| Subject: |
|
Re: Not sure about this one..... |
| Name: |
|
John Brignell |
| Date Posted: |
|
Mar 6, 06 - 10:22 PM |
| Email: |
|
jeb@numberwatch.co.uk |
| Instant Messenger: |
|
http://,1 |
| Message: |
|
Most of the paper is thoroughly reasonable and valuable, though it is slightly marred by occasional conjectures unrelated to the results and the occasional nod to political correctness. On the other hand, there are several reasonable statements that also have little to do with the results (they do like to split their infinitives):
"A fundamental point that needs to be understood
is that if any of these proposals (including the Kyoto
protocol) are implemented, they will have an effect
on the climate so small that it cannot be detected.
None of these proposals will change what the climate
is doing enough to notice.
Those are good reasons not to artificially force
energy prices up. While raising energy costs might
damage the economy, it would disproportionately
hurt the poor, especially those people living on the
world’s social and economic fringes."
The main finding is that the best fit straight line to the data has a slope of 0.0076 degrees C per year. This is not the same as saying that the globe is warming at this rate, but if it were the effects would be so small as to be unobservable. The only surprising slope for such data would be zero.
With regard the question raised by Jonathan; it is, as Frank observes, a complete non sequitur. The surface of the earth is non-uniformly heated by radiation according to the cosine law. The atmosphere and the oceans act as a giant heat engine and the flow is such as to maximise the transfer of heat from the warm to the cold regions (the trade winds etc.). Heat is lost on the way by radiation. Over a period of years the mixing can be regarded as perfect (though not, perhaps, between north and south).
Why one pole should apparently be experiencing slight warming and the other slight cooling is a matter of conjecture. There are many differences, such as the proportion and shape of land mass. A short-term difference, such as this, might be part of a stable oscillation. All sorts of physics might be invoked to explain it. To ascribe any of these phenomena to a differential humidity would seem to me to be perversely selective. Is it established that there is less CO2 or H20 at the South Pole than the North?
The coloured graph of deviations from “seasonal” norms smacks of pure chartmanship. Move the norm up by a mere 0.1 degree and it would be mostly blue; so how do you select the “norm”? 25 years is an instant in climate terms.
It is a shame, but so à la mode, that interesting results such as these cannot be presented without due deference to eco-theological dogma. |
|
Replies:
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
Home
bravenet.com