JimZ,
You are entirely right. This is what the warmers are unfortunately missing IMO.
I think most of them actually know that they are lying and exaggerating the problem. I think they know that the models are crap. I think they know they are taking part in a scare-mongering charade to scare people.
I think they know they are lying and satisfy themselves with the ideology that this is the only way they can convince people to change. They are taking the view that the ends justify the means.
The inherent problem with this ends justifies the means ideology is that you do not know what the ends will be while doing the means. These people think that their lying is helpful to mankind, but as you state, this scare-mongered panic that they are inducing could lead to panicked and very bad "solutions".
A two and half year-old speculation? Better stick to copy-pasting AAA-rated anti-science blog Wattsup.
RC here meanwhile holds fast to his fossil fuel industry denial machine worshipping stance that c. 200 Nobel Prize winning scientists, and the tens of thousands of climate scientists from around the world whose work over the past half century the Nobel laureates accept, are all part of a lockstep "warmer" global conspiracy cult. He never explains whether he has a better explanation for this cult conspiracy than do Billy and David Icke.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
So why haven't they done so already. At the rate we continue to produce CO2 it is highly unlikely anything natural can combat AGW
The only lying I am aware of is the deniers and that has been proven to be the case time and time again
Well, that's a new one for me. Perhaps they'll be needed to offset all those people in UK cooking bacon: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/0...
Everytime man tries to alter nature he usually ends by screwing up big time,
The work you’re referring to is that of Welz, Savee et al and is something the team researched in 2011, submitting their first paper in August of that year.
Given that the initial work is only three years old and it’s a little over two years since the report was first published. then it’s not unusual for there to have been no further details. In science things often move slowly, especially following the publication of a new hypothesis.
What’s perhaps not clear from the article you linked to is that the research relates to the relationship between secondary organic aerosols and the oxidising capacity within the troposphere and how, for example, the pathways to stabilisation of radicals occurs.
The next step will be research into the relationship that exists between the photoionisation detection of the Criegee intermediates and processes for stabilised Criegee production. This is an area I know very little about so can’t really elaborate further, suffice to say that it’s likely going to be a long process and we may not get a further report for some time.
This will not be a silver bullet that resolves the climate change issue. At best we’re talking about a photochemical reaction that works upon a proportion of certain greenhouse gases that themselves are a proportion of the total greenhouse gases and something that will only occur in the right atmospheric conditions in some parts of the atmosphere.
At the absolute maximum we’re talking about 18% of global warming. This assumes we could geoengineer the atmosphere so as to achieve 100% stabilisation in 100% of the atmosphere for 100% of the time. If we achieved a very optimistic 50% then we’re looking at resolving just 2.25% of the warming.
Let me know if you want a copy of the original paper.
http://scitechdaily.com/criegee-biradicals-may-cool-planet-offset-global-warming/
" ... Scientists have shown that a new molecule in the earth’s atmosphere has the potential to play a significant role in off-setting global warming by cooling the planet.
In a breakthrough paper published in Science, researchers from The University of Manchester, The University of Bristol and Sandia National Laboratories report the potentially revolutionary effects of Criegee biradicals.
These invisible chemical intermediates are powerful oxidisers of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide, produced by combustion, and can naturally clean up the atmosphere.
Although these chemical intermediates were hypothesised in the 1950s, it is only now that they have been detected. Scientists now believe that, with further research, these species could play a major role in off-setting climate change. ... "
