Scientific American on climate contrarianism

It looks like I’ve already violated one of the tenets of this blog by posting a link to this but I am actually increasingly finding the science behind AGW more interesting than the politics. Thus I welcome any contributions from informed parties in the comments section on any of these specific refutations of climate contrarians set out in the article.

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Scientific American on climate contrarianism”

  1. John Humphreys Says:

    Rennie is right on the first point, wrong on the second and seventh points, and it’s a split decision on the rest. The AGW debate is one where I think the truth really does lie in the middle of the debate.

  2. graemebird Says:

    Look at Rennies first point. He reckons that humans put out 130 times as much CO2 then volcanoes. Then he links to the National Geographic survey. This is what we get.

    “Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). ”

    Because of the organisation involved he rests this on that matter alone. But we find out that the USNGS is basing this entirely implausible claim on this single, rather old study. When the fact is they have no way to make such a dubious claim.

  3. graemebird Says:

    “Moreover, several sets of experimental measurements, including analyses of the shifting ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, further confirm that fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are the primary reasons that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent since 1832, from 284 parts per million (ppm) to 388 ppm—a remarkable jump to the highest levels seen in millions of years.”

    This is an entirely wrong statement as well. Totally wrong. We have the CO2 record. This is what it looks like:

    You got to Rennie’s link and its not there. No alternative graph. So get it right Humphreys. The fellow is a lazy and moronic parrot.

  4. graemebird Says:

    We have to go back to the start with the analysis of the effect of CO2. When the CO2 level increases at sea level it also increases all the way up to an altitude of about 100 kilometres. But this is not the distance that the light has to travel through this increased CO2, except at the equator at noon. In all other cases the light must travel through extra CO2 for a far longer distance prior to the light from hitting the ground.

    More then 40% of the radiation from the sun is in the infrared region. Hence the first step to understanding this matter is recognising that prior to the heat coming up from the ground, that same energy is earlier blocked by extra CO2 doing its work for hundreds of kilometres, depending on the angle of incidence. So right from the beginning the extra CO2 is having a cooling effect. There are also other cooling effects along the way. So any alleged warming effects has to overmatch this initial cooling effect.

    Now watts and joules are not equal as to their usefulness in heating us. The extra warmth from a change or other is not independent from at what level that change is made insofar as the joules are concerned. A heater in basement is doing double and triple duty as compared to a heater in the attic.

    Empirically this movement has to be rejected as a clear fraud. But where is the apriori assumption in its favour coming from? Clearly it is coming from ignorance and the effect of propaganda on the sheeple. Clearly it is coming from these sources alone.

  5. The Empiricist : Eight responses to seven answers Says:

    […] Jason Soon asked for feedback and opinions on the Scientific Article, Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense. […]

  6. daddy dave Says:

    You asked, so here is my honest opinion on that Sciam article. Sorry if this comment is so long. I don’t normally do this, and will drop the subject immediately after posting this.

    8 responses to 7 answers to contrarian nonsense.

    One thing I didn’t mention: they make it explicit that they’re not attacking those who “honestly disagree.” They’re only after the naysayers. In other words, they admit upfront that this is a straw-man hunt. (those straw men have been packed with bricks, but never mind).

  7. graemebird Says:

    To have this fellow editing Scientific American is testimony to the great success of the Gramscian project. And the eventual horrorshow of having socialist research and education. No matter what a terrific idea it seems like at first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: