Re: OT: Didn't the AGWists claim all the arctic ice would melt this year ?

James Arthur wrote:
On Aug 19, 1:07 am, John Devereux <jdREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
James Beck <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

You are assuming that the "oil" companies can't diversify.
I'm sure they wouldn't have much of a problem moving into being
"Energy" companies.
One would think so. But it does answer your original points as to
motive. There *does* seem to be an analogy between "big tobacco" and
"big oil" here. Both covertly funding "studies" and "think tanks" to
generate the appearance of a scientific controversy, where there
really isn't one.

Whether there's a controversy depends on the question you ask.

Is the Earth warming at the moment? Yes, seems to be.

So far so good. You are beginning to be scientific about it.

How much, how much is our doing, the net effect, whether this
is bad, or whether it will even continue are entirely different
questions.

Even that question has been answered unambigously and by a sceptic. The most recent 3 decades have seen as much AGW unexplained by changes in insolation (and a close match for GHG contributions) as the previous century of natural solar variation. See Baliunas & Soon for instance.

You can pretend that it doesn't matter. And this is the current denialist chant. However, some of them said that about smoking.

For example, the climate models appear to assume the Earth's
mean temperature is a linear function of CO2--the many I scanned
all include an explicit temp-vs-CO2 sensitivity coefficient.

Since we've increased CO2 30% and warmed ~0.6ºC (in their
estimation), they figure we'll warm 2ºC for a CO2 doubling.
(That's my inference of their thinking; I could be wrong, but
the figures are as stated.)

There are many reasons to suspect that might not be true.
We don't know. Neither do they.

We have a pretty good idea. The absorbtion spectrum of CO2 is well characterised and at high resolution.

In fact, AFAICT there is no reliable figure or equation for the
greenhouse effect of CO2 at all; the factors I see used vary
3:1. Which obviously makes a huge difference in the urgency,
and possibly even the outcome.

That depends on which feedbacks are included. Be sure to compare like with like or you will be very confused. Which is exactly what the denialists want to happen.

And it is absolutely true that scientists with contrary opinions
dare not voice them. It's not politically correct, and it could
lose you your job.

Rubbish. The first person that can prove that AGW is not happening will also get a Nobel prize. But someone with a track record as a denier for hire on seatbelts, smoking tobacco and now AGW will be ridiculed.

The predictions of calamity? Few who understand their
underpinnings would defend them.

I don't think there will be serious damage for at least another century or so, but the inertia in the system means that there will be a very considerable overshoot after that.

It makes very good sense to move to better energy efficiency now. Profligate waste and gas guzzlers have to be phased out. I can't see it happening because politicians are too short term with 5 year horizons. Rising gas prices do seem to be driving things in the right direction though. Too bad it could not have been done in a phased planned way.

Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: how to save the world from global warming
    ... capture and make use of solar energy cheaply enough to compete in the ... industrial system to include everyone on Earth while displacing oil ... energy technologies we'll do enough about it to reverse the rise in CO2 ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: for moonbats only....on the fictional tv programme...."The Great Global Warming Swindle"
    ... reasons you correctly decry.... ... massive even if you ignored agw entirely ... a little on CO2. ... There is far more to gravity than a word. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Bushs October Surprise: war with Iran
    ... purchase oil from a 3rd party. ... didn't lie in The Energy Non-Crisis, there is more then enough oil ... Broecker, a extraordinary geo-chemist, cannot see a clear way to avoid ... the continuous spew of CO2 into the atmosphere. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Seemingly simple logic problem
    ... CO2 production contributes a tiny amount to the overall levels of CO2 in ... Think Sun cycle and Sun's variable energy output. ... We may be in a local period of warming in a larger global ... cleaner fuels, preserve the remaining carbon sinks, hope for the best ...
    (rec.org.mensa)
  • Re: carbon sequestration....an infant technology....will it work?
    ... sequestered CO2 could form an acid that could etch away the confining ... thing that will prevent CO2 build up in the atmosphere ... relatively lower energy prices. ... present firewood in local power stations and sequester the CO2 in situ ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
Quantcast