[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Global Warming? Not a snowball's chance in hell By "global warming", I mean, of course the kind of runaway, unprecedented, catastrophic warming which George Monbiot et al have been bleating on about for the last two or three decades. And by "not a snowball's chance in hell", I mean, that the likelihood of such a thing occurring is now roughly on a par with Elvis being discovered alive and well and living in Bolivia and ready to rush record a new album just in time for Christmas. (Cue: a stampede to the record stores by Michael Mann, Al Gore, the Prince of Wales, Tim Flannery, and the rest of the climate fool gang). How can we be so sure? Because this is what the weight of evidence tells us – as Matt Ridley explains in the Wall Street Journal [click on the first link]. He has been talking to Nic Lewis, an expert reviewer of the recently leaked draft of the IPCC's WG1 Scientific Report. Mr. Lewis tells me that the latest observational estimates of the effect of aerosols (such as sulfurous particles from coal smoke) find that they have much less cooling effect than thought when the last IPCC report was written. The rate at which the ocean is absorbing greenhouse-gas-induced warming is also now known to be fairly modest. In other words, the two excuses used to explain away the slow, mild warming we have actually experienced—culminating in a standstill in which global temperatures are no higher than they were 16 years ago—no longer work. In short: We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in “radiative forcing” (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity. The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal- average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F). This is much lower than the IPCC’s current best estimate, 3°C (5.4°F). Ridley says it's "dynamite." Well, possibly. It's definitely one in the eye for climate catastrophist establishment. To understand why, let's remind ourselves of what constitutes the disputed territory in the great global warming debate. For many years, scientists on both sides of the argument have agreed that if atmospheric CO2 doubles from pre- industrial levels – as it will before the end of the century – its "forcing" effects will result in between 1.1 degrees C and 1.2 degrees C of global warming. This gentle rise in temperature, as the IPCC's scientists have acknowledged, will be largely beneficial: rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, etc. So why all the fuss? Because the part scientists disagree on is not the "forcing" effects of CO2-induced warming – but the "positive" or "negative" feedbacks which might arise from it. The alarmists, whose views have dominated the debate these last few decades, have long insisted that these feedbacks – mainly created by additional clouds and water vapour – have a "positive", amplifying effect. It goes like this: A little warming (from whatever cause) heats up the sea, which makes the air more humid—and water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas. The resulting model-simulated changes in clouds generally increase warming further, so the warming is doubled, trebled or more. But what all the observational data now tells us is that this alarmist theory (which was only given credence in the first place as a result of some ropey computer models) is bunk. That's the good news. The bad news is that it's not going to make the blindest bit of difference. As I show in Watermelons, this was never really a debate about science but is, and always has been, about ideology. Lots of people are buying this funny, feisty, fact-rich work for their loved ones for Christmas. As the author I strongly recommend that you do the same – but don't take my word for it, take Matt Ridley's. Do not be deceived by his sometimes flippant and always highly readable prose. This is a serious and significant book. You can buy it here. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
CO2 is a trace gas at 1/3rd of 1 tenth of 1% of earth's atmosphere so even if it trippled or was 20 times the current level such as it was 600 million years ago, CO2 would have very little effect on temperature. For all practical purposes, water vapor, not CO2, is our greenhouse gas.
yes but you can't tax and institute a global government using water vapor. The advantage of exercising every day is so when you die, they'll say, 'Well, he looks good doesn't he?'
Perhaps that is only because people would resist believing lies that clouds and rain are bad things.
LOL you do have a point. However, with CO2, you can control the energy markets and controlled shortages are highly profitable. The advantage of exercising every day is so when you die, they'll say, 'Well, he looks good doesn't he?'
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||