wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,947
- Reactions
- 13,236
Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about
By David Evans
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.
Let’s set a few things straight.
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
It is near nigh impossible to stop a gravy train.
Absolutely impossible if it is driven by the New Class.
gg
That depends on how hard voters apply the brakes.
People who initially had an open mind seem to be deciding that this is ridiculous for Australia with our incredibly low world emissions. I think the powerful silent majority will do their job at the next election.
Agree, Sails. gg, I'm surprised you are so ready to accept apathy by the electorate.That depends on how hard voters apply the brakes.
People who initially had an open mind seem to be deciding that this is ridiculous for Australia with our incredibly low world emissions. I think the powerful silent majority will do their job at the next election.
It will be interesting to follow global satellite measured temperature as the debate goes on.
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/story/48140/coolest-march-since-1994.asp
So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.
The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.
It’s really much to do about nothing.
Dr. Don Easterbrook is a Professor of Geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, WA.
But didn't you know? 0.145/decade means the sky will fall and we are all doomed.+0.145 in a decade? Am l reading that statement correctly? I thought that there were larger figures being tossed around by the "pro-climate" camp?
But didn't you know? 0.145/decade means the sky will fall and we are all doomed.
Or you could just ask people to state their position. Takes a certain kind of unfounded arrogance to think of people as though they were a group that needed to be studied as to why they incorrectly don't think the same as you.The socio-political reasons for why you have come to the conclusions you have;
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/taking-on-climate-skepticism-as-a-field-of-study/?hpw
But do the math on the split and for the Skeptics, read major polluters, there's a worrying majority.
The movement of the jet stream south and subsequent expansion of subtropical dry zones would explain the decline in rainfall over the southwest corner of Western Australia in recent decades.Interesting article serving to highlight how little we actually know and are how much we are yet to discover about the earth and out weather patterns.
The situation has also affected Tasmania and the attempts at finding the cause are worth noting in the overall context of climate research.The movement of the jet stream south and subsequent expansion of subtropical dry zones would explain the decline in rainfall over the southwest corner of Western Australia in recent decades.
IOW these experiments are runs of climate models using different parameters to isolate effects. Just out of interest, can anyone think of any other way to run controlled experiments on a planet?The scientists added the ozone hole's effects into Canadian and US global climate models to investigate how it might have affected winds and rains. Their experiments compared data on sea ice, surface temperatures, rain and ozone.
Points to note:Finally, we return to the effects of stratospheric ozone on the SH circulation. To quantify the relative impor- tance of ozone depletion and increasing greenhouse gases, we have focused in this study on the period 1960– 2000, for which all the key forcings are known (to some degree) from observations. Over that period, as pointed out by Shindell and Schmidt (2004), the effects of ozone depletion and increasing greenhouse gases have added constructively and conspired to yield a relatively large poleward shift of the overall atmospheric circulation.
The key finding of this study has been to show that ozone depletion appears to have been the dominant factor in the recent SH atmospheric circulation changes.
In the twenty-first century, however, as stratospheric ozone recovers to pre-1960 levels, the effects of ozone recovery will oppose those resulting from increasing greenhouse gases. The key question, of course, is: Which of these two will dominate? Simulations conducted by the recent CCMVal2 intercomparison indicate a near-total cancellation of the effects of greenhouse gas increases by the recovery of stratospheric ozone (Son et al. 2010), yielding insignificant trends in the latitudinal position of the midlatitude jet and the edge of the Hadley cell be- tween 2000 and 2100. Such projections, however, are founded on incomplete knowledge of SSTs and radiative forcings. Furthermore, there is some evidence that model simulations that prescribe monthly mean zonal-mean ozone fields, as we have done here, might underestimate the tropospheric response to changes in polar ozone (Gillett et al. 2009; Waugh et al. 2009). Whether the recovery of stratospheric ozone will be able to cancel the effects of greenhouse gas increases remains an open question. Time will tell.
A good explanation of the "Trick to hide the decline" email that was the core to Climategate with a segue into Dr Mullers BEST program. Some annoying use of imagery in here but it is well explained in layman's terms.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?