The True Cause of Global Warming?
Realists and scientists (at least true scientists) will be interested to read this real news (as contrasted to fake and hysterical speculation) about the true cause of global warming, printed in CO2 Science Magazine:
[Thanks to havanajournal.com for the photo.]
"Based on information that indicated a solar activity-induced increase in radiative forcing of 1.3 Wm-2 over the 20th century (by way of cosmic ray flux reduction), plus the work of others that indicated a globally-averaged solar luminosity increase of approximately 0.4 Wm-2 over the same period, Shaviv calculated an overall and ultimately solar activity-induced warming of 0.47°C (1.7 Wm-2 x 0.28°C per Wm-2) over the 20th century. Added to the 0.14°C of anthropogenic-induced warming, the calculated total warming of the 20th century thus came to 0.61°C, which was noted by Shaviv to be very close to the 0.57°C temperature increase that was said by the IPCC to have been observed over the past century. Consequently, both Shaviv's and Idso's analyses, which mesh well with real-world data of both the recent and distant past, suggest that only 15-20% (0.10°C/0.57°C) of the observed warming of the 20th-century can be attributed to the concomitant rise in the air's CO2 content."
--CO2 Science Magazine, 19 July 2006
There are few things worse for the well being of mankind and our economy than bad science. Climatologists, like economists, must work on their objectivity and their methodology, so that they do not become part of the problem.
[Thanks to havanajournal.com for the photo.]
"Based on information that indicated a solar activity-induced increase in radiative forcing of 1.3 Wm-2 over the 20th century (by way of cosmic ray flux reduction), plus the work of others that indicated a globally-averaged solar luminosity increase of approximately 0.4 Wm-2 over the same period, Shaviv calculated an overall and ultimately solar activity-induced warming of 0.47°C (1.7 Wm-2 x 0.28°C per Wm-2) over the 20th century. Added to the 0.14°C of anthropogenic-induced warming, the calculated total warming of the 20th century thus came to 0.61°C, which was noted by Shaviv to be very close to the 0.57°C temperature increase that was said by the IPCC to have been observed over the past century. Consequently, both Shaviv's and Idso's analyses, which mesh well with real-world data of both the recent and distant past, suggest that only 15-20% (0.10°C/0.57°C) of the observed warming of the 20th-century can be attributed to the concomitant rise in the air's CO2 content."
--CO2 Science Magazine, 19 July 2006
There are few things worse for the well being of mankind and our economy than bad science. Climatologists, like economists, must work on their objectivity and their methodology, so that they do not become part of the problem.
posted by Katy Delay at 11:01 AM
7 Comments:
As a scientist I find it refreshing to hear a call for serious reflection for what is passing as "facts" by global alarmists. Many experts are no longer entertaining any questions that potentially challenge their views.
Thanks for the link, I looked into the journal "CO2 science magazine" and it isn't a scientific journal at all but a political organization. Amazing an corporate funded organization dissiminating old debunked research on CO2.
The Shaviv papers were pretty soundly debunked in 2004 See: Eos Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 85no4 27 Jan. 2004. Basically it points out that the solar variations are primarily due to orbital variations, the earths temperature changes over the past 400,000 years track these variations, this indicates that solar flux is relatively constant. The authors go on to point out problems in Shaviv's methods of measuring Solar flux etc.
The peer reviewed journals Science and Nature provide some of the best reporting on CO2 and global warming related issues. These are the top two general science journals in the world and the papers are well over 90% accurate when you look back historically at the science.
Thanks for exposing this garbage, it is unbelievable the level that some will sink to, spitting out bogus discredited research as new science.
The True Cause of Global Warming?
[In your title, at least, you attempt to be objective and fair by your use of a question mark.]
Realists and scientists (at least true scientists) [but, all too quickly you devolve into the usual Ad Hominem diatribe which, alas, seems de rigeur for Libertarians where this particular issue is concerned.] will be interested to read this real news (as contrasted to fake and hysterical speculation) about the true cause of global warming, printed in CO2 Science Magazine: [gone is the faux objectivity displayed in your title. You - an economist - are now certain that the vast majority of concerned scientists can be safely ignored - even, for good measure, insulted - based on your "expert" appraisal of one man's work.
[as to the quality of the proffered "science" -- see post above by Anonymous # 2]
There are few things worse for the well being of mankind and our economy than bad science. [Amen, sister] Climatologists, like economists, must work on their objectivity and their methodology, [Hmmm, kettle ... pot] so that they do not become part of the problem.
[It as sad and even astounding to me to watch those of the Austrian persuasion, whose disiplne is so vitally dependent on scrupulous logic, descend into rhetorical constructs composed ENTIRELY of logical fallacies when they're confronted with this issue. It's a pretty safe bet that if you need to resort to such nonsense, then, as Ayn would have said, you'd better check your premises.
You're only poisoning the well, as it were, for who will ever take seriousy a group that so desperately clings to fantasies of innocence that it betrays its own fundamental principles?
Mises himself never denied the existence of certain physical limits as his so-called supporters today seem wont to do. Ironic, ain't it?]
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dear Anonymous 2,
Let me first state that my comments are just that -- comments. I do not pretend to be a scientist. I do read on the subject, but my knowledge is limited. However, I welcome readers' responses and will defend my position as I am able.
I believe there are some credible arguments on both sides of this issue, and I prefer that of the skeptics at this point.
I have a few questions for you.
1. Please provide the evidence to substantiate your claim that CO2 science mag is not a journal but a "political organization." What do you mean, and which political party are you referring to?
2. Which corporations fund CO2 magazine? I really want to know, and I can't find these details on the web.
3. Whether the increase in temperature is due to solar or orbital variations doesn't change Shaviv's original point that the increase in temperature is probably not due to human activity alone, if at all. I don't get how your argument disproves Shaviv's original point.
4. Science and Nature have both snobbed perfectly good science (e.g. the rebuttal to the Mann paper by the two Canadians, McIntyre and McKitrick, of whom you are aware.) Furthermore, they have allowed Mann to hide his work sources. This is unethical. I guess we'll just have to disagree here. I think Science and Nature have joined in the con game; you think they are "the top two general science journals in the world." So be it.
I respect your right to hold that opinion, and any other, for that matter. Unfortunately, as both of us are probably aware, we will probably not succeed in changing each other's opinion. I believe the statistics show that most people tend to hold onto their ideas, no matter how much argumentation they consider. But this fun, and it can be enlightening, both for me and for readers. KD
Dear Anonymous 3 (are you also Anon. #2?)
You have given a thorough chastizing to my piece, line by line. Thanks for the attention.
Let me pick out a few obvious errors:
I never have referred to myself as an "expert" appraiser of anyone's work. I have simply given my layman's opinion. Anonymous #2, on the other hand, might feel he/she is such an expert?
My comment about the objectivity and methodology of climatologists applies to scientists. I have never claimed to be a scientist, nor an economist. I am a blogger in the field of economics.
I am not exactly of the Austrian persuasion, although I do hold some tenets in common with them. But I don't take offense at the accusation.
Please detail my "rhetorical constructs composed ENTIRELY of logical fallacies" so that I may defend them one by one. Global accusations are hard to deal with, and tend to dissipate into rhetorical constructs themselves.
Which "well" am I "poisoning?" The Libertarian well? I've called myself "more libertarian than anything else," but like most libertarians, I find it hard to subscribe to any group, and I'm not a L. party member. So don't worry about that well. They don't need any poison from me; they've got plenty on their own.
Which "fantasies of innocence" are you referring to? Very vague, all of this. Hard to defend against.
What limits did Mises never deny the existence of? You've lost me here.
It's been grand.
KD
About deleted comments: Please note, I did delete one comment that was a verbatim repetition of another (Anonymous 3 must have submitted it twice.) I did not delete any other one, and in fact it is the author who deleted the last one. I have no idea what was in it. Would the author care to re-post?
Post a Comment
<< Home