IPCC is full of it. i would go even farther and say that the whole premise of the green house effect is flawed and has no scientific basis that i could find and process. As far as the the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is concerned, the whopping 0.03% makes it a trace gas, unlike the cloud cover of the water vapour which is more prominent and solar activity which is the major cause of the temperatures fluctuations. (via Vinicius Mueller) IPCC projections are questionable. The debate over the science of climate change and the data collected is intrinsically tied to political agendas. Here are quotes from eminent experts in their fields, who are vocalizing their criticism in hopes of dispelling the idea that there is consensus over the IPPCs reports and projections: First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it. Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School ofNatural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries;and(3) that CO 2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. There has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed. It is generally agreed that doubling CO2 alone will cause about 1 °C warming due to the fact that it acts as a ‘blanket.’ Model projections of greater warming absolutely depend on positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds that will add to the ‘blanket’ – reducing the net cooling of the climate system. ... This, however,is not the case for the actual climate system where the sensitivity is about 0.5 °C for a doubling of CO2 . Motivated by the observed relation between cloudiness (above the trade wind boundary layer) and high humidity,cloud data for the eastern part of the western Pacific from the Japanese Geostationary Meteorological Satellite-5 (which provides high spatial and temporal resolution) have been analysed, and it has been found that the area of cirrus cloud coverage normalized by a measure of the area of cumulus coverage decreases about 22% per degree Celsius increase in the surface temperature of the cloudy region. ... The calculations show that such a change in the Tropics could lead to a negative feedback in the global climate ... The response to a doubling of CO2, which in the absence of feedbacks is expected to be about 1.2°C, would be reduced to between 0.57° and 0.83°C (depending on y) due to the iris effect. Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre: There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case.Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question. The bottom line is that virtually all climate research in Australia [Canada as well] is funded from one source – namely, the government department which has the specific task of selling to the public the idea that something drastic and expensive has to be done. I have more. It boggles my mind that people cant find this kind of information, and instead just defer to the authority of newspapers and establishment mouthpieces for confirming their biases. this shit takes me an ounce of energy during lulls at work... its a matter of willing to look, not a matter of censorship.
Posted on: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 06:05:27 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015