Skip to comments.Global Warming = Science Fiction
Posted on 09/03/2007 1:27:41 PM PDT by kathsua
Two recent studies demonstrate how the hysteria about alleged "global warming" has resulted in wasted research money. As I noted in the previous post, meteorologists have trouble predicting weather conditions a day or two in advance. They cannot possibly predict what will happen decades in the future.
Attempting to predict the future based on science based assumptions is called "science fiction". I've been interested in science fiction for over 40 years. I've even attempted to write some. Science fiction writers make assumptions about reality, including future technology, and then base a work of fiction about it.
The "Star Trek" family of television series is an example of science fiction. In some areas technology (such as cell phones) has progressed faster than suggested on the series, Physicists have doubts about some other aspects of "Star Trek" technology particularly space travel faster than light.
Some science fiction may be prophetic, such as H.G. Wells late 19th Century predictions of air travel, television, super highways and something resembling the Internet. Other science fiction like "Superman" and "Spiderman" is totally improbable. Science fiction writers don't claim they are accurately predicting the future only that some of the things they talk about might happen. Some of us utilize the concept of parallel universes from quantum physics to suggest events that might happen on an earth that developed a little differently from our earth.
Computer based prejections of future events are science fiction, not science fact. The programs make simple assumptions about the impact of certain differences in reality and then project what might happen.
I like to read science fiction, but government shouldn't be financing the production of science fiction by those who falsely claim they are engaged in real science.
This paper recently reported one of these science fiction stories by Dr Richard Betts of the Hadley Centre. Betts claims that plants although plants wouldl grow more with increased atmospheric CO2 they would not take up as much water with flooding as the result. A major problem with the claim is that plants that grow more use more water for that growth. For example, the compound most of us think of when we say "sugar", sucrose, has the chemical formula C12H22O11. Each molecule of sucrose essentially contains 12 carbon atoms and 11 water molecules. Dead leaves, stems, etc. fall onto the ground and then absorb water to hold until taken up by plants. If temperatures increased plants would have to release more water because plants get rid of excess heat by evaporating water.
An American study financed by NASA claims that warming would result in fewer storms but they would have more tornadoes and hail. As a resident of tornado alley in the central U.S. I know that tornadoes and hail are most likely to occur when there is cold air aloft. Cold air is necessary to freeze water droplets into ice and to freeze more water to that ice to form large hail stones. Cold air plays a major role in tornado formation. The biggest tornadoes typically come in front of strong cold fronts.
The British and American governments, among others, should stop wasting money on science fiction and devote more money to accurate daily forecasts.
I think the whole idea of global warming was made up by people who want well paying government jobs, but don't really have any ability. They get paid with our tax money to scare us. Government funds for weather should go to trying to control it rather than making scary predictions.
Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"):
This map (left) shows key areas of Antarctica, including the vast East Antarctic ice sheet. The image on the right shows which areas of the continent's ice are thickening (coloured yellow and red) and thinning (coloured blue). Â© (Left)British Antarctic Survey, (Right)Science
Algore and his hard of thinking sheeple have perpetrated this alarmist myth long enough. It’s time for real science to put all this junk science garbage to rest once and for all.
What if we all lowered our carbon emissions to a level Gore found acceptable for several years, and....THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE DIDN’T DECREASE. That would be proof that man-made global warming is all a hoax. Sometimes the best way to convince a fool he is wrong is to let him have his way...
Science Fiction? I wonder what part of global warming they are calling science.
yes yes a hoax...and it began to die in 2007....r.i.p.
**Science Fiction? I wonder what part of global warming they are calling science.**
Really good science fiction is, by definition, believable.
GW, by definition, is not.
I predict that global warming will occur every year, in the northern hemisphere, from around mid June to mid September. Now where's my check?
Never. The Dems won Congress and nobody is paying attention to their failures. Nobody cares if a fool is wrong even if it is proven.
Global Warming = Science Fiction?
A lot more fiction than science.
People used to sincerely believe in the phlogiston theory, too, in which fire was considered to be a material substance.
Once again, mistaking the pointing finger for the moon.
No, these guys do have ability. They mostly got good grades from very good schools and are now in search of a career. What do you go for with a graduate degree in weather? TV weatherman? Airline forecaster? DoD weather specialist? All of the above and more, but when the positions are filled and the attrition rate is nil what can you do? A good scare will bring grant money in like flies to honey.
That's the ticket!
al gore lied, billions were inconvenienced.
So much of it is simply misanthropic musings.
Good article. Read it earlier today. Was going to post it as a stand alone article.
You did good by posting it here.
As one whom has made a fine living for 35 years by studying global climate change, I can assure you that it occurs, rigth before global cooling and right afterwards. Sea level, as we know it, was 200’ below us in the past, and also 200’ above us. Since the continents were not in the their present positions, it is hard to acertain what the real effect was. One thing I do know, however, is if you spent the entire GDP of the planet, you would not be able to change a thing.
The earth has been WARMING since the last Ice Age..
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
I think he got one of the arguments wrong, and in a strange way.
That is, it has been discovered that plants open their skin pores to inhale CO2. But when they do so, they lose water. If there is more CO2 in the air, they they don’t need to open their skin pores as widely, so don’t lose as much water.
Therefore, they don’t need to uptake as much water through their roots, and more water stays in the soil. In turn, this means that with more CO2 in the air, typically *dry* soil can support more plants on the same water. This means de-desertification, and more plant growth, and in turn, more CO2 consumption.
One last factor, the question of “Are plants made up of more soil, or more air?”, has been answered. Plants are mostly “air”, made up of mostly CO2 converted to sugar which feeds the growing plant. This means that with just a few trace minerals from the soil, and a *given* amount of water for each plant, the vast majority of the plant is made from CO2.
So a lot more plants means a lot more CO2 used. Not “flooding”, however, because more plants will grow in a dry soil until they have used the available water.
An actual greenhouse effect would be warming the upper atmosphere at a greater degree than it warms the ground level so this would mean less divergence of temperature which would mean weaker storms. Any goofball local TV weatherman would know this so why doesn't NASA?
Ping for later reading.
But notice the MSM STILL prints the other guy’s story: AND its inaccuracies and assumptions!
Thanks for the pings; I look forward to catching up!