Like this thread. Global warming is provably man-made. If any loonies want to say otherwise, it's a waste of time arguing with them because by definition they ARE loonies.
Here's some "loonies" I'd like to see you argue with:
On nonstationarity and antipersistency in global temperature series
O. Karner
Tartu Observatory, To˜ravere, Estonia
Received 19 December 2001; revised 1 April 2002; accepted 10 April 2002; published XX Month 2002.
[1] Statistical analysis is carried out for satellite-based global daily tropospheric and stratospheric temperature anomaly and solar irradiance data sets. Behavior of the series appears to be nonstationary with stationary daily increments. Estimating long-range dependence between the increments reveals a remarkable difference between the two temperature series. Global average tropospheric temperature anomaly behaves similarly to the solar irradiance anomaly. Their daily increments show antipersistency for scales longer than 2 months. The property points at a cumulative negative feedback in the Earth climate system governing the tropospheric variability during the last 22 years.
The result emphasizes a dominating role of the solar irradiance variability in variations of the tropospheric temperature and gives no support to the theory of anthropogenic climate change.http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdfSurprise, this study gets no mention in the IPCC report.
Or
In climate modeling, scientists have assumed that the relative humidity of the atmosphere will stay the same regardless of how the climate changes. In other words, they assume that even though air will be able to hold more moisture as the temperature goes up, proportionally more water vapor will be evaporated from the ocean surface and carried through the atmosphere so that the percentage of water in the air remains constant. Climate models that assume that future relative humidity will remain constant predict greater increases in the Earth’s temperature in response to increased carbon dioxide than models that allow relative humidity to change. The constant-relative-humidity assumption places extra water in the equation, which increases the heating.
Minschwaner and Dessler’s model describes how the humidity of the upper troposphere changes as the surface warms.
the model does predict that there will be a net increase in the water content of the upper troposphere as the Earth’s surface temperature rises, but not so much that the relative humidity remains constant. That means that water vapor will cause the Earth to warm, because the feedback is positive,
but it won’t warm as much as it would if constant relative humidity were maintained—a result that contradicts the assumptions put into big global climate models. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Wat...ter_vapor3.htmlOn Adaption:
Although the SPM has some useful and apt things to say about the need for adaptation, it is flawed by the fact that it:
• Overstates negative impacts and understates positive impacts of climate change.
• Overstates the level of confidence that should be attached to the impacts on both human systems as well as “natural” systems (because the latter are also affected by human actions).
• Fails to examine the impacts of climate change in the wider context of other stresses affecting humanity and the rest of nature, which would allow us to gauge the importance of climate change relative to other stresses.
• Fails to examine the relationship between climate change and sustainable economic development more fully, which could mislead policymakers into opting for policies that would divert scarce resources from dealing with today’s urgent problems in favor of policies to pursue longer term, and more uncertain, problems.
http://www.junkscience.com/apr07/Comments_on_WGII_SPM.pdfArthur
