Thread: "Spinning the climate"

That's the title of this work of Vincent Gray

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Spin...he_Climate.pdf

.... The IPCC is claimed by some to have provided evidence that the earth’s climate is harmed by changes in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. These claims are false. This report explains how dubious observations and some genuine science has been distorted and “spun” to support a global campaign to limit human emissions of certain greenhouse gases which has no scientific basis.

and the concluding remarks:

The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is that the world will slowly realise that the “predictions” emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any “global warming” for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phoney. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.

The idea, man is and has caused changes in the climate via destructive habits, is certainly not new. Recorded history takes it back to the Roman Days, when open fires were banded. Many spin offs have occurred since, but in the 1950's it seemed to gain a religious nature and following, under the premise of GLOBAL COOLING. In the 50's and sixties, predictions included food shortages if populations exceeded 3 billion, over population where 100 story building would be required and the continued idea of resource depletion. Think Teddy Roosevelt made this an issue in 1908, speaking to the 1st Convention of State Governor's.

Well, we don't all live in 100 story buildings, we didn't go into an ice age and there is certainly no shortage of food and we can virtually make metals from other than some resource. Plastics alone, in many cases have replaced iron ore etc...

IPCC, Al Gore and absolutely every group of motivated individuals, with out regards to the underlying agenda has used the 'Environment' to further their particular cause. Governments have used the same, to enhance tax basis and industry to increase sales in too many cases over a competitor, politicians to gain office from an unsuspecting and ignorant society.

Andre,
Did you have anything in Grey's long diatribe of changes to the IPCC reports or were you just expecting a disproportional response to a piece written by a someone who hasn't published a single science paper or have any education in atmospheric science?

Jackson,
You do realize Romans and their neighbors did have a significant environmental impact on their world--ranging from accelerating the desertification of coastal Northern Africa leading to demise of the Carthaginians to the massive erosion of top soils which reduced agricultural productivity in Greece and later on their own Roman homelands. If you get a chance visit the pass at Thermopylae where silt due to agricultural erosion has filled the ocean side to much wider than historical accounts.

Yes and the Mayan culture disappeared from the face of the earth, with all their technology on the theory of soil textures. I don't doubt before fertilizers and land management, fields COULD become impudent, but if I had to argue, much could be attributed to natural climate changes or long term temporary changes. The dust bowl days of the 30's and noted around the world, a good example.

At any rate, mans efforts to exist has never been ahead of natures natural strong forces to correct the CURRENT median. Said another way that median, which has allowed mans existence and in it quantity they do is what nature tends to correct. We cannot destroy or alter that median in a hundred or ten thousand years.

What worries me more than anything for the future of mankind, is this persistent idea, that we can change things. We currently have a slowly increasing 380 parts per million CO2 (999,620 not CO2) in our atmosphere, while increasing from 280 100 years ago or so and a very long history between the two and an increase in population and vegetation to feed and house that increase (1.8b to 6.6b). What if the world did muster the support and there are devises (planned) now to extract CO2 and between mans effort and machine, they accomplished a 100ppm figure. Vegetation and times for growth as we know it would cease, causing a chain reaction. Then there is oxygen, you may have heard of it, which is about 21-22% today. Humanity requires it to stay pretty close to that and would suffer above 25 or below 16% with different effects. Disrupt the makers of oxygen, all plant life and or really mess up by trying to add something unnaturally to the atmsphere...well pick you scenario, mine are not good.

Originally Posted by jackson33

I don't doubt before fertilizers and land management, fields COULD become impudent

There's absolutely no doubt about it. Ancient Turkey, Greece, Rome because of poor soil management went from naturally building soils to more than half ending up in the ocean. This is why many ancient ports, such as Troy are far from the ocean today.

Modern practices are not much better. American has tilled and eroded thousands of years of accumulated soils. Only now with the slow adoption of no-till farming and other techniques is soil erosion starting to become less of a problem.

The dust bowl days of the 30's and noted around the world, a good example.

I agree with the dust bowl is a good example--a natural event compounded and made worse by man-made practices. You see no scientist claim that those natural events are going away--if anything they argue that our man-made changes superimposed on top of natural events are at the core of the danger. If, for example, it makes droughts come along twice as often, or turns 500 year floods into 10 year flood it has disastrous effects on both man and the rest of the biosystems.

At any rate, mans efforts to exist has never been ahead of natures natural strong forces to correct the CURRENT median. Said another way that median, which has allowed mans existence and in it quantity they do is what nature tends to correct. We cannot destroy or alter that median in a hundred or ten thousand years.

Unsupported assumption. There's pretty good argument we had been effecting the climate going back to the advent of agriculture and might will be the dominant force now. Once again as I stated before that doesn't mean those natural events go away--what is does mean is we have to deal with both effects. Co2 is higher than it's been in more than 800,000 years and won't recover from even the current modest increase for another 100,000 years.

What worries me more than anything for the future of mankind, is this persistent idea, that we can change things. We currently have a slowly increasing 380 parts per million CO2 (999,620 not CO2) in our atmosphere,

What I worry about it the logic that minimizes the effect--or lack of logic. It's completely irrelevant that Co2 concentrations are measured in ppm-- it's plenty to turn what would be an ice-ball into the planet we know today. We are changing things--and too fast for our own good.

Mr. Gray writes

I have been an “Expert Reviewer” for The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since its
first major Report in 1990.

In case anyone is wondering what an "Expert Reviewer" is, it is anyone who writes to IPCC and asks to see a draft of their report before publication. As long as they agree not to comment publicly until after publication they will receive a copy.

You too can be an expert reviewer. Of course if you then write a paper and introduce yourself as an expert reviewer some readers might be led to think you are in fact an expert, when in fact you are not.