Thursday, July 13, 2006

Dubious Climate Science discussion

UPDATE: A mainstream science refutation of global warming prophecy. Ahem.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.’ – Excerpt from Wegman's report

The Democrat blog Blue Oregon once again tries to beat the drum for global warming, yet neglects some very sound science in making their case. Blue Oregon's co-founder suggests a scientific consensus, but, no, we're not yet there.

There is adequate scientifically based evidence that other factors are at play. Says who? Al Gore:
"(scientists) don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" (one way or the other)... "(scientists) don't know... They just don't know."
- from "An Inconvenient Truth."

Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998, as per an MIT climatologist.

Why the variation? Why the three decade dip when Detroit had NO environmental controls whatsoever? There's better evidence for the recent warming, incontrovertibly provable evidence for an external factor; that fusion reactor 93 million miles away, which has, beyond doubt, been proven to be getting brighter.

A Swiss/German study suggested historic solar output increases cause global climate changes; East Anglians verified it (an essential element of science, replicability). Indirect effects on the ozone layer and cloud cover were cited, which could magnify the hotter sun.

You see, there's one greenhouse gas which is far more powerful than CO2, which no one is doing anything about; dihydrogen monoxide. Yep, water vapor.

"I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor"
says Dr. Wallace Broecker, Columbia University, a leading world authority on climate.

Here's a source-referenced analysis of the impact of CO2, methane and other greehouse gases when compared to the impact of dihydrogen monoxide. It should be required reading for anyone wishing to invoke science in this discussion.

You have to double CO2 content to equal what a 10% boost in water vapor does. Therefore, any serious climate control plan requires considering how to make more cirrus (and especially altocirrus) while reducing altocumulus formation.

Not only does dihydrogen monoxide retain heat far better than C02, but it also condenses into clouds. Some clouds trap heat, some reflect it back into space.

That's really what we need to spend resources on; a global thermostat we can alter at will, so when the next Ice Age comes, we can deal with that as well as any excessive warming (and what's excessive to you might not be excessive the the Viking settlers of Greenland; oh, that's right, they froze to death when the last Little Ice Age struck, so they can't complain any more).

There are far cheaper ways to control our climate than the economy-busting Kyoto mutual suicide pact. Forex, if CO2 was proven to be a serious problem once scientifically compared to the impact of dihydrogen monoxide, pay cargo ships to to drop iron filings into the oceans as they go about their travels, which will soaks up a very large amount of CO2 in a non-toxic way.

Lastly, have you considered that Global Warming may not be an unqualified evil? I was taught in Revolutionary History class that Knox was able to sledge cannon from Ticondaroga to Boston via the frozen Hudson River. The Hudson hasn't frozen over for over a century, and there are an awful lot of folks who like it that way.

- And, OBTW, I just bought a biodiesel vehicle, paying a pretty penny for it.. because biodiesel is incontrovertibly cleaner (especially once Mrs. Clackablog helps me figure out the urea injection chemistry to absorb exhaust-stream NOx) than fossil fuel. So, I'm willing to spend to protect the environment, when it makes a difference, if that helps open your eyes to the truth.

Biodiesel: Made in the USA = No War Required.

No comments: