January 29, at am Mr. Now I too am bewildered — to see your name at the bottom of that dubious commentary is disappointing. Statements that try to manipulate the reader by associating climate change research to communist dogma? CO2 is great? The world and atmosphere are changing.
|Published (Last):||13 May 2016|
|PDF File Size:||17.22 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.82 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
January 29, at am Mr. Now I too am bewildered — to see your name at the bottom of that dubious commentary is disappointing. Statements that try to manipulate the reader by associating climate change research to communist dogma? CO2 is great?
The world and atmosphere are changing. And nobody knows what that will lead to. Change is natural, but you cannot deny that mankind is also changing his environment with pollution.
And something drastic IS happening. Our global lack of balls to reform how we presently act dumping our pollutants and assuming our environment can absorb it has us committed to a global experiment that nobody can predict. And it all might be ok. Or it might be the end of our species. Or anywhere in between. Yes the science is patchy. Yes most carbon-capture methods are no better than scams. And yes hippies are annoying. Signing your name to such a dubious piece of wishful thinking is surely beneath you, Mr.
Your opinion though is disappointingly that of a luddite. You cannot match the Science of Physics, to an incorrect philosophical perception of greenhouse.
Markus Fitzhenry. January 29, at am Well Steve, apparently the Labor Government in Australia is apparently quite happy to risk the country on just that false premise. They want to tax carbon dioxide, as in their opinion it actually affects the climate to such a degree pun intended that we will witness meter increase in sea water levels and a drought never before witnessed.
They honestly believe that by reducing CO2, all those nightmares will be extinguished. But our very own Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery, has admitted that it will take over one thousand years to witness any affect, either negative or positive. So far has the lunacy reached, it truly is astounding what those specialist scientists expect people to swallow. Tom Roche says: January 29, at am The notion that anybody can assume that a CO2 level of ppm bestows a benefit on the stability of this planet is one that I cannot understand.
This ecosystem evolved in a world of CO2 levels far greater than those present today. Where is the evidence for alarm. Bobl says: January 29, at am Michael I am also an Engineer who has studied the literature and reached the same conclusion as Burt. There is nothing about the Alarmist position that has not been falsified.
There are some simple boundary calculations that can be done to dimension climate change and they all suggest a sensitivity less than 1 deg C. A couple of simple worked examples are in order. The temperature risefor CO2 follows a log law such that for a linear increase in CO2 the temperature rise is less for each CO2 increase.
What makes you think therefore that the rise for the next PPM is going to be more than 1 degree when the last PPM caused less than 0. Example 2 The current theory is that the entire radiative effect of the atmosphere gives rise to a blanketing effect equal to 33 degrees. Extrapolating from the 33 degree rise suggests maximum increase in temperature for any CO2 rise is therefore limited to 0. IPCC says warming in this range to deg is nett beneficial to mankind. The IPCC sensitivity also implies that warming relationship must accelerate with respect to the warming so far which I also showed in example 1.
Are you really suggesting that because a few locations and crops may be nutrient limited, there will be no food productivity benefit from increasing CO2? There clearly is benefit, and it has already been maesured. I would welcome honest discussions competent openminded critics the field has on this matter, though I confess it has been quite a while since I encountered one.
Thanks January 29, at am To Eric and others: About removing ourselves from the equation, thats not even true in the scientific sense. Nobody knows how earth would look like without man.
As you can observe man tries to stabilize its environment and even if he is not very successfull at the moment, after a few hundred years of trial and error he may sometime get it. So you want to measure mans influence on earth and the biospere based on two or three hundred years? Thats ridiculous by earth standards. Perhaps we are successful and even will prevent the next ice age, including mass extinction of a large par of the northern biosphere?
I understand how fear works, fear of the unknown, fear of the future — but what kind of beeing are we if we start to plan our future only on our nightmares? I know climate change feels like scientific and done deal to you, but have you observed how often science fails in predicting even their own field. Putting to trust in this is naiive, putting skeptisiscm in it is reasonable. Scientifically the reason for it is that there are so many unknowns that science have to start guessing in he models well the may name it different: speculate, statistics, exptrapolate etc etc and on this they predict.
That ist in my eyes ist megalomaniac. We have to deescalate, there are other dangerous things that might be more pressing for the wellbeing and survival of man on earth.
Tom ps: Have you observed how science has stepped up in the near earth object research? Taking on that risk is really brave, knowing that it might never produce a method but just the knowledge: we all will be dead in x years.
Tom on Earth says: January 29, at am Hey. Sorry about the bad non native english.. I applaud the Chinese and Indian governments for refusing to knuckle under to the last gasp of the misanthropes of the decadent west seeking to prevent their ascendancy to full industrialization, and escape from the poverty inflicted upon them by European imperialism.
What are your accomplishments, Mr. Setting aside even the entirety of Mr. The farmers ensure that the crops in the greenhouses have enough water, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients in addition to higher carbon dioxide.
This is why the greenhouse claim made in the Journal commentary was incomplete and misleading — higher atmospheric carbon dioxide only leads to greater productivity when all other nutrients are also more available. This is one example of incomplete and misleading information from the commentary you signed. The largest study, to date, of this has shown precisely the opposite: Ainsworth, E. A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2.
New Phytologist To point it out says nothing meaningful and is really only done by people who want to mislead and people who have already been misled. The last ten years have been the warmest in the instrumental record, and the second warmest ten year period was the one before that, and the third warmest ten year period was the one before that. And direct observations of modern and geologic temperature records independently also tell us that the sensitivity is most likely somewhere between 1.
Imagine a forest fire, near a town. My understanding of the wind and topography and how the fire will move are all subject to uncertainty. The less I know, the less I am able to rule out the risk of the town getting destroyed. If I increase my knowledge, does that reduce the chance of the town getting destroyed?
Obviously not. It only reduces the uncertainty in my estimate of the chances.
An open letter to Burt Rutan, regarding his WSJ commentary on human-caused climate disruption
The Rutan model 68 Amsoil Racer is a racing aircraft of Quickie configuration Voyager Rutan Voyager on display in the National Air and Space Museum Rutan was approached by his brother Dick about designing an airplane that could fly nonstop, unrefueled around the world, something that had never been done before. The pusher engine ran continuously, the tractor engine was used for take-off and initial climb to altitude, then was shut down. After development work, it was reengined with a Continental O modified to include liquid cooling as the pusher engine and a Continental O as the tractor engine. Louis and Bell X