I've been thinking about trying to put together a bullet type post on global warming where I state a claim followed by fact. These would have to be short and to the point. Here is my short attempt with a few comments at the end.
>Claim: The planet is warming.
>Fact: True. Earth is in an inter-glacial period in which warming naturally occurs.
>Claim: The more carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere, the warmer the planet will become.
>Fact: This is backwards. Data shows that the planet warms first causing CO2 to be released into the atmosphere second. The whole AGW hoax depends on this erroneous assumption and falls apart without it. I could stop here but lets look at a few more of the alarmist's main points.
>Claim: Co2 is the main greenhouse gas.
>Fact: False, water vapor is by far the major one. CO2 is more plentiful than other greenhouse gasses but is still a weak one. Many scientists do not consider water vapor a greenhouse gas even though they should because clouds do hold heat from escaping to space.
>Claim: An increase in temp. of 3 to 6 degrees C will send the earth to or beyond a 'tipping point' from which it will not recover, becoming a runaway fireball.
>Fact #1: The earth's temp. has fluctuated between 12 deg. C (53deg. F) and 22 deg. C (72deg. F) Currently we are at about 14.5 deg. C or 58 deg. F. as an average. We still have 8 deg. to go just to get to the Earth's high ave. of 22 deg.C from which it has always moved to a cooling cycle.
>Fact #2: The planet has been in a Glacial Epoch for about 3 million years. Glacial epochs cause ice to form at the poles and migrate towards the equator for long periods usually 100,000 years called glaciations, interrupted by very short periods of warming called inter-glacials. We are in one now and it's almost over. You can forget about Al Gore's New York City under 20 meters of water, try NY leveled under about a mile of ice which will happen in the next glaciation as it has in the past.
To try and pick at all the GW alarmist talking points would be a waste of time. The whole scam depends on people not knowing two points: that the planet heats first, then CO2 increases, not the other way around; and that we are in a glacial epoch which are heavily weighted in favor of coolings not warmings.
Even if AGW were true, the government has no right to force anyone to do anything.
(I read somewhere that if one didn't like a one degree rise in global temp., the thing to do is to move about 100 miles north. But the idea that man can stop the Earth's climate from changing for the first time in its 4.5 billion year history is insane. AGW is just a money and power grab.)
Additional references:
Climate and the Carboniferous Period. on climate history.
Paleoclimatology, on Glacial Epochs and more climate history.
JunkScience.com. on CO2.
Science and Environmental Policy Project on the IPCC.
Update: Lubos Motl at the Reference Frame has a post which is another example of pseudo science in global warming.
3 comments:
Excellent post. I wonder about the glacial epochs though. How far south and north do the glaciers go? How much of the earth would be left free from glaciers? If this were to happen with the next 3 or 4 hundred years, it would be an absolute disaster for humanity. 6 to 7 billion people fighting for the resources and security of the equatorial regions. Only a world-wide capitalist and thus rational humanity could handle that.
Thanks mike, I am always searching from last few years to understand the issue of global warming and Co2 as main culprit.
Usually, in this time of internet, to collect information is not that difficult.Up to now,the conclusions are faith based.it is not good science.
SOME OF MY OBSERVATIONS AND COLLECTED INFO.
*Up to now I did not find any activists with proper education,proper background in science and research.
A BA in journalism or literature or best actress award are not qualifications to give advice in this complicated subject.
CO2 molecules are small in size and its volume is extremely low in atmosphere.According to Wikipedia CO2 volume in atmosphere is about 387 parts per million,that is 0.0004 percent of the volume of the atmosphere.
How much that can influence as a green house gas.Actually I don't know.
I often hear, that we have to believe the scientists.But I don't hear much from the scientists.I only hear the shoutings from the college drop outs celebrities and jornalists who do not have any capability to asses this subject or to make final conclusions from a scientific study.And if any scientists say anything out of line with the global warming conventional wisdom, that person will be black listed, and their voices will not come out,because it should pass through the journalists.Can anybody say how much is the volume of water in the ocean and in the earth, and how much CO2 it can absorb.How much CO2 can be absorbed by plants and phytoplankton.When more CO2 in the atmosphere more will be absorbed by the plants.In the spring,CO2 level will go down and in the autumn and winter it will go up.
About computer models-Garbage in garbage out is the rule.It's accuracy depends on how it is modeled,the knowledge of the people made the model, and the accuracy of the entered data.The present capability of the computer to predict is some what accurate for the 24 hours ahead.Up to 3 days ahead it is still some what informative.After that 5 or 6 days ahead it is just a wild guess.
Can a computer model predict next years weather? No way.Then don't talk about a computer model prediction of the next 20 or 30 years.
The reliability of a United Nation's commision's report or inter national commisions do not have the value of its paper. They are usually made up of people selected based on their political connections and country of origin not based on their capability.
To get an idea, of the quality of information generated by U.N.,try to find out the statistics about a country.usually the report will be 3and 4 years old.Who need a news (Statistics)which is useful for a month or in some cases maximum 2 years,if you get after 3 years.I am just telling an example.
My qualifications, well I am not an authority in this matter.I am60 years old.I have an under graduate degree in biology; with Botany as the major and zoology and chemistry as minors.I was always interested in physics and other sciences.I have a medical degree too.What is the use of a medical degree here? Well I have learned, when doing research,you have to be very very careful abut making conclusions.Still a so called proven result (it is possible)will turn out wrong a few months or few years later.
Madmax: Thanks. "How far south and north do the glaciers go?" If you go the the Paleoclimatology site I linked to, then scroll down about 1/5th of the way to a map titled "The world 18,000 years ago" you'll see that the last glaciation covered all of Canada and parts of North America so that cities like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, New York and Boston would have all been under about a half-mile or so of ice. I read somewhere that the ice reached the tip of northern Germany in Europe.
Unless we humans can figure out a way to end the current Glacial Epoch, these glaciations will continue. And you are right about the need for global capitalism at that time. There would have to be property- rights respecting governments to avoid conflicts. But I do think that the Earth's population will have leveled off by then.
Dissident:
You make a lot of good points. Science has become so politicized that it is almost impossible to tell truth from fiction. In self defense one has to literally fact check the science one hears and reads in the media. Not very many people know how to do that or even have the time to do it. That is the job of professional intellectuals, those who deal with ideas for a living. But they, like their readers, have gone through the same anti-conceptual public school system which teaches children not to respect authority but to obey it, to defer to it. Don't judge" and "Who are you to judge" is what little kid's minds are bludgeoned with. And all of this is made possible by an anti-mind philosophy of education called "progressive education." But that's for another post.
Thanks for the input both of you.
Post a Comment