Sunday, November 4, 2007

The deceit behind global warming

Wouldn't it be a hoot if the earth starts cooling now? What would the scare-mongers go after next? Do all these guys forget about our good old Sun?

I'm tired of these people who put 100% weight on carbon dioxide, and zero on Sun energy and general water vapour. What about all those really hot times in the past. If we peak up at the 1930's level, the mid-US is a dust bowl, and California won't have any more fires, because of no trees left. Lucky for me, the cottage is fine, because Southern Ontario is always in the battle zone between the cold dry northern air, and southern Gulf breezes.

10 comments:

BrianR said...

"I'm tired of these people who put 100% weight on carbon dioxide..."

Who does that?

magma said...

I'm tired of reading deceitful articles like that Telegraph one. It doesn't help in understanding the situation, though I'm sure it'll help those two sell books.

"The Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away."

Instead of believing them, discover for yourself how the IPCC authors "wiped away [the MWP]" in this part of their 2001 report.

And I'm tired of hearing about global cooling!

Harold Asmis said...

Ha, I knew this would bring out the comments! Lots of carbon dioxide is bad, I bought a hybrid car! However, the global temperature has gone up and down many times before, and is not in lockstep with carbon dioxide!

Anyway, there is a general growing scientific backlash on the current politically correct thinking.

But, I'm all for the warming group-think, if it justifies horribly expensive nuclear plants!

magma said...

"the global temperature has gone up and down many times before, and is not in lockstep with carbon dioxide!"

Indeed - though they are closely related for a reason which *isn't* the greenhouse effect. More importantly, whether or not greenhouse gases drove ALL temp changes in the past (and they sometimes did, for example the PETM) doesn't mean they won't drive a temperature change now. The "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" canard seems to be common amongst geologists not involved in climate science, but it's simply not a point which in any way debunks the main global warming argument.

Nonetheless, I'm interested about the "growing scientific backlash" - can you explain in more detail what you mean by that - or simply throw me some references?

This topic is plagued by unjustified statements on all sides of the argument(s), which only serve to unnecessarily confuse and bewilder people. Hopefully you aren't in that game too.

Harold Asmis said...

No, no, I'm not in the game. I merely enjoyed reading the counter-argument, simply because it would piss a lot of people off! What-his-name the skeptic has also just put out an anti-Gore book. He makes the argument that a dollar spent on carbon reduction, is a dollar taken away from AIDS, and perhaps goes too far in advocating burning cheap fossil fuels.

The climate people do not appreciate the tremendous cost of carbon reduction, and the fact that the money has to come from somewhere. Of course, there is the old argument that money spent on war could go elsewhere! Never happens!

BrianR said...

But, who exactly are the people that put 100% weight on CO2?

Harold Asmis said...

That great scientist Al Gore, would say that rising Co2 levels are causing rising temperatures. To me, that's a 100% correlation, and a 100% weight on CO2 as the driver to warming. A different statement would be: The rising CO2 levels are contributing 10% to global warming, the rest coming from solar flux, etc. And the temperatures could go down tomorrow!

That's what I mean by a total weighting to CO2. Am I wrong here? Do they actually place less weight on CO2?

BrianR said...

Well, there's an emphasis on CO2 because that's a contributing factor people think we can change (i.e., reducing emissions).

This is different from what has been said by the IPCC regarding the multiple factors, including solar irradiance, that contribute to climate fluctuations.

I find it helpful to try and understand different people's perspectives...which category might you identify with?:

(1) GW is real; Americans and American corporations are to blame; we need action now!

(2) GW is real; most likely caused by humans, and, overall, not beneficial to the global population as a whole; let's discuss what to do

(3) GW is real; not caused by humans, so stop talking about it

(4) GW is not real; the measurements/proxies are erroneous; we don't understand the climate system sufficiently to make a call

(5) GW is not real; it is a conspiracy/hoax to force humanity into a one-world gov't (people actually believe this!)

As always it's a continuum...and there are numerous positions in between all those. I tend to fall around position #2. I'm not freaking out...the sky isn't falling. But, as a scientist, I think listening to what the climate science community as a whole is saying, is the right thing to do.

The problem is that you have #1's and #5's dominating the coverage in the media and blogosphere because it is sensational.

Harold Asmis said...

I'm around 2.2, which means:

We are probably in a strong warming cycle, so let's plan for it.

CO2 is accumulating faster than it can be absorbed and this is most likely not a good thing. Let's reduce in a reasonable manner, such as giving the Hummer-guzzlers a carbon tax, and slowly trying to put in some nuclear plants within the available talent resources. Let's not get all huffy-puffy about it!

BrianR said...

Yes, I would agree...something to be concerned about, something to talk about, but not to get crazy over.

Firstly, I think it's more about adapting to than controlling climate change. Secondly, it's a real shame that GW is taking all the motivation for being energy efficient. There are so many other good reasons to reduce our consumption than just that!