an inconvenient truth: The Globe is Warming! The Globe is Warming!
Albert "Chicken Little" Gore is right.
The globe
is
warming!
The globe is warming. The Globe is Warming! The
GLOBE is WARMING!!! THE GLOBE IS
WARMING!!!!!!!!
The globe is warming. That's an undisputed and indisputable fact. 0.6 degrees Celsius increase during the last 100 years, more than half of which occurred before 1950.
Now that's odd. More than half of the warming occurred before the vast increase in CO2 production that happened during the exponentially growing industrialization after World War II. Does that really tell us that there is a link between increases in carbon dioxide and the warming of the globe? Really? You really think so?
Well, you ought to look at the data. It's far less convincing than Al Gore's propaganda in "an inconvenient truth", which is clearly a beginning attempt at campaigning for President of these United States.
Here are some points to ponder:
CO2 is only 0.038 of one percent of the earth's atmosphere. Let's round that up and call it four hundredths of a percent. That's an awfully small amount. Especially when you consider it among the other gases that can trap heat in the earth's atmosphere. Water is the most common heat-trapping constituent of the atmosphere. It accounts for 90% of the heat-retaining capabilities of the atmosphere (70% "invisible" water vapor, 20% visible clouds). Other trace gases like methane account for another 5% of the heat-retaining capability. CO2 accounts for only 5% of the warming effect.
Now does it make sense that increasing CO2 from 0.028% to 0.038% (one one hundredth of a percent increase in concentration of the earth's atmosphere), the purported change from pre-industrial to current amounts of CO2 (there are a lot of assumptions in this "increase" and some scientists doubt the change was actually this large), would cause even the 0.6 degree Celsius increase in temperature measured over the last hundred years?
Well, possibly. But then let's consider whether humans have caused the measured increase in CO2 concentration. Of the possible sources of increase, humans might (and this is a "generous" estimate) have caused 4% of the current measured increase in CO2. The natural sources of CO2 production, like volcanoes, animal respiration and flatulence, and re-gasification of CO2 dissolved in ocean water far outweigh the puny human contributions to CO2 increase.
These data (including the fact that more than half of the 0.6 degree temperature increase occurred before 1950) all imply that there is an infinitesimally small link between increases in global warming and human-caused increases in CO2 concentration.
So where did the warming come from? Well, a pretty obvious source: the sun.
How? It turns out that the charged particles that emanate from the sun, called the "solar wind", shield the earth from exposure to much of the cosmic ray radiation that constantly bombards us. Many people don't understand that we are constantly being irradiated by natural "cosmic" radiation, usually thought to originate in our Milky Way galaxy's "star nurseries". When a star in the nursery goes supernova, it emits tremendous amounts of radiation, some of which is strong enough to reach across the galaxy and irradiate our globe.
This cosmic radiation has a couple of beneficial effects (among others): 1. Many scientists believe cosmic radiation is responsible for those small genetic variations that give rise to the evolutionary adaptations that Charles Darwin's theories postulate; 2. There does appear to be a link between the amount of cloud cover over the oceans and the amount of cosmic radiation that is allowed to pass through the solar wind. Cosmic radiation makes little trails of condensation in the atmosphere that can trigger cloud formation. More cosmic rays means more clouds. More clouds reflect more of the sun's heat back into space, not allowing it to heat the oceans. This is the source of global cooling.
Interestingly, there was a time, the 1970s, when journalists thought that global cooling was the dominant mode of climate change. I can remember 1970s magazine articles claiming that a new ice age was upon us, and that soon glaciers would be descending on the USA from Canada. Well, that was because the 1970s were a low period in solar wind propagation, thus allowing more cosmic rays to create more clouds over the ocean, giving rise to global cooling.
How can "scientists" have gotten this whole global warming thing so wrong, claiming that driving a Cadillac Escalade causes measurable increases in global warming?
Well, here's my theory: these scientists (and Al Gore, who believes these government-subsidized scientists with a fervor and passion truly wonderful to behold) are "watermelon" greens. Watermelon? What does that have to do with the temperature of the atmosphere over China?
Well, a watermelon is green on the outside but red on the inside. These global warming scientists (and Al Gore, when it comes down to it) who so loudly trumpet human causes for the warming of our globe, are really much more interested in controlling human behavior than controlling our climate. They fervently believe that industrialization and technology are the causes of most of the miseries experienced in the 20th century. Since we can no longer blame the world's problems on an aggressively expansionist communist block centered on Russia and China, something else must take the place of the Cold War. Only a "War for the Environment" can give these meddling politicians and their lackey scientists (think Lysenko) power and money enough to stop the horrible changes caused by industrialization and technology, and the concomitant increase in CO2 "pollution." Thus we learn, once again, that war is the health of the State.
But just a sec, can we really consider CO2 a pollutant? Without CO2, all plant life on earth would die. In fact, the hundredth of a percent increase in CO2 concentration over the last century is conservatively estimated to have increased agricultural production worldwide by about 15%. Now the only way you could reasonably call that "pollution" is if you believe that humans are the most dangerous animals on the surface of the globe, and human population must be controlled in order to prevent runaway overpopulation. This is a pretty old idea, most famously proposed by the Reverend Malthus towards the end of the 18th century. Interestingly, it's still a popular idea, one that Paul Ehrlich (who predicted 60 million Americans would starve during the 1960s) continues to shout about, but it's an easily falsified idea, most notably disproved by economist Julian Simon.
And just how can you consider it a bad thing when arable land increases occur as warming temperatures cause sheets of ice to melt over fertile ground, allowing more food to be grown? Is it possible that a deiced Siberia could become the next breadbasket of the world? We don't know for sure. And neither does Al Gore or his government-motivated and -funded scientists at NOAA and NCAR. How can we expect to believe a weather forecast for 50 or 100 years out when these same "scientists" can't even reliably predict whether or not it's going to rain tomorrow?
And what about those rising oceans, sure to inundate Shanghai and Los Angeles? Well, if there has been any increase in ocean level that has caused problems for these coastal cities, I haven't heard or seen it. All such prognostication is based on computer-generated models that haven't yet shown any correlation with the real world and real climate change.
Now if you're worried about what to do about rising oceans, you can check with the people of the Netherlands, who have technologies that are proven to solve the problems of costal areas below sea level in reliable ways. And if you believe it's impossible to move away from a couple of millimeters or so increase in ocean level each year, then you must think anybody who lives in Los Angeles or Shanghai is really stupid.
So who do you want to believe? Regressives like Al "Chicken Little" Gore, who long for a pre-industrial society that doesn't put any CO2 "pollution" into the atmosphere? Or would you rather gain true understanding from progressives like Harvard MD Michael Crichton, scientist (and, gasp, lawyer!) Steven Milloy, and Israeli astro/geophysicist Nir Shaviv?
As for me, I'm a progressive, a person who believes that humans can affect their local environment for both better or worse, and that the better is often a result of the industry and technology that have made our times easier, more comfortable, and more exciting than any previous age in human history.
The globe is warming. That's an undisputed and indisputable fact. 0.6 degrees Celsius increase during the last 100 years, more than half of which occurred before 1950.
Now that's odd. More than half of the warming occurred before the vast increase in CO2 production that happened during the exponentially growing industrialization after World War II. Does that really tell us that there is a link between increases in carbon dioxide and the warming of the globe? Really? You really think so?
Well, you ought to look at the data. It's far less convincing than Al Gore's propaganda in "an inconvenient truth", which is clearly a beginning attempt at campaigning for President of these United States.
Here are some points to ponder:
CO2 is only 0.038 of one percent of the earth's atmosphere. Let's round that up and call it four hundredths of a percent. That's an awfully small amount. Especially when you consider it among the other gases that can trap heat in the earth's atmosphere. Water is the most common heat-trapping constituent of the atmosphere. It accounts for 90% of the heat-retaining capabilities of the atmosphere (70% "invisible" water vapor, 20% visible clouds). Other trace gases like methane account for another 5% of the heat-retaining capability. CO2 accounts for only 5% of the warming effect.
Now does it make sense that increasing CO2 from 0.028% to 0.038% (one one hundredth of a percent increase in concentration of the earth's atmosphere), the purported change from pre-industrial to current amounts of CO2 (there are a lot of assumptions in this "increase" and some scientists doubt the change was actually this large), would cause even the 0.6 degree Celsius increase in temperature measured over the last hundred years?
Well, possibly. But then let's consider whether humans have caused the measured increase in CO2 concentration. Of the possible sources of increase, humans might (and this is a "generous" estimate) have caused 4% of the current measured increase in CO2. The natural sources of CO2 production, like volcanoes, animal respiration and flatulence, and re-gasification of CO2 dissolved in ocean water far outweigh the puny human contributions to CO2 increase.
These data (including the fact that more than half of the 0.6 degree temperature increase occurred before 1950) all imply that there is an infinitesimally small link between increases in global warming and human-caused increases in CO2 concentration.
So where did the warming come from? Well, a pretty obvious source: the sun.
How? It turns out that the charged particles that emanate from the sun, called the "solar wind", shield the earth from exposure to much of the cosmic ray radiation that constantly bombards us. Many people don't understand that we are constantly being irradiated by natural "cosmic" radiation, usually thought to originate in our Milky Way galaxy's "star nurseries". When a star in the nursery goes supernova, it emits tremendous amounts of radiation, some of which is strong enough to reach across the galaxy and irradiate our globe.
This cosmic radiation has a couple of beneficial effects (among others): 1. Many scientists believe cosmic radiation is responsible for those small genetic variations that give rise to the evolutionary adaptations that Charles Darwin's theories postulate; 2. There does appear to be a link between the amount of cloud cover over the oceans and the amount of cosmic radiation that is allowed to pass through the solar wind. Cosmic radiation makes little trails of condensation in the atmosphere that can trigger cloud formation. More cosmic rays means more clouds. More clouds reflect more of the sun's heat back into space, not allowing it to heat the oceans. This is the source of global cooling.
Interestingly, there was a time, the 1970s, when journalists thought that global cooling was the dominant mode of climate change. I can remember 1970s magazine articles claiming that a new ice age was upon us, and that soon glaciers would be descending on the USA from Canada. Well, that was because the 1970s were a low period in solar wind propagation, thus allowing more cosmic rays to create more clouds over the ocean, giving rise to global cooling.
How can "scientists" have gotten this whole global warming thing so wrong, claiming that driving a Cadillac Escalade causes measurable increases in global warming?
Well, here's my theory: these scientists (and Al Gore, who believes these government-subsidized scientists with a fervor and passion truly wonderful to behold) are "watermelon" greens. Watermelon? What does that have to do with the temperature of the atmosphere over China?
Well, a watermelon is green on the outside but red on the inside. These global warming scientists (and Al Gore, when it comes down to it) who so loudly trumpet human causes for the warming of our globe, are really much more interested in controlling human behavior than controlling our climate. They fervently believe that industrialization and technology are the causes of most of the miseries experienced in the 20th century. Since we can no longer blame the world's problems on an aggressively expansionist communist block centered on Russia and China, something else must take the place of the Cold War. Only a "War for the Environment" can give these meddling politicians and their lackey scientists (think Lysenko) power and money enough to stop the horrible changes caused by industrialization and technology, and the concomitant increase in CO2 "pollution." Thus we learn, once again, that war is the health of the State.
But just a sec, can we really consider CO2 a pollutant? Without CO2, all plant life on earth would die. In fact, the hundredth of a percent increase in CO2 concentration over the last century is conservatively estimated to have increased agricultural production worldwide by about 15%. Now the only way you could reasonably call that "pollution" is if you believe that humans are the most dangerous animals on the surface of the globe, and human population must be controlled in order to prevent runaway overpopulation. This is a pretty old idea, most famously proposed by the Reverend Malthus towards the end of the 18th century. Interestingly, it's still a popular idea, one that Paul Ehrlich (who predicted 60 million Americans would starve during the 1960s) continues to shout about, but it's an easily falsified idea, most notably disproved by economist Julian Simon.
And just how can you consider it a bad thing when arable land increases occur as warming temperatures cause sheets of ice to melt over fertile ground, allowing more food to be grown? Is it possible that a deiced Siberia could become the next breadbasket of the world? We don't know for sure. And neither does Al Gore or his government-motivated and -funded scientists at NOAA and NCAR. How can we expect to believe a weather forecast for 50 or 100 years out when these same "scientists" can't even reliably predict whether or not it's going to rain tomorrow?
And what about those rising oceans, sure to inundate Shanghai and Los Angeles? Well, if there has been any increase in ocean level that has caused problems for these coastal cities, I haven't heard or seen it. All such prognostication is based on computer-generated models that haven't yet shown any correlation with the real world and real climate change.
Now if you're worried about what to do about rising oceans, you can check with the people of the Netherlands, who have technologies that are proven to solve the problems of costal areas below sea level in reliable ways. And if you believe it's impossible to move away from a couple of millimeters or so increase in ocean level each year, then you must think anybody who lives in Los Angeles or Shanghai is really stupid.
So who do you want to believe? Regressives like Al "Chicken Little" Gore, who long for a pre-industrial society that doesn't put any CO2 "pollution" into the atmosphere? Or would you rather gain true understanding from progressives like Harvard MD Michael Crichton, scientist (and, gasp, lawyer!) Steven Milloy, and Israeli astro/geophysicist Nir Shaviv?
As for me, I'm a progressive, a person who believes that humans can affect their local environment for both better or worse, and that the better is often a result of the industry and technology that have made our times easier, more comfortable, and more exciting than any previous age in human history.
Posted: Sunday - June 11, 2006 at 03:57 PM
Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Aug 25, 2008 02:10 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Aug 25, 2008 02:10 PM