| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fester" |
| Date: |
17 Aug 2007 06:42:04 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Another nail in the IPCC coffin |
The "settled" science of AGW was dealt another serious blow by a scientist
at Brookhaven. It seems that the effects of CO2 on climate is only about
1/3 as great as the doomsayers predict. Even if one buys in to the crapola
about CO2 being anything more than a negligible contributor to climate
change, this study dramatically lowers the prospects that even the most
diehard gloom and doomers can claim.
PEDICTION: In 5 to 10 years, "An Inconvenient Truth" will be considered the
"Reefer Madness" of our day. Kids will drive up to the midnight movies in
their humungous cars to laugh at the stupidity that so many have bought in
to with such sincerity!
<quote>
Overturning the "Consensus" in One Fell Swoop [Joel Schwartz]
New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that
the Earth's climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide
as the IPCC assumes. Schwartz's study is "in press" at the Journal of
Geophysical Research and you can download a preprint of the study here.
According to Schwartz's results, which are based on the empirical
relationship between trends in surface temperature and ocean heat content,
doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would result in a 1.1oC
increase in average temperature (0.1-2.1oC, two standard deviation
uncertainty range). Schwartz's result is 63% lower than the IPCC's estimate
of 3oC for a doubling of CO2 (2.0-4.5oC, 2SD range).
Right now we're about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of
270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will
double around 2070. Based on Schwartz's results, we should expect about a
0.6oC additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this
additional CO2. That doesn't seem particularly alarming.
A couple of other interesting implications of Schwartz's results:
a.. Aerosols have a relatively small effect on temperature. A doubling of
CO2 has an estimated climate "forcing" of 2.7 watts per square centimeter
(W/cm2). In contrast, actual aerosol concentrations during the 20th Century
had a forcing of -0.3 W/cm2 with a large uncertainty range that could mean
either net cooling or net warming from aerosols.
b.. The response time, or "time constant", of the climate to greenhouse
gas forcing is relatively small-only five years. In other words, there's
hardly any additional warming "in the pipeline" from previous greenhouse gas
emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth's
average temperature will rise an additional 0.6oC during the 21st Century
even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing.
Schwartz is careful to include the appropriate caveats to his results. But
he also shows that his estimates are consistent with much of the previous
literature on the subject. His study also has the virtue of relying largely
on empirical measurements of actual climate behavior during the 20th
Century, rather than on climate models.
Stephen Schwartz is a pretty mainstream climate scientist. Yet along with
dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, his new study belies
Al Gore's claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate
catastrophism.
Indeed, if Schwartz's results are correct, that alone would be enough to
overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC's scientific "consensus", the
environmentalists' climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the
energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world's
environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question
is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?
08/16 03:34 PM
</quote>
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another nail in the IPCC coffin |
17 Aug 2007 09:23:16 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:42:04 -0400, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
The "settled" science of AGW was dealt another serious blow by a scientist
at Brookhaven. It seems that the effects of CO2 on climate is only about
1/3 as great as the doomsayers predict. Even if one buys in to the crapola
about CO2 being anything more than a negligible contributor to climate
change, this study dramatically lowers the prospects that even the most
diehard gloom and doomers can claim.
He's working on how much of the temperature change WE SEE is due to
CO2, not how much of a temperature change we see. If CO2 isn't
causing all the change we see, something else is. (We already know
that water vapor, methane and decreased albedo account for a large
part of it.)
So his findings aren't anything new.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
