Last week I reported on a new
study by the Belgium Royal Meteorological Institute that stated the effects
of CO2 on world temperatures had been "grossly overstated". The
RMI's conclusion is supported by a pair of recent papers, both of which
severely downgrade the warming effect of carbon dioxide.
The first is by atmospheric scientist Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven
National Labs. Entitled, "Heat Capacity,
Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System", the paper
is based on more accurate estimates of feedback processes in the Earth's
atmosphere. It concludes the IPCC estimate of 2 - 4.5C degrees warming
(from the anticipated 1900-2100 doubling of CO2 levels) is much too high,
and the actual figure should be closer to 1.1 degree.
The conclusion is very significant as we've already experienced
some 0.7 degrees of that warming. That means over the next century, only
an additional 0.4 degrees warming is expected. And after that,
the warming effect will nearly vanish.
The reason why is CO2 only absorbs in a very narrow band of infrared.
Climatologist Timothy Ball, who was not associated with this study, explains
with an analogy: "The relationship between temperature and CO2 is
like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of
the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels
are like the first coat of black paint."
study is by Chinese researchers Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. Using a
technique called Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), they decoded temperature
changes into three natural cycles-- 6-8 years, 20 years, and 60-years, along
with a fourth signal, a non-periodic rising trend, which they associated with
CO2-based warming. They found that the largest effect on
temperature change was due to these natural cycles, and that the CO2-based
trend could only be responsible for a maximum of 40% of the warming attributed
Most astonishingly, they concluded that global cooling
will result for at least the next two decades, as the longer cycles are now
both in downward motion.
The factor all three of the above studies have in common? That CO2's
role has been massively overstated. The political consequences of this
are widespread-- is it worth spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions
of a gas that will have almost no effect over the next century, and essentially
none at all after that?
quote: when all trees die
quote: I wonder how your children live when all trees die due to over heating
quote: I read the first paper and was not terribly impressed.
quote: The Department of Energy is an ardent opponent of acknowledging global warming as it is currently headed by Samuel Bodman...My point is that the DOE would gladly fund someone who is challenging the validity of global warming
quote: to get a more balanced view ...consider whose dollars are backing the papers you read.
quote: But according to Steven Schwartz's web page, he's been funded by the DOE since Jimmy Carter was president.
quote: Over the past 20 years, $50B dollars have been given to fund scientists who believe in global warming
quote: you will probably always believe global warming is a hoax, even when theres no ice caps left.
quote: The icecaps have been steadily melting for the last 10,000 years, ever since the last ice age. If anything, this DISproves that humans are causing global warming.
quote: The [DOE] is headed by Samuel Bodman, a former oil executive.
quote: We have so many problems in this world which we can affect change. Let stop worrying about something we have no control and work on issues which we can effect.
quote: But for the rest of you people out there, just do some simple searches online, read the papers that come up, and look at the climate change that is occuring around you.
quote: look at the climate change that is occuring around you. The U.S. is experiencing record heat waves this year and very chaotic weather. Whether climate models are complex and accurate enough to figure out why this is happening is after the fact. It is happening right now and if you want evidence, just look around you.
quote: Taking care is always better than doing nothing
quote: psychologically legitimize his use of his 8-cylinder SUV just to buy a magazine at the corner store
quote: That your conclusion after you've read all the relavent research? Or didn't you? Either way, and let me be clear on this point, idiot.
quote: What harm are SUV's going, exactly? If you accept that cars are not evil - the only rational view - then there is nothing about SUV's that are evil either.
quote: You seem to feel this irrational desire to judge everybody else's consumption patterns and label them as inefficient, squandering, etc. Why can't you just live your life, and let others live their lives?
quote: drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)
quote: No, I'm basing this fact on what I read in the newspaper:
quote: Additionally, this is a very questionable statement. You are free to have your opinion, however I question its accuracy as you are basing your opinion on a single paper which drew this questionable conclusion, which I doubt you fully read. This is not the consensus of the scientific community.
quote: the paper is based on more accurate estimates of feedback processes in the Earth's atmosphere