Global Warming

And, from that, you concluded that the entire edifice of anthropogenic climate change was a sham?Who, exactly, is looking through ideological lenses here?

Please either find where I said that or get your glasses checked.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

If you are trying to imply that we would be better off pumping out particulates to try and combat global warming perhaps you should look up respiratory illnesses and how it is linked to pollution. A good start would be the following articles - Nitrogen Oxides and Your HealthUC Berkeley, Princeton team demonstrates cheap way to reduce toll of respiratory illness from indoor cooking fires in Third WorldThere are a ton of arcticles that would meet your research requirements. I am sure there are statistics and such that show a definitive link between particulates and respiratory illnesses. I believe that your proposed solution to global warming would have a very negative effect on the health of humans. An alternate solution would be to reduce both particulate emissions and Co2, coincedentally this is exactly what most scientists are trying to work out.

I actually agree with Crashfrog that the environmentalists that said particulates was causing global cooling when particulates never was a threat to the earth. The global cooling scare in 1970-1990's.The hydrological cycle is how particulates are naturally scrubbed out of the air. In effect washes the sulfides, nitrates into the soil which might actually be empowering the soil to release cationic anionic minerals for increased nutritious plant growth.I hear you however that in the cities nitric acids, sulfides can be a nasty smog problem thus the need for tall smoke stacks and scrubbers and perhaps a move to the country.Even Mt. St. Helens massive ash contributions only temporarily affected the global weather. Likely because of our natural air purifier in the water hydrological cycle that purifies the atmosphere. Which in part why the massive ash pumped into the upper atmosphere by Mt. St. Helens only temporarily caused a temporary solar cooling effect.The bottom line is Co2 never was the cause of global warming and particulates because of the water cycle get purged from the air so its at best only a temporary fix to a problem that only exists in the minds of the environmentalists.A one degree rise in the next hundred years in global temps with a rise in Co2 is only a good thing given the oceans are not rising due to the increases in ice on the polar caps due to global warming.There really is nothing we can do to combat global warming given the sun has been heating up slowly over the last thousand years.----------------------------------So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:News: Breaking stories & updates - The TelegraphEdited by Charley, : No reason given.

Hi Charley.You mind clarifying this bit right here?

Climate chaos? Don't believe it
By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:14am GMT 05/11/2006Removing the UN's solecisms, and using reasonable data and assumptions, a simple global model shows that temperature will rise by just 0.1 to 1.4C in the coming century, with a best estimate of 0.6C, well within the medieval temperature range and only a fifth of the UN's new, central projection.News: Breaking stories & updates - The Telegraph

Just an aside, that paper says this:

quote:

---

So the UN repealed a fundamental physical law. Buried in a sub-chapter in its 2001 report is a short but revealing section discussing "lambda": the crucial factor converting forcings to temperature. The UN said its climate models had found lambda near-invariant at 0.5C per watt of forcing.

​

You don't need computer models to "find" lambda. Its value is given by a century-old law, derived experimentally by a Slovenian professor and proved by his Austrian student (who later committed suicide when his scientific compatriots refused to believe in atoms). The Stefan-Boltzmann law, not mentioned once in the UN's 2001 report, is as central to the thermodynamics of climate as Einstein's later equation is to astrophysics. Like Einstein's, it relates energy to the square of the speed of light, but by reference to temperature rather than mass.

​

The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase the UN could predict. Using poor Ludwig Boltzmann's law, lambda's true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt. In 2001, the UN effectively repealed the law, doubling lambda to 0.5C per watt. A recent paper by James Hansen says lambda should be 0.67, 0.75 or 1C: take your pick. Sir John Houghton, who chaired the UN's scientific assessment working group until recently, tells me it now puts lambda at 0.8C: that's 3C for a 3.7-watt doubling of airborne CO2. Most of the UN's computer models have used 1C. Stern implies 1.9C.

---

I can't believe that author is actually applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation, which the slightest wikipedia search reveals that it calculates "the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body in unit time is proportional to the fourth power of the thermodynamic temperature".A further check of 'black body' reveals: a black body is an object that absorbs all electromagnetic radiation that falls onto it. Clearly, because the Earth can be seen from space, it isn't a black body, so the Equation does NOT apply to Earth.Edited by Doddy, : fixed grammar

---

"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur SchopenhauerHelp inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Chris Monckton is a known dissembler. He'll use any tenuous, science-sounding terminology to dissuade people about global warming. He's been known to invent "data" from whole cloth just to prove his point, and newspapers almost always fall for it in their search for "balance" - a balance that doesn't exist in the scientific community.Realclimate.org has several posts on his nonsense. I wouldn't believe anything from his pen.

Unless some of the worst-case scenarios come true (like disruption of the Atlantic conveyor). In which case, it'd be tough to start a vinyard on permafrost.

co2 induced global warming is a myth...this is an end time prophecy, next will come billows of smoke from nuclear explosions.Luke 21:25
"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth,
nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.

---

What about coconuts?