« Pig Through A Snake 2 | Main | Thanks for the Comments »

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."

Posted on July 6, 2007 at 08:13 AM | Permalink

Comments

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.

Posted by: Kit | Jul 6, 2007 9:41:53 AM

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.

Posted by: Mike | Jul 6, 2007 11:13:59 AM

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 enough”) 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-diagnosis”

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.

Posted by: Lenny | Jul 6, 2007 1:10:36 PM

Check out what i say about POLAR CIITES via GOOGLE and WIKIPEIDA.

Posted by: danny bee | Jul 6, 2007 9:48:26 PM

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.

Posted by: kit | Jul 7, 2007 4:37:05 AM

(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?

Posted by: Anon E. Mouse | Jul 7, 2007 4:52:55 AM

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

Posted by: Rick Caird | Jul 7, 2007 10:55:27 AM

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.

Posted by: Mesa EconoGuy | Jul 8, 2007 4:53:49 AM

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.

Posted by: kit | Jul 8, 2007 12:43:15 PM

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.

Posted by: Lawrence | Jul 8, 2007 12:58:55 PM

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 “forecasting”. 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.”
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 science”, 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 ..

Posted by: Mike Rankin | Jul 8, 2007 5:22:18 PM

thanks, kit.

Posted by: Anon E. Mouse | Jul 9, 2007 12:54:17 PM

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.

Posted by: Lenny | Jul 9, 2007 1:37:21 PM

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)

Posted by: Lawrence | Jul 11, 2007 6:47:49 AM

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.

Posted by: Bob Smith | Jul 11, 2007 12:59:41 PM

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.

Posted by: JamesG | Jul 16, 2007 3:28:24 AM

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.

Posted by: KevinH | Jul 17, 2007 4:36:02 PM

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/

Posted by: anon | Jul 20, 2007 7:32:04 AM

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

Posted by: alvinwriter | Jul 22, 2007 1:50:36 AM

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.

Posted by: Tarun K Juyal | Jul 27, 2007 3:22:23 AM

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.

Posted by: Tarun K Juyal | Jul 27, 2007 5:55:54 AM

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...

Posted by: TCO | Aug 11, 2007 9:23:25 PM

"..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.

Posted by: Dodgy Geezer | Aug 13, 2007 12:03:11 AM

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.

Posted by: Don Hill | Aug 18, 2007 8:45:17 PM

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
http://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


Posted by: lee | Aug 22, 2007 2:59:31 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.