Monday, January 14, 2013
Greenpeace's Peter Taylor on Global Warming
"Behind the scenes there is major disagreement among scientists. Parallel to CO2 rising, the solar field has increased by 200% since 1900 and this is not factored into the computer models. Many of the apparently random fluctuations of past temperature - like when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland - correlate to variations in the solar electric field.......Between 1983 and 2000, cloud-cover, according the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, fell by 4%, more than enough to heat oceans and account for global warming.......A spate of recent science shows that temperature oscillations are timed by solar cycles, that the jet-stream is affected by the solar wind and that past high and low points in the solar cycle correlate (and, no, there isn't a 600-800 year lag, either) with past temperature swings."..........................................................................................And as for 1993 to 2003 being hottest decade on record, a) they've only been recording temperatures since 1860, b) the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval (think Eric the Red in a tank-top) warming periods were all infinitely hotter (strong geological evidence), and c) by the mid-19th Century we were actually coming out of a mini ice-age and so OF COURSE WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A WARMING PERIOD!!! Ay yay yay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Data for the last 400,000 years shows some cyclicity in CO2 (as well as temperature). The concern
is that while CO2 naturally fluctuated between200-280 ppm,
indeed as it was during the Greenland Middle Warm Period, the
CO2 concentration has risen at an accelerated pace to its current 395
ppm. The biosphere (through green plants) absorbs CO2 and many forests, especially equatorial, have been reduced. So the question becomes, will the accelerated pace continue, stabilize or reverse; and how high can CO2 rise before
significant greenhouse effect occurs. Certainly, there are other
factors relating to the sun-planet relationship, cloud cover, ocean
currents, etc...which are included in NOAA algorithms. I know a couple atmospheric physicists, but
never discussed the problem..maybe
next time..less beer.
Oops, forgot a data source..here is one of many similar links .
According to Professors Plimer and Lindzen, only the first 200 or so parts per million actually have a heating effect. But, yes, you do make a good point on the deforestation and I agree with you on the fact that we need to protect the environment better in that regard (one of the main reasons that I'm a vegetarian is the fact that the livestock industry is responsible for a massive amount of deforestation).
And to me, it makes a lot more sense that the warming is probably causing the rise in CO2 than the other way around. a) Warming has a reverse solubility effect on water (as you increase temperature, you naturally start to evaporate CO2 from water) and b) in virtually every period of past global warming (all the way back to the Paleozoic era), the warming preceded these rises in CO2 by a good 600-800 years.
I'm not qualified to comment on specific details of the 'controversy', but just note
the existence of a contra
Plimer body of work.
The Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is a governmental body whose very existence is dependent upon not being convinced.
True, amid the data there are axes to be ground..Plimer is a scion
of
the Australian mining industry. No
question, he is a bright guy and willing to take opposing views head on..in particular his ongoing
battles with the creationists..
"You don't believe in electormagnetism?..here, hold these two cables.."
There are still a few who aren't on the gravy train (Tim Ball, Larry Bell, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen) and who haven't fudged the data.
Ouch..'fudge the data'! If you do that after Jr. High, you are no scientist. 'Misinterpret' might be a more acceptable verb. Not to
worry , the data is there, just not conclusive enough for some. If I make it to
ninety, I will be keen to see how
Lindzen's bet of a cooler earth
turns out....
I'm not selling my coat.
And Climategate wasn't fudging?
Post a Comment