Quote:
Michaels has also engaged in controversy regarding the impact of CFCs on the ozone layer. In particular, he has criticised predictions of thinning of the ozone layer over the Arctic, and of increasing ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the earth, in the absence of a phaseout CFC emissions. The Montreal Protocol of 1987 required such a phaseout.
The scientific controversy over the relationship between CFCs and the ozone layer was resolved by 1995, when the Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to Paul Crutzen , Mario Molina, and Sherwood Rowland for their work on the formation and decomposition of ozone. However, Michaels continued to criticise the CFC phaseout as late as 2001 [10].
Reference: Michaels, P.J., S.F. Singer, and P.C. Knappenberger, "Analyzing ultraviolet-B radiation--is there a trend?", Science, 264, 1341-1342, May 27 1994.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels
Quote:
|
All this has to do with basic physics, which isn't real hard to understand. It has been known since 1872 that as we emit more and more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, each increment results in less and less warming. In other words, the first changes produce the most warming, and subsequent ones produce a bit less, and so on. But we also assume carbon dioxide continues to go into the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate. In other words, the increase from year-to-year isn't constant, but itself is increasing. The effect of increasing the rate of carbon dioxide emissions, coupled with the fact that more and more carbon dioxide produces less and less warming compels our climate projections for the future warming to be pretty much a straight line. Translation: Once human beings start to warm the climate, they do so at a constant rate.
|
http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...5235-5134r.htm
This is a correct statement yet allows a total misconception. The easiest analogy is insulation in the building. The first 10mm of insulation put on a wall creates the largest percentage difference in preventing heat from passing out the house. However when you add the next 10mm the effect of the first 10mm doesn't dissappear it gets added on. As more and more is added the percentage saving of heat loss through the wall decreases for every 10mm. Therefore if you have a lot on already say a metre adding another 10mm makes a negligible difference. However if you plot a graph of thickness against effect at first there is a steep increase in effect which then platos and after which adding further insulation has very little effect, however adding insulation in the steep part of the graph has a large effect or we would all insulate our homes with only 10mm of insulation.
Now carbon dioxide concentrations are still in the very steep part of the graph and therefore although adding an extra 10ppm now has less effect than adding 10ppm did in the 1950's it still has a considerable effect and this is effect is well accounted for in the models. Also remember that a lot of the extra heat has been taken up the Ocean's (80%) and a lot is being taken up by the latent heat of melting at present, and SO2 was effetively shielding us from 1940-1990, and most warming didn't start to occur until the late 70's early 80's and has accelerated.
After about 700-1000ppm adding extra CO2 has hardly any
extra (and remember what Micheals is talking about is extra effects not overall actual effects) effect at all on the overall warming forcing of CO2 but it doesn't decrease it at all either its just the overall postive foricing effect tends to eventually plateau. This why the world in the past quite happily had concentrations of CO2 in the thousands and was cold as a CO2 conc of 4000ppm million has an overall similiar warming effect as say a 1000ppm.
The way he puts it one could think that putting extra CO2 into the atmosphere causes less and less warming to occur, whereas in reality the more CO2 you add its effect is always added to what is already there i.e. it is accumulative and the more you add the more warming you get always espeacially in the steep part of graph, which is where the CO2 concentrations are currently in. Also remember 1.6w/m2 is a large forcing and will continue to increase as we put more CO2 into the atmosphere its just the percentage increase in the overall foricng decreases for the same amount of CO2 added the higher CO2 levels get, not that the overall forcing decreases any and this relationship is well known and used in the models which have been verified against observation.
He clearly was wrong about ozone skeptic, and if look up his colleagues on papers like Singer they have been wrong also about glacial melt etc.
The science is out there in none commercially funded research and there is a fairly clear cause and effect that has been verified in the laboratory, in CPU models and in direct observation. I am not trying to be alarmist Skeptic its just the actual facts are alarming and if it wasn't for skewed science being presented to the public maybe we would have done something about by now. Unfortuneately of course we have all become very attached to our high carbon lifestyles and will beleive anything not to give it up despite that the fact that the alternative good be actually better if we worked on it properly and together.