GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE REOPENED
University of Southern California scientists L.F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar obviously weren't on the distribution list for the memo declaring the global warming debate over:
"The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately 0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century)”.So much for consensus.
“Any attempts to mitigate undesirable climatic changes using restrictive regulations are condemned to failure, because the global natural forces are at least 4–5 orders of magnitude greater than available human controls.”
posted by Anonymous at 9:30 PM |
7 Comments:
Further to Jeffs comment:Has Tim Lambert slimed them yet?
Two petroleum engineers oops, scientists, say climate change has pretty much nothing to do with their industry. Your right, consensus destroyed.
Is that your argument, Nexus? An ad hominum attack? Can you point out their errors?
jf, the debate also isn't over as to whether Osama ordered the 9/11 attacks, whether Americans landed on the moon or whether England will win the Ashes. People will debate anything. The mere fact that a debate exists is meaningless when one side has no data to support their hypothesis, as is the case with AGW.
Well, no, anon., the point is that to say you can prove a debate is still ongoing if even one human being continues to argue that there's a debate isn't proving much. So, can we agree instead that there is no longer a credible debate? In any case, for a discussion of climate science by actual qualified climate scientists who aren't on the fossil fuel industry payroll, please see www.realclimate.org.
JF, I've just posted on the paper your discussing, if you're interested (http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2006/12/denialist-hopes-dashed.html). It is probably one of the poorest peer-reviewed papers I have come across. Unfortunate that.
It seems like the debate over the IPCC's climate forcasts in ongoing. Or are these guys "Petroleum engineers" too?
atmospheric methane has recently stopped increasing in abundance.
This happy development wasn't entirely unanticipated, given that the rate of increase has been slowing for at least a quarter-century. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicated many of its conclusions on scenarios in which methane concentrations would continue growing for decades to come.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/54097
Article is called The Other Greenhouse Gas.
Edward J. Dlugokencky, an atmospheric chemist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has tracked atmospheric methane for many years. He says that "even as the reduction was happening, people doing emission scenarios weren't accounting for it."
Post a Comment
<< Home