This video was pointed out to me by my American friends and adversaries at various US blog sites a week or so ago. The premises are wrong. It is not as our evangelical logician, on you tube, suggests between AGW and no GW. (A & B).
No one who has any grasp of the science and the averaged global temperature increase, over the last hundred years or so, accepts premise B. That is why he comes to a very unsatisfactory better-be-sure-than-sorry conclusion.
The short hand reality is:
Total CC = %.ACC + %.NCC
where ACC percentage is 0 - 100 and NCC percentage is 0-100.
or Total CC = X.ACC + Y.NCC
where X+Y =1
There would virtually not be one advocate from either camp that would have a 0 or 100 for either factor. That in fact is what the "you tuber" assumed about natural factors (viz, %NCC=0) and their influence on climate change. Thus his conclusion is based on an inadequate set of premises.
Here's a bit that should give pause to those who think NCC may be insignificant. That doesn't mean that this is yet solid contra evidence. However other things, like the claim that the ice melts in the polar regions are exceeding the anthropogenic modelled predictions, may in fact mean that there is a natural factor at work that the modellers could be ignoring, because of their commitment to ACC as the major driver of CC without adequate research of the alternative possibilities:
Posted by ReasonMcLucus at 05:54 on 16 Nov 2007
"On October 14, 1997, Vice President Al Gore said, “For those who argue that global warming is already changing the world’s climate, this year’s El Nino weather front is more than enough evidence”, the audience was told by Gore. In the next day, a report by the San Francisco Chronicle said: “Gore links El Nino to Global Warming”. The Vice President stated at the summit that growing frequency of El Nino episodes could be connected to the gradual heating of the atmosphere caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Ten years later residents in Argentina and Brazil are wondering if this winter will ever end. Buenos Aires recorded this Thursday (November 15th) the lowest November temperature in 90 years. Temperature in the Downtown weather station reached 2.5C. Since records began more than a century ago, only two days had colder lows in November. It was in 1914 (1.6) and 1917 (2.4). And ninety years ago the urban heat island effect was much less pronounced than nowadays. In Brazil's southernmost province Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil temperatures fell to 2.3C. In Sao Joaquim Monday's (Nov., 12) the temperature was -1.2 C with frost.
The culprit is a developing la Nina , a cooling of the water in the eastern Pacific along the South American coast, that some climatologists believe could indicate a return to the la Nina dominated situation that dominated from1947 to 1977. El Ninos, a warming of East Pacific waters. have been more common since then. Some climatologists believe the el Ninos may have caused what the IPCC calls "global warming".
NASA has recently indicated that the circulation of the Arctic Ocean has changed from the counterclockwise circulation of the 1990's to the pre-1990 clockwise circulation which could result in a cooling trend in the Arctic."
