Thursday, July 05, 2007
Climate stability: an inconvenient proof
This paper demonstrates that the widely prophesied doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from natural, pre-industrial values will enhance the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ but will amount to less than 1°C of global warming. It also points out that such a scenario is unlikely to arise given our limited reserves of fossil fuels—certainly not before the end of this century. Furthermore, the paper argues that general circulation models are as yet insufficiently accurate for civil engineers to rely on their predictions in any forward-planning decisions—the omission of solar wind effects being a potentially significant shortcoming. It concludes that the only certainty is that the world's fossil fuel resources are finite and should be used prudently and with proper respect to the environment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Nonsensical article on climate science published in a civil engineering journal.
Of course its nonsensical, it doesn't agree with the global warming cult's predictions of 5 to 11 degrees additional heat.
CO2 does not have a linear effect, the first additional molecule has more effect than the next one. We have an increase of 0.6 degrees C corresponding to an increase of about 75 ppm CO2. The next 0.6 dgrees would require and additional 150ppm, then an additional 300 for the next 0.6. So for a total of 1.8 degrees C you would need to have about 825ppm. At the current rate of increase of just under 0.5% CO2 levels will rise to 825 by about 2500 CE.
If you want to attach the science, fine, diversionary tactics to dismiss the article are not valid argument.
John Nicklin, that is what Lubos Motl writes on his blog. He is completely wrong. You have to wonder why the string theorists did not attempt to publish his theory in a reputable scientific journal?
What Lubos conveniently ignores is that the CO_2 we have pumped in the atmosphere would still keep on warming the Earth even if we stopped increasing CO_2 levels, because equilibrium has not been reached. I've read that the temperature increase would be about 1.5 °C if CO_2 levels were to level off at 0.04%.
Anyway, it is up to the people who dispute the accepted science to prove their points, not the other way around.
So, until Lubos publishes his work on climate science, speaks at climate science conferences etc. his comments have no value to the scientific community.
B.t.w., the temperature increase does not depend logarthmically on the CO_2 concentration, it has a power law dependency. Even Lubos Motl got that correct in his last blog posting on this subject :)
Sadly, Dr. David Bellamy has a history of not checking his facts and the veracity of his sources, before voicing his opinions about anthropogenic climate change. He has blundered seriously a number of times previously.
Example: claims that glaciers advancing, when the majority were in-fact retreating.
This would appear to be another of those, [Disclosure: I do not have access to the article].
It is Dr Bellamy's bias regarding anthropogenic GW [AGW], which was the reason many of his honorary positions were withdrawn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy#Views_on_global_warming
http://www.junkscience.com/july04/GW_David_Bellamy.JPG_1.jpeg
For current glacier information see:
world glacier monitoring service
glacier mass balance data 2003/2004 and 2004/2005
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb9/sum05.html
Clearly, if Dr Bellamy really had a serious science-based point to make about AGW, he would have written a letter to a serious peer-reviewed journal like Nature. However, it is more than likely that the seriously error-prone Bellamy would not have been able to evade the peer-review editors and it would have been rejected. It is a shame that botanists like Bellamy feel they can criticise climatologists without a shred of scientific evidence and instead resort to the so-called 'evidence' of Fred Singer and others, probably funded by ExxonMobil et al.
nice response dazed, except for the last line: "probably funded by ExxonMobil et al". With what evidence? Or are you just making unsubstantiated assumptions like you suggested that Bellamy did?
Apart from that, fair arguement
Actually Bellamy DOES know something about Botany, you will conceed.
It is the case that the SUN has more to do with climate change than any other factor. Ultimately the Sun is the source of ALL power on this planet, whether directly or from fossil fuels ( which were produced by Solar action in the past).
Humans are so arrogant as to actually beleive that they can influence the actions of a Gigantic Thermonuclear Reactor, which is around 93 Million miles away (on average).
The Planet Earth is not like your living room, with a thermostat to adjust, just as you might like. It is the Earth's distance from the Sun, and the variable power of that star, combined with the precessive tilt of The Earth which determines our climate.
Whatever climate is dealt to us here, by those interstellar forces, we shall just have to learn to adapt to and like it, or lump it.
I wasnt going to leave a comment but then i saw the post saying "Humans are so arrogant as to actually beleive that they can influence the actions of a Gigantic Thermonuclear Reactor."
I cant stand it when the word arrogance is used in debates like this. Ignorance is ok but arrogance has nothing to do with science.
Many environmental scientists are accutely aware that humans DO have a big impact on the planets ecosystems and the climate system. We cant affect the suns output at all but we can influence the amount of energy in our system by reducing the loss of energy i.e. greenhouse gases. Even Bellamy agrees with that!
I am tired of people who say that it is arrogant to say that we can affect climate. The fact is that we can and do have an impact on climate and the earth system. There is a vast amount of data to show that we do. And I am sure that Bellamy would agree with that too considering he is a conservationist.
Having said that the sun is the principal source of energy to this planet but the net energy of the earth system is also dependent on other positive and negative feedbacks such as greenhouse gases, ice albedo, rainforests, ocean algae growth etc etc. (read Lovelock's Gaia or Tim Lenton peer reviewed papers). Yes the sun is ultimately driving natural climate variation either by its slowly rising output or by changes in the wobble/eccentricity of the earth, but internal forcings such as man made CO2 and natural CO2 (i.e. deforestation) are affecting the energy of the earth system.
This is not arrogance...this is how the whole system functions.
good comment there Anonymous
Post a Comment