The 8008 1762
That's buttuming that the analysts can discriminate between anthropogenic and natural contribution.
They don't appear to be able to do so with data from the *present*.
The idea with the methane is to eat more meat; before it farts.
Measured how? At weather monitoring stations that used to be remote and are now encircled by urban encroachment?
The 8008 1764
snip-- In the reference above Prof. Jaworowski does not mention 13C depletion in the ice core data. Among...
How about over the past 2200 years or so? The Romans used to grow grapes successfully in England. Then it became too cold.
It's very convenient, if you're making a point, to compare figures against previous extremes. That politically correct; but scientifically incompetent-dishonest and morally misleading.
The 8008 1763
What about this? Reports of "adjusting" the data to fit the expected result. c.f. The presence of energy release into the environment has an immediate, perceptable impact on...
Really? What've been the water vapour concentrations over that period of time? Water vapour is a much "stronger" greenhouse gas than CO2.
So the increase in solar radiation over the recent times (30 years) has nothing to do with climate change?
And to do "something"; even if that something has no benefit in terms of the defined outcome?
Fiddling at the edge of 380ppm of CO2 when you maybe should be looking at 10,000ppm of H2O that's effectively 30,000ppm in terms of greenhouse contribution compared to CO2?? -- "Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia ASCII ribbon campaign I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail Copy me into your ~-.signature and postings to help me spread!