«

"ray" <> wrote in message
news:
>> If the problem is greenhouse gases, the fix is not to burn something
>> whose major combustion product is CO2 and then store the CO2.
>>
>> --
>
> I don't think that IS the problem. You may have noticed that the last
> couple of years have been cooler rather than warmer - has mainly to do
> with sunspot activity.

DAVID KAROLY: Yes, the climate system did cool from January 2007 to January
2008 quite dramatically. That cooling was associated with changes in the
ocean temperatures in the Pacific, a well known phenomenon, the El Nino to
La Nina switch. It isn't unprecedented.

EMILY BOURKE: But you're not attributing that in any way to sunspot
activity.

DAVID KAROLY: We know it is not due to sunspot activity. Sunspot variations
do not lead to the sorts of temperature variations seen from January 2007 to
2008. They don't lead to those large temperature variations, even on an
11-year sunspot cycle.

And so in terms of increasing greenhouse gases, we can also see that effect
because the most recent La Nina, the current La Nina, is warmer than earlier
La Nina episodes of the same strength. We're actually seeing a warming even
in these cool periods associated with La Nina.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2225759.htm

NB: David Karoly is Professor of Meteorology at the University of Melbourne.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:15:32 -0800, John Navas wrote:

> On 2 Jan 2009 01:42:40 GMT, ray <> wrote in
> <>:
>
>>> If the problem is greenhouse gases, the fix is not to burn something
>>> whose major combustion product is CO2 and then store the CO2.
>>
>>I don't think that IS the problem. You may have noticed that the last
>>couple of years have been cooler rather than warmer - has mainly to do
>>with sunspot activity.
>
> Can you cite any serious scientists in support of that?
>
> I'll save you the effort: no, because they don't agree.

Don't have to. All you have to do is look at the climatic record.

"ray" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:15:32 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>> On 2 Jan 2009 01:42:40 GMT, ray <> wrote in
>> <>:

[...]

>>> I don't think that IS the problem. You may have noticed that the
>>> last couple of years have been cooler rather than warmer - has
>>> mainly to do with sunspot activity.
>>
>> Can you cite any serious scientists in support of that?
>>
>> I'll save you the effort: no, because they don't agree.
>
> Don't have to. All you have to do is look at the climatic record.

DAVID KAROLY: Yes, the climate system did cool from January 2007 to January
2008 quite dramatically. That cooling was associated with changes in the
ocean temperatures in the Pacific, a well known phenomenon, the El Nino to
La Nina switch. It isn't unprecedented.

EMILY BOURKE: But you're not attributing that in any way to sunspot
activity.

DAVID KAROLY: We know it is not due to sunspot activity. Sunspot variations
do not lead to the sorts of temperature variations seen from January 2007 to
2008. They don't lead to those large temperature variations, even on an
11-year sunspot cycle.

And so in terms of increasing greenhouse gases, we can also see that effect
because the most recent La Nina, the current La Nina, is warmer than earlier
La Nina episodes of the same strength. We're actually seeing a warming even
in these cool periods associated with La Nina.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2225759.htm

NB: David Karoly is Professor of Meteorology at the University of Melbourne.

"ray" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:15:32 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>
>> On 2 Jan 2009 01:42:40 GMT, ray <> wrote in
>> <>:
>>
>>>> If the problem is greenhouse gases, the fix is not to burn something
>>>> whose major combustion product is CO2 and then store the CO2.
>>>
>>>I don't think that IS the problem. You may have noticed that the last
>>>couple of years have been cooler rather than warmer - has mainly to do
>>>with sunspot activity.
>>
>> Can you cite any serious scientists in support of that?
>>
>> I'll save you the effort: no, because they don't agree.
>
> Don't have to. All you have to do is look at the climatic record.

Which record published by whom? As for me, I believe that globally the
earths climate is multi faceted (multi layered if you will) and cyclical to
boot. Various parts of the earths climates ( northern and southern
hemisphere, ocean vs. ocean, etc.) all cycle at the same and various times.
I do not believe we people are responsible for "global warming", crappy air
quality? yes but not global warming. And before you jump up and down about
cow farts, fish farts, etc. think about the pollution that China and India
have and continue to create. Watch Al Gore and crowd running around like
Chicken Little all the while good ole Gore is looking for *easy* ways to
earn a living through carbon credit.....give me a break.

DRS wrote:
> "ray" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:15:32 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>>> On 2 Jan 2009 01:42:40 GMT, ray <> wrote in
>>> <>:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> I don't think that IS the problem. You may have noticed that the
>>>> last couple of years have been cooler rather than warmer - has
>>>> mainly to do with sunspot activity.
>>>
>>> Can you cite any serious scientists in support of that?
>>>
>>> I'll save you the effort: no, because they don't agree.
>>
>> Don't have to. All you have to do is look at the climatic record.
>
> DAVID KAROLY: Yes, the climate system did cool from January 2007 to
> January 2008 quite dramatically. That cooling was associated with
> changes in the ocean temperatures in the Pacific, a well known
> phenomenon, the El Nino to La Nina switch. It isn't unprecedented.
>
> EMILY BOURKE: But you're not attributing that in any way to sunspot
> activity.
>
> DAVID KAROLY: We know it is not due to sunspot activity. Sunspot
> variations do not lead to the sorts of temperature variations seen
> from January 2007 to 2008. They don't lead to those large
> temperature
> variations, even on an 11-year sunspot cycle.
>
> And so in terms of increasing greenhouse gases, we can also see that
> effect because the most recent La Nina, the current La Nina, is
> warmer than earlier La Nina episodes of the same strength. We're
> actually seeing a warming even in these cool periods associated with
> La Nina.
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2225759.htm
>
> NB: David Karoly is Professor of Meteorology at the University of
> Melbourne.

Perhaps they should have asked a professor of climatology instead.
Climatology and meteorology are not the same thing, although they are
related.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:21:09 -0800, John Navas wrote:

> On 2 Jan 2009 16:17:16 GMT, ray <> wrote in
> <>:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:15:32 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> On 2 Jan 2009 01:42:40 GMT, ray <> wrote in
>>> <>:
>>>
>>>>> If the problem is greenhouse gases, the fix is not to burn something
>>>>> whose major combustion product is CO2 and then store the CO2.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think that IS the problem. You may have noticed that the last
>>>>couple of years have been cooler rather than warmer - has mainly to do
>>>>with sunspot activity.
>>>
>>> Can you cite any serious scientists in support of that?
>>>
>>> I'll save you the effort: no, because they don't agree.
>>
>>Don't have to. All you have to do is look at the climatic record.
>
> All the many scientists are wrong and you are right? Uh huh.

You mean 'other scientists' - and yes, that has happened before. Oh, and
BTW there is hardly universal consensus on global warming. It now appears
that the human contribution is most likely not the major one.

"J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
news:
> DRS wrote:

[...]

>> DAVID KAROLY: Yes, the climate system did cool from January 2007 to
>> January 2008 quite dramatically. That cooling was associated with
>> changes in the ocean temperatures in the Pacific, a well known
>> phenomenon, the El Nino to La Nina switch. It isn't unprecedented.
>>
>> EMILY BOURKE: But you're not attributing that in any way to sunspot
>> activity.
>>
>> DAVID KAROLY: We know it is not due to sunspot activity. Sunspot
>> variations do not lead to the sorts of temperature variations seen
>> from January 2007 to 2008. They don't lead to those large
>> temperature
>> variations, even on an 11-year sunspot cycle.
>>
>> And so in terms of increasing greenhouse gases, we can also see that
>> effect because the most recent La Nina, the current La Nina, is
>> warmer than earlier La Nina episodes of the same strength. We're
>> actually seeing a warming even in these cool periods associated with
>> La Nina.
>>
>> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2225759.htm
>>
>> NB: David Karoly is Professor of Meteorology at the University of
>> Melbourne.
>
> Perhaps they should have asked a professor of climatology instead.
> Climatology and meteorology are not the same thing, although they are
> related.

Does that make him wrong? No.

"ray" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:21:09 -0800, John Navas wrote:

[...]

>> All the many scientists are wrong and you are right? Uh huh.
>
> You mean 'other scientists' - and yes, that has happened before. Oh,
> and BTW there is hardly universal consensus on global warming. It now
> appears that the human contribution is most likely not the major one.

No, it doesn't. You're confusing denialist ideology with science.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:22:01 +1100, DRS wrote:

> "ray" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:21:09 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> All the many scientists are wrong and you are right? Uh huh.
>>
>> You mean 'other scientists' - and yes, that has happened before. Oh,
>> and BTW there is hardly universal consensus on global warming. It now
>> appears that the human contribution is most likely not the major one.
>
> No, it doesn't. You're confusing denialist ideology with science.

You're confusing lack of proof with a popular theory.