On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:35:14 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
I've recently finished reading Spencer's 'The Great Global Warming
Blunder'*. I need to read it again fully to understand him, but a key
point in all the arguments, whether pro or anti global warming, is
that feedback is the all-important factor. It's universally agreed by
both sides that CO2 on it's own is only sufficient to produce a
relatively small warming. As Spencer points out, there are at present
40 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of 'air' (N2+O2), and
that burning fossil fuels at the current rate for five years would
increase the number of CO2 molecules to 41 (I've updated his numbers
to match current figures, as his numbers refer to data about five
years old). If the warming experienced at the end of the last century
is due to CO2, some form of amplification has to be invoked, referred
to by all sides as 'feedback'.
As many here will know, feedback can be either positive, leading to an
amplification of the effect, or negative, leading to its diminution.
The global warming protagonists claim that a small amount of heating
(due to absorption of solar IR radiation by CO2) coupled with strong
positive feedback, results in a large temperature rise.
Feedback, both positive and negative, originates from many sources.
See http://tinyurl.com/gn2p9es But reading the Wiki article leads you
to the conclusion that feedback of whatever sign is extraordinarily
difficult to quantify. In that case, I don't see how anyone can keep a
straight face and claim to be able to calculate the effects on global
temperatures of miniscule increases in atmospheric CO2, bearing in
mind the uncertainties in a whole range of feedbacks, both positive
and negative. It beggars belief!
Another point: warming of any sort increases CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere (probably due to exsolution from the oceans as their
temperature rises). This was seen clearly in the Vostok Antartic ice
cores, where warming cycles, initiated by Milankovitch cycles
(variations in the eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the
Earth's orbit) resulted in increases in CO2 concentrations
http://tinyurl.com/har2c5c . If man's current output of CO2 has caused
the recent warming, and that warming in turn will release CO2 from the
oceans, then it seems to me we're in for thermal runaway! As this
doesn't seem to be happening, it suggests a strong negative feedback
process is holding the temperatures down. A strong negative feedback
is something the protagonists of global warming seem unable to accept.
AIUI, Spencer suggests that clouds are the key factor. Global warming
protagonists insist that clouds exert a positive feedback on
temperatures, because cloud cover decreases allowing more sunshine to
reach the surface. Spencer claims the opposite is the effect, and that
more clouds form which reflect the sunlight and decrease the amount of
sunshine reaching the surface. BIMBW, as I do need to read him again.
The more I read about global warming, the more highly qualified
meteorologists and climatologists I find coming out against it.
Spencer is Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama
in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced
Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He
has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall
Space Flight Center**. Another one I've just discovered is Judith
Curry. She is an American climatologist and former chair of the School
of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of
Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing,
atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the
use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a
member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee#.
They are serious Big Guns in the climate debate, and their opinions
cannot be lightly dismissed.
I've also recently bought 'Red Hot Lies' by Christopher Horner. Not
read it yet, and not even sure that I will, but the blurb says "How
Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You
Well the way it is done, since you have taken the trouble to understnd
this far, is this
1/. Calculate the direct effect without feedback on radiative losses of
the extra CO2 . This leades to to a figure for climate sensiitivity of
about 1 degrees C for every doubling of CO2 or maybe even less. Its
fairly small anyway.
2/. *Assume* there will be unknown feedback of some multiplying factor -
less than one is negative, more than one is positive.
3/. *Assume* that all the increase in atmospheric CO2 is because of
burning fossil fuels. It isn't and it cant be because it shows massive
seasonal variations,. but lets skip over that we have paymasters to satisfy,
4/. *Assume* that all the (long term) temperature rise post say 1970 is
on account of CO2 increase. In the absence of any other explanation (of
which there are many).
5/. That gives scary figures for climate sensitivity and implies the
existence of positive feedback (or something else you didn't take into
***roll forward top the Great Pause in which satellites show no warming
for 20 years or whatever***
This is a serious problem., It shows that one (or more) of the
assumptions has to be wrong.
Or the data is simply wrong! so let's fix the data! tamperature as its
Remember trillions are now riding on this. None of the usual suspects
will ever get another job in science or indeed in journalism or politics
ever again if AGW falls flat on its face.
Its not that the underely8ing science is wrong, its the assumption about
it thst are built into the models that predict stuff that simply hasn't
happened that is wrong,and the the disgraceful behaviour of government
funded institutions in actually altering data to fir te political
prejudices of the time - that is obscene.
Well yes, judith is a luke warmist, diplomatically she says 'carbon
does in fact do a bit just not as much'
But its becoming easier to say 'the emperor has no clothes' and not lose
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:19:58 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
'tamperature' - I like it!
It worries me that when AGW is shown to be a massive error of
judgement, not only will the science of climatology be severely
curtailed, but that the public's trust in science in general will be
undermined, and this will be reflected in massive cuts in all science
budgets funded by governments.
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 12:44:19 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Where does one begin! In most areas of resource use in the world it seems there's huge waste. What could our species achieve if the waste stopped?
A few random examples:
The mass manufacture & purchase of items of no real value
The culture of many organisations spending their annual allotted budget on things they have no need whatever for so they don't get allotted less next year
Cars that consume much more fuel than others without delivering any form of improvement
and so on and on and on and on.
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 13:22:22 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
30% of food gets thrown out even though it's perfectly edible.
Stop the buy one get one free.
The fake goods such as clothiing gets destroyed. The labels should be ripped out and the clothes sent to 3rd world countries or to refugee camps or oher places where they can be used.
Stop building those bloody cycle highways, astop putting so much effort into minor drug offences that don't hurt anyone and legalise it in a similar way to other presecription drugs.
Put them on the cycle highways were they belong.
but where does it keep them employed ?
I'm thinking of plastic water bottles....
yes it makes commerce very slippy and you fall in all sorts of diorections you don;t want to fall in.
I'm not sure that's the case. CO2 is considered to be a significant
And I'd have thought you'd have to ask why he's producing books, and not
rigorous science in the journals.
As Spencer points out, there are at present
Again, I think that 'smallness' line is a red herring, propagated by the
tabloids because it seems to make sense. It's the notion that CO2 has
increased 40-odd %, and the knock ons that produces. Not the small but
significant proportion by itself.
If the warming experienced at the end of the last century
I haven't come across one that doesn't have dodgy connections of some sort.
They most certainly are not 'big guns', but yes, their concerns need to
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.