28 2 mins 15 yrs

The "Greener Skies 2008" conference being held in Hong Kong (Very central location, eh?) has just heard from David Archibald, a solar scientist asserting that climate change is mostly dictated by solar cycles, not carbon dioxide levels, as conventional wisdom suggests. But Archibald didn’t just tell the group not to worry about carbon dioxide emissions. He told those gathered they should figure out ways of increasing CO2 output. Hurray!

"In a few short years, we will have a reversal of the warming of the 20th century," Archibald warned, according to CargoNews Asia. "There will be significant cooling very soon. Our generation has known a warm, giving sun, but the new generation will suffer a sun that is less giving, and the earth will be less fruitful. Carbon dioxide is not even a little bit bad – it’s wholly beneficial. Plant growth responds to atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment In a world of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide, crops will use less water per unit of carbon dioxide uptake. Thus the productivity of semi-arid lands will increase the most. We will need this increase in agricultural productivity to offset the colder weather coming. It also follows that if the developed countries of the world want to be caring and sharing to the countries of the Third World, the best thing that could be done for them is to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. It is the equivalent of giving them free phosphate fertilizer. Who would want to deny the Third World such a wonderful benefit?"

Where is Bono when you need him? We need to save Africa right now – so time to lift all the green taxes and stop the lowering of CO2 emissions right now. 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

28 thoughts on “WHY WE NEED MORE CO2 EMISSIONS….

  1. David,

    "David Archibald, a solar scientist "

    LOL. As long as you’re making it up, why not go the whole hog and say ‘David Vance, a solar scientist’?

    "Carbon dioxide is not even a little bit bad"

    Really? Is this clown aware that people have actually been killed by CO2?

    How about the acidification of the oceans? Is that possibly a little bit bad?

  2. Frank,

    Have you evidence that this man is not a respected scientist? If not, is that just an unscientific response to what he says…?

  3. David,

    I have evidence that he is not a solar scientist. He describes himself as a geologist.

    As for respected, read his paper, which is not even a little bit good.

    At least I could only find one paper written by him. Does he have another?

  4. Frank,

    I am somewhat at a loss. Could you remind me how many on the IPCC are climate scientists? If it has little technical competence, why listen to it?

  5. David,

    "I am somewhat at a loss"

    Indeed.

    "Could you remind me how many on the IPCC are climate scientists?"

    The IPCC doesn’t do research, as you can see if you visit its site. You can however read the references of the IPCC report and see that the report is indeed a summary of research done by climate scientists. You can also read the list of contributors and see that they are indeed well qualified to produce such a report.

    Is there something in the IPCC report that is materially wrong? Something obviously so, like ‘CO2 is not even a little bit bad’?

  6. Frank: There is something about the IPCC that is materially wrong. They are a body of people from various disciplines mandated by the UN – created by the UN – to further the dictates of the Kyoto Protocol. They cheery pick. Plain and simple. Agenda driven. Not unbiased.

  7. They cheery pick. Plain and simple. Agenda driven. Not unbiased.

    angry black kettles in greenhouses?

    does anybody do biased agenda driven cherry picking quite like rightworld?

    i mean we only need cast our mind back hours to the "1998 was really hot, and because nothing since has been hotter, we are therefore cooling." one can only surmise that the possibility of a symmetrical negetive dip in temperature will be further evidence of a global warming hoax, ignoring any cancellation through averaging.

  8. To claim "global warming" with any degree of accuracy one must be referring to an increase in measured global mean surface temperature – a quantity that has never been measured!

    Not only that, but the 90’s were touted as the "hottest decade" (prior to the discrediting of the "hockey stick" graph of temperature reconstructions). What is never mentioned is that many of the Soviet stations in the coldest regions in the world were dismantled during the 90’s due to the collapse of the Soviet Union resulting in no measurements in these areas, and, lo and behold, warmer averages.

    The extent and the nature of "global warming" (or "global cooling") has not been accurately determined.

    Nevermind MAN’s contribution to climate change. That connection has never been proven to ANY satisfaction.

    And, finally, nevermind how to reverse global warming/cooling since there is no real knowledge has to what causes global fluctuation.

    The Al Gore movie – and the IPCC lobbying effort on behalf of Kyoto – are scientific travesties.

  9. Patty,

    "Frank: There is something about the IPCC that is materially wrong. They are a body of people from various disciplines mandated by the UN – created by the UN – to further the dictates of the Kyoto Protocol."

    The IPCC was set up 10 years before the Kyoto protocol. And they knew there might be a problem then because scientific research going back decades said so.

    "They cheery pick. "

    Please quote something from the IPCC report that is materially wrong due to this alleged cherry picking.

    "To claim "global warming" with any degree of accuracy one must be referring to an increase in measured global mean surface temperature – a quantity that has never been measured!"

    Averages are never measured. There is more than one temperature dataset (not just surface measurements) and all of them show a consistent significant warming signal on climate timescales.

    "Not only that, but the 90’s were touted as the "hottest decade" (prior to the discrediting of the "hockey stick" graph of temperature reconstructions)"

    ‘The’ hockey stick is irrelevant to the AGW question even according to the ones that claim to have discredited it. Further the supposed ‘discrediting’ is itself highly questionable, and in any case there are many others that show the same result.

    "What is never mentioned is that many of the Soviet stations in the coldest regions in the world were dismantled during the 90’s due to the collapse of the Soviet Union resulting in no measurements in these areas, and, lo and behold, warmer averages."

    That statement betrays a misunderstanding of how it works. GMST corresponds to a physical property (temperature) and is therefore not a simple average of the station readings. Therefore regions with more stations do not get more weight. In any case the satellites also show a warming trend, consistent with the surface station record.

    Any claim of ‘cooking the books’ is ridiculous anyhow. Your ilk have been trying to use the same record to show cooling! Do you think that they all forget they are part of the global conspiracy every time the weather dips? What happened in January 08? Was the vast conspiracy on holiday?

    "The Al Gore movie – and the IPCC lobbying effort on behalf of Kyoto – are scientific travesties. "

    In fact the scientific travesties are coming thick and heavy from our friends along the banks of that river in egypt (dee Nile). Indeed it’s amazing that all you ‘skeptics’ have failed to notice even one ‘scientific travesty’ from that quarter. Instead you credulously repeat them. Almost as if you were agenda driven and biased.

  10. Patty,

    You’re quite right. But when dealing with zealotry, science has little value, hence the substantive points made by the scientist David Archibald are dismissed without back up whilst the learned failed politician the Rev Al Gore is given instant acceptance

  11. David,

    "the substantive points made by the scientist David Archibald"

    Please list these substantive points and the evidence provided by the scientist David Archibald that has led you to accept them.

  12. Frank, did the computer models that predicted the dire consequences for the planet if we did not cut CO2 also predict the leveling out then slight dip in temperatures over the last 10 years? If not shouldn’t we try to determine why this has occurred despite an increase in CO2?

  13. GA

    Lord Lawson’s interview is well worth reating. Here’s a link for people to lazy to copy and paste the url

  14. To all AGW skeptics:

    1. Are the glaciers getting bigger or smaller?
    2. Is the sea ice in the arctic advancing or retreating?
    3. Are massive ice shelfs breaking off antarctica?
    4. Is spring arriving up to three weeks earlier?

    I agree with you guys. It’s really hard to tell if the climate is warming or cooling. The signals are so ambiguous.

  15. GA,

    The computer models give conditional climate forecasts not weather forecasts. The models don’t even attempt to consider short term noise produced due to weather variations. However such noise can easily lead to negative trends on short timescales, and there is nothing unexpected about it either physically or mathematically.

    On the timescales you are talking about a 7 year negative trend would be pretty common and a 10 year negative trend is only somewhat surprising (and has large uncertainties in any case).

    This is pretty easy to show for yourself if you are interested. Use a spreadsheet to generate 120 normally distributed random values with std dev of 0.1 to represent toy yearly temperature anomaly data. Then add to that a linear trend of 0.018 per year. You should find 7,8,9 and even 10 year negative trends pretty easily, even though in this case you know that the data you have generated is subject to linear increase. Such negative trends also exist in the real data, and for the same reason. Short term noise overwhelms the signal and you need about 30 years of data to average it out.

  16. Henry,

    There are (at least) two factual errors in Lawson’s interview, and those occur in the first two claims that have numbers.

    1) 23in is not the maximum sea level rise predicted by the IPCC. That figure excludes SLR from accelerating ice flow (which the IPCC didn’t try to predict in the FAR)

    2) Gore’s movie didn’t predict 20feet of SLR by 2100

    Notice also that in rebutting the ‘alarmist’ claims of the ‘media’, and using the IPCC report to do so, he is equally rebutting the claims of the denialists which is that the IPCC is alarmist. In fact the IPCC is very conservative in its projections.

  17. A recent poll of climate scientists found that 20% of them think the IPCC forecasts are too optimistic. Things could get a lot worse than forecast.

    It will be a laugh when the forecast cooling fails to materialise in the next few years. The denialists will of course move on to some other explanation, since CO2 emissions have no effect whatever.

  18. From the link:

    After Archibald’s speech, Martin Craigs, president of Aerospace Forum Asia, went to the microphone and asked: "Don’t you have Al Gore’s e-mail address?" "How can you be right and 2,000 scientists wrong?"

    So it’s one scientist against two thousand? Even if it were so, how often does one read of the ‘one’ being correct(?) and a recent example is helicobacter and stomach ulcers. Fortunately, there are many more scientists who now challenge the MMGW theory. What is of most interest is the reaction of the warmists to anybody from within the body of science who disagrees with MMGW theory, as can be seen on this thread.

  19. Allan

    What is your explanation for the observed warming in the last 100 years?

    And have you read The Chilling Stars? I have and found it interesting and persuasive. But Svensmark is a lone voice against the AGW theory, which still seems to have the weight of scientific opinion behind it.

  20. How is it that each of the scientists who disagrees with MMGW is ‘a lone voice’? There is now a rather large number of ‘lone voices’.

    As for my explanation, I don’t need to explain anything, nor can I. But the case for MMGW is hardly persuasive, and compulsion isn’t persuasive.

  21. Peter,

    I’m currently reading that. Not too impressed so far.

    Since I started reading it, the following research has been published:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm

    It seems that neither the cosmic rays (no recent trend) nor the cloud cover (weak correlation with cosmic rays) want to play ball with Svensmark’s theory, which is speculative in the first place.

    It also seems that the experiment at CERN won’t happen after all – budget cuts (my version of the book has a 2008 postscript).

  22. Frank, short term noise aside, what do you think has caused predicted temperature increases (AGW) to stall and then drop despite continued increases in CO2? After all the essence of the AGW position is that CO2 is the overwhelmingly dominant factor in ‘climate change’ and if that is reduced then all will be well.

  23. Allan

    So you don’t have an explanation.

    Frank

    Svensmark has challenged that research.

    My own view is that AGW is probably the correct explanation. It attributes over 80% of the recent warming to man-made CO2 emissions, the rest to solar output. But Svensmark could be right. It’s a shame that the Cern experiment has been cancelled.

  24. And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

    The ice is back.

    Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

    ‘It is well known that the Antarctic Penninsula, representing 2% of Antactica’s area, is warming while the other 98% is cooling’.

    Anatomy of a False Panic

    Peter, the dispute isn’t that climate changes (it does and always has done) or even that it’s changing now. It’s that the major contributor to this change is man made CO2, which if reduced, will markedly affect the world’s temperature and prevent the sort of cataclysmic events predicted by Al Gore and others. I’m still far from convinced and recent stalls in temperature rises despite continued CO2 emissions hasn’t helped.

  25. GA,

    "Frank, short term noise aside, what do you think has caused predicted temperature increases (AGW) to stall and then drop"

    Predicted temperature increases have not stalled and dropped. The drop you think exists is indistinguishable from the effects of short term noise as I already explained.

  26. GA,

    " Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972"

    This is simply false.

    "the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year"

    The ice has not recovered. Multi-year ice does not recover in a single winter.

  27. Allan

    So you don’t have an explanation.

    Correct: I don’t have an explanation and neither do you, Peter.

Comments are closed.