"Forget the Doha climate jamboree that ended earlier this month. The theological discussions in Qatar of the arcana of climate treaties are irrelevant. By far the most important debate about climate change is taking place among scientists, on the issue of climate sensitivity: How much warming will a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide actually produce?"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Aside from loving the reference to the theological beliefs of the AGW crowd - which is factually accurate - the author raises significant points:
- Nic Lewis, who found and reported errors in the 2009 IPCC consensus paper, makes the point that the effect of aerosols (such as sulfurous particles) have a much lower cooling effect than long thought, and ocean warming is milder than was expected. Thus - more accurate estimates may be made of the climate's sensitivity to CO2.
- Conclusion: a doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of ~3 degrees F.
- "Taking the IPCC scenario that assumes a doubling of CO2, plus the equivalent of another 30% rise from other greenhouse gases by 2100, we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1°C."
- "A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good-that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland's ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on."
- The conjecture for AGW was always built on this model: CO2 drives slight warmings which force more significant warming feedback loops via clouds and water vapor.
- "Clouds, it turns out, do not amplify warming effects - some might be amplifiers (low level, for example), but others reflect radiant energy. When more of those clouds are produced, less energy enter the atmosphere."
Conclusion is spot on:
"The scientists at the IPCC next year have to choose whether they will admit-contrary to what complex, unverifiable computer models indicate-that the observational evidence now points toward lukewarm temperature change with no net harm. On behalf of all those poor people whose lives are being ruined by high food and energy prices caused by the diversion of corn to biofuel and the subsidizing of renewable energy driven by carboncrats and their crony-capitalist friends, one can only hope the scientists will do so."
There's no free lunch, and that's why governments should not act in offense of the rights of their citizenry until the science of AGW is mature (models for climate which actually predict).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Aside from loving the reference to the theological beliefs of the AGW crowd - which is factually accurate - the author raises significant points:
- Nic Lewis, who found and reported errors in the 2009 IPCC consensus paper, makes the point that the effect of aerosols (such as sulfurous particles) have a much lower cooling effect than long thought, and ocean warming is milder than was expected. Thus - more accurate estimates may be made of the climate's sensitivity to CO2.
- Conclusion: a doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of ~3 degrees F.
- "Taking the IPCC scenario that assumes a doubling of CO2, plus the equivalent of another 30% rise from other greenhouse gases by 2100, we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1°C."
- "A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good-that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland's ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on."
- The conjecture for AGW was always built on this model: CO2 drives slight warmings which force more significant warming feedback loops via clouds and water vapor.
- "Clouds, it turns out, do not amplify warming effects - some might be amplifiers (low level, for example), but others reflect radiant energy. When more of those clouds are produced, less energy enter the atmosphere."
Conclusion is spot on:
"The scientists at the IPCC next year have to choose whether they will admit-contrary to what complex, unverifiable computer models indicate-that the observational evidence now points toward lukewarm temperature change with no net harm. On behalf of all those poor people whose lives are being ruined by high food and energy prices caused by the diversion of corn to biofuel and the subsidizing of renewable energy driven by carboncrats and their crony-capitalist friends, one can only hope the scientists will do so."
There's no free lunch, and that's why governments should not act in offense of the rights of their citizenry until the science of AGW is mature (models for climate which actually predict).
No comments:
Post a Comment