Re: Thoughts about the Hague Conference
- starmann77@... writes:
Here below is the story at this link, for those who don't want to look it up.
Any professors of atmospheric science, perhaps you'd like to debate your
knowledge of the subject with one.
Thursday, 16 November, 2000, 17:16 GMT Viewpoint: Get off the global
Changes in ocean currents may cause global warning
By Professor William M. Gray of Colorado State University
As a boy, I remember seeing articles about the large global warming that had
taken place between 1900 and 1945. No one understood or knew if this warming
would continue. Then the warming abated and I heard little about such warming
through the late 1940s and into the 1970s.
In fact, surface measurements showed a small global cooling between the
mid-1940s and the early 1970s. During the 1970s, there was speculation
concerning an increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice age
may not be far off.
Then in the 1980s, it all changed again. The current global warming bandwagon
that US-European governments have been alarming us with is still in full
Not our fault
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this recent
warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over the
last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many times in
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global
ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean
circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes.
We are not that influential.
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse gas
increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of water
vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that as
anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and upper-level
cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming - a positive
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness that
some scientists hypothesise.
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts of
human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this positive
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather
than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such a
negative feedback loop.
Climate debate has 'life of its own'
Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth and it
will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little greenhouse
gases we put into the atmosphere.
Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how
human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has
now taken on a life of its own.
It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to
make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject.
This includes the governments of developed countries, the media and
scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government
grants for research on this topic.
I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I
have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been
unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases
can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant amounts of global
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where he is an
expert in tropical meteorology.