Apologies to those of an alarmist disposition, but I have an opinion piece published here on TGGWS, copied below. It is based on what I have written and posted here and elsewhere:
Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) and Martin Durkin’s The Great Global Warming Swindle (TGGWS) are two documentaries presenting two very different perspectives on the current level of the scientific understanding of the Earth’s complex climate system.
AIT presents the science as being settled and computer models as being reliable. Everything bad in the world is caused by man-made CO2, from more intense hurricanes, tornados, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, floods, droughts, heat waves, and disease, to drowning polar bears.
The main thrust of TGGWS is that the science isn’t settled and there is an alternative explanation. The “enhanced greenhouse effect” isn’t behaving as climate models suggest that it should, and climate change is being used as a vehicle for an anti-human, anti-capitalist, anti-mobility agenda by groups masquerading as “green.” Others are making a living by perpetuating the global warming industry, while bandwagon politicians seek to raise “green” taxes, control enterprise, mobility, and lifestyles via energy policy.
Scientists who subscribe to the claimed “consensus” view have described AIT as having the science “about right”. TGGWS, on the other hand, has been subjected to intense scrutiny and attacks from the day it was first shown on the UK’s Channel 4 TV.
Let’s examine some of the contentious points starting with Al Gore’s 600,000-year graph of temperature and CO2 derived from ice cores. Gore fails to mention that the graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by hundreds of years, rather than CO2 driving temperature, a point that was made in TGGWS. The ice core data tells us little or nothing about the sensitivity of climate to man-made CO2.
Israeli Physicist Nir Shaviv, who appeared in TGGWS, has published his empirical calculation of climate sensitivity of a maximum of 1C to 1.5C for the iconic doubling of CO2 to 560 parts per million. Contrast this with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer modelled scenarios of 1.1C to 6.4C.
The infamous “hockey stick” graph of temperatures for the past 1,000 years is another point of disagreement between Gore and Durkin. It consists of a horizontal “handle” of reconstructed “proxy” data showing a stable temperature, onto which modern day instrumental measurements have been grafted to show a rapid 20th century rise in global temperatures.
The use of these two different types of data alone is ample cause for concern, yet this graph was the “poster child” of the IPPC 2001 report and replaced the one the IPCC used in their 1995 report, which clearly showed a Medieval Warm Period (MWP), followed by a cooler period known as the Little Ice Age, a version of which was used to illustrate the point in TGGWS.
Research published by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (2003, 2005) showed that the hockey stick shape was the result of seriously flawed methodology. The 2006 US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel upheld the major criticisms made by McIntyre and McKitrick including the advice that strip-bark bristlecone pines should not be used in climate reconstructions.
However, the controversy over the global extent of the MWP continues, given that there are regional differences in the way the world warms or cools. The temperature rise in Australia over the past 500 years is only about half of that experienced by the continents in the Northern Hemisphere during the same period.
Both the CO2 and solar theories seem to have suffered from a correlation breakdown or “divergence”. There was a period of global cooling from the 1940’s to the 1970’s despite increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. Solar activity also fell during this period suggesting a solar link.
Claims by CO2 driven warming proponents that the cooling was caused by sulphate aerosol pollution reflecting sunlight don’t really stand up to scrutiny, given the fact that emissions from developing countries have increased markedly since the late 1980’s.
The Svensmark/Friis-Christensen graph used in TGGWS showing a correlation between the length of the 11-year solar cycle (as a measure of solar activity) and temperature has been criticised because it stops in 1980. Butler and Johnston, using data from Armagh Observatory, Northern Ireland, published similar findings in 1996.
After 1985 solar activity started to decrease yet global temperatures continued to rise. Nir Shaviv is a proponent of a possible solar explanation for this that requires the suggested link between cosmic ray flux and clouds to be real. Svenmark’s successful pilot experiment, published in 2006 provides experimental support for such a link. A much larger experiment at CERN in Switzerland should be completed by 2010.
It is important to note that the IPCC rate the “level of scientific understanding” of solar irradiance as “low”, and solar eruptivity and cosmic ray flux as “very low”.
Professor Carl Wunsch was far from complimentary about climate models when he appeared in the original version of TGGWS. He did not appear in the ABC version because he claimed his contributions had been shown out of context and misrepresented his views.
The release of the original emails to Professor Wunsch from TGGWS makers Wag TV revealed that he was well aware of the documentary’s perspective:
… I wanted to email you to outline the approach we will be taking with our film to clarify our position. We are making a feature length documentary about global warming for Channel Four in the UK. The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence, which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative theories such as solar induced climate change. Given the seemingly inconclusive nature of the evidence, it examines the background to the apparent consensus on this issue, and highlights the dangers involved, especially to developing nations, of policies aimed at limiting industrial growth …
Assuming Prof Carl Wunsch didn’t dupe himself into writing it, we have his compelling view of the Gulf Stream scare from Nature, April 8, 2004:
Sir -Your News story “Gulf Stream probed for early warnings of system failure” (“Nature” 427, 769 (2004)) discusses what the climate in the south of England would be like “without the Gulf Stream”. Sadly, this phrase has been seen far too often, usually in newspapers concerned with the unlikely possibility of a new ice age in Britain triggered by the loss of the Gulf Stream. European readers should be reassured that the Gulf Stream’s existence is a consequence of the large-scale wind system over the North Atlantic Ocean, and of the nature of fluid motion on a rotating planet.
The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both. Real questions exist about conceivable changes in the ocean circulation and its climate consequences. However, such discussions are not helped by hyperbole and alarmism. The occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream anytime soon – within tens of millions of years – has a probability of little more than zero.
TGGWS malaria expert Paul Reiter resigned from the IPCC over alarmist claims about malaria and global warming. He has also poured scorn on Gore’s malaria claims:
I am a specialist in diseases transmitted by mosquitoes. So let’s talk malaria. I wondered how many had taken anti-malaria tablets because they had seen Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, which claims that Nairobi was established in a healthy place “above the mosquito line” but is now infested with mosquitoes – naturally, because of global warming. Gore’s claim is deceitful on four counts. Nairobi was dangerously infested when it was founded; it was founded for a railway, not for health reasons; it is now fairly clear of malaria; and it has not become warmer. Pseudoscience will damage your health and your wealth just as surely as malaria.
Gore claimed that 35,000 people died as a result of the 2003 European summer heat wave, due to man-made global warming. Equally pertinent but not mentioned by Gore is that there are about 100,000 excess winter deaths in Europe each year, and 25,000 to 45,000 in the UK. Contrast this with the estimated 2,000 UK deaths during the 2003 heat wave. Recent peer reviewed science by Chase et al (2006), and Fischer et al (2007) casts doubt on the claim that European heat waves are due to man-made CO2.
Gore’s inclusion of hurricane Katrina suggests that increased hurricane intensity is linked to global warming, but this is not backed by the World Meteorological Organisation “consensus statement”, or a raft of recent papers. Hurricane expert Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC in 2005 saying, “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound”.
John Chrsity of The University of Alabama research group provides support for the claim made in the TGGWS that the planet’s surface warming is greater than the warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), which contradicts climate model predictions for enhanced greenhouse warming. Previous unfounded criticisms of the Christy et al data have centred round an error correction of 0.035C, which ignored the fact that this was within the quoted margin of error in the original paper of 0.05C. Their latest data published in 2007 confirms the discrepancy between climate models and observations.
Land use change expert Roger Pielke Sr, of the University of Colorado, resigned from the IPCC in 1995 due to the narrow focus on CO2, but he didn’t appear in TGGWS. In 2005, he also resigned form the US Climate Change Science Programme (CCSP) Committee “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere-Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences” stating:
I have given up seeking to promote a balanced presentation of the issue of assessing recent spatial and temporal surface and tropospheric temperature trends. This entire exercise has been very disappointing, and, unfortunately is a direct result of having the same people write the assessment report as have completed the studies.
The broad conclusion is that the multi-decadal global climate models are unable to accurately simulate the linear trends of surface and tropospheric temperatures for the 1979-1999 time period, on the regional and tropical zonally-averaged spatial scale. Their ability to skilfully simulate the global averages surface and tropospheric temperature trend on this time scale is, at best, inconclusive. This has major implications for the impacts community.
Studies such as the US National Assessment and Chapters and the IPCC which use regional results from the multi-decadal climate models are constructed on models which have been falsified in their ability to accurately simulate even the linear trend of the tropical zonally averaged surface and tropospheric temperature trends over the last several decades. Since almost all impact studies require regional and smaller scale resolution, the current generation of multi-decadal global climate prediction models is inappropriate to use for impact prediction for the coming decades.
In conclusion, Gore’s AIT goes way beyond any consensus and doesn’t do justice to the many scientific uncertainties. Durkin’s TGGWS has evolved since the first showing in response to some criticisms, and could have made some of the contentious points clearer. However, the debate that some so badly want closed down is alive and well, albeit increasingly vitriolic. There is, however, a much bigger fish to fry than either AIT or TGGWS – namely the IPCC itself. I look forward to the same intense scrutiny being applied to the IPCC’s climate science monopoly.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“Everything bad in the world is caused by man-made CO2, from more intense hurricanes, tornados, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, floods, droughts, heat waves, and disease, to drowning polar bears.”
If you keep on making up strawman, I’ll have to ask the fairy of internet debating to give you a spaking.
Blame Gore not me!
All total crap and long been dispensed.
From the relative ratio of exotic charismatic fauna and whaling posts to big assaults on climate change of late I’d say that the combo of the TGGWS and Proc Royal A has seen some bad performance reviews by contrarian backers. Performance indicators are down guys – get out there with everything you’ve got and let those commo neo-marxist warmers have it.
Really all this has been dealt with – is there anything new. Nuh !
Defending Durkin will go down as one of the most bizarre low points of denialist ning nongery of all time.
SJT whaddya reckon we spend a lot of time as has already been done refuting this twaddle or we can just do a Mottsa – call everyone scum, morons or was it “dumb turds” and let that substitute for debate.
OK flip you on it – heads says we debate it length, tails says we do a Mottsa.
Luke, you seem pretty much obsessed with this site. Do you actually have a day job?
Much of what this note says is undeniably true:-
-It is ridiculous to blame spreading malaria on AGW. Virtually all of Africa has allways been well within temperature tolerance range for mosquitoes.
-Gore’s presentation of that ice core was deliberately misleading.
-It is also true that both CO2 and the solar alternative show periods of divergence with temperature trends in C20th.
-Gore (and others) who talked up the 2003 European heatwaves all failed to mention that cold weather kills far more people each year in Europe.
-The “Death of the Gulf Stream” theory was riduculous – though this was not supported by very many people in the AGW camp.
-Mann’s “hockey stick” graph was based on very shoddy statistical analysis. McKittrick and MacIntyres criticisms were unequivocally endorsed by a professor of Statistics (called Wegman)for the NAS. Since then the “hockey stick” seems to have vanished – though you can still see it on some websites.
Some of the other comments on this note are more arguable and whether the Svensmark etc theories about cosmic rays have validity remains to be seen.
Perhaps its a matter of opinion but Durkins movie certainly isnt any more misleading than Gore’s
You forgot to mention ocean acidification: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070217-acid-oceans.html
“Already, Feely said, ocean acidity has increased about 30 percent since industrialization began spurring harmful carbon emissions centuries ago. Unless emissions are reduced from current levels, an increase of 150 percent is predicted by 2100.
Such an increase would make the oceans more acidic than they’ve been at any time in the last 20 million years, he added. ”
Jen, how about you give us your opinion on ocean acidification? Is it something that only alarmists care about?
Another prediction. I think you mean the oceans becoming less alkaline, although ‘acidification’ is the accepted term.
Coelacanths appeared in the fossil record 410 million years ago and are still not extinct – they have seen a change or two in the oceans!
Paul: Congratulations and good luck with OLO feedback.
If you had this item published in one of our daily papers SMH, Age, Canberra Times, under “Opinion” I would definitely give it another glance, maybe even write a letter to the editor with some criticism.
Here though it’s bound to bog the blog again, sorry but I should have a night or two off the PC for a change. Meantime have fun batting on a worn pitch.
Thanks Gavin – I was asked to do it, so I did! Had it not been for the hysteria over TGGWS – I wouldn’t be batting at all, but at least I play with a straight bat!
Could someone explain to Melaleuca that the ocean acidification scam has been thoroughly discredited in previous posts.
And Luke is still running the propaganda line that it has all been settled in his favour. But note the continual lack of substance in his posts. I suspect the real Luke is on stress leave (to recover his conscience) and his place has been taken by the work experience guy from the sheltered workshop.
He is especially reticent on the gulf stream scam because he was a consistent champion of it. Dumped bile on me for having the front to actually run the calculator over the numbers.
It seems that he thought my calculator was displaying insufficient deference to his august “peers” that he has confused with “Peers”.
Paul
you don’t play with a straight bat, you shovel up the usual drivel along with the rest of them. I had hopes of something better from you.
Do you think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not? It’s a simple question, with a simple answer?
Your 15 year old savant doubts that it is.
SJT – CO2 is a ghg – adding more to the atmosphere will increase the radiative forcing. The point is that the greenhouse or enhanced greenhouse does not drive climate, which has a low sensitivity to CO2. The ice cores show that. A sensitivity higher than around 1C for a doubling requires a large/unlikely/unproven positive feedback fed into computer models.
In Science mag last week, the point was again made that over the past 20 years, evaporation is equal to precipitation. Interpret that as you please.
15 year old Kristen has a far more eminent admirer than me in one pro-AGW hurricane alarmist Judith Curry
Judith Curry says:
July 15th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Kristen, you are doing an amazing job. Some of your interpretations are not correct, but that is almost beside the point. I am very impressed by the thoroughness of your efforts and your ability to handle yourself in a fairly hostile environment. When you are ready to start thinking about where you want to go to university, please consider Georgia Tech, my contact information can be found on my web page http://www.eas.gatech.edu/people/faculty/curry.htm
Thank you Paul
Could you provide a link to that? It’s far more interesting to debate the science.
Yes, she is clever for 15, an idiot savant is also impressive. That also doesn’t tell me much about science. CO2 is a GHG, a point she doubts.
Can we just set a ‘sanity’ check that will remove the noise level which seems to be increasing here, and assume that CO2 is a GHG?
Can we just debate the basic science? Is the “enhanced GHG effect” real, or not? The basic question is that simple, the noise makes it appear not so.
Here it is SJT:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5835/233
Science 13 July 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5835, pp. 233 – 235
DOI: 10.1126/science.1140746
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports
How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?
Frank J. Wentz,* Lucrezia Ricciardulli, Kyle Hilburn, Carl Mears
Climate models and satellite observations both indicate that the total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase at a rate of 7% per kelvin of surface warming. However, the climate models predict that global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1 to 3% per kelvin. A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the past two decades.
Remote Sensing Systems, 438 First Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95401, USA.
Thank you Paul. Yes, CO2 is a GHG. I will read the link and respond to the science. I trust that any references to opinions that do not acknowledge this fact will be ignored.
The GHG properties of CO2 dwindle as the proportion increases. When the PPM reaches levels such as today, a doubling of CO2 would have nearly no effect.
Paul: one thing about playing backyard cricket down under, the rules are uncertain but they depend so much on the local community. Influences come largely from mum and dad who are not necessarily out on the field. Turning the tide of opinion here is a complex process.
Paul: Let’s look at the media beyond blogs for a mo. Ebay has made an impact on my personal life with collecting and disposing of things but U Tube has not. This is about the market place versus entertainment.
Splash! JK Rollins caused a near disaster here with her latest book release. A Harry Potter fan chasing his event’s ticket was rescued from our “freezing” lake yesterday. But that’s very much a side issue on this blog.
To win a war it takes all sorts of people and tactics. One of my former PS bosses grew up in an era of pick handle diplomacy in the workplace. We both made authorised measurements over a long period of time. When he went to Korea in support of our Air Force and the UN he pinched a commie flag from a base camp the other side of the lines in his spare time. That’s about how we can do unauthorised ground shift overnight. However this chap had a rather interesting but unique attitude to “drifting” opinion about our current targets in that association. Team work had become essential in protecting all administration.
For decades I have been making comments about the influence of overseas born and trained professionals on our culture. More recently I made statements about my impression of the impact of students and post grads from Asia and the Indian sub continent in particular as their view of our democracy in the work place becomes an issue. I saw insular family groups being imported as stop gap a new problem in our professional development.
Young doctors in the world community have suddenly become the focus but I thought it may have been our engineers. Conspiracy in our AGW science and the IPCC is way off the beam!
Our current crisis with a serious outbreak of some new flu virus is the acute shortage of GPs and the availability of solid family practice. The local sports commentator takes time out with his family and bakes a big pie for his neighbours who can’t leave the house. That’s a side issue too on this blog.
The roots of our standards development goes way back to an old weights and measures system designed for trade. The tax man was always the auditor and that gave rise to the accounting process for gallons of petrol at all the pumps in the local service stations. The other standards of importance were used in the manufacture of metal components such as nuts and bolts for industry. We owe much of that form of engineering development to defence in general and the British Admiralty.
Paul: My comments in other areas like the white wash thread relate to the old stick in the ground approach to measurement. My folks on dad’s side were mostly into surveying, road making and building for government enterprises.
To put this lot in proper perspective I often think in retirement about my casual associations past and present. One from the collecting scene was a global authority on the spread of international terrorism but we never spoke about his work. Another whom we imports had dinner with every night was the local weather man. The guy who thought he was king of that bunch was the maths guru from the CSIRO team tasked with building the world’s best integrating software.
In the end I get much of my opinion on the climate from the local outdoor trash and treasure market.
Paul: you need to be involved with the grass roots too.
More notes on getting inside Oz culture at the grass roots. This is about reading trends and dealing with pockets of diehard positions on the run after recognising AGW.
One casualty of current global trading conditions was the announcement last week by Ford of the impending closure of their 6 cyl engine plant at Geelong. Predictions today are new ford motors will be the next gen from the US. Holden on the other hand have been slowly getting us used to Korean built machines with euro standards
We can guess new emission standards downunder can’t be met with current local design however Toyota are right into export with their latest Aurion. But I reckon this local line up had one model aimed at rev heads from day one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Aurion
The other news this week is more family style euro diesels for oz
The real battle for independent hearts and minds goes on here and there based on hip pockets, fuels etc also the influence of bodies like the IPCC on important nerves
http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring/news/
“The GHG properties of CO2 dwindle as the proportion increases. When the PPM reaches levels such as today, a doubling of CO2 would have nearly no effect.”
It’s hardly a secret, the IPCC spells it out. They already have this factored into their models. As the melting permafrost and Arctic show, the warming is happening, as predicted.
This used to be a useful Blog but smart arse abusive types seem to think they now own it.
My view; let them have it, there are moderated Blogs where considerd debate flourishes as the loud mouth types are consigned to oblivion.
So Jennifer what is it to be? It is your Blog.
Hi Lawrie,
In my opinion this post from Paul Biggs and the earlier one from Peter Ridd (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002162.html ) are rather good. If all the comments from Gavin annoy you just skip over them.
Also, after I work out how to post a graph from Ian Mott (hopefully tomorrow morning as a new thread/post ) I will be away for about two weeks …
Paul Biggs will be in charge. So you will have to address any complaints to him.
Cheers,
No, there are no such things as greenhouse gases – greenhouses work by interposing a physical barrier to local convection of air.
CO2 cannot be a greenhouse gas because in the temperature domain that it is supposed to operate, it is physically a gas and indistinguishable from the other gases comprising air. Chemically is another matter and not the issue here.
So physically we are dealing with air, not CO2.
Gavin – you talk in riddles – as an administrator of this blog I have the option of deleting irrelavant babble.
A couple of relevant GRL papers published on 18th July:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028668.shtml
Regional and global trends in sulfate aerosol since the 1980s
Abstract
In the last two decades anthropogenic SO2 emissions have decreased across Europe and North America but have increased across Asia. Long-term surface observations suggest that atmospheric sulfate concentrations have followed trends in sulfur emissions more closely across Asia, than across the USA and Europe. We use a global model of chemistry and aerosol to understand changes in the regional sulfur budget between 1985 and 2000. For every 1% decrease in SO2 emissions over Europe and the USA the modelled sulfate column burden decreased by 0.65%, while over Asia a 1% increase in SO2 resulted in a 0.88% increase in sulfate. The different responses can be explained by the availability of oxidant in cloud. We find that because emissions have moved southward to latitudes where in-cloud oxidation is less oxidant limited, the 12% reduction in global SO2 emissions between 1985 and 2000 caused only a 3% decrease in global sulfate.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030207.shtml
Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection
Abstract
By projecting surface temperature data (1959–2004) onto the spatial structure obtained objectively from the composite mean difference between solar max and solar min years, we obtain a global warming signal of almost 0.2°K attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. The statistical significance of such a globally coherent solar response at the surface is established for the first time.
A couple of relevant GRL papers published on 18th July:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028668.shtml
Regional and global trends in sulfate aerosol since the 1980s
Abstract
In the last two decades anthropogenic SO2 emissions have decreased across Europe and North America but have increased across Asia. Long-term surface observations suggest that atmospheric sulfate concentrations have followed trends in sulfur emissions more closely across Asia, than across the USA and Europe. We use a global model of chemistry and aerosol to understand changes in the regional sulfur budget between 1985 and 2000. For every 1% decrease in SO2 emissions over Europe and the USA the modelled sulfate column burden decreased by 0.65%, while over Asia a 1% increase in SO2 resulted in a 0.88% increase in sulfate. The different responses can be explained by the availability of oxidant in cloud. We find that because emissions have moved southward to latitudes where in-cloud oxidation is less oxidant limited, the 12% reduction in global SO2 emissions between 1985 and 2000 caused only a 3% decrease in global sulfate.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030207.shtml
Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection
Abstract
By projecting surface temperature data (1959–2004) onto the spatial structure obtained objectively from the composite mean difference between solar max and solar min years, we obtain a global warming signal of almost 0.2°K attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. The statistical significance of such a globally coherent solar response at the surface is established for the first time.
Louis,
CO2 absorbs radiation at a frequency that other gases in the atmosphere do not. That is how it works as a greenhouse gas, although, as has been pointed out here before, not exactly like a greenhouse, as a greenhouse traps convection, CO2 traps radiation.
Indeed SJT – ‘greenhouse’ is something of a misnomer.
It’s a matter of semantics, really. It traps heat, like a greenhouse does, using a different mechanism to a greehouse. Is it like a greenhouse? It is and it isn’t. In terms of many models used to describe science to the general public, it’s as good a name as any. The models were taught at high school have just as many failings, but they are still useful models, and help teach people about how the world works. An atom is not a little coloured ball, but it is still, in some ways, like a little coloured ball.
Paul,
You are doing a good job as blog supremo, and seeker of science. Keep it coming.
Paul said Gavin – you talk in riddles – as an administrator of this blog I have the option of deleting irrelavant babble:
I don’t have a narrow focus limited to a particular thread running on this blog. Most of the time I’m attempting to broaden our perspective beyond the pure science in relation to our control of the environment. All my loose comments can be taken in part as a reflection of my long interest in developing and protecting our major infrastructure.
From direct experience in various technologies I could anticipate skills shortages in critical areas long before these became issues for governments.
In asking a ‘who is’ Q today I was not surprised to find your university front page features a fast tracking program for medical students, five years down to four hey read carefully some of my previous comments. Although my own association with medical research, doctors and their training is very distant these days I know our cities have similar accelerating programs to yours.
My concern now is about delays in us developing all skilled practices even those beyond our old communications and engineering. The next gen. is very involved with data mining, developing, advising, training, administering, hence some riddles in my thinking on relationships also too much personal past. I must keep big a distance from the most active in the biz today.
Paul; can you not see another valid purpose beyond your dry science?
Schiller – “The GHG properties of CO2 dwindle as the proportion increases. When the PPM reaches levels such as today, a doubling of CO2 would have nearly no effect.”
It is not this simple because the Earth’s atmosphere is not a simple bottle of N2, O2 and traces of CO2. It is a layered structure with very different pressures and temperatures with quite different radiative properties.
Please read these two posts on real climate where the complexities are quite well explained.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
Thanks for that Ender. You learn something new every day. Very interesting.