Yep. Small but effective.
Invalid Link Removed
Start reading.
I read this from the comments....
John M. Quinn
As a physicist/geophysicist who has worked for the U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office and the U. S. Geological Survey for more than 30 years, and who has spent the last 8 years examining the Global Warming phenomenon (the first two of which were at the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), I have come to two conclusions.
First Global Warming is real. Second, CO2 regardless of its origin (i.e., either natural or anthropogenic) does not drive Global Warming.
The CO2 Enhanced Greenhouse Effect Theory is totally irrelevant to the Global Warming phenomenon. Why? One finds on the secular time scale that both of the X- and Y- component temporal, annual-means profiles of the Earths Orientation mimic exactly the Global Temperature Anomaly (GTA) annual means profile On the decade time scale one finds that the GTA mimics the Geomagnetic Dipole variations and the variations in the Earths Anomalous Rotation Rate [i.e., Excess Length of Day (ELOD) Annual Means]. The Dipole Field, the GTA and the ELOD all have a 60 year period on the decade time scale. There are many other such correlations on both time scales.
Thus, if CO2 were driving the GTA, and given the geophysical parameters that change over time in sync with the GTA, CO2 enhancements would reasonably have to drive the Earths dynamo which creates the Dipole Field and somehow also affects the Earths orientation and its rotation rate. But CO2 cannot do this because it has no pondermotive force associated with it. Furthermore, CO2 on the decade time scale lags the GTA by about 9 years according to Mauna Loa, HI Observatory data collected since 1955, which is a period of time that is at the height of anthropogenic activity. Furthermore, on the millennium time scale the time lag averages about 800 years (Monin et. al., 2001). Therefore, if CO2 were the driver of Global Warming through the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, then it would have to violate the Principle of Cause and Effect.
I have a short paperback book that explains this in more detail. It should be available in the book stores (e.g., Barnes and Nobel, Amazon.com, etc.) in late December 2009, or January 2010. Its title is:
GLOBAL WARMING: Geophysical Counterpoints to the Enhanced Greenhouse Theory
Publisher: Dorrance Publishing Co., Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA
ISBN: 978-1-4349-0581-9
While I do not know what precisely (though I know a little) causes Global Warming, I do know what does not cause it. CO2 and other greenhouse gases, anthropogenic or otherwise, are merely passive players that, like the GTA, are driven by other more dynamic forces associated with Earths core, the Sun, and even the Cosmos (referring to the Danish theory of cloud formation), all of which act, react, and interact in a very complex manner.
Note that the IPCC concentrates on Solar Irradiance, but ignores other solar energies such as that associated with Solar Magnetic Flux that has more than doubled since 1900. Gravity is another player in the Global Warming picture. Also note that Mars has global warming comparable to Earths without CO2 (Fenton, et. al., Nature, 2008). There are no Martians to either generate or enhance CO2 on Mars.
John M. Quinn
Lakewood, CO
USA
) and find out what happened to us and will come to the inevitable conclusion that we were a bunch of ****ing morons.
