Ignoring Feedback in Global Warming
The PR machine that is the Chicken Little Industry got Reuters to do a story on research by several U.S. university scientists, who issued a report that says, according to Reuters, "Global warming will stifle life-giving microscopic plants that live in the surface layer of the oceans, cutting marine food production and accelerating climate change." Emphasis is mine, because I used to think scientific predictions were made based on statistical probabilities and confidence intervals. But Reuters managed to get "will" from the report. I hope the scientists themselves were a little more nuanced.
According to these latest scientists, man-made global warming is causing the oceans to lose phytoplankton, which absorb some 50% of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary global warming culprit according to those deriving their living from proclaiming from the rooftops that the world is ending.
Researchers at the Scripps Center for Oceanography agree that the amount of phytoplankton in the oceans is key to global warming. According to their report published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, the "radiation absorbed by phytoplankton raises global average temperatures by 0.1 to 0.6 degrees Fahrenheit." The report concluded that climate models need to take into account this global warming effect of phytoplankton. In fact, the Scripps scientists warn against any attempts to increase populations of phytoplankton in the hope they will absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere because of the concurrent radiation absorption warming effect.
So, scientists have found:
1. A positive correlation between increased amounts of oceanic phytoplankton and global temperature; and
2. A negative correlation between increased amounts of oceanic phytoplankton and global temperature.
Consider, also a further study that says that phytoplankton release dimethyl sulfide when eating CO2 and absorbing heat. This dimethyl sulfide causes greater cloud formation, thereby causing reflective cooling of the surface. Yet another feedback mechanism.
Yet, oddly, Reuters doesn't uncover the Scripps Center report or the dimethyl sulfide issue or ask questions about contradictions with the latest scare screed. Clearly, that would undercut the attempt to frighten the public into abandoning capitalism and voting for Al Gore.
Dr Sam Iacobellis explains what the media and Al Gore don't understand:
But complex systems effected by chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, particle physics and other things can never be reduced to ceteris paribus and still provide an explanation for observable climate data or a reliable prediction of future weather.
But you are asked to abandon your economy while those asking jet around in their private planes and ask nothing of the most populous nations in the world.
The PR machine that is the Chicken Little Industry got Reuters to do a story on research by several U.S. university scientists, who issued a report that says, according to Reuters, "Global warming will stifle life-giving microscopic plants that live in the surface layer of the oceans, cutting marine food production and accelerating climate change." Emphasis is mine, because I used to think scientific predictions were made based on statistical probabilities and confidence intervals. But Reuters managed to get "will" from the report. I hope the scientists themselves were a little more nuanced.
According to these latest scientists, man-made global warming is causing the oceans to lose phytoplankton, which absorb some 50% of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary global warming culprit according to those deriving their living from proclaiming from the rooftops that the world is ending.
Researchers at the Scripps Center for Oceanography agree that the amount of phytoplankton in the oceans is key to global warming. According to their report published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, the "radiation absorbed by phytoplankton raises global average temperatures by 0.1 to 0.6 degrees Fahrenheit." The report concluded that climate models need to take into account this global warming effect of phytoplankton. In fact, the Scripps scientists warn against any attempts to increase populations of phytoplankton in the hope they will absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere because of the concurrent radiation absorption warming effect.
So, scientists have found:
1. A positive correlation between increased amounts of oceanic phytoplankton and global temperature; and
2. A negative correlation between increased amounts of oceanic phytoplankton and global temperature.
Consider, also a further study that says that phytoplankton release dimethyl sulfide when eating CO2 and absorbing heat. This dimethyl sulfide causes greater cloud formation, thereby causing reflective cooling of the surface. Yet another feedback mechanism.
Yet, oddly, Reuters doesn't uncover the Scripps Center report or the dimethyl sulfide issue or ask questions about contradictions with the latest scare screed. Clearly, that would undercut the attempt to frighten the public into abandoning capitalism and voting for Al Gore.
Dr Sam Iacobellis explains what the media and Al Gore don't understand:
This just shows how intricate the climate system is. It's like a ball of yarn all pushed together. It's difficult to unpiece the climate or put together what might happen in the future when all these things act together. One by itself may not be that important, but when thousands of these small things act together, what then?As Mr. Gore has concluded, " Ceteris paribus, the sky's falling."
But complex systems effected by chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, particle physics and other things can never be reduced to ceteris paribus and still provide an explanation for observable climate data or a reliable prediction of future weather.
But you are asked to abandon your economy while those asking jet around in their private planes and ask nothing of the most populous nations in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment