[ExI] cure for global warming is working

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Fri Dec 31 18:25:51 UTC 2010

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com> wrote:

>> ### I am relying on the minority of studies that do. Also, see Lubos
>> Motl, a physicist whose funding is not dependent on AGW
>> (http://motls.blogspot.com/), he does have a pretty thorough analysis
>> of the issue a few months back in the blog.
> So we agree that it is a minority opinion.

### Using social criteria in deciding who to trust is only useful if
you do not have a technical analysis of the issue at hand. All truth
is at first a minority belief, and many common fallacies eventually
end up the same, so whenever you encounter vehement factual
disagreements between large groups of people you must use a technical
understanding as your most important source of knowledge.


 I visited the site you mention,
> but I only found some articles from last March and May which state that the
> CO2-only sensitivity is around 1C and then go on endlessly about black
> bodies and such, but do not discuss feedbacks. BTW the front page article
> was starting like this:
> "Richard Alley (on the picture) is a mentally ill hippie so it shouldn't be
> surprising that he became a professor of climatology at Penn State
> University, the same place where Michael Mann cooked his fraudulent hockey
> stick pseudoscience...."
> Seems quite an opinionated guy.

### Yeah, he is. And Alley is crazy, while Mann is an all-out crook.
He used to work in Charlottesville where I live, and the state
attorney is now trying to find out exactly what happened to the
substantial funds he burned through while working for UVa.

> I assume you mean "rural temperatures in the US". This way, you are throwing
> away almost all the data. If you are concerned by the urban effects, the
> north pole is the fastest warming region, and there are no cities to speak
> of there. UHI effects do not explain the warming.

### The north pole is either not warming at all, or else it is warming
very, very slowly. The huge red splotches on GISS reconstructions are
not supported by any data - GISS does not have thermometers in the
area, which perhaps why they feel they can go wild and invent +4C
temperature deviations. Same pertains to the Antarctic. "Watt's Up
With That" has a few discussions of the UHI specifically in the
Antarctic - turns out that GISS and UAH have been using a thermometer
on the Antarctic Peninsula which now is surrounded by a landing strip
that is kept snow-free year round, and produced significant spurious
warming, while other thermometers which did not yield results
confirming GISS' foregone conclusions, are simply disregarded.

BTW, rural temperatures all over the world, insofar as they are
actually available, have remained almost constant and the US is not an
exception. This is the main reason why I reject the global warming as
bad science (i.e. science completely polluted by special interests).


> So again we can agree that it is premature to put a number on the CO2 effect
> on plant life.

### No, we have good data already. We know that plant mass will
increase by 40 to 80%, based on many indoor and outdoor CO2
supplementation experiments. We do not know yet how this change would
impact e.g. the amount of evapotranspiration, albedo, and the
concentration of VOCs emitted by plants (at least I haven't found such
data in published literature), but these are separate issues from the
generally good news about plant mass.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list