Tuesday, 7 June 2011

Professor Wolff


Professor Wolff has emailed me to dispute what I said on 2 of the seven points recently discussed and of which I said that if the warming scare is justified, all 7 must be completely wrong.
He told me, correctly, that (on question 5) it is sulphur crystals not sulphur dioxide, as I said, that must be put into the stratosphere to produce cooling. He also points out that, since such crystals only stay up for about 2 years this needs to be practiced continuously and indeed, were catastrophic warming to keep rising the amount of crystals would have to be increased. However should we continue the war on fire that must also be continued indefinitely and because the loss in economic growth is a cumulative, indeed geometric, growth process it will also rise geometrically. Since the annual cost of putting up such sulphur crystals is well under 1,000th the cost of Kyoto, I do not see that as a major problem.
On point 1 (that there has been no significant warming since 1995) the Professor has also sent me a graph, from the Met Office, of warming back to 1850, which he believes

shows a long term trend of 0.6C degree of warming, over the last 150 year, correlating with the time manmade CO2 started its steep rise. This, rather than the experience between 1979 and 1998, which was at the time promised by Hansen would show a 0.5 C decadal increase in his evidence to Congress, or the 0.2 C decadal increase Hansen later said, on oath in a British court, was the case, being the multidecadal increase he referred to.

Note that while there is an overall correlation over the period the steepest proportional rise in CO2 was from 1950 to 1980 - when temperature, at worst, flatlined.
On the other hand, as we can see from the Greenland ice Sheet, the rise, while real, is nothing outside human experience and indeed we are still cooler than normal..

I am glad he still maintains there is a scientific consensus, excluding only "very few scientists"that the political claims of "catastrophic global warming" are clearly false.


No comments:

Post a Comment