Another day, another global warming explanation ...
Excerpt from Sydney Morning Herald:
Oceans cause global warming, says expert
28 April 2007
The United States' leading hurricane forecaster says that global ocean currents, not human-produced carbon dioxide, are responsible for global warming, and the earth may begin to cool on its own in five to 10 years.
William Gray, a Colorado State University researcher best known for his annual forecasts of hurricanes along the US Atlantic coast, also said increasing levels of carbon dioxide will not produce more or stronger hurricanes.
He said that over the past 40 years the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the US Atlantic coast has declined even though carbon dioxide levels have risen.
Gray, speaking to a group of Republican state MPs, had harsh words for researchers and politicians who say man-made greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.
"They're blaming it all on humans, which is crazy," he said. "We're not the cause of it."
Gray, 77, has long criticised the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.
In an interview with The Associated Press earlier this month, he described former US vice president and 2000 Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore "a gross alarmist" for making the Oscar-winning documentary that helped focus media attention on global warming.
Gray complained that politics and research into global warming have created "almost an industry" that has unfairly frightened the public and overwhelmed dissenting voices.
See - Oceans cause global warming.
posted by Concerned Ratepayer at 11:13 AM
7 Comments:
I can see you're a rabid denialist. Fancy selectively quoting Gray who is totally past it and ought to be off fishing.
Peak hurricane/cyclone power has risen sharply in all ocean basins.
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/~maria/Bpapers/nature03906.pdf
Interestingly and probably beyond you are other complicating factors that influence hurricane intensities between seasons
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/shear-turbulence/
And attributing everything to the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation is only part of the picture. http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0622-ucar.html
Ever stopped to ponder that there may be already climate change forces at work that explain our own record SEQ and Murray Darling Basin drought? No of course not.
3:01 PM, April 28, 2007
It's funny how merely posting an alternative view on global warming gets lambasted - 'a rabid denialist'.
Such is the growing 'religion of climate change' - all aboard the carbon express and damn anyone who even suggests an alternative view!
Interesting how the professor is regarded as being totally past it but the elderly Australian scientist (Emeritus Professor Nancy Millis) who wants us to drink recycled water isn't.
A little selective perhaps.
You probably can't apply a discretionary retirement age beyond which scientists can't make comments.
3:39 PM, April 28, 2007
Prof. Gray is right when he says 'politics and research into global warming have created "almost an industry" that has unfairly frightened the public and overwhelmed dissenting voices'.
3:40 PM, April 28, 2007
Oops - missed the luddite reference - "Interestingly and probably beyond you"
Funny.
3:48 PM, April 28, 2007
And don't forget we're in the 1000 year drought - except records only go back 114 years ...
3:49 PM, April 28, 2007
Well frankly there is an industry in denialism in reverse. But OK less than courteous on Gray but he's hardly being balanced in his comments. Yep I'd agree there is a high degree of rabid alarmism on the pro side too but the science is quite compelling. Al Gore is a bit of theatre and not really where the science is at. Al has only got it about 70% right. The sea level stuff makes me cringe for example.
A more balanced approach would be to say that the science of global warming on hurricanes is hotly contested. But from my viewpoint the direction of knowledge change is pointing one way.
Incidentally the suggested change is for more intense storms NOT more storms. IF you had considered many recent storms in the Australian region - Vance, Nancy, Zoe, Ingrid and Larry - they have all been very very fast systems.
On 1 in 1000 year drought - maybe you are right - maybe not. We obviously don't know for sure. But there's a very big lot at stake for all of us if we're backing the wrong horse.
I had written the following elsewhere - apologies for length but it's not that simple you see.
Attributing droughts to climate change is problematic. Maybe we need 50 years evidence to get enough numbers for a trend analysis? Also there is only about 120 years of real climate data. So how much do we really know about natural climate variability?
Long term GCM runs have shown multi-year sequences naturally in 1,000 year runs - if you believe the models. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20980586-2702,00.html In the tropical north-east of Australia - Great Barrier Reef coral cores show 20 year drought periods in multi-century cores e.g. mid 1760s-1780s. Ref: The Holocene 13,2 (2003) pp. 187-199 Chronological control of coral records using luminescent lines and evidence for
non-stationary ENSO teleconnections in northeast Australia
Nicholls 2004 has said that the warmer temperatures from climate change made the 2002 El Nino worse as any previous Australian drought. http://www.springerlink.com/content/r080521301858622/
So consequently can climate change exacerbate a "natural" drought" ?
We've had more El Nino events and more negative SOI periods since 1976 which some scientists have suggested as climate change. But the IPCC are equivocal on climate change and El Nino. IPCC say not yet clear.
But we do have some fair evidence - observations and modelling support that changes in the southern annular mode and Antarctic polar vortex arising from increases in tropospheric greenhouse gases and depletions in Antarctic stratospheric ozone are changing the whole southern hemisphere circulation.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/296/5569/895
http://www.amos.org.au/conf2007/AMOS07_ABSTRACTS.pdf
So can you make a case from current models and observation for an anthropogenic cause for the drought. i.e. rain bands falling the Southern Ocean and missing Australia in neutral years. And combined with more Los Ninos. No drought breaking Las Ninas. Virtually no Queensland mid-coast crossing cyclones.
So our rainfall patterns have changed markedly and you can make a fair climate change explanation.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating returning to the caves or crashing the Australian economy on greenhouse emissions; but we need to be cautious in our considerations. My personal assessment is that we're already seeing climate change impacts from observations and the science. But that's a personal risk assessment.
And the climate joke is truly on us ! Indeed nuclear may be the only real way out. And most of us won't vote for that. But wouldn't worry me. More cost more an issue than fear.
In terms of recycled water as an adaptation option I fail to see what the fuss is about. I personally feel the technology will work fine and water being returned will be better than waht's there now. Are we not overreacting to the "yuk" factor which is really emotional more than logical.
5:54 PM, April 28, 2007
4350water on global warming/climate change:
Is man causing problems to the Earth?
Yes - perhaps the jury is still out on the extent of the problem and what causes (Indonesian deforestation, China dirty coal power plants etc) are more harmful than others.
Do all scientists agree that global warming/climate change is a fact?
No.
Should all views on global warming/climate change be allowed to be aired?
Yes.
Is global warming/climate change the new anthem for politicians, particularly those facing elections (Howard, Rudd) or those seeking a legacy (Blair)?
Yes.
Is the global warming/climate change debate in danger of being hijacked by those pursuing their own self interests?
Yes (many would argue it's been hijacked already).
Should we take steps to limit our carbon emissions?
Yes - but keep some perspective - plant a tree in your own backyard rather than paying some airline to plant a tree because you took a flight.
Are corporations seeking ways to earn money off global warming/climate change fears?
Yes - it's a new revenue centre.
Would Australia signing Kyoto change anything?
No - better to move on and look towards the future - China and India are obligation free under Kyoto. (Note Canada has now announced that it will not comply with its Kyoto undertakings).
Is Turnbull's light bulb plan anything more than window dressing?
No - see political anthem point above.
9:02 PM, April 28, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home