You uncle buck skin lol
The human contribution is overshadowed by these far larger sources of carbon dioxide. Combining the factors of water vapor and nature's production of carbon dioxide, we see that
99.8% of any greenhouse effect hasnothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity.
So how much effect could regulating the tiny remainder have upon world climate, even if carbon dioxide determined climate?
During the Ordovician Period, the carbon dioxide level
was 12 times what it is today, and the earth was in an Ice Age.
Since carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas, computer models predicting environmental catastrophe depend on the small amount of warming from carbon dioxide being amplified by increased evaporation of water.
But in the many documented periods of higher carbon dioxide, even during much warmer climate periods, that never happened. During the time of the dinosaurs, the carbon dioxide levels were 300-500% greater than today. Five hundred million years ago, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 15-20 times what it is today.
Yet the catastrophic water-vapor amplification of carbon dioxide warming never occurred.
Today we're told
catastrophic warming will result if carbon dioxide doubles. But during the
Ordovician Period, the carbon dioxide level was 12 times what it is today, and the earth was in an Ice Age. That's exactly opposite to the "runaway" warming that computer models predict should occur.
Clearly the models are wrong; they depend upon an assumption of amplification that is contrary to the climate record of millions of years. There is no reason to trust the computer predictions - or base public policies on them.
Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the
Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, has stated,
"You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."
There are other examples where the computer models fail to agree with reality.
According to the greenhouse hypothesis, the warming should occur equally during day and night. But most of the warming that has been observed has occurred at night, thus falsifying the models.
All of the models agree - for sound theoretical reasons - that warming from a greenhouse effect must be 2-3 times greater in the lower atmosphere than at the earth's surface. This is not happening. Both satellites and weather balloons show slightly greater warming at the surface. These atmospheric temperature measurements furnish direct, unequivocal evidence that whatever warming has occurred is not from the greenhouse effect.
Everyone knows the sun heats the earth, but the public is generally unaware that
the sun's heat is not uniform. Solar radiation is affected by disturbances on the surface of the sun, called "sunspots," which correspond to the sun's 11-year magnetic cycle. There are also several solar cycles of longer duration.
Superimposed, these cycles might augment or cancel each other. There are also periods when sunspots "crash," or almost disappear, which can lead to dramatic cooling of the earth for several decades. This is what happened 400 years ago during the
Maunder Minimum, which was the coldest part of the
Little Ice Age.
During one 30-year period during the Maunder Minimum only about 50 sunspots were observed, compared to a typical 40-50
thousand.
Atmospheric temperature measurements furnish direct, unequivocal evidence
that whatever warming has occurred is not from the greenhouse effect.
Sunspots have now virtually vanished. You can check out pictures of the sun day after day after day for
the last few years here.
Very few show more than one sunspot and many show none. We are currently at a solar minimum, awaiting the start of the next solar cycle. If sunspot activity does not pick up soon, we could be in for some seriously cold climate. The jury is still out on sunspot numbers.
In any case, some climate scientists believe the length of past solar cycles points to a cool phase in this century.
Professor
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the
Pulkovo Observatory in Russia, believes a slow decline in temperatures will begin as early as 2012-15 and will lead to a deep freeze in 2050-60 that will last about 50 years.
Climatologist
Tim Patterson thinks that by 2020 the sun will be starting its weakest 11-year sunspot cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on earth.
He says,
"If we're to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."
The global warming advocates make all sorts of false claims about dire consequences of global warming.
They claim it will result in the spread of malaria, food shortages, more human deaths, more violent weather, and a loss of biological diversity through the extinction of species. All untrue.
The largest number of species - the greatest biological diversity - is in the tropics. As you move away from the equator, you find fewer and fewer species, until you reach the earth's poles, where there is zero diversity because nothing can live there.
Agricultural productivity is also reduced by cold climate, not a warmer one. That's why Siberia and Alaska are not noted for agricultural abundance. A warmer climate would mean longer growing seasons and would make agriculture possible in areas where it isn't today.
And there are at least 300 studies showing plants and forests grow faster and more luxuriantly under conditions of increased carbon dioxide.
The argument that a warmer climate will bring more violent weather
can only be made by people who have no knowledge.