Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Q&A with prof. Delgado Domingos

by Luis de Sousa Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 04:53:05 AM EST

Professor Delgado Domingos, one of the leading Portuguese environment scientists, gave a long interview to the Sábado Notícias [Saturday News] magazine, a supplement of the centenary Jornal de Notícias.

The last section of the interview touched on Climate issues and has been causing some impact in the local blogosphere. Following is an English translation of this final section of the interview.

Diary rescue by Migeru


QThe Bali conference on climate change was or not a success? PA Conferência de Bali sobre alterações climáticas foi ou não um sucesso?
A – It was considered a success because it was possible to include a footnote in the final text that references a study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But that footnote, in its turn, references two others that contradict it, because in reality, there are no targets set, but simply indications that are questionable. R – Considerou-se um sucesso por se ter conseguido colocar no texto final uma nota de rodapé que faz referência a um estudo do Painel Internacional [Intergovernamental] para as Alterações Climáticas (IPCC). Mas essa nota de rodapé remete, por sua vez, para outras duas notas que, na prática, a anulam, porque, na verdade, não são fixadas quaisquer metas, mas apenas indicações que são questionáveis.
QIn any case, it seems consensual that climate changes are already evident, even so that much was talked about in 2007... P Em todo o caso parece consensual que as alterações climáticas são já agora uma evidência, tanto assim que em 2007 se falou imenso do assunto…
A – There are measurable climate changes but there is also an enormous manipulation in reducing everything to CO2 and equivalents. The main gas producing the green house effect is water vapour. The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning. R – Existem alterações climáticas mensuráveis mas existe também uma enorme manipulação ao reduzir tudo ao CO2 e equivalentes. O principal gás com efeito de estufa é o vapor de água. O alarmismo actual quanto às alterações climáticas é um instrumento de controlo social, pretexto para grandes negócios e combate político. Transformou-se numa ideologia, o que é preocupante.
QSome years ago it was said that it was the oil companies financing scientists to deny climate change... P Há uns anos falava-se que eram as petrolíferas a financiarem cientistas para negarem as alterações climáticas…
A – Now is more the opposite. R – Agora é um pouco ao contrário.
QWhere is the truth? Where is reality? P Onde está então a verdade? Onde está a realidade?
A – There are three realities: one scientific – that shows the observed data – another of virtual reality – based on computer models – and another public. Between the three there are big contradictions. R – Há três realidades: uma científica – que mostra os dados observados –, outra de realidade virtual – que se baseia em modelos computacionais – e outra pública. Entre as três, por vezes, há grandes contradições.
QBut after all, in your opinion, is there or not a global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions from human activities? P Mas afinal, na sua opinião, existe ou não aquecimento global provocado pelas emissões de dióxido de carbono das actividades humanas?
A – The last scientific report from the IPCC refers, for instance, that in Antarctica the temperature rise preceded the rise in carbon dioxide emissions, but that is omitted in the report for policy makers. Recently it was found that 1998 was being erroneously considered as the warmest year on record in the U.S.A.; in fact the warmest year was 1934. And now it is known, after a great scandal, that in the XV century there was an abrupt rise in temperature identical to the observed presently [T.N.: this is probably referring to the Mediaeval Warm Period and not to the XV century, which was a period of cooling preceding the Little Ice Age; this is likely a typing error]. R – O último relatório científico do IPCC refere, por exemplo, que na Antártida o aumento da temperatura precedeu o aumento das emissões de dióxido de carbono, mas depois isso é omitido no relatório para os decisores políticos. Recentemente descobriu-se que afinal houve um erro em considerar que 1998 foi o ano mais quente no EUA desde que existem registos; de facto, o ano mais quente foi o de 1934. E agora sabe-se, depois de um grande escândalo, que no século XV ocorreu um crescimento abrupto de temperaturas idêntico ao que se verifica actualmente.
QWhere does that leave us? Is there a global warming or not, in your opinion? P Então em ficamos? Existe ou não aquecimento global, na sua opinião?
A – There has been a warming period up to 1998, but it can't be guaranteed that it will continue in the following years or that it is solely related to carbon dioxide emissions. R – Tem ocorrido um aumento da temperatura, até 1998, mas não se pode garantir que, nos próximos anos, continue e que esteja apenas associado às emissões de dióxido de carbono.
QIn that context, the application of the Kyoto protocol will be of any use? P Nesse âmbito, a aplicação do protocolo de Quioto servirá para algo?
A – Everything made to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is positive, because it implies a reduction in energy consumption. But creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense. It is preferable for us to prepare for the natural climate evolutions. To adapt ourselves and be ready in case it happens, meaning, among other things, not destroying the dunes on the pretext of national interest, not building in flood stream beds, not turning the soils impermeable to avoid the effects of potential and natural heat waves, etc. R – Tudo o que seja feito para diminuir as emissões de dióxido de carbono é positivo, porque implicará redução dos consumos energéticos. Mas criar uma ideologia agarrada ao dióxido de carbono é um perigoso disparate. Será preferível prepararmo-nos para as naturais evoluções do clima. Adaptarmo-nos, e estarmos preparados, caso aconteçam, o que significa, entre outras coisas, não destruir as dunas a pretexto de PIN, não construir em leitos de cheia, não impermeabilizar solos para não agravar os efeitos das potenciais e naturais ondas de calor, etc.
QSumming up, you advocate the pursuing of the politics preconized by the Bush Administration... P Em suma, advoga então que se siga a política preconizada pela Administração Bush…
A – The demonization of the United States should not continue. The north-Americans have some of the best studies and specialists in the field. Enough is to say that the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) – a north-American organism that studies the climatic and meteorologic phenomena – has a budget of 200 million dollars, while the IPCC has just 10 million, beyond that, more than 50% of the scientists that make the IPCC reports are american. R – Não se pode continuar a diabolizar os Estados Unidos. Os norte-americanos têm dos melhores estudos e especialistas nesta área. Basta dizer que o UCAR (University Corporation for Atmosferic Research) – um organismo norte-americano que estuda os fenómenos climáticos e meteorológicos – tem um orçamento de 200 milhões de dólares, enquanto o IPCC tem apenas 10 milhões, para além de que mais de 50% dos cientistas que elaboraram os relatórios do IPCC são americanos.

The Portuguese version of this interview was originally published at the web log Mitos Climáticos [Climatic Myths].

Biographic Note

José Joaquim Delgado Domingos has a degree on Mechanical Engineering, achieved with distinction at the Instituto Superior Técnico (IST) in 1956. He became a Cathedrated Professor at IST in 1965 and retired in 2006.

He has more that 150 published articles in the research fields of Thermodynamics, Numerical Methods in Fluid Mechanics and Energy Transfer, Energy System Analysis, Energy and Environment Policy and Meteorologic Forecast.

He was responsible for the introduction of the first degrees in Informatics Engineering and Environment Engineering in Portugal (at the New University of Lisbon), and also one of the founders of the Environment Engineering degree at IST, which he directed. He is member of several international Engineering associations and an honorary member of the editorial boards of several international scientific journals.

He founded and directs the group for Numerical Weather Forecast, that publishes local forecasts daily (in Portuguese).

His web page can be accessed here (also in Portuguese).

Display:
so h20(g) is the larger contributor to greenhouse? interesting and troubling.

The control mechanism of C02 atmospheric concentration is rather abrupt. C02 may accumulate in the atmosphere, increasing temperature and therefore evaporation and later rain. the rain leaches soil, sending large amounts of carbon to the sea. increased C03- ion leads to increased precipitation of calcium carbonate, efectively sequestrating carbon and eventually leading to an ice age.
the trick is on the different speeds of the fluxes composing the geochemical cycles.

since we had ice ages no so far [1,2], than the C02 concentration should not be above average.

Maybe Nomad can tell.

however:
[1] - the configuration of the continents encircling the arctic must be responsible for switches between normal and ice ages, so these ice ages may unusual
[2] - is it possible that climate stability is much smaller than we have assumed. the rapid chances of recent past may be better known just because their clues have not yet been erased.

by findmeaDoorIntoSummer on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 09:40:59 PM EST
I would say that H2O circulation is much more "fluid" that CO2 circulation: the circulation times scales are days against years. The atmosphere obviously cannot balance out the growth of anthropogenic CO2.

We do not have to worry that we would emit too much water wapour, say, with hydrogen cell cars - the additional H2O would be a tiny fraction of the atmospheric H2O flow. But higher H2O potential as greenhouse gas means that fluctations of H2O circulation can determine very much of how the greenhouse effect would develop. By standard assumptions, H2O circulation is determined by physical causes and effects - there might be dominant positive or negative feedbacks; or by deterministic or stochastic chaos - if the basic underlying dynamical system is chaotic. But it is also possible that the atmosphere reacts to increasing greenhouse stresses (whether anthropogenic or "natural" or accidental) as a cybernetic system, and that compensating (or possibly "rebooting") event sequences are already in place.

by das monde on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 12:59:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political rattle.

First of all, I think there's a typo in the last word, which should be "battle" (or "combat", combate politico).

Then I don't get what he's saying. Social control? How?  What freedom is he suggesting is being infringed? By or on behalf of whom?

Major businesses? What's their interest? If this notion is true, why is the country that has the biggest businesses and in which big business has perhaps the longest arm, fighting against the alarm on climate change?

Political combat? Does he mean one side of the political spectrum is using climate change fear against the other? That would be the left against the right? Or, or...?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 08:58:55 AM EST
Hi afew, combate evolved from the latin combatuere as did tits english conterpart combat. The literal translation would have been political combat which has a slightly different semantics than the original meaning. I chose rattle which might hoave not been a fortunate choice, political fight might be more correct.

I can't answer for the social control, I also don't know exactly what it meant. Maybe social conditioning could have been a more fortunate choice of words - there are some veins of thought that behind the climate change issue is a global governance project. I doubt prof. Delgado Domingos was referencing that.

As for your last two questions, Anthropogenic Global Warming became a political issue when the then Senator Al Gore tried to descredit Richard Lindzen at Congress. From then on it became a political option between Conservatism and Liberalism. As in Europe about 80% of the voters support Liberal politics this division was never apparent, but it is quite so in the US.

As for business, Al Gore spoke at Lisbon last year, charging more than a monthly minimum wage to every attendee. Check how his fortune has been growing since he left office and follow from there.

Vencit omnia veritas.

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 09:46:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Luis de Sousa:
As for your last two questions, Anthropogenic Global Warming became a political issue when the then Senator Al Gore tried to descredit Richard Lindzen at Congress. From then on it became a political option between Conservatism and Liberalism. As in Europe about 80% of the voters support Liberal politics this division was never apparent, but it is quite so in the US.
Oh, it is apparent. The European People's Party is increasingly adopting a sceptic position. The foremost example of this is Vaclav Klaus, but in Spain the PP has clearly adopted denialist messages.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 09:51:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
denialist

I love that word.

I didn't know that about the PP. The issue is that the People's party is undermined by Liberals. Take for instance the case of Barroso, when he joined the portuguese liberal party (PSD) it belong to the European Liberal group; somewhere during the turning of the century they simply left and joined the conservatives, in so doing gaining practical grip on the Parliament.

And before you know it, a man that started his carer in the Communist Workers party is head of the Commission backed by Conservative Europe :-)

The debate on Anthropogenic Global Warming shouldn't be a plitical option, like every scientific issue.

Vencit omnia veritas.

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 10:09:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It shouldn't, but it is.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 10:17:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"The main gas producing the green house effect is water vapour.", I think that he means that the concentration of water vapor in air is so much higher (than the other compounds that contribute to the warming) that the total heat contribution is higher for the water vapor. Problem with that is that water vapor in the atmosphere is always substantial. Of course, it varies, but a rise in the concentration is generally a result of, before it becomes a contributor to, increased temperature.

So - the root cause of global warming is increases of concentration in other molecules. Clearly, concentrations of CO2, NOx, and sulfate ions in the atmosphere have been on the rise since not-long-after the start of industrial development. CO2 shows the largest increase - for obvious reasons, since the main energy sources have been combustion of hydrocarbons - and, in fact, there is significant correlation between the rise in CO2 levels and the rise in temperature, using reasonable estimates of the data.

After temperatures rise, other factors, such as methane release from previously-frozen Siberian bogs, become significant factors. Also, once glaciers melt, the exposed ground absorbs heat that the glaciers tend to reflect. These kinds of thresholds are almost irreversible, once started. So - we have to work on the factors that we can control. The Professor isn't helping in that regard, when he makes statements in a popular journal that undermine action concerning CO2 reduction.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 03:55:26 PM EST
On H2O I recommend this short article by Ahilleas Maurellis:

The climatic effects of water vapour.

--


Clearly, concentrations of CO2, [...] in the atmosphere have been on the rise since not-long-after the start of industrial development.

Could you substantiate this with a reference? Are you basing that assertion on proxy data or direct measurements?

Vencit omnia veritas.

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 09:59:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
TRENDS: ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE
An atmospheric CO2 record for the past 200 years was obtained from the Siple Station ice core.

...

Neftel et al. (1985) concluded that the atmospheric CO2 concentration ca. 1750 was 280±5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) and that it increased by 22.5% to 345 ppmv in 1984 essentially because of human factors. Graphs in Friedli et al. (1986) also reported that the preindustrial (pre-1800) CO2 concentration was ~280 ppmv.

There are also charts from other ice core measurements:


We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 10:16:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No direct measurements?

A different result from a different proxy:

Kouwenberg, L, Wagner, R, Kurschner, W and Visscher H, 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millenium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles, Geology, 33: 33-36.

Vencit omnia veritas.

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 10:54:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course there are no direct measurements. There was not a lot of direct measurement of atmospheric composition before the 19th century, was there?

Oh, and measuring the concentration of gases trapped in ice is a better proxy than growth rates of organisms.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 10:59:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, and measuring the concentration of gases trapped in ice is a better proxy than growth rates of organisms.

That's a highly disputable assertion. Do you know the work of Zbigniew Jaworowski? You'll understand the 83 year joke there.


There was not a lot of direct measurement of atmospheric composition before the 19th century, was there?

But you are aware that the measurements made from the XIX onwards do not match the ice proxies, don't you?


Vencit omnia veritas.

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 11:19:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"But you are aware that the measurements made from the XIX onwards do not match the ice proxies, don't you?"

paul spencer
by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 11:28:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Zbigniew Jaworowski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jaworowski is a global warming skeptic.

His works on ice cores were published in Jaworowski (1994, 1992) and in reports Jaworowski (1990, 1992).

Jaworowski has suggested that the long-term CO2 record is an artifact caused by the structural changes of the ice with depth and by postcoring processes. However, increases in CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the Vostok core are similar for the last two glacial-interglacial transitions, even though only the most recent transition is located in the brittle zone. Such evidence argues that the atmospheric trace-gas signal is not strongly affected by the presence of the brittle zone. [1]

Similarly Hans Oeschger [2] states that "...Some of (Jaworowski's) statements are drastically wrong from the physical point of view".

Who is Hans Oeschger?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 11:30:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is the PDF linked from the foornote in the wikipedia article:

If I understand the issue correctly, Oetscher is claiming that diffusion of gas in firn explains the 83-year shift.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 11:47:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is Jaworowski's Key Claim.

Zbigniew Jaworowski on CO2 measurements

The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica[5, 6], are widely used as a proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC[7]. These data show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth (Figure 1 A) . The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was "too high". This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple.

An ad hoc assumption, not supported by any factual evidence[3, 9], solved the problem: the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The "corrected" ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record (Figure 1 B) , and reproduced in countless publications as a famous "Siple curve". Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the "age assumption"[10], but they failed[9].

...

3. Jaworowski, Z., T.V. Segalstad, and N. Ono, Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? The Science of the Total Environment, 1992. 114: p. 227-284.

...

  1. Jaworowski, Z., Ancient atmosphere - validity of ice records. Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res., 1994. 1(3): p. 161-171.

  2. Schwander, J., et al., The age of the air in the firn and the ice at Summit, Greenland. J. Geophys. Res., 1993. 98(D2): p. 2831-2838.


We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 11:52:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Note the 1994 paper is the one Oeschger's rebuttal refers to.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 11:54:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Miguel I have to leave now. This is a fascinating issue, we'll have to get back again to it some day.

Vencit omnia veritas.
by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 12:51:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The entire letter by Oescher is transcribed as HTML in the blog Some are Boojums:
Hans Oeschger's letter to ESPR
Jaworowski's article in ESPR is so hard to locate, it wouldn't be too unreasonable to suspect that the journal is not eager now for people to take much notice of it. But it did get noticed by one giant in climate science -- Hans Oeschger.
Prof. Oeschger was the founder of the Division of Climate and Environmental Physics at the Physics Institute of the University of Bern. His name is attached to the Oeschger Counter that enabled Carbon-14 dating to be applied to geophysical problems, and to the Dansgaard-Oeschger 1,500 year cycle of slow cooling and abrupt warming observed in sediments and ice cores. He was active and influential in climate science until his death in 1998. His assessment of the Jaworowski article was blunt.


We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 05:27:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This comment is strange. The work I know from Jaworowski concentrates on near-range proxy data.

Vencit omnia veritas.
by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 11:49:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Direct measurements started after WWII, in Hawaii. They showed an increasing trend, immediately. They do match recent ice cores, to my knowledge.

Pierre
by Pierre on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 11:37:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Lazy link:


Pierre
by Pierre on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 11:42:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's one data set. There are dozens more that report to previous periods.

Vencit omnia veritas.
by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Direct CO2 atmospheric concentration measurements have been made since the early XIX century. Did you check Joworowski's article?

The ice core data matches Maona Loa only after the 83 year shift.

Vencit omnia veritas.

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 11:45:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Direct CO2 atmospheric concentration measurements have been made since the early XIX century.

Not meaningfully, according to

URS SIEGENTHALER, ERIC MONNIN, KENJI KAWAMURA, RENATO SPAHNI, JAKOB SCHWANDER, BERNHARD STAUFFER, THOMAS F. STOCKER, JEAN-MARC BARNOLA, HUBERTUS FISCHER (2005)
Supporting evidence from the EPICA Dronning Maud Land ice core for atmospheric CO2 changes during the past millennium
Tellus B 57 (1), 51-57.
In particular, from the abstract
The most direct method of investigating past variations of the atmospheric CO2 concentration before 1958, when continuous direct atmospheric CO2 measurements started, is the analysis of air extracted from suitable ice cores.
(my emphasis)

The abstract continues:

Here we present a new detailed CO2 record from the Dronning Maud Land (DML) ice core, drilled in the framework of the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) and some new measurements on a previously drilled ice core from the South Pole. The DML CO2 record shows an increase from about 278 to 282 parts per million by volume (ppmv) between ad 1000 and ad 1200 and a fairly continuous decrease to a mean value of about 277 ppmv around ad 1700. While the new South Pole measurements agree well with DML at the minimum at ad 1700 they are on average about 2 ppmv lower during the period ad 1000-1500. Published measurements from the coastal high-accumulation site Law Dome are considered as very reliable because of the reproducibility of the measurements, high temporal resolution and an accurate time scale. Other Antarctic ice cores could not, or only partly, reproduce the pre-industrial measurements from Law Dome. A comparison of the trends of DML and Law Dome shows a general agreement. However we should be able to rule out co-variations caused by the same artefact. Two possible effects are discussed, first production of CO2 by chemical reactions and second diffusion of dissolved air through the ice matrix into the bubbles. While the first effect cannot be totally excluded, comparison of the Law Dome and DML record shows that dissolved air diffusing to bubbles cannot be responsible for the pre-industrial variation. Therefore, the new record is not a proof of the Law Dome results but the first very strong support from an ice core of the Antarctic plateau.


We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 05:54:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW, that 83 year constant shift is really hard to explain ;-)

Vencit omnia veritas.
by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 10:56:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Huh?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 11:00:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The data is, in fact, out there via core-drilled ice readings, but I'm not going to bother any more than your jubilated professor backs up any of his statements in the quoted interview.

paul spencer
by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 11:19:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nothing really new here, apart that (and that's my understanding of the "short" interview) we shouldn't only see the tree that hides the forest...

Meaning, (as in other topics as asbestos) that we should be more complex in our answers. The road an roof part (albedo and watertight surfaces) should be more addressed, independently of CO2 !

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 06:18:23 AM EST
Ther is a point where ther is no use in keeping on with the discussion.. and given the narrative it is clear where he is coming..

so the standard answer now is:

"Yeah sure... and AIDS is not produced by a virus".

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 28th, 2008 at 09:33:39 AM EST
Really, I think Prof. Domingos did not add absolutely nothing to global warming discussion. After this interview I attended his presentation at Lisbon's municipal environmental agency (http://lisboaenova.org/pagina/images/stories/Ponto%20de%20Encontro/2008/24012008/Apresentacao_Delga doDomingos_24012008_Final.pdf) Check it here: http://futureatrisk.blogspot.com/2008/01/entrevista-ao-prof-delgado-domingos.html I'll write in more detail why what he said is totally nonsense!
by Jose Sousa on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 04:16:29 PM EST
Welcome to ET, Jose!

This is not a complaint, but if you would like to see how to post links, take a look at the New User Guide. You'll also get explanations on a number of other posting topics.

Look forward to reading you again!

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 04:35:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok!Sorry,I'll give a look.
by Jose Sousa on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 04:45:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries