effect of CO2 on IR absorption and reflection, there should be a lot less of an effect. The graphs linking temperature to CO2 are ridiculous. You have two observations that may or may not be related other than they look similar. I was always told in all my science and engineering classes that you NEVER assume that two graphs that look similar are related in any way unless you can describe and reproduce the nature of the mechanism that connects the two. In reality, we could probably associate an increase in surface water and atmospheric water vapor with the increase in temperature, and connect that to human activity. Water is a strong acting green house gas, and we are pumping from underground sources faster than they are refilling. We are building and replacing surface water reservoirs.Why CO2? CO2 could be a product, not a cause, and you would never know the difference.
Then comes the political arm of the AGW crowd. There have been too many people who have been made examples of by the AGW establishment, that results that don't meet their muster have to be spun in such a way as to not offend those in the know. Why do the CERN researchers have to bend over backwards to talk about CO2, when the focus is on what effects cosmic rays have on atmospheric patterns? Because if that connection is made, or if CO2's effect is put in doubt, they risk serious career damage. This is not good. I'll tell you why it is CO2. It's CO2 because that can be regulated and is politically expedient. If it isn't, I would really like to know how a weak greenhouse gas suddenly became such a demon.