Slashdot Mirror

"nominal statis" - what is nominal and what is static? The reality is that climate change is the norm; a static climate is abnormal.

Yeah, probably tomorrow it could be 1000 degrees. Or maybe -500. Just too chaotic to predict.

"nominal statis" - what is nominal and what is static? The reality is that climate change is the norm; a static climate is abnormal.

I would recommend you look at
http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html
and
http://www.ianschumacher.com/greenhouse_effect_maximum.html

He touches on most of my objections to global warming screams:
1. Non-convincing evidence for global warming if you discount all earth based measurement as well as historical reconstructions and use satellite data only. Or put differently, there are observation series (ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_1.txt) which show no warming.

2. Certainly if one takes a long term view of climate then anything below 5 degree swing is not out of line with the climate over the past million years and so is not a cause for alarm.

3. Global warming observed from land stations may be due to urban heat island effect where the stations are positioned too close to sources of heat. Moreover, if one looks at http://www.surfacestations.org/, the number of CRN-1 stations is minuscule and even those do not necessarily produce believable data because they are not calibrated often and are not monitored 24/7 for random events which could affect data (e.g. bird flock landing on a redundant array of temperature sensors). Why should I believe the data produced by earth-based stations?

4. The correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is not surprising but CO2 level changes lag temperature changes. What is the cause and what is the effect again? The plot you link to shows this clearly as well btw.

5. Predictive power of climate models is non-existent. Indeed, a simple calculation shows that greenhouse effect, if real, should saturate at some point so that Earth temperature would not increase indefinitely even in this scenario.

My additional objection is that even if climate change is real, and even if it is driven by CO2 levels (rather than vice versa) then it may be preferable to address the issue via carbon sequestration and other technological measures rather than reducing our carbon footprint. Imposing things like Kyoto protocol rather than giving financial incentives for technology development is very dubious to me.

I would recommend you look at
http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html
and
http://www.ianschumacher.com/greenhouse_effect_maximum.html

He touches on most of my objections to global warming screams:
1. Non-convincing evidence for global warming if you discount all earth based measurement as well as historical reconstructions and use satellite data only. Or put differently, there are observation series (ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_1.txt) which show no warming.

2. Certainly if one takes a long term view of climate then anything below 5 degree swing is not out of line with the climate over the past million years and so is not a cause for alarm.

3. Global warming observed from land stations may be due to urban heat island effect where the stations are positioned too close to sources of heat. Moreover, if one looks at http://www.surfacestations.org/, the number of CRN-1 stations is minuscule and even those do not necessarily produce believable data because they are not calibrated often and are not monitored 24/7 for random events which could affect data (e.g. bird flock landing on a redundant array of temperature sensors). Why should I believe the data produced by earth-based stations?

4. The correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is not surprising but CO2 level changes lag temperature changes. What is the cause and what is the effect again? The plot you link to shows this clearly as well btw.

5. Predictive power of climate models is non-existent. Indeed, a simple calculation shows that greenhouse effect, if real, should saturate at some point so that Earth temperature would not increase indefinitely even in this scenario.

My additional objection is that even if climate change is real, and even if it is driven by CO2 levels (rather than vice versa) then it may be preferable to address the issue via carbon sequestration and other technological measures rather than reducing our carbon footprint. Imposing things like Kyoto protocol rather than giving financial incentives for technology development is very dubious to me.

Here's a post you might like tgibbs:

http://www.ianschumacher.com/greenhouse_effect_maximum.html

His analysis of the saturation point saw tooth of warm periods and ice ages is particularly interesting.

Although probably not applicable to our generation or even thousands of generations down the line, eventually humans are going to have to try to stop the next long ice age.

Interesting link that proposes (with some reasonable arguments, to me anyway) that Earth's temperature is already near saturation.

http://www.ianschumacher.com/maximum_temperature.h tml

Here is a good/short argument that earth temperature is maxed out.

http://www.ianschumacher.com/gwc.html