Why we can’t solve global warming without China
[ good lecture worth watching whether you are a warmist, alarmist, denialist, or luke warmist. Lecture from a Sino expert about the Geopolitical realities of coal, and China ]
[ good lecture worth watching whether you are a warmist, alarmist, denialist, or luke warmist. Lecture from a Sino expert about the Geopolitical realities of coal, and China ]
3 comments
1 | Promethea Thu, Jun 11, 2009 9:13:57pm |
Pollution control shouldn't be confused with "global warming." We know that China needs to control its pollution. We don't know if global warming is a problem that requires solving.
2 | Shr_Nfr Fri, Jun 12, 2009 8:20:50am |
The opacity of the atmosphere at CO2 absorption lines is already complete: [Link: physics.jamesbaugh.com...] More CO2 will not make a difference. Despite the fact that CO2 has increased over the recent years: [Link: www.esrl.noaa.gov...] the current global temperatures are now back to where they were in about 1997 prior to the El Nino peak as may be seen by the Hadley Data: [Link: hadobs.metoffice.com...] and the TLT channel of the MSU: [Link: www.ssmi.com...] Bottom line, additional CO2 does not increase temperature. CO2 has a relation with global temperature because it is released into the atmosphere as the oceans warm. CO2 is less soluble in warm water and brine than in cold water and brine. It is simply a lagging indicator of temperature, not a leading one. Crap science.
3 | MacGregor Fri, Jun 12, 2009 3:57:36pm |
Hey Shr_Nfr. I was just up in your neck of the woods and it was COLD. Twenty degrees less than same time last year.
I have to tell you how much I appreciate your input in this matter. When confronted with science, the silence of the warmists is deafening. It must be thankless to spend time trying to communicate and inform, only to be ignored. Lizards who are really interested in the validity of this science would do well to engage you in a conversation.
While visiting the State house, overlooking the location of the Boston Massacre, it occurred to me that the Dems' energy policy boils down to taxation without (scientific) representation.
Best regards Shr_Nfr.