Letter to Editor: Carbon dioxide has minimal effect on global w...

Editor: The natural cycle of global warming and cooling is caused by solar activity.

[Pooch]

Could you please cite your sources? There are just a few I found that suggest otherwise:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pr...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...

http://books.google.com/books...

[Earthling]

Pooch, cite as many sources as you like, there is no proof as yet that Co2 is the main climate driver.

[pesticide illness]

Earthling, just wait until the sun warms up. Then the CO2 will show what it can do. We are warming up when we should have been cooling off. We are in a cold spell of sunspots. Watch spaceweather.com and see what the sun is up to. Did you know that even solar flares travel more slowly through space during a solar minimum.

[Earthling]

So we have to wait for the Sun to, "warm up" before finding out that Co2 is not the main climate driver?
Basically, you're admitting that the Sun controls Earth's climate and that we're still exiting the LIA, at which time there's bound to be warming.

[ginin]

Earthling, every time you post you show more and more ignorance. The sun's follows a cycle of about 11 years, and we have just experienced a long solar minimum. This has been the main reason (add strong La Nina and PDO reversal) why climate variability has partially and temporarily cancelled the co2 effect. Every decent climate scientist knows this.

Solar activity is bound to peak on 2012-2013 and ADDED with the steady co2 influence will result in a clear and unprecedent warm temperatures.

Your last sentence is just pure nonsense.
Oh and still waiting for a piece of evidence...

[Earthling]

Alarmists claim that Co2 is the main climate driver, therefore the Sun, La Niña and PDO can have no affect on climate.
Why do we have to wait for a solar maximum, La Niña and PDO reversal to prove that Co2 is the main culprit?

Since 1870, when the LIA ended, Earth has warmed just over 1ºF, which is only to be expected.

The panic can end now, this scam has gone too far already.

[C Hamill]

Earthling wrote:

Alarmists claim that Co2 is the main climate driver, therefore the Sun, La Niña and PDO can have no affect on climate.
Why do we have to wait for a solar maximum, La Niña and PDO reversal to prove that Co2 is the main culprit?
Since 1870, when the LIA ended, Earth has warmed just over 1ºF, which is only to be expected.
The panic can end now, this scam has gone too far already.

You are going to get no place with the people who beleive this hoax,People who say "Every" or "all" scientist agree are also engaged in delusion...the fact is CO2 is used by plants to grow and plants release oxygen...it's called the life cycle. we were in a cooling period in the early seventies and it was concluded we would all freeze to death by the "experts"...this planet has been here much longer than records have been kept,how do we know were not warm enough right now?We may be on the low end of the historical average...pollution? Air quality is a concern worth working on,but we just don't have the ability to "change" the worlds climate up or down. Wake up people!

[Earthling]

C Hamill wrote:

You are going to get no place with the people who beleive this hoax

I have to agree, but there's no harm trying.

C Hamill wrote:

People who say "Every" or "all" scientist agree are also engaged in delusion...the fact is CO2 is used by plants to grow and plants release oxygen...it's called the life cycle. we were in a cooling period in the early seventies and it was concluded we would all freeze to death by the "experts"...this planet has been here much longer than records have been kept,how do we know were not warm enough right now?We may be on the low end of the historical average...pollution? Air quality is a concern worth working on,but we just don't have the ability to "change" the worlds climate up or down. Wake up people!

Well said.

[rhondar]

It isn't a popular notion that solar activity is the cause for temp variations here on earth. But let's look at Mars, yes the ice caps are receding there as well. We don't hear about that too much though. Who could make a buck on it? Maybe reynolds aluminum will make a killing if all the "sky is falling" folks insist we all wear aluminum hats! LMAO

[C Hamill]

rhondar wrote:

It isn't a popular notion that solar activity is the cause for temp variations here on earth. But let's look at Mars, yes the ice caps are receding there as well. We don't hear about that too much though. Who could make a buck on it? Maybe reynolds aluminum will make a killing if all the "sky is falling" folks insist we all wear aluminum hats! LMAO

I'm buying stock right away!;P

[ginin]

Earthling wrote:

Alarmists claim that Co2 is the main climate driver, therefore the Sun, La Niña and PDO can have no affect on climate.

How much IQ do you have? Have you understood what I wrote? You are just embarassing yourself on this one.

Earthling wrote:

Why do we have to wait for a solar maximum, La Niña and PDO reversal to prove that Co2 is the main culprit?

There is no need for that. Reread my post, slowly. Anyway I don't think deniers will accept the truth even after 2020 when the 2010-2020 decade surpasses 2000-2010 in temperature rise.

Still waiting for evidence from the deniers.

[C Hamill]

ginin wrote:

<quoted text>
How much IQ do you have? Have you understood what I wrote? You are just embarassing yourself on this one.
<quoted text>
There is no need for that. Reread my post, slowly. Anyway I don't think deniers will accept the truth even after 2020 when the 2010-2020 decade surpasses 2000-2010 in temperature rise.
Still waiting for evidence from the deniers.

We are still waiting for the sky to fall...

[ginin]

C Hamill wrote:

<quoted text>
We are still waiting for the sky to fall...

I don't understand what you mean. Are you being literal or just failed at being sarcastic? In both cases you look very uninformed.

[C Hamill]

ginin wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't understand what you mean. Are you being literal or just failed at being sarcastic? In both cases you look very uninformed.

Pleass stop with your BS about being uninformed...MY GOD,it is YOU who are being hoodwinked by a political hoax like one we have never seen before...I have been looking at this particular issue for 20 years...there is no consensus even among scientists so quit acting like we are all idiots if we don't drink the kool-aid,we are but just men,we CAN'T control the climate! The air must be pretty thin from where you look down on all of the deniers...THAT is sarcastic in case you missed it.

[ginin]

C Hamill wrote:

Pleass stop with your BS about being uninformed...

Then "pleass" stop making ridiculous claims such as "we were in a cooling period in the early seventies and it was concluded we would all freeze to death by the experts". You have no proof of that. Name names, if you can.

C Hamill wrote:

MY GOD,it is YOU who are being hoodwinked by a political hoax like one we have never seen before...[/QOUTE]

I read scientific magazines. In case you haven't noticed, I am not from the US and am not influenced by your politics.

[QUOTE who="C Hamill"]
I have been looking at this particular issue for 20 years...

What are your sources? Have you got access to Science, Nature, AGU, or do you just stick to what the media spits out?

C Hamill wrote:

there is no consensus even among scientists so quit acting like we are all idiots if we don't drink the kool-aid,

Have you read AAAS, NAS? Or do you prefer blogs and Inhofe? I don't think you are an idiot, just ignorant about the subject. Your next sentence clearly shows that.

C Hamill wrote:

we are but just men,we CAN'T control the climate!

Why not? What do you call increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels by 50% during industrial era? The earth may be big, but I think you have no idea of how big is the damage mankind has been doing to it.

C Hamill wrote:

The air must be pretty thin from where you look down on all of the deniers...THAT is sarcastic in case you missed it.

The air is just fine here. I am not looking down on anyone, but some people do put themselves down with some mindless posts with claims that are very easily falsified. Search a bit before you post.

[Earthling]

ginin wrote:

I don't think deniers will accept the truth even after 2020 when the 2010-2020 decade surpasses 2000-2010 in temperature rise.

So you're absolutely sure the next decade will outperform this one?
How much have you placed in bets on that?
Don't forget, that even if the next decade is warmer, earth is still emerging from and ice age.

ginin wrote:

Still waiting for evidence from the deniers.

I'll say it once more for your benefit, the vast majority of posters here are sceptics, not deniers.
We sceptics have nothing to prove and we don't have to provide evidence to disprove it either, because we didn't start this charade that has thus far not been proven.

NB: Putting people down is not the way forward.

[rhondar]

Lest we all forget, archeologits found the wooly mamoths found in the arctic region with bellys full of green grass. Seems like it prolly will get a lot warmer before the next ice age, I say we enjoy it while it lasts. Althogh the thought of Washington state weather here in northern cali. sounds somewhat appealing-you see humans have always been able to adapt. The real problem is that the narcissitic self absorbed liberal believes the world not only depends on their super human strength to save it but requires your money to do so! LMAO

[C Hamill]

ginin wrote:

<quoted text>
Then "pleass" stop making ridiculous claims such as "we were in a cooling period in the early seventies and it was concluded we would all freeze to death by the experts". You have no proof of that. Name names, if you can.
<quoted text>
What are your sources? Have you got access to Science, Nature, AGU, or do you just stick to what the media spits out?
<quoted text>
Have you read AAAS, NAS? Or do you prefer blogs and Inhofe? I don't think you are an idiot, just ignorant about the subject. Your next sentence clearly shows that.
<quoted text>
Why not? What do you call increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels by 50% during industrial era? The earth may be big, but I think you have no idea of how big is the damage mankind has been doing to it.
<quoted text>
The air is just fine here. I am not looking down on anyone, but some people do put themselves down with some mindless posts with claims that are very easily falsified. Search a bit before you post.

If you wish to pick apart the info I provided,knock yourself out...I was THERE in the seventies,I remember exactly what was being postured as accurate scientific "fact"...did I write it all down? NO..If I can't recall a sources name or a date published while blogging ,does it make the info any less valid? NO. Ignorance and fear go hand in hand sometimes,what I have seen from pushers of this hoax is to go the fear route "just in case"...sorry but there is still no conclusive evidence to support the notion that we have "as man kind" had any direct influence on climate change,the math we do have just doesn't support the theory...you can argue all day about this,but what we were told 30 years ago turned out to be way off the mark,just like in ten years what we are being told will be "way off the mark"...and you will still be drinking the kool-aid...if by some outside chance it's me who turns out to be wrong,I will happily appologize.

[Brian_G]

CO2 is good for Earth, it feeds the planet. All plant life, therefore all life, depends on it. CO2 tastes great in sparkling beverages and it makes bread fluffy. Don't hate carbon.

[rhondar]

Brian G. LOVE that pic! LOVE IT!