Frogwatch wrote:
On Jan 15, 4:52 pm, hk wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
The corellation between climate and sunspot count is very very good.
Evidence for Anthropic Global Warming happens to be very poor. Even
the measurements of pre-industrial age CO2 from ice cores is very
suspect as they didnt keep the cores pressurized and the CO2
pressurized in the ice caused micro-fractures and leaked out. The
near surface measuremrnts of temp are grossly tainted with urban
effects because many of the temp measuring sites are so badly
situated. The tree ring data used by people to try to reconstruct
past temps is so bad that it simply is not useful.
Do this experiment for yourself, go out to a grove of planted trees
where they were all planted at the same time. Look at the varying
diameters. Do you really think you can determine a .1 degree
difference by measuring rings from only 3 -5 of the trees?
With the record low temps, sunspot count happens to be at the lowest
level since 1900. Arctic ice coverage is now as large as in 1979 and
polar bears are not drowning.
Al Gore knowingly stated falsly that ice on kilamanjaro was receding
due to global warmign when he knew that it is simply due to
deforestation. Yes, Al Gore knowingly lied.
So, we can all expect cooler temps instead of warmer ones. Global
warmign was nothing more than a scam to get centralized economic
planning by academics who are barely able to tie their own shoes.
And what credentials do you have to make these pronouncements?

MS PHysics, MSEE, ran atmospheric radiance codes for AFGL and Defense
Nuclear Agency, an entire career of spectroscopy..other than that, no
more than you.


So, you know no more about global warming than I do. Unless you are
using spectroscopes on tree stumps.