OT: Global Warming conference

Knowing that we discuss Global Warming with respect to the thermal efficiencies of boilers etc I thought that the indicated link would be of interest to many engineers who contribute to this group. http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/005464.html Cheers Don
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Donwill wrote:

Not very. It's just another 'we aren't causing it so we can still drive V8's' sort of thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I didn't think it was very convincing either. It started by seeming to say that CO2 emissions had no effect, and then changed tack and said getting warmer was good anyway.
For a coherent and well-argued exposition of a similar view, see the article by the well-known theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson: <http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf .
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not true, it said "having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change."

No, they said:- "Warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Thanks for the Ref you supplied,very interesting reading. "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Lambourg is also quite interesting. As is the article (written for the uninformed public) "Climate dissent grows--------" by Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, 9 March 2008, P31. Best Regards Don
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There seem to be a few dozen references to the declaration in circulation but apart from the claim that the conference was attended by 500 assorted scientists, economists and policy advisers I couldn't find any background detail at all and the declaration itself is full of ambiguity rather than established fact.
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
contains these words:

I expect that the Proceedings of "The International Conference on Climate Change" have not been published yet, This was just the concluding declaration.
Don
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes but where is the publicity material that preceded the conference, the list of attendees, contemporaneous reports of the proceedings, etc?
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
.dot> contains these words:

Maybe this is what you're looking for? http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/program.cfm Don
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe.
Quote from the welcome page:
"Winners dont exaggerate. Winners dont lie. Winners dont appeal to fear or resort to ad hominem attacks"
Which surely turns the president of the heartland institute into a sure fire loser.
The extracts below were taken from the Heartland Institutes website
"Written By: Dennis Avery" ...
""Most of our modern warming occurred before 1940," said Avery, "before much human-emitted CO2. The net warming since 1940 is a minuscule 0.2 degree C--with no warming at all in the last nine years. The Greenhouse Theory cant explain these realities, but the 1,500-year cycle does."
"The warmings have been the good times, for both humans and wild species," said Singer, professor emeritus of environmental studies at the University of Virginia. "The world today has more vegetation and a richer diversity of birds, bears, butterflies, and lichens than the planet had during the 550 years of the Little Ice Age. The cold times gave humanity famine, bubonic plague, fiercer storms, and clouded skies. People today dont understand their climate blessings.""
...
""Weve known for 400 years about the strong correlation between sunspots and the Earths temperatures," said Singer. "There is no correlation between our temperatures and CO2."
Not exactly the unblinkered voice of reason.
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
.dot> contains these words:

Fair enough, as I've said before a healthy dose of scepticism should apply to both sides of the discussion, time will tell. Best Regards Don
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
.dot> contains these words:

They appear to be facts. Do you dispute that they are true?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Half truths at most.
Avery seems to have forgotten the industrial revolution, plucks a figure of 0.2 seemingly out of thin air and rubbishes the greenhouse effect in a single sentence. Whether or not global warming is manmade or natural the greenhouse effect is established fact and without in the world would be a much colder place. Atmospheric CO2 has risen considerably seen reliable records started in 1958.
Singer is out on a limb claiming that colder = fiercer storms. More heat means more energy for the weather to play around with and it wasn't the Little Ice Age that brought the bubonic plague but rats. In temperate latitudes extra warmth may be welcomed by some but in the tropics it is not good news. The number of extinctions over the last few centuries doesn't bear out his more diversity claim either.
The final quote is a complete repudiation of the greenhouse effect.
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
contains these words:

It doesn't rubbish the greenhouse effect at all. It rubbishes the greenhouse effect as being the cause of warming. Don't try and make someone sound stupid by saying they disprove a theory that has plenty of firm evidence. The greenhouse effect is generally accepted, the cause of global warming is what is in doubt. There is virtually no firm evidence that CO2 actually causes global warming when you actually examine it with an open mind. The trouble is most people don't have an open mind and are feed with stupid information in the media.. "the world is going to end" gets news, "nothing is going to happen", doesn't!

But CO2 isn't an effective greenhouse gas compared to the other stuff in the atmosphere. Methane and water are magnitudes better at it and there is more of them too. Why do the global warming fanatics concentrate on CO2 when there are other far larger influences?

Yes and it has followed temperatures not preceded them for the last 150 years or so for which there are "reliable" figures.

Define fierce. Ice storms would certainly be more severe. Also the weather systems may well be more localised with less energy to play with and may be more fierce at a local level rather than in total. You can't just say more energy = fiercer storms it may just mean bigger, but more diffuse, or more frequent. The current crop of big storms aren't atypical BTW, there have been storms just as bad or worse in the past.

It was poor living conditions (population growth caused by warming?), a new world travel network (caused by warming?) and a lack of immunity that caused the black death, nothing to do with the environment as such, more to do with mans reaction to the environment. If man had understood what was happening, it probably wouldn't have happened.

There are few (if any?) extinctions that are not directly related to mans ill management of the environment. The extinctions are not as a result of global warming. Also far more new species have been found.

No it isn't, it just states there is no correlation between temperatures and CO2. This is certainly true of the last centaury where there has been a rise in CO2 following a rise in temperature and not the other way around as some appear to think.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dennis@home wrote: <snip>

But the finding of a "new" species is not the opposite of an extinction. It is merely that someone noticed something not previously identified. Other than in laboratories, are there any documented species creations in the recent past?
--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Are there any extinctions that are linked to global warming in the last 150 years?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dennis@home wrote:

Almost certainly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Go on then provide the evidence.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dennis@home wrote:

Almost impossible to say for certain, since we only know about 5% of the species that exist on earth anyway.
But you can bet your bottom dollar that somewhere a puddle has dried up and killed the last lesser mongolian flatworm or something like that.
Species are totally associated with habitat: destroy the habitat and the species goes with it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So just FUD then, there is a lot of FUD in GW. In fact I think there is far more chance that GW is caused by FUD than CO2.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dennis@home wrote:

No, it doesn't.
Unless you take 'correlation' to mean 'cause'
Which if you are a scientist is compltetly incorrect use of the scientific language.
Which says all it needs to say about the science inherent in the d=ocument. (i.e. not very much and that cherry picked to make a different case)

Howver arguable that is, there is extremely strong *correlation* between global warming and CO2. Periods of high global temperature are always associated with high CO2: the argument is to which causes the other.
So it seems that whoever wrote that report is not a scientists at all, as they do not understand what 'correlation' means, or they are simply lying in te face of the evidence, or both.

The trouble is that a lot of people aren't as smart as they think they are, which makes it very easy to pull woool over their eyes.

Things are already happening, in case you hadn't noticed. Like the polar regions melting. A mere nothinfg I dont think..
Its that massive leap from 'we may not be the primary cause' to 'we aren't the cause' to therefore we don't need to do anything about it' that is the most disturbing.
As of guilt were the only reason for any action at all.
Although I certainly believe that 99.99% of everything suggested by the green movement is at best, marginal, and and worst dangerously counter productive, that isn't a reason to deny something is happening, or attempt to address the issues and investigate the causes. And truy and slow the changes down, at least.

Water is self stabilising: too much and it rains. Methane *eventually* breaks down but CO2 is inert, and doesn't. Methane is of course far more serious, but IIRC has a 'half life' that is somewhat shorter than atmospheric CO2.

Very hard to say.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.