Ch12. Debating “Climate Change”

Discussion re Monckton debate 19/7/11

Ref:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/20/monckton-wins-national-press-club-debate-on-climate/

William says:

Lord Monckton decisively won this debate while facing an obviously hostile audience because observational evidence and fundamental analysis indicates total warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels will be less than 1C. His arguments were based on facts in peer review papers.

Lord Monckton is not a denier. He does not deny the fact that increasing atmospheric CO2 will cause some warming of the planet. The hard scientific facts support the assertion that the warming due to a doubling of will be less than 1C for a doubling of CO2. Warming of 1C with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes will be beneficial to the environment. The biosphere will and is expanding the increased atmospheric CO2.

Observational evidence in published papers such as measurement of the total radiation at top of atmosphere measured by satellite over the last 20 years supports the assertion that the planetary sensitivity to a change in forcing is negative (planetary cloud cover increases when the planet is warmer to reflect more solar radiation into space). The IPCC predicted warming of 3.3C for a doubling of C02 requires the feedback to be positive rather than negative.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
[1] Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs. Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE, though it is difficult to pin down such high sensitivities with any precision. Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation. Although such a test does not distinguish the mechanisms, this is important since the inconsistency of climate feedbacks constitutes a very fundamental problem in climate prediction.

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy_pubs.html

LIMITS ON CO2 CLIMATE FORCING FROM RECENT TEMPERATURE DATA OF EARTH

The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.

The science is not openly debate because the facts do not support a worldwide carbon tax, a worldwide carbon monitoring bureaucracy, and spending the trillions of dollars on carbon sequestration and carbon off sets. If the cost to mitigate a risk is higher than cost to directly manage the risk itself the do nothing alternative is the best choice. There is no scientific or logical reason to spend trillions of dollars trying to slow the rise of atmospheric CO2. There are not trillions of surplus public funds to spend on a mitigating a problem which is not a problem. In the case of this “problem” simple and cost effective energy conservation as opposed to carbon taxes and carbon sequestration which serve no purpose is the best government action based on the facts.

CO2 is a fertilizer. Plants eat CO2. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in roughly 30% to 40% increase in crop yield. The blog Real Climate does not include threads discussing the fact that CO2 is a fertilizer.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm

http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6036529.ece

http://www.greenhousemegastore.com/Johnson-CO2-Generator/productinfo/CO-1001/

2 Responses to Ch12. Debating “Climate Change”

  1. Jessica says:

    Well, from what I see on Internet news we need more people from gpuros like this panning out onto the Internet to counter the outright misinformation and downright hatred being spewed out here instead of just staying in the confort zones of our own sites. And that is not only regarding the facts surrounding climate change’s effects on our world, it is the blatant attacks on Mr. Gore (by certain interests as well I have no doubt) in order to discredit him. I am out here every day trying to as best as I can counter the misinformation and the hateful content when I see it, because believe it or not people believe it. That has been the one arena where deniers, skeptics, fossil fuel interests and their media accomplices have had the biggest success. Let’s face it, more people read news on the Internet now than read newspapers with the exception still perhaps of watching it on TV. And these entities know it. I think if you want an idea on how to bring about a shift in how people see this, you must become more aggressive on the Internet especially in disseminating truth to counter the lies and misinformation being spread. And it is also no secret that companies like BP, Monsanto, and others budget monies each year not only to lobby Washington DC, but to hire people to post propaganda on the Internet to discredit truthful information put out about them.There is no way these interests should be winning that battle when we have truth on our side.

    • Hi Jessica,
      Your arguments apply equally to both sides of the AGW debate.
      Minds are made up and the gloves are off. Everybody has the truth on their side, strange that!
      Given that the arguments/evidence on both sides seem to be failing to change many minds, it could be logically concluded that if one side is right and the other wrong, but we don’t know which for sure, the evidence is in fact inconclusive. Therefore the “science is definitely not settled”. Even the warmists are coming to see this.
      Maybe after another decade or so, when the global temperature has more obviously failed to rise as IPCC projected, or it magically comes to life and jumps up to the projected levels, we can be more confident of our conclusions.
      Thanks for your comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s