Global Warming = Science Fiction

London Telegraph ^ | 09/03/07 | Reason McLucus

[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.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

[Bob Eimiller]

save

[Popocatapetl]

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.

[Perchant]

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.

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?

[Tanniker Smith]

Ping for later reading.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Thank you!

But notice the MSM STILL prints the other guy’s story: AND its inaccuracies and assumptions!

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks for the pings; I look forward to catching up!