Having already skewered Rick Perry's absurd notions of the Fed "printing money" devoid of the larger context of the money supply, I now go on to his next shibboleth: that climate change is simply an "invention" of scientists to try to grab money for grants, research or whatnot.
According to an AP report, Perry told New Hampshire voters on Wednesday that he "doesn't believe in man-made global warming" (incredible given his state has been a prime victim of it the past three years, including a terrible drought - so bad he's had to pray to 'the Lawd' for rain, as well as 2,400 heat records broken this summer) but then I guess when one's main political contributors are the oil and fossil fuel lobbies it pays not to call them to account. Better to blame all the infernal heat records on....the Sun!
Perry also called it a "scientific theory that hasn't been proved", but then most scientific theories don't have to meet a Euclidean standard of proof, only of very high QA, or quality assurance. As anyone who does scientific research knows, it is quite impossible to "prove" a particular sceintific theory to be "true" (that is, true for all times and conditions). Theories are instead assessed for adequacy, that is, in respect to the extent to which the researcher's stated aims have been carried out, and also integrity - in terms of offering testable future predictions based on the model.
Two categories of criteria are those related to argument and to the evidence presented. To judge adequacy then, we look for the strength and consistency of logical/mathematical arguments, and the goodness of fit of the data in a given context.In this sense, global warming theory has eminently passed its key tests. For example, an examination of the graph in Fig. 1, a 2000-year record of C14:C12 ratio deviations has been compiled by P.E. Damon ('The Solar Output and Its Variation', The University of Colorado Press, Boulder, 1977)
The significance is that when the Sun is more active, the heliosphere will be stronger, shielding the Earth from more intense cosmic rays the effect of which is to reduce the C14 produced in the Earth’s upper atmosphere. Conversely, when the Sun is less active – as it’s been from 2000- 2008 then the shield is weaker and more intense cosmic rays penetrate to our upper atmosphere yielding more C14 produced. It follows from this that if a record could be obtained of the ratio of say C14 to C12 then one would have a proxy indicator of solar activity for any time (with the C14 to C12 ratio extracted from tree rings or other plant tissue). If such a record showed falling C14 to C12 then we’d deduce higher solar activity and if increased C14 to C12 lower solar activity. If the same ratios were obtained in the modern era it might be feasible to normalize all the results to compare them and draw conclusions.
Most importantly and crucially, since the Sun isn’t the exclusive modulator of cosmic rays (clearly if there’s an anthropogenic effect that would also impact the high atmosphere and modulate intensity and C14 production, as would a changing magnetic moment for the planet) then the C14 record embedded in tree rings would have to be expected to be inscribed with other histories too!
As John Eddy observes concerning this output (The New Solar Physics,p. 17):
“The gradual fall from left to right (increasing C14/C12 ratio) is…probably not a solar effect but the result of the known, slow decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic moment.[1] exposing the Earth to ever-increased cosmic ray fluxes and increased radiocarbon production.
The sharp upward spike at the modern end of the curve, representing a marked drop in relative radiocarbon, is generally attributed to anthropogenic causes—the mark of increased population and the Industrial Age. The burning of low radiocarbon fossil fuels- coal and oil- and the systematic burning off of the world’s forests for agriculture can be expected to dilute the natural C14/C12 ratio in the troposphere to produce an effect like the one shown..
Hence, we have prima facie evidence for the role of CO2 in changing the C14:C12 ratio, and over time.
Fig 2 graph confirms this, showing the changes in CO2 concentration as a result of emissions.
We also know what the key predictions are from the model:
1) A significant warming of the Arctic with receding ice cover leading to lower albedo or reflectivity.
2) More extreme weather including prolonged droughts in some regions and downpours -flooding in others.
3) Much higher night time temperatures.
In this regard, ALL of the above have been demonstrated over the past year!
(1) has now beeen manifest from satellite photos showing the greatest recession of Arctic ice in the summer since records were started. (In a blog two years ago, I warned about the impending signs of ice sheet breakup and melting in Greenland in connection with the phenomenon known as "Jokulhlaup", cf. ‘Jokulhlaup Observed in Greenland ice sheet’, appearing in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (Vol. 89, No. 35, 26 Aug. 2008, p. 221).
The cited paper specifically noted an increased frequency in occurrence of “jokalhlaups”or sudden glacial bursts of melting runoff from glaciers. It was this phenomena that also played a role in the “unusual cracks" that set off the separation of a “chunk of ice the size of Manhattan” (19 sq. miles)from Ellesmere Island in Canada’s northern Arctic). In the case of the increasing Greenland Jokulhlaup we are looking not just at one massive breakoff, but the loss of perhaps 45% of the entire Greenland ice sheet on account of the underground splintering effects producing ever larger cracks in the ice and the inability of it to support the overlying permafrost and other ice. Thus, onset will be sudden and perhaps more like a "terror attack" from nature.
As for (2) we have beheld these extremes all over the globe for the past two years, from the massive drought in Russia destroying its wheat crop, to the flooding in Pakistan last summer, to the most vicious string of powerful tornoadoes ever this spring in the U.S., and the extended drought in Oklahoma and Texas. These aren't justy meteorological "blips" or aberrations, but fundamental changes predicted from the model.
As for (3) we've already beheld over 7,000 heat records broken in the U.S. this summer of which more than 5,000 were for night time high temperatures. Oklahoma City alone set a record for the nation with the highest mean temperature of 89F over July, reckoning in BOTH day highs and night lows.
The QA evidence is there, and if Perry can't see it...well, there's not much more help for him than trying to school him on the money supply. Obviously the man is a dunderhead which may be why he racked up so many Cs and Ds, Fs at Texas A&M. For Perry, "Aggie" has a new meaning: Agonizing in academics!
As for scientists seeking money for grants, yes they do ...but ...the don't just get awarded money so! Their work still must pass peer review muster in a professional journal, and if it doesn't it's rejected.
Lastly, Perry asserted:
"We're seeing almost daily or weekly scientists coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is causing the climate to change."
This is more corn pone rubbish which Perry must dredge up from some underground reservoir, maybe with a pipeline to the FAUX New bunkum artists.
In their analysis of the extent of scientific consensus on global warming (Eos Transactions, Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 22) , P. T. Doran and M. Kendall-Zimmerman found that (p. 24)
“the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely non-existent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”
In their analytic survey for which 3146 climate and Earth scientists responded, a full 96.2% of specialists concurred temperatures have steadily risen and there is no evidence for cooling. Meanwhile, 97.4% concur there is a definite role of humans in global climate change.
The authors conclude d(p. 24):
“The challenge appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact (non-existent debate among real climate specialists) to policy makers and a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate exists among scientists”
Maybe if Rick Perry knew how to read something besides comic books and beer, rifle ads in magazines, he'd manage to learn a bit more about the actual science of global warming. But then, if he's truly a dedicated Tea Bagger ideologue, learning anything will take last place in any list of priorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment