Monday, June 06, 2011
GLOBAL WARMING - Debating the Multidecadal Trend
He told me, correctly, that (on question 5) it is sulphur crystals not sulphur dioxide crystals, as I said, that must be put into the stratosphere to produce cooling. He also points out that, since such crystals only stay up for about 2 years this needs to be practiced continuously and indeed, were catastrophic warming to keep rising the amount of crystals would have to be increased. However should we continue the war on fire that must also be continued indefinitely and because the loss in economic growth is a cumulative, indeed geometric, growth process it's cost will also rise geometrically. Since the annual cost of putting up such sulphur crystals is well under 1,000th the cost of Kyoto, I do not see that as a major problem.
On point 1 (that there has been no significant warming since 1995) the Professor has also sent me a graph, from the Met Office, of warming back to 1850, which he believes
shows a long term trend of 0.6C degree of warming, over the last 150 year, correlating with the time manmade CO2 started its steep rise. This, rather than the experience between 1979 and 1998, which was at the time promised by Hansen would show a 0.5 C decadal increase in his evidence to Congress, or the 0.2 C decadal increase Hansen later said, on oath in a British court, was the case, being the multidecadal increase he referred to.
Note that while there is an overall correlation over the period the steepest proportional rise in CO2 was from 1950 to 1980 - when temperature, at worst, flatlined.
On the other hand, as we can see from the Greenland ice Sheet, the rise, while real, is nothing outside human experience and indeed we are still cooler than normal..
I am glad he still maintains there is a scientific consensus, excluding only "very few scientists"that the political claims of "catastrophic global warming" are clearly false.
UPDATE Professor Fred Singer has sent comments here
Do you realize that your website seems to raise a constant stream of alarms? Sure, you are selective in what alarms you, but it's all about terrible misdeeds with enormous consequences about which it is imperative to take some action or have some opinion.
That's a great quote in context - but it's a two edged sword and can cut the supposed wielder just as deeply as their imagined opponents.
I think you will find imminent catastrophic threats presented by me form a vey minor part of what I blog about compared to the others. Indeed offhand the only ones I can think of are solar flares, asteroid strike and volcanos, none of which are imaginary.
Perhaps you could be specify some facts in your attack?