Dear Edward:
I thought that this website was devoted to debunking conspiracies and hoaxes. The purpose of me posting on your forum was to bring up Al Gore’s deceptive movie. He has taken the little understood and researched area of climatology and fabricated a doomsday scenario that goes far beyond any reckoning by the UN IPCC. The UN IPCC has many faults but, they are no where near the extravagant claims of Al Gore. That is why I have equated “An Inconvenient Truth” with “Zeitgeist the Movie”.
Climate does change and there are many possibilities for regional and global changes. There is good indications that man is the cause of much ecological disaster. The Himalayan ice melt has more to do with soot from unfiltered fuel burning than temperature change. That has more to do with poverty than CO2. Without affordable energy sources people will use whatever they can to cook and heat their homes. Only developed countries can afford to produce clean energy. We have come a long way in reducing pollution in the U.S. because we can afford to. We didn’t just call something a pollutant for political expediency, we tested substances to determine their detrimental effects. CO2 is essential to life, not detrimental. There is proof that CO2 is beneficial. The Duke University study http://face.env.duke.edu/PDF/np185-10.pdf shows tree stands exposed to enhanced CO2 grow significantly more and http://face.env.duke.edu/PDF/pce32-09a.pdf shows tree stands in enhanced CO2 are more resistant to drought. The sequestering of CO2 into deep underground facilities would take away a valuable resource. If it could be economically diverted to crops so that we could feed the increasing population, that would make more sense.
CO2 is almost twice as good an insulator as oxygen and nitrogen so we wouldn’t want it to be a major part of the atmosphere (it’s less than 0.039%)but, there is no unequivocal proof that man-made CO2 (0.001925% ) is the cause global warming and the increase of total CO2 is more of a result of global warming than anything we have done. There is variability in the Sun’s output which alone could produce the amount of warming we experienced in the 80’s and 90’s http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html but, as with most climate data sources, the required instrumentation has only been in place for a relatively short period of time.
I’m sorry if my references to Al Gore and his movie are tiresome to you but, he and his AGW religion have hijacked the science discussion. One cannot discuss climate without the ranting of the alarmists and political hacks trying to say if you don’t believe that man is the cause of global warming then you are a “denier“.
Muertos:
Most scientists are not followers of Al Gore’s AGW religion. They are concerned with finding out how the climate system works. Political and business pressures have focused the debate on anthropogenic forcing before we have even figured out the natural cycles.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s paper states that there is not a greenhouse effect since there is not a physical barrier to space or a partial barrier since a hypothetical layer of CO2 would block incoming IR radiation as well as outgoing IR radiation. In fact they explain that “the full theory of the atmospheric system must be a fusion of magnetohydrodynamics and radiation theory including earth’s gravity and rotation. The full theory should be a multi component theory and should include phase separation, plasma physics, and highly involved boundary conditions which, in general even, cannot be written down“. First the turbulence problem must be solved, and then we can discuss the existence of a local thermodynamic equilibrium for the photon bath in which the atmosphere is embedded. There is not one source in scientific literature, where the CO2 term enters the fundamental equations except in computer models. Computer models are computer games that use “flux corrections” to show what the political hacks want them to show. “Mathematically, even within the most simplified models you cannot predict anything, because all these ones crudely approximate non-linear partial differential equations with unknown boundary conditions. There is simply no physical foundation of the computer models with and without CO2“.
Your Eli Rabbet blog tries to confuse the issue with statements like according to G&T there wouldn’t be an atmosphere which is not what they say at all. Why not actually read G&T’s paper instead of letting others tell you what to think of it? http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb Vol. 23 No.3 Jan. 2009.
I read your “scientific” paper and it fell apart with just remedial science knowledge. If you would bother to read the paper you gave me by Smith you would should be able to see the obvious flaws in it. Instead you like to go “clicky with your mousey” to whatever the AGW priests say is proof that they are right.
The theory of CO2 induced global warming is just a theory that has very little evidence supporting it and much evidence that denounces it. The alarmists point to a small temperature increase over a brief period of time (geologically speaking) and increases of tons of CO2 emitted by mankind (miniscule on a planetary basis) and say they must be related. The theory is seriously questioned with a general knowledge of thermodynamics. Not everyone is familiar with thermodynamics including many scientists that don’t have a strong physics background. As an example, in over 150 years of testing there has never been a reproducible experiment that has shown a cooler body giving heat to a warmer body without an influx of additional energy. (second law of thermodynamics)
Gerlich and Tscheuschner are unbiased and independent (despite the smears that Al Gore’s investment cronies at Realclimate.org would have you believe) theoretical physicists familiar with stochastic description of nature and quantum field theory. They are also quite familiar with physics labs, the Scientific Method, and software engineering. They recognized the sham of the theory and wrote their paper to expose the farce.
Governments have a vested interest in coming up with reasons to tax their citizenry. Investment firms have a vested interest in coming up with new products to trade. So Al Gore is not the source of the CO2 demagoguery, just an exploiter that uses wild claims to further his financial goals. Al Gore has exploited the good nature of people to clean the environment, by calling an essential trace gas a poison so that his investments can turn him into a billionaire.
Has the trading of carbon credits in Europe benefited anyone other than those people that invested in them? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/worldbusiness/11carbon.html?_r=1
Has the promise of “green jobs” provided any relief to unemployment or energy production? Spain’s experience isn’t very inspiring. If we go down that road we can reasonably expect the loss of 2.2 jobs per job created even with government subsidies.
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
The cost of renewable energy is too high http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/ to be economically viable without major improvements in technology. In ideal circumstances it comes somewhat close to the highest priced rates. Unfortunately there are few ideal circumstances.
What we really need is honest researchers that are willing to share data, their methods and materials of experimentation with other researchers so that theories can be examined openly. That means that politicians have got to keep their noses out of it. The CRU’s ex-director Jones admitted that data and papers that were not agreeable with his thinking were dismissed as a standard operating procedure. He has also admitted that there has not been any statistically significant warming in fifteen years and the past ten years have so far been trending cooler.
The few climatologists that agree with Al Gore’s doom and gloom scenario of his AGW religion are playing Russian roulette with their professional credibility and are generally more interested in politics than science. My dislike for people, including Al Gore, is determined by their actions, not political affiliation. As far as why you didn’t vote for him, by your mannerisms and lack of scientific knowledge it is probably because you are or were a juvenile not old enough to vote. Or are you going to say you voted for Bush?
Have a nice day.
