Abstract: In 2008 I participated on a panel at the Lindau meeting discussing “Global Warming” and to prepare, I looked into the subject using the internet. I found that the general belief is that the average surface temperature over the whole earth for a whole year has increased from ~288 oK to 288.8 oK in roughly 150 years, i.e. 0.3% and that it is due to increased CO2. If this is true, it means to me that the temperature has been amazingly stable.
In the same time period the number of people has increased in the world from 1.5 billions to over 7 billion. Is it possible that all the paved roads and cut down forests have had an effect on the climate?
The American Physical Society think differently, however, as its public position is:
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
I believe that nothing in science is “incontrovertible” thus, in my view, APS has become a political (or religious?) society. Consequently, I resigned from APS in the fall of 2011.
In this talk I will explain why I became concerned about the climate, and terrified by the one sided propaganda in the media, In particular I am worried about all the money wasted on alternate energies, when so many children in the world go hungry to bed.
If you still believe that global warming is occurring and that the main cause is CO2 when I have finished this talk, I urge you to argue for two things to save the world:
1. Introduction of nuclear power
2. Limit the population increase by allowing only one child/woman
2. Limit the population increase by allowing only one child/woman.ReplyDelete
Nope, can't go for that.
It's bad enough being told which light bulbs to use let alone how many children we can have.
That such a thing could even be mentioned is mind boggling.
It is the logical conclusion to the argument that there are "too many people" for us all to enjoy the "American Dream" and simultaneously reduce the CO2 burden on the atmosphere. There are eco-nuts out there who are advocating reduction of the World Population to a "sustainable" one (1) billion (as in 6 billion or so of us have to go). To them, of course, I always say - "fine - you first!"Delete
Dr. Giaever only makes those recommendations "IF you STILL believe that global warming is occurring AND that the main cause is CO2 when I have finished this talk..." Giaever shows CO2 is not causing global warming and therefore those recommendations do not apply.ReplyDelete
Application of the first law of thermodynamics, the time-integral of sunspot numbers (a proxy for energy retained by the planet) and a generalization of ocean thermal cycles explains average global temperature anomalies since 1895 with an accuracy of 88.5%.ReplyDelete
Thanks, do you have a link?ReplyDelete
I obtained a correlation coefficient of .96% with a similar "model"
The paper made public 11/24/11 explains the basis and provides 27 sub links. I have a recent one (July 4) but it has not been made public yet. The story hasn't changed much.
The separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising average global temperature has grown to 25.1%.
In this APS publication [ http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm ]the authors point out that to get energy balance, you must reduce lower atmosphere emissivity from 1, used by the IPCC, to 0.76. This means the models exaggerate heat input by 333[1-0.76]=80 W/m^2 or 50 times calculated AGW!ReplyDelete
This corresponds to increasing IR by 350%, the cause of the imaginary feedback. There are many other serious faults in this pseudo-science. No climate models can predict climate.
Yes - agreed. I am planning to do a post on the subject of the fallacious GHE calculation on the APS site.
[If this is MDGNN by chance, I would like to run a few things by you via email - if you would be so kind to send your email address to email@example.com & I will of course keep your email & communications private]
I note the focus on one or two negative points - some sad people always grasp at straws. The fact is - plain and simple truth just doesn't suit the doomsday brigade. It's good to see some good old fashioned common sense getting an airing. DJ Syd - AustReplyDelete