Re: How the GW myth is perpetuated2 weeks ago
Michael Crichton is trying to sell his book. A book, a work of fiction, that contradicts the evidence of global warming.
The scientific method of research is exactly that. A majority of Climatologists have produced results that others in the field have reproduced. Consensus is not some evil word......it simply means that a majority of scientists in the field have agreed that global warming is a threat. They have agreed that according to the best evidence, the global temperatures are rising and human produced greenhouse gasses are causing it.
Global warming is not proven by a consensus of people that don't know anything about the science.
The original source of the 97% consensus was from a questionnaire given to the some 11,000 scientists leaving the first conference by the IPCC. Virtually ALL of the scientists said either that there was insufficient data to judge or they said, "no comment".
This did not fit the IPCC's needs so they reduced those whom they needed to those 39 scientists that self identified themselves as "climate scientists". There really was no such thing at the time so these people were searching for an identity more than anything else.
Of the 39, 2 said that there definitely was no proof of AGW. The remaining 37 said the opposite. That is where "97% of all scientists" came from.
Lately as that number has been questioned by the other 10,961 they have turned to still more dishonest methods.
Climate Change: No, It (external - login to view)
So in actuality the overwhelming consensus is that there is insufficient data to tell anything. Why would you take the word of a "climate scientist" who quotes a paper but not the man who wrote the study to begin with?
My own belief backed up by study after study is that CO2 FOLLOWS temperature changes and does not cause them. During the time when CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing at a linear 1% per year man's use of fossil fuels was increasing at 13% per year in the US and coal use in the rest of the world was increasing at 25%. So while CO2 was increasing linearly the use of fossil fuels was increasing logarithmically.
We also know that the chemical structure of CO2 and the spectrum in which it absorbs energy is simply not present in high quantities on the Earth.
CO2 Absorption Spectrum. (external - login to view)
Almost none of the claims about CO2 make the slightest sense since CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere that virtually all of the energy that is held inside of these molecules is passed to the surrounding atmosphere through direct conduction and not by radiation in a waveband. i.e. Energy in a molecule causes it to vibrate. It takes a lot of energy to "fill" each molecule with enough energy that it releases it as a wave of IR. Instead it bumps into the surrounding molecules and passes part of it's energy on to them as motion. That means that O2 and N hold the majority of energy in the atmosphere. This eventually works it's way into the upper atmosphere and it radiates into space following Plank's law.