[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: Man-emitted CO2 causing devastating global warming? Uh, no A couple of readers questioned our call for an independent investigation of the underlying science that is the basis for global warming alarmism. They claim, in essense, that the science is settled. Who are we to rock this boat, anyway? Well, there are lots of super-qualified, highly regarded scientists rocking it along with us. Many of them find the claim that man’s meager contribution of a trace gas (CO2) into the atmosphere could significantly change anything, let alone set us on course for a melt down. Here’s a fellow worth listening to: William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton. He seems fairly qualified in this regard from where we sit. He’s spent his professional life studying one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. He’s published 200 peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, a member of the American Physical Society and the National Academy of Sciences. He’s even previously been the director of energy research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where he supervised all DOE’s climate change work. Last May, he testified before congress. Guess what he said: “Global-warming alarmists have tried to silence any who question the party line of impending climate apocalypse. We need to establish a Team B of competent scientists, charged with questioning the party line. The DoD and the CIA do this, there was a devil’s advocate (promoter fidei) for sainthood, why not the same for climate change?“ Gosh, that sounds awfully like what we called for in our editorial, huh? Gee, who knew? Why does he feel a need for someone to look at the evidence other than the good old-boy network that’s kept it close to the vest for so long? “The climate-change establishment has tried to eliminate any who dare question the science. This was made very clear in the Climategate Letters, which reveal the blacklisting of research that strays from the party line with the aid of hostile peer reviewers and helpful editors, and threats to any journal that did not cooperate — in some cases leading to the removal of editors. Climate change science needs a “team B.” By the way, does he feel the same way the people trying to scare you to death feel? Are we headed on the path to warming hell? “I, and many other scientists, think the warming will be small compared the natural fluctuations in the earth’s temperature, and that the warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind.” Oops, as we like to say about global warming alarmism. Why is this? It’s because the alarmists assume CO2 will create a positive feed-back in clouds that will increase the greenhouse effect and dramatically increase temperatures. He doesn’t. Many others don’t either. Why? “With each passing year, experimental observations further undermine the claim of a large positive feedback from water. In fact, observations suggest that the feedback is close to zero and may even be negative. That is, water vapor and clouds may actually diminish the relatively small direct warming expected from CO2, not amplify it.” Excuse us. We simply must interject here: “OOPS!” “The evidence here comes from satellite measurements of infrared radiation escaping from the earth into outer space, from measurements of sunlight reflected from clouds and from measurements of the temperature the earth’s surface or of the troposphere, the roughly 10 km thick layer of the atmosphere above the earth’s surface that is filled with churning air and clouds, heated from below at the earth’s surface, and cooled at the top by radiation into space. My own educated guess is that doubling CO2 from our current value of about 380 ppm to 760 ppm will warm the atmosphere by less than 2 C – and perhaps less if there is negative feedback from water-vapor and clouds.“ We highly recommend reading Happer’s testimony. He explains how all of the IPCC climate models assume positive feedback – despite observable evidence to the contrary. He also points out the blindingly obvious: more CO2 in the atmosphere will be beneficial to mankind, not harmful. In fact, to reduce CO2 levels, as alarmists insist that we must, “we would lose some of the benefits of the green revolution.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
The paper of record for Disneyland. nice. 8D The same county that names it's airport after a fake war hero. LMFAO "He explains how all of the IPCC climate models assume positive feedback" No, they don't, which is why Climate Scientists are saying the Tipping Point is now past. Just how long will people be able to pretend that an Ice Free Arctic hasn't occurred in at least 800 000 years. And that civilization has only been able to occur in the Holocene. Tick Tock. 8D
Surface temperature anomalies for the period December 17, 2010, to January 15, 2011, show impressive warmth across the Canadian Arctic…. The largest anomalies here exceed 21 °C (37.8 °F) above average, which are very large values to be sustained for an entire month. The disinformers and many in the media love to focus on where it is cold in the winter. It has been cool where many people live. Brr! Unfortunately for homo sapiens, it’s been staggeringly warm where the ice is. I’ll do a post on Greenland shortly, but the NSF-sponsored researchers at UCAR/NCAR have posted some staggering data on just how warm it has been in northern Canada:
Bonus Talking Point: The fact that a few on the Right are acting temporarily less berserk is to the catastrophically overheating reality of American Politics.... ...as a pretty snowfall in Chicago is to the catastrophically overheating reality of Global Climate Change. Nice, but statistically irrelevant.
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|