Global Warming Book Comment Thread
I turned off comments on the published HTML version of my Skeptical Layman's Guide to Man-made Global Warming (pdf here) to avoid spam problems. However, it was not my intention to forgo the ability of readers to comment. So I am going to link this comment thread from the bottom of each chapter.
I have gotten several comments back similar to what Steven Dutch says here:
So You Still Don't Believe In Global Warming?
Fine. Here's what you have to do....
Show conclusively that an increase in carbon dioxide will
not result in global warming. Pointing to flaws in the climate models,
possible alternative explanations, and unanswered questions won't cut it. We
know carbon dioxide traps infrared and we know climate is
getting warmer. There's a plausible cause and effect relationship there. You
have to show there is not a causal link. You can do that either by
identifying what is the cause ("might be" or "possible alternative"
isn't good enough) or by showing that somehow extra carbon dioxide does
not trap solar heat.
This might be correct if we were in a college debating society, where the question at hand was "does man contribute to global warming?" However, we are in a real world policy debate, where the question is instead "Is man causing enough warming and thereby contributing to sufficiently dire consequences to justify massive interventions into the world economy, carrying enormous costs and demonstrable erosions in individual freedoms." Remember, we know monetary and liberty costs of abatement with a fair amount of cerntainty, so in fact the burden of proof is on man-made global warming advocates, not skeptics, who need to prove the dangers from the man-made component of global warming outweigh the costs of these abatements.
That is why the premise for my paper is as follows:
There is no doubt that CO2 is a
greenhouse gas, and it is pretty clear that CO2 produced by man has an
incremental impact on warming the Earth's surface.
However, recent
warming is the result of many natural and man-made factors, and it is
extraordinarily difficult to assign all the blame for current warming to
man.
In turn, there are very good reasons to suspect that climate
modelers may be greatly exaggerating future warming due to man. Poor
economic forecasting, faulty assumptions about past and current conditions, and
a belief that climate is driven by runaway positive feedback effects all
contribute to this exaggeration.
As a result, warming due to man's
impacts over the next 100 years may well be closer to one degree C than the
forecasted six to eight. In either case, since AGW supporters tend to grossly
underestimate the cost of CO2 abatement, particularly in lost wealth creation
in poorer nations, there are good arguments that a warmer but richer world,
where aggressive CO2 abatement is not pursued, may be the better end state than
a poor but cooler world.
Interventionists understand that their job is not to prove that man is causing some global warming, but to prove that man is doing enough damage to justify massive economic interventions. That is why Al Gore says tornadoes are increasing when they are not, or why he says sea levels will rise 20 feet when even the IPCC says a foot and a half. And I will leave you with this quote
from National Center for Atmospheric Research (NOAA) climate researcher and
global warming action promoter, Steven Schneider:
We have to
offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.
Comment away. I don't edit or delete comments, except in the cases of obvious spam.
Update: Here is another reason why there is an important difference between "man causes any warming at all" and "man causes most of the warming."
Kit:
For those wanting to understand C02/temperature link.
The sceptics science:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/climate-sensitivity-and-editorial.html
The believers science:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
Take your time to read the comments and follow-up posts and take your pick.
July 6, 2007, 9:41 amMike:
What do you think about Greg Mankiw's Pigou Club? In a nutshell, he acknowledges that there is most likely some externality associated with increased anthropogenic CO2 output, and that taxing carbon emissions in the form of an increased gasoline tax is probably a good way to decrease usage. He also advocates the, unfortunately probably politically untenable, solution of offsetting the increased gasoline taxes with repealed income or sales taxes.
July 6, 2007, 11:13 amLenny:
Proving a negative just isn't possible. It's at the core of understanding good logic. Those who say you must accept the positive hypothesis unless you can prove the negative (“…probability is not good enoughâ€) simply do not understand rational debate and logical reasoning.
It’s the very reason we don’t insist that people “prove†they are innocent to avoid being convicted of a crime.
The valid argument goes something like this: “The risk of climate change is greater than the risk of mis-diagnosisâ€
Keeping in mind that “risk†is a function of the probability of occurrence and the severity (or cost) of effects. This of course brings the debate back to where it should be; i.e debating the probability estimates and debating the estimates on the severity of the effects.
In order to claim that probabilities are irrelevant, those who say you must prove the negative must then argue that the severity of climate change approaches infinity or, conversely the severity of mis-diagnosis approaches zero. Either of those would be valid, but not persuasive, arguments.
July 6, 2007, 1:10 pmdanny bee:
Check out what i say about POLAR CIITES via GOOGLE and WIKIPEIDA.
July 6, 2007, 9:48 pmkit:
Mike, Re: Pigou Tax
That is making the assumption that increasing CO2 creates bad externalities. If they are trivial, or even good, then the Pigou Tax will hurt us and future economic growth.
Note: Pigou taxation is far better then "cap and trade" schemes which have the potential of wiping out entire industries.
July 7, 2007, 4:37 amAnon E. Mouse:
(basically a repost from another thread, hoping someone (kit?) can help me out here)
I did notice that the Rebuttals section didn't address the function of CO2 concentration vs. warming effect. Motl seems pretty straightforward, but the folks at real climate responded to him here at part 2:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
I've tried to wade through that, and the best I can figure is that they try to argue that more wavelengths of energy (i.e., a wider band) of energy is absorbed.
That doesn't make sense to me. According to their illustration, they are claiming that "new" absorption at these wavelengths. But at those wavelengths, the absorption factors are several orders of magnitude lower than what is at the peak, and trailing off rapidly.
So even if I believe them, I'm left thinking "So what?" It's like a guy with wads of $1,000 bills picking nickels off the street. And if we give him two more hands, he'll pick up pennies, too.
Am I completely misconstruing them & the graph?
Note that their graph shows log(absorption factor) vs. wavelength.
Absorption factor is defined as:
"At any given wavelength, the amount of light surviving goes down like the exponential of the number of molecules of CO2 encountered by the beam of light. The rate of exponential decay is the absorption factor.
When the product of the absorption factor times the amount of CO2 encountered equals one, then the amount of light is reduced by a factor of 1/e, i.e. 1/2.71282... . For this, or larger, amounts of CO2,the atmosphere is optically thick at the corresponding wavelength. If you double the amount of CO2, you reduce the proportion of surviving light by an additional factor of 1/e, reducing the proportion surviving to about a tenth; if you instead halve the amount of CO2, the proportion surviving is the reciprocal of the square root of e , or about 60% , and the atmosphere is optically thin. Precisely where we draw the line between "thick" and "thin" is somewhat arbitrary, given that the absorption shades smoothly from small values to large values as the product of absorption factor with amount of CO2 increases."
I'm rather confused by this description of absorption factor. Are they arguing that it is not a 1/e relationship except at [CO2] > (1/AF)? Or, are they saying that it is always a 1/e relationship, and that for each doubling of ([CO2] * AF) you absorb 1/e as much CO2?
They also say:
"In fact, noting that the graph is on a logarithmic axis, the atmosphere still wouldn't be saturated even if we increased the CO2 to ten thousand times the present level.?
Doesn't that undercut their own argument? If it takes 10,000 times as much to saturate, doesn't that mean that we won't saturate until we get 10,000 times the amount of CO2 in the air? Being that there's a fixed amount of energy hitting the earth at any one wavelength, doesn' that mean that CO2 isn't doing much at the wavelengths in question?
I'm confused by their argument. Can someone show me where I’m going wrong?
July 7, 2007, 4:52 amRick Caird:
I wanted to address Lenny's comment about it being impossible to prove a negative. Au contraire. It happens all the time im mathematics. You can often see it as IFF (if and only if) or "necessary and sufficient". The easiest way is to simply provide a counter example that shows when such and such is true, the conclusion is not necessarily so. Olmstead wrote a whole book titled "Counter Examples in Analysis". Another technique for proving a negative is to assume the proposition is true and show that it leads to a contradiction. So, the idea that "Proving a negative just isn't possible. It's at the core of understanding good logic" is clearly itself a misunderstanding of mathematical logic.
The problem with the whole golbal warming crowd is that they want us to believe that CO2 is the problem without ever showing that it is true. They then want the opposition to prove that it is not true. But, it is the responsibility of the global warming crowd to prove not only that CO2 is causing the global but also it is the primary cause and this they cannot do. They simply assert that it is true and move on from there.
Rick
July 7, 2007, 10:55 amMesa EconoGuy:
Bingo, Rick. On the nose. This is also known as the problem of induction.
I’m struggling to wade through the volume of material including Coyote’s well-written challenge/analysis, and there appear to be a lot of bad arguments/evidence/logic embedded in the AGW position. Which on the surface explains a lot of the cover-ups, like Mann’s work for example.
Global warmers need to read “The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improbable†for a better understanding of how little we actually know [even using empirical data] and why we need to be very cautious, especially in forecasting in areas subject to seemingly high randomness, like weather and climate.
Our scientific knowledge of carbon, it’s emissions, and it’s apparently local effects is quite impressive; very little of it explains global warming. Knowledge of elements of (dynamic) systems does not necessarily translate to knowledge of the systems themselves. That is, as Taleb notes, extreme epistemic arrogance. This new “save the planet†movement is in no short supply of it.
July 8, 2007, 4:53 amkit:
Anon E Mouse,
"I'm confused by their argument" - Me too!
Buried in the comments the Real Comment folk accept that Motl's analysis of the science is correct. Instead they attack a straw man; "already so much CO2 in the air that its effect on infra-red radiation is saturated." I have not read anything anywhere that claims that it is "saturated". (In fact it can only tends towards saturation, never reaching it). As you realised it makes no difference to their AGW position if it "saturates" at 10x or 10000x current levels of C02. So why raise it? I don't know.
As Mr Coyote eloquently explains in his guide it is the positive feedbacks that make AGW catastrophic and this is where there are disagreements.
July 8, 2007, 12:43 pmLawrence:
I suggest that solar forcing better explains the different degrees of warming between the surface and the troposphere over the past 25 years as indicated in the graph on page 29. With solar forcing operative, additional photons of many different frequencies are launched by a brighter sun at the earth. These photons penetrate the earth's atmosphere through many different windows all the way to the ground. There they are mostly absorbed and their deposited energy raises the temperature of the earth's surface.
Some increment of these additional solar photons, but of lower frequencies, are reradiated from the slightly warmer earth's surface into the troposhere where some are absorbed by existing GHG including slightly increased CO2 thereby raising the trosphere's temperature to a lesser extent than that of the earth's surface. QED.
July 8, 2007, 12:58 pmMike Rankin:
I found your review to be quite interesting and much in line with my own opinions. You have performed a worthwhile service. While I agree with most of your thrust, I find some unevenness in your treatment. While I am no literary critic, I saw varying degrees of personal opinion and sometimes an "attack" mode. In many respects you have been very even handed when describing the AGW "theory" and acknowledge the aspects of skeptical "theory" yet to be established.
I offer the following thoughts as my "proofreading". I can not contribute to the science and my writing skills are not up to the task. Please accept these as good intentions.
Comments on manuscript written by Warren Meyer
A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming
pg 14 text This relationship of CO2 to warming is usually called sensitivity, and is often expressed as the number of degrees of global warming that would result from a doubling in global temperature.
Should read .... a doubling in CO2 concentration.
Pg 23 text If Biffra had hadn’t artificially truncated his data at 1950,
Should read ... If Biffra hadn't artificially
pg 27 text Further, these sulfate dimming effects really only can be expected to operate over land, limiting their effect on global temperatures since they effect only a quarter or so of the globe. In fact, research has shown that dimming is three times greater in urban areas close to where the sulfates are produced (and where most university evaporation experiments are conducted) than in rural areas, and that in fact when you get out of the northern latitudes where industrial society dominates, the effect may actually reverse in the tropics.
Question: What is the support for this first sentence above?
Comment: Although this document is informal, a reference to the source document of the research might be helpful.
Pg 29 text (As an aside, remember that AGW supporters write off the Medieval Warm Period because it was merely a local phenomena in the Northern Hemisphere not observed in the south – can’t we apply the same logic to the late 20th century based on this satellite data?)
Comment: Good point
pg 30 text We have greatly increased this network over time, but the changing mix of reporting stations adds its own complexity.
Comment: It is my understanding that the number of stations rose substantially until the 1980-1990 period and then are reduced a bunch with fewer rural and far North stations.
Pg 31 text hotter than its surroundings, an effect entirely different from AGW,
Suggest... an effect entirely different from CO2 driven AGW.
Pg 32 text The only conclusion is that the NOAA did not want the shameful condition of some of
these sites to be publicized.
Strong statement. Suggest ... One might surmise that the NOAA..
pg 34 text All climate forecasting models are created by a pretty insular and incestuous climate science community that seems to compete to see who can come up with the most dire forecast. Certainly there are financial incentives to be as aggressive as possible in forecasting climate change, since funding dollars tend to get channeled to those who are the most dramatic. The global warming community spends a lot of time with ad hominem attacks on skeptics, usually accusing them of being in the pay of oil and power companies, but they all know that their own funding in turn would dry up rapidly if they were to show any bit of skepticism in their own work.
Comment: A common POV of AGW skeptics and also derivative of possible quotable sources. Suggest Wegman or the recent commentary on ClimateAudit of scientific “forecastingâ€. This is also more in the “attack†mode than descriptive.
Pg 34 text – the modelers, by the assumptions the feed into the model,
Suggest... assumptions they feed ..
pg 36 text The assumptions begin as guesses of dubious quality and come out laundered at
“settled science.â€
Suggest ... laundered as ....
pg 40 text scientists assume that processes they meet are negative feedback until proven
otherwise. Except in climate, it seems, where everyone assumes positive feedback is common.
Suggest ... scientists and engineers in real life assume that processes they meet are negative feedback until proven otherwise. Except in “climate scienceâ€, it seems, where everyone assumes positive feedback is common.
Pg 41 text stops temperature form rising once it starts?
Suggest ... temperature from ...
pg 41 text the record above seems to claim that CO2 in the atmosphere never really got above there it was say in 1880.
Suggest ... above where ...
pg 51 text For example, clearing relatively dry land and replacing it with irrigated agriculture substantially changes to the local heat balance, not the least by increasing humidity.
Suggest ... changes the local ...
pg 51 text Dr. Pielke explains summarizes
Suggest ... explains ....
pg 60 text (as cities urbanize they get hotter, and effect that is different than CO2-cause global
Suggest ... hotter, an effect ... than CO2-caused global...
pg 60 text In a sense, is the lows,
Suggest ... In a sense, it is ...
pg 62 text Major cities, like Hamburg, Berlin and Munich, have formed heat islands where the climate has been two or three degrees warmer than in the surrounding countryside for decades. If higher temperatures are truly so bad, why do more and more animals and plants feel so comfortable in our cities?
Comment: This is a new one to me but still a valuable point that contrasts with those AGW alarmists who sing about dire times ahead.
Pg 62 text One of the recent hysteria’s has been
Suggest .. recent hysterias has ..
pg 64 text and China is predicted to have higher CO2 production than the United States by 2009.
Comment: I have seen some reports that China has already achieved this due to under-estimates of previous usage.
Pg 68 text Many scientists are technocratic fascists at heart,
Comment: Lots of personal opinion, bias expressed here.
Pg 70 text it might make some winters bit a warmer, for instance,
Suggest: ... winters a bit ... was the original worded this way?
Pg 72 text latitudes, and initially agricultural yields will probably.
Suggest ... will probably rise. was the original worded this way?
Pg 74 text I am starting to notice a trend here of making statements about competing that could be applied equally
Comment: Incomplete thought here. Do you means ... competing theories .. ?
pg 76 text the correction of any temperature measurement the might refute global warming,
Suggest ... measurement that ...
pg 77 text Wouldn’t you expect them to day that they found the speed of light
Suggest ... them to say ..
July 8, 2007, 5:22 pmAnon E. Mouse:
thanks, kit.
July 9, 2007, 12:54 pmLenny:
Rick - thanks for your feedback. I had always been taught that a negative could not be proven and my observations in following reasoned arguments has, to date, seemed to bear that out. I guess I have some reading to do.
July 9, 2007, 1:37 pmLawrence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm
This statement that solar output has been decreasing over the past 20 years needs to be checked against other sources (e.g., NRL)
July 11, 2007, 6:47 amBob Smith:
On the subject of global warming, how can I save my great state of Florida from our governor? He's just signed an order requiring our state to
1) lower CO2 emissions to 2000 levels
2) "green" building standards
3) a cap and trade system
4) 20% of power from "alternative" sources
Since any well informed person knows that CO2 emissions are a proxy for energy production, the first requirement is tantamount to "reduce economic output to 2000 levels", which will destroy our economy. The new building codes will greatly inflate the price of new construction, bringing existing construction up along with it, just what the poor and middle class of our state need. Cap-and-trade is basically a fraud; just look at the EU. Alternative power sources are a fraud too; their energy density is so low that huge amounts of land are required for them to produce enough total power, land that needn't have been used if we use petroleum or (better) nuclear fission and acts as a carbon sink besides.
July 11, 2007, 12:59 pmJamesG:
Since no one else mentioned it you should change Biffra to Briffa throughout the text.
Bob Smith: I accept your concern but despite me being a skeptic too there are at least some sensible suggestions coming up and Florida's don't seem that bad. Oil/Gas/Uranium are all running out so lets look for alternatives and let's try not to waste what we have (eg. there are absolutely far too may gas guzzlers on the road); and the houses in Florida don't seem particularly well built to me (eg. why build wooden houses rather than concrete in a hurricane zone?) - a change in building standards will surely save lives and lower insurance costs.
July 16, 2007, 3:28 amKevinH:
JamesG: I'm sitting here waiting a Florida afternoon thunderstorm to run to my V10 Excursion as I read your comment on the 'sensible' solutions for Florida (too many gas guzzlers and concrete construction). I have to take exception to the overly simplistic appeal to emotion.
As to gas guzzler's, how many is too many? When the supply is limited, who decides who gets to drive one? What constitutes a gas guzzler? I won't say 'no' to a little better fuel efficiency at a reasonable cost, but I'm not willing to trade my freedom to choose the vehcile I want, its safety and efficiency (I have 5 kids and Grandma, would two little cars be better?) for any marginal gains. Get rid of all vehicles and you save lots of gas and 50,000+ lives a year (car accidents), but we run through a lot of shoe rubber. Short of that, the solution is to develop and offer a viable alternative.
As to concrete, Florida already has some of the toughest building codes in the nation and many of the homes built today are concrete block construction. But there are costs associated with them, such as higher materials cost (like the gravel dug out of the everglades to make concrete), higher labor costs and concrete is not as renewable as wood (almost all wood used in construction is from planted, not old growth, trees, which because there are more now than in 1900 and they reduce C02, help offset greenhouse gases). Even if we did replace all of the wood with concrete, you have a couple of issues. First, because wood is more flexible than concrete, it sometimes fairs better than concrete in storms, depending on the specifics of the structure. Second, wind damage generally occurs when there is a failure in the strucure (window or door blows out) creating a pressure differential and usually resulting in the roof coming off. At that point, wood or concrete doesn't matter that much. Third, concrete is no better at fighting off water damage than wood. Finally, insurance costs are a combination of risk, damage and repair/repalcement cost. If the risk of being hit by a storm is the same for wood and concrete, then before forcing everyone to concrete, an analysis would need to be done to determine if the increased cost of concrete would be offset by the reduce repair/replacement cost if damaged. That would probably be done after the fact by the insurance industry. Considering the recent insurance 'savings' statute instituted in Florida which predicted a greater than 10% reduction in property insurance and that has resulted so far in (the first) request for a rate change to be for a double digit increase, I don't hold out any hope for an insurance savings by such a move.
Well, rains stopped, so I guess my rambling should too.
July 17, 2007, 4:36 pmanon:
The correlation between CO2 levels and temperature does not prove cause and effect. Especially as the temperature changes precede the CO2 changes - go and check out the Vostok ice core data if you dont believe this..
http://www.aquamarinegreen.blogspot.com/
July 20, 2007, 7:32 amalvinwriter:
There is reason to believe that this global warming phenomenon what the Earth is experiencing may not exactly be the result of human activity, although it could be a factor. For one, the Earth's climate has undergone changes in the past. Ice ages have come and gone and deserts have spread and shrunk.
It is a fact that Greenland once had a more tropical climate and that the Sahara was once a jungle. In more recent ages, there was what is called the Medieval Climate Optimum, which was a time between the tenth and the fourteenth centuries when the climate in the North Atlantic Region was unusually hot. This was followed by a period called "The Little Ice Age." What I'm trying to say is that even without the influence of human technological activity, the Earth has ahd and will continue to go through changes in it's climate. It is possible that it is now going through another one.
I'd like to share a few facts on two of our neighbors in the solar system, Mars and Venus. These two have roughly the same percentage of the greenhouse, gas carbon dioxide, in their atmosphere. It's level on Mars is at 95% and on Venus, it is at 96.5%. Yet, the planetary climates of these planets are opposites. Mars is cold with temperatures that range from –140 °C (−220 °F) at the poles in winter to highs of up to 20 °C (70 °F) in the summer. Venus, on the other hand is hot enough to melt lead. Logic dictates that these two should be both hot due to the high levels of carbon dioxide in their atmosphere, but only one is. Compared to these two, Earth's percentage is only at .03%, and it has a temperate climate---just right.
I'm not a climate expert or a geologist. I'm just a writer from TheScienceDesk of TheNewsRoom. But in my opinion, we can learn a lot about the present state of our own planet by looking over its past and its neighbors, Mars and Venus. They all have stories to tell which may somehow be helpful to our predicament.
What follows is a link to an item of TheNewsRoom that discusses how a new study counters the human-activity notion of global warming. There are many related news on global warming and many have found useful content in TheNewsRoom for promoting awareness on global warming. If you would like to know more on how TheNewsRoom can help you on your mission, send an email to jtowns@voxant.com.
http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/487644?c_id=wom-bc-ar
- Alvin from TheScienceDesk at TheNewsRoom.com
July 22, 2007, 1:50 amTarun K Juyal:
I am a regular reader of your blog. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.
July 27, 2007, 3:22 amTarun K Juyal:
I am a regular reader of your article. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.
July 27, 2007, 5:55 amTCO:
McIntyre did not go after Mann with Canadian FOIAs. I really don't know what you refer to there.
There are also some other mistakes. A general one is the blithe statements about McIntyre destroying the hockey stick or finding out that mistakes in the algorithm produced the effects etc. This is a more complicated issue and McI has gotten a lot of noteriety, but actually done a very poor scientific job at a MECE analysis of what data/method combinations give what effects. Burger and Cubasch (2005 GRL) is a better model to look at.
too tired to find everything wrong right now...
August 11, 2007, 9:23 pmDodgy Geezer:
"..McI has gotten a lot of noteriety, but actually done a very poor scientific job at a MECE analysis of what data/method combinations give what effects..." (sic)
Where McI did a superb scientific job was in forcing the data and methodology out of Mann, in spite of continuous refusals and smear attempts. The one issue which stands out in this topic is the refusal of the warmers to undertake review by anyone outside their own little clique. That alone makes their assertions highly suspect.
Now McI has scored another major victory for science, by reverse-engineering hidden errors in GISS. Note that it is not the magnitude of the correction that is at issue, but the forcing of liars to confront their lies.
August 13, 2007, 12:03 amDon Hill:
Hundreds of articles prove “GLOBAL WARMING†by observations of CLIMATE CHANGE.
HEAT POLLUTION CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE NOT CO2.
Look at the hurricane coming into the Gulf. It is following the path of almost all the hurricanes coming into North America. They are following the warm water flowing out of the Gulf. Water heated rivers that have been polluted by industrialization and population growth for the past hundred years. Every year we get more hurricanes coming through the Gulf.
Megatons of water are deposited over the Gulf States taking it away from its goal of reaching the Arctic and Greenland where it provides megatons of BLANKETING SNOW, a natural heat shield for the top of the world.
TODAY
Hurricanes can be minimized or eliminated by AGGRESSIVE cloud seeding BEFORE they reach a height known to be precursors of destructive storms.
SOON
Proper seeding can redirect them and happily send them on the journey over the North Atlantic
LATER
All pollution will be eliminated when we PROPERLY solve the ENERGY problem
Bunker Hill
PDGEE Ret.
August 18, 2007, 8:45 pmlee:
Hi,
Just thought you'd like to check out a couple of new research trends in climate science:
1) Soot's unexpected GH warming effect, with particular respect to the vast Asian Brown Cloud. Originally thought to have a -50% GH effect, soot actually has a +50% effect. Soot has also been heavily implicated in the Arctic sea ice recession of the late 19th century until at least the 1920's. Greenland with its colder than predicted temperatures and increased central glaciation is strangely exempt from sootfall. Same goes for central Antarctica. Even in 2003 Hansen published a paper indicating soot was up to a 25% contributory factor to glacial & permafrost loss (but this was overlooked while minor GH effects like contrails were overplayed in the media).
2) CO2's maximal GHG capacity (CO2's role in GH warming is diminishingly logarithmic as CO2 increases and its contribution to GH warming reaches an asymptotic cap. That is, as more CO2 is introduced into the atmosphere, each additional unit causes *less* GH effect, the additional effect rises at a slowing rate until it hits a ceiling. "...The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide actually goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, which is what the legislation is hitting on, but rather to the impact of these gases on the greenhouse effect." -- MIT's Professor of Atmospheric Science Richard Lindzen
3) Like soot, methane is not a long-term GHG.
4) Every two weeks China adds another coal-powered power plant that emits as much as San Diego. *NOTHING* the West can realistically accomplish can mitigate the net increase of GHG against this juggernaut of fossil fuel use in China (and soon to be India & Africa....).
See:
Up to 90% of the "global" warming (it's more regional than global, but OK) in the Arctic is due to dirty snow:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070506202633data_trunc_sys.shtml
100% difference in modeled outcomes? The conventional thinking was that airborne soot caused global dimming by as much as 50%. Instead the brown clouds increase any already ongoing warming by as much as 50%. Isn't that a 100% difference in what the climate models predict?
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070701162100data_trunc_sys.shtml
"...The air near Kilimanjaro's summit is almost always well below
freezing, there is typically no melting because of air temperature (Global Warming). ... fluctuating weather patterns in the Indian Ocean could also affect the .... before the first explorers reached Kilimanjaro's summit in 1889, and the shrinking that has been going on since."
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070511215023data_trunc_sys.shtml
More info on airborne soot & glacial sootfall:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22172774-30417,00.html
http://tinyurl.com/3xrsee
Arctic climate study reveals impact of 19th century soot:
http://www.physorg.com/news105888386.html
[ Dating back to 1850 residue from forest fires darkened snow & caused increased absorption of sunlight. Soot concentrations peaked in 1906-1910 and remained high for decades. Might help explain the arctic sea ice loss of the 1920's. ]
Soot currently driving 25% of global warming & heavily contributes to Arctic sea ice loss:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/10/tech/main3154858.shtml
More evidence of soot-driven ice loss in arctic ....
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1144856
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-06/uoc--dsm060607.php
Ice loss above northern Siberia ... filthy with soot from massive oil field development.
http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/Russia/basins.html
August 22, 2007, 2:59 pmhttp://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-23-02.asp
http://www.rr.ualberta.ca/research/wildlife_impacts/oil_and_gas/image...
http://www.nmsu.edu/~english/hc/IMPACTOIL.html
Zbigniew:
From what I have seen, and not being an expert, it appears that there is global warming going on. Actually, I am looking forward to it. I think about 200,000 die from heat every year and about 1.5 million freeze to death. I have a problem with the recommendations of taxing us and economic slowdown. If we were to totally change and do as the proponents say, will the climate stay constant? If yes, at what level? If not, why should we be paying these taxes?
August 23, 2007, 11:59 amFred056:
I agree that warming seems to be occuring, whether or not we are able to explain it. As a youngster, I remember walking to school past frozen puddles and frost on the ground. These disappeared altogether within about 10 years and the local climate is now definitely different than it was, with seasons arriving at different times, for instance.
"Looking forward" to global warming and the expected rise in sea levels might be something an alien race waiting to colonise our planet would do; doesn't a 70m rise (if all the ice melts) mean there won't be many humans (or large animals) left to "enjoy" it?
August 26, 2007, 1:03 amB.D.:
The real reason the Earth is warming up is the
September 24, 2007, 11:35 pmchange of the Earths axis,which was 23 degrees
now probably closer to 24 degrees. When the sun
hits earth @ that angle things are going to heat
up!!!!! Think about it.
SB:
Very good paper!
Speaking as a sceptic myself, I hope you'll take this in the spirit intended. There are a few picky little points I noticed going through, but the only one I regarded as serious was the business about positive feedbacks.
The climate as a whole has to have a massive negative feedback, but perturbations layered on top of that can be either positive or negative. The principal feedback controlling the temperature is of course the rate at which the Earth radiates IR into space. (Or considered more locally, the rate at which the surface radiates and convects heat into the troposphere.) The hotter it is, the more it radiates. There is in principle an equilibrium point where inflow would equal outflow, although what with night and day, seasons, and other changes, such an equilibrium is never achieved. How water vapour might shift this equilibrium point in response to a temperature change could indeed be positive without causing any runaway greenhouse effect.
That said, I've never seen any complete, clear explanation as to *why* it ought to be positive and have the value they think it has.
Other niggles: "Briffa" as someone mentioned above, your explanation of how AGW got incorporated into the computer models is very unclear (you could mention the 100-200 km spatial resolution and how they use parameterizations of anything smaller than that), you miss a trick in not plotting the estimates of polar bear population against time, or mentioning that their numbers are actually controlled by culling (what with them being quite dangerous predators who like to eat the people who live up there), and I've a recollection of someone reporting that coral bleaching is due to nitrates from fertiliser run-off, not acidity or temperature, but I can't remember where I saw that so please fact-check me.
But generally speaking, I thought it was an excellent summary! I look forward to seeing it develop.
September 25, 2007, 2:50 pmCliff Terry:
There are many inputs to the global warming problem; some as simple as the bathroom devices found almost everywhere that don't get the job of drying ones' hand's done - A lot of hot air everywhere.
The Global Warming also feeds the Southern Oscillation El Nino that brings the North American Monsoon to our Southern States and regularly floods them. We need an especial amount of ordinance changes regarding drainage and runoff to cope with this in Mexico as well as the south. Just look at this years record of two hurricanes on the same day during the week of August 19, in the Texas area and last year the flooding of Hatch and areas in the Barcelona ridge during the same time frame.
Thank's for listening and find out why the Design and Construction Standards using TR55 and SCS programs do not even check for these conditions. The NOAA publishes bogus information as a result when measuring rainfall over a 24 hour period when the monsoon drops a like amount in 10 or twenty minutes, that's like 300 inches in 24 hours but those programs are only good up to 50 inches in 24 hours. Lets get a consortium of federal interest together with the Society of Meteorologica of Mexico and create new Design rules that work for these anomalies that recurr.
October 13, 2007, 3:58 pmCliff Terry:
There are many inputs to the global warming problem; some as simple as the bathroom devices found almost everywhere that don't get the job of drying ones' hand's done - A lot of hot air everywhere.
The Global Warming also feeds the Southern Oscillation El Nino that brings the North American Monsoon to our Southern States and regularly floods them. We need an especial amount of ordinance changes regarding drainage and runoff to cope with this in Mexico as well as the south. Just look at this years record of two hurricanes on the same day during the week of August 19, in the Texas area and last year the flooding of Hatch and areas in the Barcelona ridge during the same time frame.
Thank's for listening and find out why the Design and Construction Standards using TR55 and SCS programs do not even check for these conditions. The NOAA publishes bogus information as a result when measuring rainfall over a 24 hour period when the monsoon drops a like amount in 10 or twenty minutes, that's like 300 inches in 24 hours but those programs are only good up to 50 inches in 24 hours. Lets get a consortium of federal interest together with the Society of Meteorologica of Mexico and create new Design rules that work for these anomalies that recurr.
October 13, 2007, 3:58 pmEd Emerson:
Bravo,
Thank you for your perseverance on this issue.
Your paper is the counter balance to the current wave of ecomania.
Finally a sane voice of reason in the huge "media storm" surrounding the "science" as to the actual causes and the extent of "global warming" either man made or otherwise.Too many people have rushed to embrace these "worm's eye view" thoeries as if they are proven science without questioning any of it or the motives driving it.
As a high school teen I can remember the first EARTH DAY demonstrations.
We were all caught up in it. Many good things developed out of that increased awareness. At the time I even helped to make a film about an eco topic on solid waste that recieved an award at a very small local film festival.Big deal.
There is also now an increased awareness that we were being played by certain political groups in those times too.The dawning of the new ice age was upon us. Well guess what boys and girls? Did na happen!The population bomb, theorized by Paul Ehrlic, did not explode either.
Now the same people are banging the eco drums again.
Now we are all in peril of turning into potato chips.
Mr. Gore , the new "Eco Nostradamus", is playing fast and loose with the facts to use this issue so that he may gain political and financial advantage while taking credit for being at the fore front something he has had literally nothing to do with initially other than to be involved in the making of a misleading documentary about the supposed problem .
This is the same man that as Vice President of the United States acted as a "Bag Man" for the Clinton administration picking up illegal campaign contributions and lying about that.
Well after taking credit for inventing the internet what would you expect?
Is he to be believed ?
Must have been some real serious tobacco he was smokin'.
Now he accepts a Nobel Peace Prize taking credit for his dubious work in presenting the global warming problem(?)to the masses.
Michael Moore, eat your heart out!
I thought the Nobel Peace Prize was intended for people of integrity that actually performed works that benefit mankind.Instead it has been cheapened to the status of the EMMY or OSCAR.
"For best supporting actor in......."
Science does not need Mr. Al Gore to act as it's mouth piece.
Science has enough trouble establishing and maintaining it's own credibility without being used as a tool by this "TOOL".
True scientists will "man up" and admit to the flaws in their work when it is pointed out to them in an actual review by their peers in the whole scientific community.
Follow the money and Mr.Gore is probably standing next to the satchel with the handle in his hand.
October 13, 2007, 10:13 pm"Pssst! Hey buddy wanna buy some carbon offsets?"
"Deal or No Deal?"
S Flaniken:
I'm curious about what you think about ocean acidification due to carbon dioxide, nitrogen compounds and sulfur compounds released in the process of our lifestyles. From what I'm learning, as a carbon sink, the ocean can only handle so much carbon before the carbonic acid - bicarb - carbonate buffering system is affected ... bringing about increasingly acid conditions with the concentration of H+ ions liberated as the chemical reactions (H2CO3 to H+ + HCO3- then to H+ + CO3--)are pushed to the right. I'm working to understand this and how, although the ocean is supersaturated with precursors for shell formation now, the interactions of an acid ocean with the limestone sediments apparently decreases the calcium carbonate needed for shell formation by planktonic and benthic marine animals. Surface seawater pH has declined .1 units (a 30% increase in hydrogen ions) in the past 200 years. There is a projection that by 2100, the ocean acidity will be so high that animals that eat those critters will be affected... and we will be in turn. In fact, fossil records don't show this high a level of acid and the fall-out of shelled animals since the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago... The following links are two of many related articles that have come out lately. I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050630_oceans_acid.html , 2007
November 25, 2007, 1:38 amhttp://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-me-ocean3aug03,0,3589668.story
liam:
i read up until you refer to "sunspots" without explaining what they are and then claim someone has records of sunspots and temperatures from 1645 to 1715 without explaining how these records were recorded or observed. I wanted to consider what you had to say but the article is not adequately informative.
November 28, 2007, 8:36 pmliam:
in fact the article seems deliberately designed to bamboozle, starting with fine detail and working it's way to eventually stating contentions when the contention should be stated first so i can understand the context of what i'm reading. the article seems to contain some actual information but deliberately make it as difficult as possible to extract.
November 28, 2007, 8:44 pmPaul:
Another Alternative Explanation for Warming - Increasing Solar Influx Amplified by Increasing Humidity and Decreasing Ice and Snow Cover
AGW proponents now accept that historical CO2-temperature data shows that rising temepratures caused atmospheric levels of CO2 to rise, not the other way around. They hypothesise that the most of the temperature rise was caused by CO2 outgassed from the oceans as a result of an initial temperature rise causing further temperature rises. This is a reasonable hypothesis worth considering but the way is now more open to consider other alternative hypotheses.
Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas and the humidity depends on temperature.
During an ice age humidity would be low but humidity would have increased as the planet warmed due to some external cause. Ice and snow, which reflect sunlight, would have retreated, leading to further warming. Warmer weather would have lead to greater rates and geographical extent of terrestrial plant growth, which would have further increased humidity. Increased humidity would have lead to increased precipitation which would have further increased plant growth, increasing humidity further.
A long-term decrease in solar influx causes the earth to cool. Decreasing humidity and increasing ice and snow cover amplify this cooling and the earth enters an ice age. On the other hand, a long-term increase in solar influx causes the earth to warm. Increasing humidity and decreasing ice and snow cover amplify this warming and the earth comes out of an ice age.
This hypothesis is similar to the hypothesis based on outgassed CO2 but replaces CO2 with H2O as the greenhouse gas responsible. Choosing CO2 as the greenhouse gas while virtually ignoring H2O is just ridiculous given the power of H2O as a greenhouse gas and the vaste quantities of it that exist on our planet.
December 8, 2007, 4:07 amBud:
I guess what I miss in all this is that there are other, extremely good, reasons to cut carbon emmisions here in the USA. It's called energy independence. This independence would allow us to not have to rely on foreign oil from places that have no desire to have us there and would like nothing better than to get rid of us. Yes, you can debate all day long whether we have a "right" to these resources, but the bottom line is that our dependence on these foreign resources is the reason for many of our (failed) foreign policies, wars and general meddling in places of the world where it would be better that we don't meddle. So even if burning all this fossil fuel actually has a net positive effect on the environment (pretty unlikely), it still would have a net overall negative impact if you factor in geo-political implications.
Before you jump all over me, I still have an open mind on the issue, which is why I'm here. The subject is complex enough to warrant doubt, and I'm still in the process of learning and gathering facts.
December 17, 2007, 10:01 amUncle George:
Coyote,
You and your readers might enjoy this:
Gag gift for environmentalists:
http://www.unclegeorge4motherearth.com
There's one in every family....
That environmentalist whacko at the family Christmas gathering, who babbles about the horrors of Global Warming to come, quoting Algore on dead polar bears, and flooded cities.
The "scientific consensus" has these a**holes terrified.
They constantly remind the rest of us how we must sacrifice to prevent the coming Apocalypse.
They're hard to shop for, aren't they?
Well, now you can kill two birds with one eco-friendly stone: Uncle George's Amazing Earth SaversTM
Methane is 20 times more powerful as a Greenhouse Gas than Carbon Dioxide....Where is it coming from?
Environmental A**holes are a known source of methane.
So plug those environmental a**holes on your Christmas list.
Earth SaversTM come in a variety of sizes, from Insect (termites emit more methane than any other source) to Algore (a supersized environmental a**hole).
Get one for every environmental a**hole in your life!
http://www.unclegeorge4motherearth.com
Gaia will love you for it !
Love,
Uncle George
December 18, 2007, 4:03 pmunclegeorge@unclegeorge4motherearth.com
A:
I watched your video, planning on reading your report. I like how you explain that Ice melting in the arctic won't raise the sea level by itself. I constantly have to explain to people this. I usually go, take some ice put it in a glass mark the level and come back. I think you raised some interesting points, I've think the sensitivity is very convincing and I've head it before but it wasn't explain as throughly. The whole GW conspiracy, or propaganda, is just a mess. People actually just take it as a given, I have argued the skeptic side many times in many places to many people and I find that rarely does anyone do any actual research on the subject. I try to look at both sides and the skeptics just have better science, and use various amounts of of data, that are fundamentally different and from a wide variety of sources. Looking forward to the read.
December 22, 2007, 11:26 pmHominatrix:
http://amap.no/acia/. Read the effects of warming on the Arctic. This isn't a layman's paper, it was done by people that actually know what they're talking about.
December 23, 2007, 8:08 amRoy D. Shepard:
Ladies and Gentlemen, I should like your comments on this PART of the Scientific/Technical paper I am preparing for Peer review in the IEEE. I only trust that this blogs buffer can hold all of this part of the document without "hiccuping". Here goes:
Abstract: Acquiring a first stage control over our Planetary Weather Systems.
The purpose of this paper is to present evidence of a recently discovered reoccurring oceanic phenomena that is expected to provide a possible explanation for the volumetric heating effects being observed in our planets ocean’s and then present a set of preliminary specifications for a series of physical constructs that are well within our current technology to build and put into place as the means for combating this phenomena and its expected effects on or planet. Currently this oceanic phenomena has not yet received wide recognition in Scientific circles as the possible “cause-and-effect†being described euphemistically, as “Planetary Warmingâ€.
Introduction:
I am a 63 year old Electronics and Computer Engineer, Amateur Scientist and Systems Analysis. I am Co-Inventor in two U.S. Patents. Published Author. Member, IEEE’s Power Engineering and Oceanic Engineering Societies. Co-Author in two IEEE Publications. I am a Retired 20+ year Veteran of the US Armed Forces.
Beginning sometime in early 1996, I became aware of discussions in Scientific circles about a subject being euphemistically referred to at that time as “Planetary Warmingâ€. This “Planetary Warming†aroused my interest. I have subsequently acquired over the years, as time and money permitted, numerous published Scientific Papers, US Government and International (IPCC) Public documents and Private Research Organizations that had funded Research Projects for individual Scientists and Scientific Organizations, into the causes of “Planetary Warmingâ€.
Interested readers can access the National Geographic News article: “Global Warming Fast Facts†on the Global Internet at:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
Updated June 14, 2007 and get a wide view of the “Fast Facts†as they are, allegedly, known today.
The above Global Internet article demonstrates the vast repertoire of published documents and information which has become available for study and analysis. Numerous History Channel, Learning Channel, Science Channel and Public Broadcasting Network Documentaries have presented a collage of thoughts and opinions about the causes and recommended “corrective†actions. Readers should see: http://www.climate-skeptic.com for a far more detailed analysis into the current “disagreements†with various Scientists and their supporting organizations and individuals who have prepared and presented opinions on the causes of Planetary Warming in the many and diverse public forums.
It is not my intent in this Paper to engage in useless commentaries about the pros or cons of “Planetary Warmingâ€, “Climate Sensitivity†or “Empirical conclusions†and the vast repertoire of “truths, half truths and alleged prevaricationsâ€.
I will only provide these indisputable facts:
1. “Sudden climate change is an established scientific reality.â€
2. “Over the last 2.8 million years, climate shifts have happened many times.â€
3. “Studies of the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores show conclusively that abrupt climate change over the last 2.8 million years is an indisputable reality of life, given this planets current geological configuration.â€
4. “The rising of the Central American land bridge 2.8 million years ago changed the fundamental organization and pattern of the Earth’s ocean currents, which combined with small variations in solar energy output and perturbations in Earth’s orbit, has led to a much less stable climate since that land bridge was pushed into its current position by the forces that continuously shift the Tectonic plates over Earth’s mantle.â€
5. “A severe climate shift, should one occur as currently “predictedâ€, has never happened before to a civilization with six billion people, living in a planet wide civilization that absolutely depends for it existence on continued climate stability.â€
6. “The United States has adopted, not with out economic justification, a posture of “considered†indifference, as its Public policy, considering the expected economic consequences of adopting the Kyoto accords and its severe economic impact on the lives of many Americans.
Understanding the Origins of the Oceanic Thermal phenomena
My interests as an Amateur Scientist and Systems Analysis in the subject of “Planetary Warmingâ€, and its causes, covers many of the Natural Sciences that includes, but is NOT limited to:
Basic Astronomy
Our Solar Systems Planetary motions
Planetary Gravity interactions
The Solar “windâ€
Planetary Atmospheric Physics
Oceanic and Atmospheric Interactions
Origins and types of “Green House†gasses
Planetary thermal conveyer and convection systems
The Atlantic Thermal Conveyer System
El-Nino and La-Nina’s Planetary weather interactions
I am by no means an “Expert†in any of the above Natural Sciences.
What I AM, can be best described as an Engineer/Amateur Scientist/Systems Analysis, examining pieces of an enormous “puzzleâ€. When I come across a piece-of-the-puzzle that is left dangling out there “inside the box†stating that this, or that, conclusion or supposition, has been arrived at by the Scientific Community, either with an “unknown’ or “inconclusive†result, I endeavor to take an action that can best be described as a Detective, searching for “clues†to a “mysteryâ€.
Just as there is the “Law-of-Natureâ€, “Law-of-Proximityâ€, “Law-of-Reciprocityâ€, “Law-of-Reciprocal Proportions, and others, I use the “Law-of-Simplicity†embodying the concepts in Occam’s Razor and the “Law of Pharsimony†(i.e.: when alternate or multiple explanations exist, the simplest is usually correct), in examining all aspects of these “cluesâ€. to arrive at the simplest explanation.
Assembling a picture of the entire Scientific “puzzle†called “Planetary Warming†has taken approximately eleven years to put together. Thus far, I am confident that I have a good “view†of the problem as demonstrated in my assembled “picture puzzleâ€. From this assembled “picture puzzleâ€, I have spent the last year and a half studying possible “high level†and “low level†solutions to this problem of “Planetary Warmingâ€.
Only recently have I discovered the oceanic thermal phenomena described above. It is resident in the Archives of the Oceanic Engineering Society o the IEEE.
The Oceanic thermal phenomena: Magna Domes
The planet Earth is being heated INTERNALLY by the absorption of the vast electromagnetic energies of the Solar Wind. It is estimated that over the last several thousand years, sufficient high electron flow rates INTO the core of our planet has raised the internal operating temperature of our planetary cores electrically equivalent “brushless saturable core amplidyne motorâ€. This for want of a better word, “motor/engineâ€, is what essentially “drives†this planets 24 hour daily rotation. Added to our planets internal electro-magnetic drive motors physical action is the counter-electromagnetic field generated by our planets falling through the suns own electromagnetic field, causing our planets circumnavigation rate-of-motion about the sun to be slowed BY the suns induced counter-electromagnetic field, via negative feedback. Otherwise, our planet would be spun either into a decaying orbit or spun further out into space creating a vast elliptical orbit, instead of the near circular stable orbit that is now enjoys.
Just as any human mechanical apparatus designed with an inadequate cooling system will eventually break down, so our own planets internal electro-magnetic drive motor is starting to break down. This is becoming increasingly evident by the slow reduction in the planets electromagnetic fields intensity over the last 55-60 years and the appearance of south pole magnetic anomalies appearing north of the equator and north pole magnetic anomalies appearing south of the equator. In any magnetic material currently known, as that magnetic material heats up, its ability to “hold†it magnetic characteristics decreases with the rise of the magnetic materials internal temperature. This destabilization of our planetary cores electro-magnetic, “motor/engineâ€, may also be the cause of an observed increase in the frequency of small earthquakes along the boundaries of the Tectonic plates.
The increasing temperature of our planets internal mantle is causing it to expand, pressing the mantel OUTWARD, toward the surface of the planet. We see this as an increase in the number of pockets of magma pressing up against the tremendous ocean pressures on the bottom of the ocean floors in what are called “magna domesâ€. There are more frequent occurrences of these magma domes “bursting†and creating mega plume “eventsâ€. Only recently has a very LARGE magma dome been discovered at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. It has been thermally imaged as having a diameter of forty-three (43) miles!
Note: the currently plotted Atlantic Conveyer “river†that distributes the heat from the Pacific Ocean via a TOPSIDE flow, sub-ducts near the Greenland/NewFoundland/Grandbanks area in the North Atlantic and then RETURNS to the Pacific Ocean by BOTTOMSIDE flow, passes near and OVER part of this enormous magna dome.
Oceanic Scientists believe that there are MANY more magma domes scattered across the ocean floors. Exactly where and how large these magma domes may be is unknown!
Our technology is only now making us aware of these extraordinary phenomena’s. Only now is there becoming an awareness in the Oceanic Engineering Society and Scientific Community that these magma domes MAY be the actual cause of out oceans rising temperatures! Clearly, instabilities are appearing!
The rest of this paper describes two solutions to this, as yet, minor problem and includes extensive drawings and photographs which cannot be displayed in this blogs limited format. My bibliography is approaching almost 80 entires. I estimate at least several months more to assemble the full paper. Looking forward to your "Peer' Review comentaries.
December 31, 2007, 4:04 pmadi:
Yes, you can debate all day long whether we have a "right" to these resources, but the bottom line is that our dependence on these foreign resources is the reason for many of our (failed) foreign policies, wars and general meddling in places of the world where it would be better that we don't meddle.
try manage your wealth..
January 2, 2008, 3:20 amhttp://www.bwm-financial.com
Steve Case:
Video #3 has a serious error! It says the NOAA Quality Control adjustments are in Celsius they are not, they say at the bottom of that page:
"The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940's until the last decade of the century."
I'm glad I found this error myself rather than suffer the other side pointing it out to me with the obvious, "See, he's exaggerating!"
January 6, 2008, 6:47 amEd Nisbett:
As a retired metallurgist, I am astonished by the loose science and unabashed manipulation of data in the anthopogenic global warming camp, even while realizing that environmentalists are basically negative people. It is incredible that graphs are published showing temperature changes to a fraction of a degree celsius over the last 200 or so years, when the data would have been collected using a mercury and glass or an alcohol and glass theremometer graduated in one degree increments, and when those taking the temperatures would report to the nearest whole number. Another aspect is the current use of "average annual global temperatures", a particularly inane statistic given that we have arctic, temperate, sub tropical and tropical climate zones. However such meaningless values are useful for the gormless politicians that control our fortunes. I realize that small amounts of some elements can have a profound effect in some systems, for example carbon in iron, but air is a mixture and although carbon dioxide is a vital but very small constituent of the atmosphere I fail to see how minor variations in the carbon dioxide concentation can have the claimed decisive effect on atmospheric temperature.
January 19, 2008, 1:34 pmMuch of the historic carbon dioxide and temperature data, if it really can be called data, comes from ice core sampling, and I wonder if the solubility of carbon dioxide in ice under pressure and over thousands of years was considered. I would imagine probably not since the goal of the researchers would have been to come up with the lowest possible numbers. The time ranges for some of this published data are interesting also since it shows the arrogance of those involved. For example 647426 BC to 411548 BC by U.Stocker et al "Stable Carbon Cycle-Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene" Science 310: 1313-1317. The accuracy of the year dating defies description.
The impending tragedy of all this is the near term effect on our economy. Apart from whatever "remedies" that Congress may impose, several stateslike California and Florida are hell bent on imposing their own solutions that are soon likely to double or tripple electricity prices, as they try to elliminate coal as a fuel. The old expression "Who needs enemies with friends like these?" is getting a new meaning. The environmentalists, rushing like lemmings to the cliff edge, are on the verge of achieving what the Luddites failed to do in the early nineteenth century, the tactic being to go after the fuel rather than the machines.
Barry E Lerner:
You're all missing an important point. Those who advocate anthropogenic warming present emotional arguments. We who deny it respond with reasoned discussion. Alas, emotion trumps logic every time. And when politicians, for power, money and glory are only too eager to pump up the fear factor, the irrational becomes virtually unstoppable. Perhaps all we can do is watch in fascination as our fellows rush to get into that storied handbasket...
January 21, 2008, 10:47 amJames Barker:
What I find striking is this communal notion that science is democratic.
It is not. There is a right answer and a wrong answer. I am a scientist, and I apologize in advance for seeming arrogant.
A clear understanding of climate change is hard to come by. You can read all the books at Borders that you want, but you will not be presented scientific evidence so much as opinion. It's possible to obtain knowledge with which to determine for yourself whether a study that is presented to you is convincing or not. This process takes years of study, and generally, one will be qualified to become an engineer or a scientist before this is accomplished.
I.E. please get an advanced degree in a scientific discipline that is related to this subject before becoming vocal about it. The water is far too muddy. The most basic step to thinking rationally and scientifically is to withhold judgement of the truth until you see proof. This is what we go through 20 or 23 years of school to learn how to do. It's OK to not have an opinion. It's OK to ignore even engineers or PhD's of intermediate renown. When information is accurate, it will eventually be reiterated by scientists who have established a lifetime's track record. Case in point: listen to the IPCC. Don't listen to this fellow. He is decades too inexperienced to challenge the scientific establishment.
That being said, the highest authority in the scientific establishment concerning global climate change is probably the IPCC. Such a large body of internationally famous scientists work for them that they are more likely to have the correct assessment than anyone else. Their assessment is that climate change is man-made, semi-reversible, extremely dangerous, and requires immediate committment to reduce the damage that it has begun and will continue to cause.
January 25, 2008, 6:13 pmJim Kingsley:
I've processed 33 years of Longwave outgoing IR data from NOAA.
There is no noticible trend.
This is telling evidence of the CO2 "greenhouse" being over-evaluated.
Enjoy!
http://junkscience.com/blog_js/2008/01/12/processing-33-years-of-ir-longwave-data/
January 27, 2008, 5:56 pmGavin:
I guess you've seen this, but in case you missed it :
January 30, 2008, 2:26 pmScientists Find Active Volcano in Antarctica
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/world/21volcano.html
Reported in Nature Geoscience
Rich Miller:
It is amazing & disappointing how this paper can ignore the core scientific evidence offered by the 1600 scientists from all over the world who through the IPCC have conservatively concluded that human activity, especially through carbon dioxide, has created a true progressive warming of the globe.
January 30, 2008, 3:21 pmRalph:
Have you seen the article on wikipedia on solar variation? It trashes some of the graphs used by Svensmark and Lassen, saying that once corrected for "filtering errors" they show no correlation between solar activity and recent global warming (after 1989).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
Any comment?
February 1, 2008, 5:35 pm