( last updated: Sep 30, 2009 )
RSS feed for this blog: http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/feed
The author of this blog is Maurizio Morabito.
————-
I do not “believe” in the IPCC, in the AGU, in the Hadley Centre, in 2,500 scientists and experts, in Svensmark, in Lindzen, in Crichton, in yourself, in SciAm, in American Scientist, in any skeptic or AGW believer.
I take everybody’s remarks as a step forward in the discussion and in the understanding of this or any other issue.
From that, I extract, polish, and sometimes destroy my own opinion.
(following text is by Willis Eschenbach. Republished with the author’s consent)
I also think that increasing GHGs [greenhous gases] will warm the earth … but that is not the real question to me. The real question is, how much it will warm the earth. To date, I have not seen any “useful quantitative results” regarding that question [...] …
Once those quantitative results are in, we can proceed to the next question: is a warmer earth better or worse on balance?
The globe has warmed quite a bit since the 1600s, and in general this has been of benefit to humans. The sea level rise from the historical warming has not been a significant problem. In addition, a warmer world is predicted to be a wetter world, which overall can only be a good thing.
So, will warming be a problem, or a benefit? This is a very open question, and one which will be difficult to answer as some areas will win and some will lose. To date, however, recent warming seems to be occurring outside the tropics, in the night-time, in the winter … this does not seem like a bad thing.
And at some future date when those questions are answered, we can proceed to the final question, viz: If GHGs are determined to be a major cause of the warming (as opposed to land-use changes, or black carbon on snow, or dark colored aerosols, etc) and if we determine that the warming will be on balance a negative occurrence, is there a cost-effective way to reduce the GHGs, or are we better off putting our money into adaptation?
Until we can answer all of those questions, we should restrict ourselves to actions which will be of value whether or not there is future warming.
The key is to realize that all of the problems that Al Gore is so shrill about are here now with us today - floods, heat waves, famine, rising sea levels, droughts, cold spells, and all of the apocalyptic catalog are occurring as I write this.
Anything we can do to insulate the world’s population from these climate problems will be of use to everyone no matter what the future climate holds.
This independently verified clean energy technology produces electricity at the astonishingly low cost of 1 cent per kilowatt hour. As reported by both CNN and the New York Times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1iqa0dSJO0
Check out above link to a 2 minute youtube video of a CNN report. What are the odds that the independent testimony below is fraudulent (not bloody likely unless you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist)? Here is a silver bullet technology: clean cheap and abundant energy.
In a joint statement, Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary, Rowan University Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Dr. Amos Mugweru, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, and Dr. Peter Jansson P.E., Associate Professor of Engineering said, “In independent tests conducted over the past three months involving 10 solid fuels made by us from commercially-available chemicals, our team of engineering and chemistry professors, staff, and students at Rowan University has independently and consistently generated energy in excesses ranging from 1.2 times to 6.5 times the maximum theoretical heat available through known chemical reactions.”
Also, check out this article: http://www.nytimes.com/external/venturebeat/2008/10/21/21venturebeat-blacklight-power-bolsters-its-impossible-cla-99377.html
Brad Arnold
St Louis Park, MN, USA
dobermanmacleod@gmail.com
http://www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod
[...] per esempio nell’About su Omniclimate ho scritto che ritengo quanto [...]
here is a UK petition to the Prime Minister… i just stumbled upon it.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/climate-ad/
Basically it calls for climate panic mongers in government to stop monging climate panic (and, specifically, to stop spending UK taxpayer moneys to do so). Not many signatures yet, but the interesting thing is that when I tried to publish a similar one eighteen months ago, it was turned down. Is the tide turning? or is it just a back eddy?
Keep up the good stuff on your great blog
D
Your opening statement would move things forward were all to share that outlook.
I believe this paper by Richard Lindzen [the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorlogy at MIT would aid a big step forward if it were widely read. His comments have always been measured and judicious, unlike those of his critics.
http://www.heartland.org/events/newyork09/pdfs/lindzen.pdf
Maurizio,
I like your blog and regularly visit, but I find those web snapshots really annoying.
What do other visitors think?
John
Greetings,
I thought I’d let you know about today’s launch of a parody website DeSoggyBog.com. A media release may be found here: http://tinyurl.com/soggy-bog
Hope it gives you a chuckle.
kind regards,
Donna Laframboise
“The inconvenient truth is that solutions are as easy as a eating a hamburger”
When it comes to our children and GHG, you can either park a Prius for a thousand years or pay us a burger. It all does the same good. Let’s deploy the existing solutions we have.
http://www.seanergy.ca/burger.html
seanergy.wordpress.com
[...] well, if you don't get what it is about from that title, please make the effort of reading the About page. I am proud of the fact that I can draw in several thousands reads a month whilst posting [...]
‘Engineering our climate’ discussion to take place on 14 May 2009, 7pm at the Royal Geographical Society in London.
Geo-engineering is not a solution to climate change but can it be an effective means to delay its impact?
Join an international expert panel, including Professor David Keith, discussing whether we should be researching geoengineering seriously as Plan B?
Book tickets on 020 7591 3100
I Like Mark G’s perspective (15 Mar, 2009). The sheer scale of human culture can’t help but impact global cycles and climate – just look at satellite shots of our smog plumes. What’s needed on the technical side is more and better science, not more argument. On the policy side we need a sensible “lean” in the right direction – conservation of resources, curbing of excessive “footprint” activities and diversity of energy sources.
Peter
Peter
If we would all talk about sensible things, there would be almost no controversy at all on climate change. But that is alas not the case. Check out what Brendan O’Neill writes about “The Age of Stupid”
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6359/
As a scientist reading the literature on a monthly basis I can say that the proper science IS being done. We all want to have a voice but leave the data and interpretation to the experts. Our place as laymen and world citizens is to decide policy; what to do, if anything, about the results.
There is legitimate scientific debate regarding the size of the effect of human created warming, but not much disagreement over its existence and that it has a measurable effect.
Remember seeing the first amazing images of the earth from the moon? The most striking thing to me was how thin Earth’s atmosphere appears; about one quarter of 1% of the Earth’s diameter, much less than the ratio of an chicken egg’s shell to the total size of the egg.
Here is one way to look at it: Burning coal, gas and other fuels create energy by breaking carbon bonds. The carbon then is converted to either gases like CO2, CO, CS2 (the amount of all carbon and sulfur containing gases can be calculated in carbon dioxide equivalents) containing gases, etc or solids like soot, polyaromatics, creosote, etc. This much we know; carbon based gases are greenhouse gases. So its relatively straight forward to calculate the amount of carbon based fuels we burn and the amount of carbon products released as a results. It is a significant amount.
Burning fuels doesn’t change carbon to other types of atoms, only nuclear reaction can do this. So once carbon, always carbon.
There is a natural flux in the amount of natural carbon in the atmosphere from volcanoes, forest fires, etc. The issue is whether or not man made carbon will cause a tipping point beyond which major changes in Earth’s surface and lower atmospheric temperatures, i.e. significant ice melts, changes in weather patterns, mass migrations, etc. The oceans can absorb some of the CO2 but become acidic as a result.
The science is complex so using every day common sense, gut feelings, political commentary and laymen interpretation to interpret the data doesn’t work. Leave the science to the scientist, then use good sense and politics to decide what policies are appropriate.
Finally, truth in disclosure, I do believe that there are good amateur scientist, that good science need not occur in an ivory tower, that some science is bad science and scientist need to do a better job of translating complex subjects in to concepts all of us can understand. We NEED as much OPEN debate on what we should do about it as we can get.
Hi Mark,
The details of the science are complex. Normal people can, however, understand it when it is put forth in an honest, intelligible way. It is no different than any other science. They are all complex, but understandable if the scientists actually want to be understood. The problem with AGW is that the process is 90% political and 10% science.
The fact is that a scientist’s own high level of brilliance and expertise in one area can blind him or her as to the importance of his or her work to the overall understanding of reality.
The issue at hand is that there really has been no open debate until recently. Any dissenter from the accepted opinion was pushed aside, no matter how valid the critique or qualified the dissenter. The IPCC speaks and everyone is supposed to listen. In reality, the IPCC is not a scientific organization, but rather a political organization promoting the United Nations. It uses the credibility of respected scientists to push a pre-determined agenda.
Hi Dan,
Sorry for the delayed response but I appreciate your comments. Its not that scientists don’t want to be understood in the “lay” press. It’s just not on the agenda for most scientists who are concerned daily about the ever increasing competition for grant money (the life line of a scientist), publications, conferences and the peer review process. Incidentally, at many conferences on the topic there is decent. After all, it is often the dissenter that wins the Nobel Prize. Who wouldn’t want to be the one who proves that global warming theories are wrong? Alas, it is the data, peer review, and expert interpretation that speaks loudest. So far the data show that we are experiencing global warming.
I think scientist NEED to do a better job of communicating to the general public. This SHOULD be the job and to some degree is done by the AASS (American Academy of Sciences), NSF, other prestigious scientific organizations and the Presidential Science Adviser.
There is a lot of chatter on talk radio and TV by non-scientists about how cool this spring, summer and fall were/are in North America, therefor how could there be global warming? However, this was an extremely warm year for the Southern Hemisphere and global changes in climate seems to create global disturbances in the weather patterns. Whether or not that is what we are seeing one thing is clear; it’s hard to measure the effect of climate change on a time scale of a year. Without a depth of knowledge of the subject, trying to apply simple intuition to understanding of global climate changes probably doesn’t work.
[...] About Omniclimate [...]
I am pretty glad that more and more people are seen the truth on “global warming is crap; there are more pressing issues”
You have a pretty good blog. I stumbled upon this when I was searching for any research done on the greenhouse effect of molecular water, carbon dioxide and other GH gases. Surprisingly, I DID NOT find any research which considered water vapour as well.. Do you think that you can help me find any research to help me with this?
Thank you… and great blog again..
-Sach
[...] (Il testo seguente è una traduzione da un intervento in inglese di Willis Eschenbach, ripubblicato qui in originale con il consenso dell’autore) Ritengo [...] che l’aumento dei GHG [ga serra] riscaldera’ la Terra… ma non è [...]
Dear Mr. Morabito,
Carbon emissions have no discernable effect on climate, but our gullibility nets promoters of this “crisis” billions per year. Meanwhile they change nothing of their own lifestyles, though they also live on the planet they claim we are destroying. Claiming to want to save us from our folly, they seek to strip away our freedoms while destroying our economy. While the climate itself mocks their so-called linkages, and our economy is already on the edge of collapse, a Democratic Congress is still pushing for carbon cap legislation. What will it take to bring this farce to an end?
Your website leads me to believe we share the concerns about this attempt to sell out our country for profit and power. Would you help me promote a book I have written examining this hoax? It is intended to make readers angry over being played for patsies. If enough people read it, it would create a public backlash against that legislation, but through my own efforts, I have been unable to sufficiently publicize this work. Would you also pass this e-mail on to all your peers you think might agree and help?
The book is entitled “A Climate Crisis a la Gore” and is organized as follows:
• Introduction – the motivation behind the assembly of this information for public use.
• Part 1 – Excerpted ideas from Mr. Gore’s book, The Assault on Reason. I use Mr. Gore’s own claims regarding the proper and reasonable way to enter an argument or evidence into the marketplace of ideas, the forum of reason, the real power behind democracy.
• Part 2 – A claim by claim analysis of Mr. Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. These are evaluated with simple logic, claims elsewhere in the documentary, Mr. Gore’s excerpted written principles of reasoning, and scientific research and findings regarding the subjects of his claims.
• Part 3 – Discussion and disclosure of players and special interest groups creating the perception of a global climate crisis. The history of the movement is examined, motives behind involvement, dollar amounts of profit already being reaped by promoters, and what they stand to gain if America enacts carbon legislation.
• Conclusion – The coming economic storm resulting from enacting this legislation and a plea to readers to contact legislators demanding such laws be reconsidered.
Excerpts can be reviewed and the book ordered at Amazon.com by entering the title, ISBN# (978-1-4196-8684-9) or by following the link http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Crisis-Gore-perception-warming/dp/1419686844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202424474&sr=8-1 If you are willing to inform your readers of its contents and availability, an informed (and angry) population of voters might be a real, and maybe the only, check and balance system capable of stopping Congress.
Sincerely,
Paul Spite
What has happened to Fred Singers web site at http://www.sepp.org
It appears to have gone?
Co2 is not a pollutant despite the way it is portrayed to the general public, it’s a vital part of life on this planet.
Some people think that manmade Co2 is the ‘primary’ cause of global warming… the debate still rages… science has not settled this question… and the argument has been substantially weakened over the last couple of years as new data has emerged.
However it is the political dimension which I find concerning… I’m very much in favour of us becoming more energy efficiant, and moving towards renewable resources, it makes sense. But is it fair to cap the co2 emissions of 2nd/3rd world countries whose co2 output per capita is substantially less than 1/20th of ours?
Some of these countries have yet even to develop into a self-sufficiant agricultural economy. Once again they are going to be denied the chance to develop by 1st world countries. That is, I believe, what is behind the political pressure to get a treaty in place throughout the whole world…
…frankly it doesn’t matter what you or anyone else say… the powers-that-be will force through this treaty over the next couple of years, irrispective that the scientific community is still researching the matter. Cap-and-trade will become a world reality… peoples of the 2nd/3rd world will be denied the chance of cheap energy… and the opportunity to develop…
That was always the point… limit their development, limit the growth of their populations.
I like your questions and stance, but believe there’s an even more important one behind all this, which is:
When will we start doing proper science?
As far as I can tell, each side clings to its position, will not release data for open study, spends much of their time on ad homs, and generally acts like a politician.
This can only be bad for ALL science, not just climate….
[...] by suesam on June 26, 2008 An insightful post from Maurizio Morabito’s blog. A recommended read to anyone questioning the AGW dogma, as is Anthony Watts’ [...]
Eric, you say:
“Isn’t a warmer Earth invariably going to lead to a mass disruption of life? Or isn’t the mere risk that it could lead to a mass disruption of life reason enough to avoid it?”
The scientific and other materials I have read to date do not appear clear that warming will create mass disruption of life on Earth (as I understand your question). There are arguments each way on this issue, but I seem to recall seeing materials on ecology and so forth when I was in university studying environmental engineering (more than 20 years ago) that there has generally been greater diversity in times of warmth. I also seem to recall seeing information that indicated larger creatures tended to be more prevalent during cold (glacial) periods as a means to better maintain body heat. Then too, there’s also the issue of physical space. How many creatures are well-equipped to live in exceptionally cold climates? If a glaciation occurs, and glaciers advance, with conditions becoming too cold for many species to survive in those areas, cold-sensitive creatures will likely migrate elsewhere, to warmer areas. If so, conditions become a bit more crowded and competition for more limited food supplies would seem to possibly become the limiting factor. It would seem that the reverse situation would provide potential for greater food supplies for all creatures, starting with plants and small animals. For example, in the past several decades, as hunting is restricted year by year (whether I don’t approve or do means little), we see increasing numbers of deer struck by cars on the roadways, and we also see increasing numbers of near-starving deer eating [expensive] landscaping close to homes during relatively harsh winters. This is presumably due to overpopulation and overcrowding of their ranges, as well as human infringment on large tracts of undeveloped space, forcing the deer to forage farther.
Carissimo …
Hai vinto un premio online
Qui per maggiori info: http://peppecaridi2.wordpress.com/questo-blog-ha-vinto-il-premio-arte-y-pico/
The RSS feed is http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/feed
Do you provide a RSS feed of your blog posts? I don’t see a link anywhere.
Isn’t a warmer Earth invariably going to lead to a mass disruption of life? Or isn’t the mere risk that it could lead to a mass disruption of life reason enough to avoid it?
I really love your blog and think you might be interested in wranked — an exciting new community of passionate people who create and share “Best of” lists on any topic. We’re inviting just a few experts to get in on the ground floor, and I would love to invite you to our private beta if you are interested.
Send me a note and I’ll fire off the invite…
Thanks!
Jackie