Tuesday, December 08, 2009
"Global Warming"- Or whatever- Is it for Real ??
Recently, the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen has commenced, when 192 nations will seek to reach a binding treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide.
Now, some doubt is cast, with the news that computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain, consisting of more than a decade ofcorrespondence between leading British and U.S. scientists included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.
I quote a report from London- " In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.
Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine."
Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data.
In the first place, the word refered should be carbon dioxide (CO2), not carbon, plus it is inaccurate to claim that carbon is a pollutant. "A scheme that appears to be deliberately misnamed, just to confuse the public," Prof Carter said.
Prof Carter, who is an experienced geologist and environmental scientist from James Cook University in Queensland, said the reduction in global temperature would only amount to one thousandth of one degree Celsius by the year 2100, a "pretty poor return on the $270,000 these families will have paid by then".
The World, in its Copenhagen Meet, is now concentrating on a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). If it goes ahead as planned, a carbon price of $30/t will produce a direct cost of $3000 every year for a family of four, as per Professor Bob Carter, at Bunbury forum.
In fact, during the current period of increasing atmospheric CO2, the Green Revolution saw a massive increase in global food production, with somewhere between 5pc and 15pc of the increase being caused by higher CO2 levels. Although major El Nino events cause heat spikes, with one in 1998 causing global temperatures to rise by 0.2c, there has been no net change in global temperatures in the last 50 years, during a period when atmospheric CO2 increased by 20pc.
And why worry about rising sea levels? It is something natural. Around 20,000 years ago it was 8-10c colder than now, sea levels were 70m lower. It was possible to walk from Australia and through to Tasmania.
Doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere would increase wheat yields by 60 per cent, increase legume yields by 62pc and increase the yields of other cereals by 70pc. Some pollutant! ??
One cannot blame today's daily changes and extremes of weather on "Global Warming", of call it "GW." Climate is what you expect, but weather is what you get.
In fact, the earth has been cooling since 1998, with CO2 concentrations increasing by 5pc during the same time
Why Copenhagen will achieve nothing:
Guys, it’s like getting offered 10% of the stock in a fake business.
10% of nothing is still nothing.
You cannot solve a problem that does not exist.
You can, however, become a victim by accepting the transaction at face value.
By questioning current beliefs on global warming, I may be against the stream, But I do not feel any guilt of " popular incorrectness."
to be continued....