Sunday, June 12, 2011
7 Questions for Warmists - Professor Fred Singer Comments
I have received this from Professor Fred Singer, head of SEPP, the original warming sceptic newsletter which you can and should get here. The term "world authority" fits him well. It is a reply to previous discussion with Professor Wolf on my 7 questions for warming alarmists.
Since I have been copied to, I feel I should add my comments -- as they relate to climate science.
1. On the global temp record:
The 1910-40 warming is genuine and caused by natural factors. I am aware of only one analysis that ascribes it to human causes -- and though published in Science and quoted by IPCC, it is likely incorrect
The 1979-97 surface warming is contradicted by many independent pieces of evidence (I count at least six) and is likely close to zero
Not sure if Eric agrees, but I might convince him
5. On geo-engineering:
I am in general agreement with Eric but would add;
1. Injection of sulfate particles into the stratosphere would have undesirable consequences for ozone
2. I question the need or efficacy of geo-engineering but see no harm in modest funding of studies
Best Fred
I am going to stick my neck out, in such eminent company, by saying something more about geo-engineering. I very much agree about it's present efficacy. Cooling the planet before being absolutely certain that we are experiencing a dangerous degree of warming would not only be unnecessary but damaging and conceivably even catastrophic since previous ice ages suggests that there may be positive feedback for cooling. However I think it is important that any reasonable assessment shows it is possible in extremis I am glad we know that possibility exists - this is not the "precautionary principle" simply a sensible engineering "belt and braces" attitude.The fact that sulphate particles would be inexpensive and going nuclear have a net negative cost gives a baseline to assess any alarmist proposals against.
The fact that such particles worked to create "years without a summer following the volcanic eruptions of Krakatoa 1883, Tambora 1815 and Laki 1783-5 show that sulphate would work. I also think they show that the effects on ozone would not cause catastrophe at ground level.
In the long term the best place to geo-engineer Earth from is space, where both cooling and warming could be done. This will be practical when we have a spacegoing civilisation at little extra cost. Building "space solar power, we would build a Lunar colony on weekends and third shifts ...And solving global warming, if it actually ever turns out to be a problem, by building tinfoil parasols on bank holidays."
If the alleged believers in global warming catastrophe, which do not include Professor Wolff, really did believe it the rational thing would be for them to promote nuclear power and space industrialisation.
Neil
Since I have been copied to, I feel I should add my comments -- as they relate to climate science.
1. On the global temp record:
The 1910-40 warming is genuine and caused by natural factors. I am aware of only one analysis that ascribes it to human causes -- and though published in Science and quoted by IPCC, it is likely incorrect
The 1979-97 surface warming is contradicted by many independent pieces of evidence (I count at least six) and is likely close to zero
Not sure if Eric agrees, but I might convince him
5. On geo-engineering:
I am in general agreement with Eric but would add;
1. Injection of sulfate particles into the stratosphere would have undesirable consequences for ozone
2. I question the need or efficacy of geo-engineering but see no harm in modest funding of studies
Best Fred
I am going to stick my neck out, in such eminent company, by saying something more about geo-engineering. I very much agree about it's present efficacy. Cooling the planet before being absolutely certain that we are experiencing a dangerous degree of warming would not only be unnecessary but damaging and conceivably even catastrophic since previous ice ages suggests that there may be positive feedback for cooling. However I think it is important that any reasonable assessment shows it is possible in extremis I am glad we know that possibility exists - this is not the "precautionary principle" simply a sensible engineering "belt and braces" attitude.The fact that sulphate particles would be inexpensive and going nuclear have a net negative cost gives a baseline to assess any alarmist proposals against.
The fact that such particles worked to create "years without a summer following the volcanic eruptions of Krakatoa 1883, Tambora 1815 and Laki 1783-5 show that sulphate would work. I also think they show that the effects on ozone would not cause catastrophe at ground level.
In the long term the best place to geo-engineer Earth from is space, where both cooling and warming could be done. This will be practical when we have a spacegoing civilisation at little extra cost. Building "space solar power, we would build a Lunar colony on weekends and third shifts ...And solving global warming, if it actually ever turns out to be a problem, by building tinfoil parasols on bank holidays."
If the alleged believers in global warming catastrophe, which do not include Professor Wolff, really did believe it the rational thing would be for them to promote nuclear power and space industrialisation.
Neil
Labels: global warming, Science/technology, space
Comments:
<< Home
As R was covering energy today and your blog is very good on that subject, I put a link in to it in the comment section. For some reason this was deleted?
# posted by 
: June 13, 2011
: June 13, 2011
Thank you. I put on something later in the day. Perhaps he deleted it because I hadn't asked for the link? Though that seems weird he does have a very proactive response to anything where there might be legal questions as I, who am less restrained, saw. He once censored my remarks comparing the "openly corrupt" pre Palin government in Alaska and the one Chicago to "openly (questionable)". I'm not complaining about that and anybody seeing your kind remarks about me would be able to click on my name when they saw it further down the page.
I like to think that nuclear is higher up his list of priorities than it was though obviously I would like it near the top of almost every politician's.
I like to think that nuclear is higher up his list of priorities than it was though obviously I would like it near the top of almost every politician's.
Global warming is real and it looks that we cannot do something to stop it.
Mary Goldwin ( Track Prep and Performance Racing Services )
Mary Goldwin ( Track Prep and Performance Racing Services )
The US has accused Iran of being responsible for the attacks, and the latter has denied the allegation."The manning agencies are now looking after the crews' well-being and are dealing with their repatriation."The Norwegian-owned oil tanker's crew members arrived in Dubai after two days in Iran.
Indian defence news
Defence news in Hindi
Post a Comment
Indian defence news
Defence news in Hindi
<< Home
