mpaul
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by mpaul on Apr 18, 2009 14:37:23 GMT
Evidence A: ** The PDO and AMO are both down (sea surface temps, but perhaps reflective of total oceanic temps, also reportedly down) ** N. Hem sea ice very healthy ** S. Hem sea ice very healthy ** solar cycle 23 minimum extended (sunspots and flareups very low over an extended period of time, with other ramifications) ** global satellite temp measurements somewhat down last 8 years, and with the above, many (non-media, non-invested in AGW) foresee decline in temps coming
Evidence B: Enter the world economic downtown, and then Obama
Now, we are NOT going to see global CO2 levels go down for possibly decades, no matter what the US and world governing bodies do.
But due to media non-reporting, in coming years, which (A or B) do you think will get the credit if temps accelerate downward?
My guess: The media mythology machine will go with B, despite all actual credit being otherwise, and the actual cause being solar downturn.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Apr 18, 2009 14:53:26 GMT
I saw a graph yesterday indicating that China now puts out more CO2 (possibly, just power generation CO2) than the U.S. More importantly, China is on a greatly accelerating trend.
Even if one believes in the CO2 argument, it is a political point whether Western countries should try to reduce by 5 or 10%, if developing nations' emissions will overwhelm that effort.
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Apr 20, 2009 15:30:14 GMT
But due to media non-reporting, in coming years, which (A or B) do you think will get the credit if temps accelerate downward? I have no doubt B will get the credit if anything does; Obama has an extremely powerful political machine at his disposal.
|
|