The 16 scientists who signed the Wall Street Journal editorial are a minority, but they're not outliers. They're not "flat earthers." They're not "scared of science." They are, quite simply, distinguished scientists with a dissenting opinion.
And their opinion deserves our respect.
Following are the scientists and engineers who signed the WSJ editorial.
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris
J. Scott Armstrong, co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting
Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University
Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society
Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences
William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton University
Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meterology
Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT
James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Tech University
Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences
Burt Rutan, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former US Senator
Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service
Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva
Correct.It is not logical.Until one does the math.
Radii of earth ~3950 statute miles
Area of a sphere = 4*pi*(radii^2)
A = 4*pi*(3950^2)
A = 196E6 square miles
Depth of breathable atmosphere is 3 miles, but I'll use 2 miles ~ 10k feet
Volume in this thin shell is A * 2 =~ 392E6 miles^3
One cubic mile of air = 5280^3 = 1.5E11 cubic feet
Times the earth atmosphere volume = 5.7E19 cubic feet.
So now lets talk sweet crude.They distill it and get various gases, gasoline, diesel fuel, and at the bottom we asphalt.The fuels are hydrocarbons.Burning fuels with oxygen we mainly convert HC into C02 (carbon dioxide), H2O (water), some CO (carbon monoxide), and a small amount of nitrogen compounds.Plants use the CO2 and the H2O eventually turns to rain or snow.But in the following, we will say that the entire drum is just dumped into the atmosphere.
One gallon of oil has a volume of 231 cubic inches.
Using your 40 million barrels for 365 days a year times 50 years I calculate:
Times 55 gallons per barrel = 4E13 gallons.Multiply by 231 = 9.3E15 cubic inches.
As there are 1728 cubic inches per cubic foot we get 5.4E12 cubic feet of oil.
The ratio of atmosphere to oil used the past 50 years is:
5.4E12 / 5.7E19 = .000000094 or 9.5 parts per 100 million!
So lets scale this to a 10 lane Olympic size pool 164 feet, by 82 feet, by 7 feet deep. This contains 99, 187 cubic inches of water.In the past 50 years we have polluted it by adding about 3 to 4 drops of oil.
Politicians are calculating, engineers simply calculate.
I appreciate very much your comments and find them both familiar and revealing.
"What were they wearing" is a glib non-issue. I state as VERIFIABLE FACT that those who live in northern climes will tell you one and all that they have personally experienced significant climate warming over their life times. I have.
I offer also as VERIFIABLE FACT that the greenhouse effect is real and that CO2 has the effect of raising temperature of an "atmosphere" subjected to sunlight radiation.
I offer also as VERIFIABLE FACT that humans burn about 40 million barrels of oil per day year round now and have done so for decades (40 million now, less earlier of course). As burning oil releases CO2, which has a demonstrated capability of increaing the temperature of an atmosphere subjected to sunlight radiation, I conclude that the action of man has the capability to contribute to warming.
I have no beliefs in this regard. I have the facts and have been trained to draw conclusions from observations and data. It is impossible not to conclude that human activity does contribute to the warming of the globe, the only issue how strong a factor.
But the MOST interesting part of your reply and the most familiar as well is;
"Just don't demand I pay for your beliefs."
Isn't that the crux of the matter. Those who fight the idea that human action may be contributing to the warming of the globe, a verifiable fact, are afraid that...it will cost them money to deal with it? All logic, all interest in scientific inquiry, all the education and training in logic is pushed aside because...it might cost you money if the wrong fact is uncovered.
We Americans are both the best educated and wealthiest people in the world. I guess we--with exceptions--value our money more than our education.
All I am saying is that it seems a simple arument to me, when looking at the fact that millions of gallons of fule is burned everyday all around the globe, maybe 15% of that is actually converted into mechanical energy, but the rest is heat injected into the atmosphere. You can not convince me that this amount of heat does not have a cumulative effect after 100 years.
Not to mention all the other issues and problems associated with what man has done.
Oh, and don't forget the amount of heat radiated from all the inefficentcys of all the elctrical devices that 100Giga watt nuclear plant makes and the cooling towers and, and ,and...............
"...what about all the man made posions that a being dumped into our world everyday?"
Like the mercury from millions of pigtail lightbulbs? They last only a small fraction of what was advertised, and only 4% are being disposed of properly. Virtually nobody is doing the HAZMAT cleanup from broken/blown bulbs in homes, etc.
We're still spending billions to take the lead out of bldgs and land while we're pouring the mercury in.
It's ok to make comments, but to make blanket statements with no supporting evidence (WhEEngineer) is irresponsible and one of the biggest reasons that people are so confused. Keep your unbased opinions to yourself, or find a non-professional avenue to spew your garbage. I happen to be one that actually looks at evidence, but it doesn't take a genius to see the real evidence, the oceans are rising "a satellite-measured average rate of about 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009" ^Nicholls, Robert J.; Cazenave, Anny (18 June 2010). "Sea-Level Sea-Level Rise and Its Impact on Coastal Zones".Science Magazine328 (5985): 1517–1520.doi:10.1126/science.1185782. Also the world's glaciers are disappearing. We can't know for sure if man is causing it, but we do know that high CO2 levels were experienced in the earth's history during warmer times, and we know that man's influence creates large amounts of CO2 through our use of fossil fuels and the removal of foliage that absorbs CO2. We didn't need any real evidence to be convinced that OJ was a murderer, why is so hard to believe that global warming is caused by man? Is it really that much of a stretch of the imagination? Should we just turn a blind's eye to the mounting evidence, stick our heads in the the sand and hope that everything cools down? I really WANT TO BELIEVE that man is the cause, because if it is a normal global trend, than there is nothing we can do about it. To conclude, I would like to see the end to the use of fossil fuels regardless of their global ramifications. I would like to ride my Harley down the road without breathing nasty, gasonline burning cars. I would like to walk into a city and breathe fresh air, instead of the noxious fumes of a million cars, busses and trucks laying stagnant between the buildings. I want us to be a smarter society, ruled more by common sense, than lawmakers who cater to the rich regardless of the harm to the general public their policies impart.
Without a scientific time study transfered to an empirical matrix, considering all known variables, to predict what effects so-called global warming has on the everchanging atmosphere of earth, all the human opinion on earth are just cheap words. An old inuit, far north, stated the suns longivity in his location had grown from around 1 month to 2 months in his lifetime, giving rise to the probability of earths change in its position to earth. Without a scientific study, (none exists) my suggestion that the CO2 which has changed a few parts per million over the years our instrumentation is capable of identifying any change at all might be to suggest the curve may be related to or near a parallel with humanities rapidly increasing population on earth. As the sun orbits our galactic center every 230 million years or so, and near 200 million is spent in long periods of glaciation, we can surely continue to expect continual change in earths atmospheric ionization structure. The book sellers always discover from someone else they suddenly become an expert on, as there are no others with any valid study to disprove whatever they say in their little books to get attention.
Time changes all things
few people are capable of preparing a math platform to prove anything, these people are vastly over represented in this blog.
only truth, the same from all perspectives will stand the test of time---We have far more serious changes going on having negative affects on our society than the questionable CO2 change---Free Trade, or permitting free trade with a country sworn to destroy our way of life, enslave their people and use free trade as a weapon to steal our factories, and shutter our small family goods and services businesses, that once provided more jobs than people. Unless we return to the days of an independent country, making in america, what america consumes, with import taxation to discourage slavery and be proactive american science and technology. The accrued taxation used to support our infrastructure is lost to slave nations and american slavers, lime the walton family who take mor e money out of our economy than 30 % of our workforce---we have a lawyer, judge, politician, lobbie/client problem, city, county, state, and federally pseudo elected officials and administraitors are destroying our way of life---The young between 18 and 29 are 56 % unemployeed, off the chart, not n unemployment therefore they are not among the unemployed
affirmative action ACORN splnter groups granted census authority by executive order, also have responsibility for election protocol, armed with 3 billion in stimulus money we can expect another electionfraud, or term of obanomics, and the end of our nation, as we know it
A recently released government report has raised the hopes of automakers looking for a break on future fuel economy regulations, despite the warnings of an Environmental Protection Agency official who said the agency is unlikely to back down on its goal of 54.5 mpg by 2025.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies.
You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived.
So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.