Report from 33d Intl. Geology Congress in Norway (By Charlie Hall)
Update: Welcome Drudge readers. While you're here, I'd encourage you to take a quick look at these graphs (just keep scrolling).
9) The plenaries, especially the climate session and somewhat the energy sessions, were designed for a more general scientific audience. They tended to be moderately interesting, optimistic about resources and technology and often extremely contentious. About two thirds of the presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the IPCC (International panel on climate change) and the idea that the Earth's climate was responding to human influences. This was rather shocking to me who knows of several other such scientists but had no idea there were so many. They talked about Milankovich Cycles of course, but also sunspot cycles and other possible climate forcings. These were linked to some pretty bizarre (to me) ways of influencing the climate: e.g. making cloud condensation nuclei through ionizing radiation from sun spots or slowing or speeding the Earth's rate of spin in response to cosmic rays. These were apparently very serious scientists but presented far more correlation than clear and convincing mechanism, at least I thought. An atmospheric physicist sitting next to me said that there was no correlation between cosmic rays and clouds as he had made all the measurements. The IPCC folks were adamant that there model was built on first principles, could reproduce past changes in climate and was making proper predictions. The plenary had at the end a "debate" but it was really two ships passing in the might---each side presented its arguments –usually using different types of logic, often arrogantly, and said the other side could not possible be right. The moderators could have done us all a service by guiding the debate to specific issues "what do each of you think about sun spot correlations even when their effect appears trivial" but that did not happen.
10) I could not at first figure out why there was so much hostility between the two climate groups. At first I thought it empiricists vs modelers, although each group was somewhat mixed. Then I concluded that it is the geologists, used to studying constant climate change over very long time periods of Earth's history, who think that basically the climate of the earth is always changing due to various forcings, and what's the big deal now? The IPCCers respond that the Earth has never seen CO2 levels such as we are headed for and that the CO2 changes produce a strong enough signal to change the climate. And on and on. John Holdren has recently prepared a point by point response to the anti IPCCers which I will try to send out. Then we can expect a rebuttal to that and so on.
Update: Welcome Drudge readers. While you're here, I'd encourage you to take a quick look at these graphs (just keep scrolling).
Posts
26 comments:
"The IPCCers respond that the Earth has never seen CO2 levels such as we are headed for and that the CO2 changes produce a strong enough signal to change the climate."
Which demonstrates that the IPCC are the liars that they are. C02 levels have been as much as 20 times higher in the early Paleozoic (Cambrian) era.
Let's say that the anti-global warming people win the argument. Great. Now what? What do you accomplish with this win? A dirtier environment? Congratulations.
Well said jeff. Your comment hints at the intellectual dishonesty that surrounds this debate. I support a decrease in the release of various substances into the atmosphere. But I cannot countenance the scare tactics, shoddy science, and revisionist history that surrounds the global warming phenomenon.
No jeff, we achieve more financial freedom. Draconian (and worsening) emissions regulations cost us. Subsidies (i.e. payments which rational people will not pay, so we are forced to pay via taxes) for low-emissions vehicles cost us. The list goes on.
So agw's future is as a lie in a good cause?
Atmospheric CO2 molecules do not equal "dirty".
You're confusing CO2 with atmospheric carbon particulates there Jeff.
Jeff, you ask what would be achieved if the anti-global warming people "win"? There is no "win or lose", its a simple matter of truth. Who is right? You want a cleaner environment through lies? How about people pursuing truth in their science instead of whatever gets the biggest grants??? Global Warming very well may be true, but if it is, its facing major setbacks because of the lies currently surrounding the evidence.
Jeff, you are confusing this issue with the Pollution issue. Global warming is not about litter, toxic waste or illegal dumping of garbage. CO2 does not make the environment 'dirty.' Trees, algae and sundry plants and microphages depend on C02 for food.
Anthropogenic global warming is a scheme to pilfer money out unsuspecting and genuinely caring citizens of the greatest nation on earth. It also just happens that that greatest nation (the U.S.) is by far the most environmentally responsible (per capita)in the world.
Temperature at certain points on land at ground level is a direct inverse function of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Well, its Newtonian physics which sees the relationship between energy and matter as continuous, not the quantum theory of Max Planck.
Read "Ecoimperialism" by Paul Dresher. He was a co-founder of Greenpeace and exposes how corporations with NGOs (nongovernment organizations) have used the global warming myth to generate economic advantage across the globe. The intent of these groups is to manipulate developing countries and keep them as colonial extensions.
These groups encourage keeping developing countries in a state of poverty. They encourage solar panels on huts over hydro-electric plans to keep huts forever and deny these people an industial age.
Jeff:
if we stop wasting inordinate time about the high-falutin AGW debate, we could devote those resources (both intellectual and financial) to dealing with pollution, smarter energy technologies and so forth.
So although I agree with your concern, I think you are wrong to suppose that only by believing in AGW can any beneficial changes be made. In fact, it's an enormous distraction and as such should be trashed ASAP because we do have serious problems and we really should be addressing them.
"The IPCCers respond that the Earth has never seen CO2 levels such as we are headed for and that the CO2 changes produce a strong enough signal to change the climate."
"Which demonstrates that the IPCC are the liars that they are. C02 levels have been as much as 20 times higher in the early Paleozoic (Cambrian) era"
Or it demonstrates that there is some serious misreporting going on. The IPCC specifies that the change in CO2 levels over time have never been as rapid, NOT that they haven't been as high. This data comes directly from ice core and dendrochronology data and is not in dispute. It would be nice to see this debate revolving around the actual data instead of heresay and innuendo.
kn195@hotmail.com
More importantly, why aren't we spending the resources preparing for what might be a 50 year cold snap, or worse a Maunder Minimum type little ice age. A little warming really doesn't hurt us. Ice ages starve millions, and possibly billions today if we are unprepared.
Mr. Tom Nelson who holds a Masters of Science degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, what background in science puts your opinion on global warming higher then someone with qualifications in the correct field?
Your held degree in Elctrical and Electronics Engineering means you can build a radio to listen to Rush Limbo and friends.
It does not qualify you as an expert on the eviroment.
We look too much in the human element and not what nature spews in the atmosphere as well. No one in the media, politics, nor IPCC want to address it. Volcanic activity by far spews more products in the stratosphere than humans. It is arrogant for us to assume we are the sole producers of greenhouse gas. I listen to climatoloogists who know far more than any other scientist. They are the growing skeptics who are uncovering a costly lie. Al Gore (by the way does not practice what he preaches) and his ilk better take heed that there is a growing number of professional and accredited scientists who smell a rat about the supposed global warming. Why did they change the name from GW to climate change? To smoke screen the lie. Truth will be told and I believe the biggest fraud in the history of the world will uncover. If GW was a 90 to100% consensus, I would take heed. I believe the confidence level is such that a null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Let's get to the truth and I believe in the growing number of climatologists that say GW is suspect as a global fraud.
Jeff, how does CO2 make for a dirty climate? Of course the anti-climate warming people should win, the truth should always win. If Gore and the enviro-nazi's win, then lies win.
In response to Jeff, energy policy needs to balance sometimes competing priorities of (i) environment, (ii)security and (iii) economy. Adopting pure CO2 reduction initiatives such as carbon sequestration will have negative effects on the environment and economy while attempting to solve what appears to be a fictitous CO2 problem. Don't assume that the solution to GW will necessarily be a positive outcome for the environment. Faulty assumptions will lead to faulty solutions.
I for one, don't argue one way or the other on global warming or not. It changes. up and down. I am concerned with a money issue. How does "buying" a carbon offset relate to temperature change(other that hot under the collar)?
We live on a semi-closed system. adding or subtracting energy to that system affects it's temperature. if there is a change in temps over the long term you simply must go with the flow and realize that you are a mote in Gods's eye. spitting into the wind of change will only make your face wet.
But, what a scheme! Billions of dollars and euros are changing hand for the betterment of the planet....right. And for what? all the alarmists can do is raise more alarm. we can't actually "do" anything about "global warming".
When I am asked to "fund" the fight against global warming I ask to see the science behind the claims and I am directed to a film narrated by a failed politician.
Give me a break.
In a short while (a very few hundred years), fossil fuels will be running out. The CO2 debate will then be moot. I have not seen anyone address this fact in the AGW debate.
If we replace fossil fuel energy with, say, nuclear, what happens to the temperature trend? What will the whole debate look like? We reportedly have a 100 year supply of NG and a 400 year supply of coal. The debate about oil running out is ongoing. I would like to see some comments on these issues.
Ted
Primary reason for supporting agw, reported in the Financial Times during the 2007 conference of world financial and industrial leaders: A representative of the internationa investment bank, Morgan Stanley, exhorted the leaders to get on board with global warming because there are hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to be made. Representative of 2 of 3 niche investment banks formed after the Kyoto treaty took affect in 2002 reported the they were enjoying annual revenues of several hundred million dollars each, and they dealt only in carbon credits.
Jeff,
If the anti-global warming people do win this is what will happen. The governemnt probably will not be able to regulate CO2 emissions. That is the issue. Nobody is against a clean environment. I just don't think it is worth putting SO MANY industries out of business and more costs on the American people so we can stop CO2 emissions. If it is proved that CO2 does not adversely affect the environment, there is no reason to regulate it. This doesn't mean that the air is dirtier. We can still regulate other compounds in the air that are harmful to humans.
And just on a side note. Everyone has said that CO2 emissions are so high. Has anyone thought about the fact that the world's population has grown exponentially over the past few years and humans BREATHE OUT CO2? What is the next step if the first steps are unsuccessful in reducing CO2, stopping humans from exhaling, or just getting rid of humans altogether? The notion that CO2 is dangerous to human health as the EPA has suggested is rediculous. It is a naturally occuring compound for goodness sakes. I realize that most environmentalists think that the earth would be better off without humans, but give me a break.
Also, what ever happened to the hole in the ozone? Did the environmentalists think that stopping "global warming" would prove to be more profitable? Just wondering. That "crisis" seemed to have dissapeared overnight. I guess removing CFC's in SOME hairspray fixed that. Yeah right.
Dubai developers have voted with their petro dollars and built an extraordinary 21st century jet setters destination city with man made islands, fabulous skyscrapers malls, and 7 star luxury hotels.
Dubai builders must have paid for the very best scientific advisors in the world who clearly do not agree with the IPCC report.
Anonymouth says the rise "has never been as rapid." Except that graphs of the previous 2 30-year warming cycles have EXACTLY the same slope as this one -- which means that humans had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any of them! (And neither did CO2).
Here we go! Warmist changing to Pollutionist.
I don't like pollution, you have a vast mojority there!
STOP!! Don't say try to combine your stupid warm theories with pollution!
The earth is COOLING and we should still protect the air and water.
OK!
Al Gore is a liying sack1
You picked the wrong spoke person.
i would like to just say something here... The point of the arguers is not that pollution is good, or that it should not be reduced. Their point is that the whole world is being ruled by CO2 emissions as we speak. Not only that, AL GORE, is making billions (his company) by buying and selling CO2 in the CO2 exchange market. This is not the end. The Governments will MONITOR our HOME CO2 EMISSIONS, but still do nothing to the multinational corporations who produce ALL the man made CO2. So, the little people will have cops coming in their homes to monitor their "pollution levels" and get taxed accordingly, while there are NUCLEAR PLANTS PRODUCING NUCLEAR WASTE! And why? To produce electricity??? WHY? We ALL know NIKOLA TESLA and Zero Point energy. We are way past the dark ages. The lies have to be debunked, this is why the scientists going against the Global Warming hoax HAVE TO win this argument.
It is a matter of whether the whole world will STILL BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT, OR THEY WILL JUST ADMIT IT IS ROUND! That simple. I hope you can make the connection...
Jeff,
How did it feel to get schooled so bad here man?
I use to think global warming was not logical because even if it exists. It's only 1% change in temperature after 50 years. I am seeing though some pretty crazy climate changes. I think there is more vitality to it then I recently thought. Even a 1% increase in time could be enough to melt the ice in the north pole and cause tons of problems.
Post a Comment