What Do We Think About Climate Change

Knut,

From http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Carbon.htm

There is no scientific theory linking carbon dioxide to the “runaway” global warming that is the basis of the calamitous predictions. The contribution of the gas to the making of a comfortable planet by the greenhouse effect is well understood, modest and self-limiting. It is only turned into a terror by computer models. These are worthless; depending as they do on extensive guesswork about the ill-understood mechanisms and interactions involved in climate, and involving so many tunable parameters and feedback factors that they could produce any desired result by appropriate tweaking. A quarter of a century ago, before science came under firm bureaucratic control, such models would have been laughed out of court.

The putative experimental evidence is equally dubious. It all sounds very impressive and scary, but on close examination tends to dissolve like the morning mist in the light of the sun. It is only recently that a small troupe of volunteers with few resources has begun a serious audit of the claims. The much vaunted “high-quality” sensor network turns out to be ramshackle almost beyond belief; the processing of the data involves inapplicable methods, glaring errors and unexplained adjustments, which all mysteriously turn out to exaggerate the desired effect. There is a morbid and obsessive secrecy among the practitioners that is quite contrary to the open nature of the scientific method, which prompts the question “What have they got to hide?” Details of publicly funded “research” are kept, quite illegally, from the public who fund it; and only the claimed results, inevitably apocalyptic, are exposed. Such data that have been wrested with great difficulty from their creators almost invariably turn out to be subject to serious dubiety.

Carbon has been framed for purely political purposes.

The effect of CO2 is not linear. Here's one reference.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76

Here are many more.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=CO...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I appreciate that you wish to do the right thing for living things.Just remember Earth will exist long after humans have died out.
Cold will reduce our numbers by 99% I reckon. We need warming, but we shall not get it, unless politicians end up at Tyburn Tree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyburn,_London

See also. http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?

Regards,

Perry

PS

Supersede: to take over. Superseed: far too many seeds. My Norwegian is absolutely crap!

 

The mass media thrive on bad news. Reading stories by "journalists" (so few news reporters are real journalists anymore, another problem) on anything about climate, it becomes obvious that stories are slanted to promote extremes rather than provide thoughtful reporting of scientific research. As for the scientists, there appear to be "less than objective" researchers on both sides. One can argue that fossil fuel companies want research to support their businesses. One can also argue that environmental groups want research to support their view of the existence and cause of a crisis. Many of them would be out of work if there were no crisis, their grant money would dry up, etc. All the more reason to evaluate the data and methods as much as the source.

Personally, I suspect it's a lot more complex than we know yet. Geological scale cycles may be beyond our ability to measure or affect, yet research into the possible effects of industrialization and rapid population growth is important, far too important to be influenced by political considerations of either the right or the left.

No matter how large and complex our biosphere is, however, nothing justifies wasteful consumption of resources or avoidable pollution, both of which we humans are guilty of in spades. Hopefully, the current price trend in fossil fuels and basic commodities will accelerate development of alternative technologies and better consumption practices.

 

Bring back the 'orse and cart say I! Bit o' 'orse **** be useful for the garden too! like the guy following the parade with a bucket and spade shovelling up the 'os ****! Whaty you going to do with that asks the young lad? Why put it on my Rhubarb son sez 'e! "S'funny we normally have custard on ours!!!"

 

Pericles.

What I partly like with discussions like this; It can be a chicken and egg debate Which of these came first the: clobal warming and then an increased level of CO2 or .an increased level of CO2 and then
clobal warming...

Some of these links you gave me, are not working properly... If you meant to relax me, that is.... I do normally trust reports and graphs where the sources are stated, or where they have a signed name. I did a check with the scientist at the radio, called him on the phone, got more details, got a few other names, called these. Their reaction was a bit puzzled, they are not used to private persons following up on their own train of thoughts. Let's change that, the news normally only give us what the brainless jounalists can understand, and then he again filter his information to have an appeal to most possible readers/ viewers.. (Christ, we're we heading..).

So; one of this links you gave me led to this:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/058.htm

These are statements from the scientists stating how much more energy stored in the sea, in the period 1976 - 1998 (Almost at the top of the document).

1.0 +/-0,5 E23 joules is a pretty high number, higher than what I assumed in my earlier calculation... Much higher.

The no of sec in that period 22 x 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 = 693 792 000 s

Heat input (Joules for a period) divided by time (s) gives the energy input in Watts that'll be: 1,44 E14 Watts.....

Divide that by the population on this rock; 6 500 000 000 heads (or something).

We end up with an energy 22 175 watts/ head... :!: .(Must be something freakin' wrong here....? Anybody pls come up with a corrected, lower calculation...):!:

The HP15C is your true friend.

It is also true that there have been similar periods earlier, 3-4 times during the last 4000 years, all of these seem to come in periods/ intervalls. And well, our burning of fossile fuels were probably not the case on the earlier occasions. So human activity are probably far from the biggest factor here.

But heat conductivity of air/ versus CO2 is also clear, CO2 has far better insulating capasities. (I do not disagree to the fact that other gases probably have an effect also, but I tend to simplyfy, thats my way of thinking. I simplify, (than I calculate, normally with 8 digits after the comma, then I Multiply by 4 to be safe..).

CO2 levels have been way up earlier, but the top our activities may add to this curve should be as low as possible. :!: After this heating period we may enter, a colder period probably will follow. Beeing one of the decendants after the tribal lunie, following the last ice shelf north, I'm used to cold climate. And I say; lets be careful here, let's be f** ng careful here, toooo much cold, and we can park our boats (on the other hand I've alaways wanted (to have a better reason) to build a wind driven ice racer).


About air traffic (and that's only one of our causes, but who'll do something with the volcanoes):
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_3_37/ai_70654240



http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=1275



http://www.domainb.com/aero/20070220_air_traffic.htm



http://www.solcomhouse.com/airtraffic.htm



http://www.sepp.org/research/scirsrch/amsairtraf.html



http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6714/full/397030a0.html



http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/eu-parliament-backs-co2-cap-air-traffic/article-156587

On the eve of the Parliament's vote, the European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), an environmental NGO, issued a report showing a steady rise in CO2 emissions from aviation over the last decade. The report, based on figures from the European Environment Agency (EEA), says CO2 emissions from international flights increased by 85% between 1990 and 2004, an average increase of 4.5% per year. It says the increase in emissions "cancels out almost one quarter of the reductions made over the same period by other sectors in Europe under the terms of the Kyoto protocol".


And some other info:

http://www.vitalgraphics.net/climate2.cfm?pageID=8



http://www.vitalgraphics.net/climate2.cfm?pageID=5



Regards Knut

 

To my knowledge human produced CO2 is within the variation of that produced by and adsorbed by the sea in any given year. We are a piddly little influence, we over rate our importance in the scheme of things. We should be more concerned about cleaning our act up for the sake of our lungs and the beauty of our environment. However lets not fool ourselves as to why we should be doing this and lets not destroy economies in the process.

If we think we can influence the cycle of ice ages, which is due to turn again soon, we are deluded. They happened before us and no doubt will continue after us.

 

Learn to live with whatever may happen then get on with your live - winging and wining will not change much - just your perception as a "victim" which would be all your doing/fault... I am right proper ratty at the stupidity of some of our (collective) leaders....

 

You could always get a gun and go postal.... blame it on the meds... Jim made me do it!

 

Naaaaah, don't believe in going the gun (except mutton gun he he ) someone is bound to have a faster draw or get a lucky shot in.... & I don't like the idea of blaming others...

 

Hmm, I get the impression that maybe some of you understood me wrong here, during some of my posts.

I'm not blaming anybody, at least not any specific... Earth (and of course: the sun) itself is the major contributor to the climate changes, And we're on this ride wether we like it or not. But we may have some influence. Being a bit more reflective with regard to all pros and cons of burning fossile fuels and the alternatives will not hurt. A smaller car/ or engine can still get us where we want, meaning less coal shoveled into the furnaces, or at least the burning of fossile fuel is reduced to a lower lewel, and over a longer period, causing a smaller impact.

I'm not whimping and whining, just pointing out some facts, that I also considered a problem even before Al Gore becaame "popular".

I'm not a victim, never meant to be, never intend to become one.
I'm a contender or contributor, like most, for better or worse...
I have taken a (plane) trip to Italy (no offence, I really like Italy, big fan, even like grappa) for a meeting that lasted a couple of hours, and home to Norway the same night, with some messing about I would have managed to get a more local (DNV?) surveyor to do the same, with the same result... What can we manage with webcams? (I admit, some times there are huge advantages with the initial meetings in person).

Oh, and I'll learn to live with it, if climate changes, it will not be too much of this change in my time left, and I'm better prepared than most (live well above sea level, love swimming, love skiing, have boat, have skidoo).

Guns are not the solution....

But hey; don't you see where I'm getting in my arguments:
Gotta build boats that last (tie up the CO2), gotta build deplacement boats, or sail boats, faster boats means only that we get to the destination quicker, which again means less time spent on the water...

Smaller, cheaper car, meaning less income needed, meaning less time working, bigger displasement boat, smaller enginge, more time on the water... Less traveling by plane..... I can live with that
(this is not a description of a wictim, not as I see it at least).

 

Not you Knut, just a little piratical cross talk, as is the habit of the dungeon, Sorry....

 

ok,,,,why is mars getting hotter?????????????????

 

No not his, hers - - Venus or the Moon, I think??

 

i didnt make ya do it,,,,but i sure didnt try ta stop ya eitha,,hehe,,,,"All Hail the "meds" hehe ,,and ya know,,i dont think we're mostly to blame for the climate change,,that much,,a little,,,,,but i do think the impact we ARE doing,,,,will be evident when it comes time (as history has shown over and over) to "recover" from this change.

 

I know the voices in my head are not real ! but they have a point! they said to say Jim made me do it.

 

Time to put the aluminum (Aluminium for those who profess to use the English language) foil helmet back on I think.....