Posted on 01/30/2007 7:30:32 AM PST by Notwithstanding
Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET
Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March. --- break --- Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.
(Excerpt) Read more at drudgereport.com ...
How many variables in your model and what is the transfer function of that model?
What resolutions are needed? Current resolutions are woefully inadequate, typically 100 km horizontal, 25 vertical layers, and 10 minute intervals. The last one, time interval may be ok, but the grid resolution clearly sucks since climate affecting weather is mesoscale 10km and sometimes small scale (1km) in the case of tropical shower activity. The essential problem is that small scale weather activities like the tropical showers pump water vapor up into the upper atmosphere where it causes the most amount of greenhouse warming. If they are not modeled accurately, then the climate prediction results will be wrong.
My point in bringing up the models was that once computer power is sufficient for adequate models, they will be useful to calculate the effects of simple and cheap climate countermeasures that might be needed. The current Kyoto countermeasure is estimated to cost about $100 billion for each 1/1000th of a degree of hypothetical cooling, an outrageous amount of money for a completely inconsequential result.
Two questions:
1. What evidence is available that indicates that CO2 concentrations increased prior to the receedance of the Wisconsin Ice Sheet instead of in response to changes in regional or global temperature increases?
2. How does the current atmospheric concentration of CO2 compare with the million year average CO2 concentration?
Just curious.
Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory doesn't really have enough track record to judge.
Very true.
There's little doubt that the Earth has been warming.
"Little doubt" leaves a lot of room for interpretation (both objectively and subjectively). For the sake of argument, I'm willing to accept the premise, though the conclusion does appear to be time and location dependent.
there's little doubt that CO2 is a warming agent
CO2 is by definition a greenhouse gas and therefore can absorb and re-radiate "heat." How much and to what degree that influences surface temperatures or climate forcings is much more complicated.
human activity has increased its atmospheric concentration.
I think it would be more accurate to say that human activity has resulted in the emissions of CO2. Increases in CO2 concentrations depend on the performance of sources and sinks, many of which have substantial error bars.
No theory should be used a basis for public policy unless its reliability can be determined.
I couldn''t have stated it better.
Take care.
In the Antarctic ice core data images provided in post 124, why does it appear that temperature changes occur before changes in CO2?
Try calculating, on an order of magnitude basis, the mass of pure sulfuric acid that would be reqired to change the PH of the worlds oceans by even .001%.
Oh dear! What does it mean? You must be in law school now or something. Does it mean, that CO2 just accelerates what was imbedded in the sun activity or something?
I don't think there is a perfect answer but I will hazard a guess.
While most current climate models assume the sun is at a constant temperature nothing could be further from the truth. It is quite possible (even probable) that the sun caused the jump in temperature in conjunction with or without other factors.
Ain't that the truth.
California taxes were killing me.
Had to adapt to southern Nevada weather and cost of living.
The difference in state income tax and property value paid for a bigger house on a golf course. The difference in energy rates paid for state of the art insulation and climate control in three times the square footage.
yitbos
A very good observation. I don't know what the evidence is, if any, that measured CO2 increases are primarily due to human activity. Information about recent history is probably very good (we know how much fossil and other fuels are burnt and we know what atmospheric CO2 concentrations are) so we can reliably say today what the natural sinks and sources are doing in the aggregate, even if we can't identify and understand them in detail. But extrapolating that aggregate behavior into the future seems very chancy. As evidence, it's my understanding that we have inferred significant historical swings in CO2 concentrations which cannot have been due to human action.
Supposing those inferences are reliable, and supposing they cover siginficant historical periods, I'd trust that extrapolation into the future. You could add that variability as another uncertainty into the models.
The reason that CO2 increases lag temperature increases is that they are a result, not a cause of global warming. This is demonstrated by the same lag being repeated in multiple deglaciation cycles in the paleoclimate data. This lag and its irresistible logical implications are very inconvenient for the AGW argument.
A discussion of the mechanism is presented here. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html. The basic idea is that the relationship between temperature levels and CO2 levels is well explained by the solubility curve of CO2 in water, which is a function of temperature.
The author addresses criticisms of his thesis by Gavin Schmidt here. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html, and is worth reading if you are of a scientific bent of mind.
Regards,
bttt
The very reason why Algore released his "documentary" is because he can throw out all sorts of false blather and he doesn't have to debate anyone. It is much like op-ed pieces. Folks write them, say what they want, get a flash of attention, then never have to answer for them and all is soon forgotten.
My guess is Algore is making money off of the hysteria he is causing. As with all things human, when the facts don't add up, follow the money......
I live on coastal Georgia. My house is 13.2 feet above sea level. I guess that I don't need to plan to move inland any time soon.
Thanks.
And I just went out and bought a new snow blower.
I fail to understand why a few degree rise in temps along with some extra rain and a little extra CO2, all of which would increase crop production and tree growth is a bad thing.
It is 6 degrees w/ snow showers right now in Indianapolis and is going to be colder this weekend. If given my druthers I would rather it be sunny and 40.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.