Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
Wall Street Journal – October 15, 2007
I think that this is a terrible idea!
This opinion published by the Wall Street Journal suggests that mankind release more pollutants into the atmosphere that will deflect some of the sun and thereby reduce the amount of global warming that we are incurring.
How does adding more stuff to the atmosphere help? What are the side effects? Isn’t this a cosmetic surgery approach to being overweight?
Just like the case of an individual being overweight. The last remedy to save that person should be surgery. Rather, diet and exercise should be employed to make the individual a healthy being. Adding pollutants to the atmosphere as a “sunscreen” has the potential to cause more harm than good and the bad part of the bargain is that we won’t know the side effects until we take the medicine.READ MORE
ScienceDaily – September 11, 2007
Once again, I am impressed that our body of knowledge regarding our world is increasing. I also wonder at how someone can say that we understand all of this well enough to use climate models that are based on 1970s and 1980s technology and assumptions.
This short article discusses how sea ice melts and what happens to it as it moves through the ice and the sea. Understanding the mathematics of this is incredibly important for analysis and prediction of how Earth responds to changing climates.
University of Utah mathematicians have arrived at a new understanding of how salt-saturated ocean water flows through sea ice — a discovery that promises to improve forecasts of how global warming will affect polar icepacks.
Science Notes – February 15, 2007
First a disclaimer, while the article that I reference in this post appears to be well written, complete, and well thought out – it does not appear that it has been critically reviewed by scientists and the biography of the author is not 100% clear.
That being said, the author does make some very convincing conclusions and statements and it is worth your time to read and understand. The author’s conclusion is that the large temperature increases that are found through many of the computer models do not match basic physical measurements.READ MORE
Strap on your advanced math books for this article. It is fairly deep but I feel that it is important for all to understand. The reason I am discussing this article is the very troublesome statement by the IPCC that the range of possible temperatures is so large (approximately 3 deg C) and other scientists have an even larger range (some say 10 deg C between their high and low estimates). I fully understand that this is not an exact science (hence my problem) but we are not talking about the weather this weekend for my golf outing either – we are discussing an average temperature for the entire planet with a massive amount of temperature inertia.READ MORE
Gristmill – December 27, 2006
This is a very quick post on Gristmill which is a blog dedicated to commentary on ecological issues. It is a question / answer format and this particular post discusses the objection that, from geological samples, CO2 increases appear to have followed an increase in temperature rather than the temperature increase to occur after the CO2 increases – the current theory of climate change in place today.
The article is a little confusing in that it points out that temperatures did increase first but then appears to make the argument that this doesn’t matter because the warming was caused by the sun and then CO2 got more concentrated and then things got really bad. Does this prove or disprove the argument?READ MORE
FoxNews.com – April 12, 2007
When I first read this article, I started laughing. Even now, as I write this post, I am really trying to hold back on my sarcasm in my comments. JunkScience is a blog type site that has developed a huge following. The articles tend to be fairly well written and many of them are also published on FoxNews.com. This article is very interesting in that it discusses a computer model that suggests forests north of 20 degrees lattitude in the Northern Hemisphere CAUSES climate change to the tune of 10 degrees F by the year 2100. I guess I am confused – now climate change is caused by trees?READ MORE
RealClimate – February 16, 2007
This is a moderately technical blog entry discussing an article in Climatic Change. It is not too in depth though and the average interested reader should be able to understand it. The premise of the article is a hypothesis that there needs to be more than just changes in the Earth’s orbit to trigger the entry into or out of an ice age.
Martinson & Pitman III’s hypothesis states that the fresh water input works in concert with the Milankovitch cycle and the albedo feedback. They conclude that ‘major’ terminations can only follow from glacial build-up of sufficient magnitude to isolate the Arctic, inhibiting the inflow of fresh water to the point that salinity buildup in the surface layer from slow but continuous growth of sea-ice, causes overturn of the Arctic (through the effect on the atmospheric circulation and the ocean currents). The vertical overturning brings warmer water up from below, setting conditions that are more favorable for ice melting.