A Little Sanity on Global Warming

Flucuations in the earth's temperature are a natural feature of our world's history. Some have been generalized , global phenomenon and some have been regional variations. There are a few basic, empirical facts, however, that suggest that the current global warming scare is not scientificially based as much as a political movement.

About six thousand boreholes in ice from all over the world have shown that the earth was significantly warmer a thousand years ago: before the invention of the internal combustion engine and fossil-fuel power plants. Broecker, W.S. 2001. Was the Medieval Warm Period global? Science 291: 1497-1499.

In fact, a recent report indicates that the atmosphere is not acting like it is assumed to act in the global warming models. http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0407/0407075.pdf. The study looked at satellite and weather balloon data compared to surface temperatures: “ the models generally predict an increased warming rate with height (outside of local polar regions). Neither the satellite nor the balloon records can find it.” “Meltdown for Global Warming Science,” by Patrick J. Michaels, S. Fred Singer and David H. Douglass, August 19, 2004, Cato Institute, online. These results are not unusual to anyone who has studied the global warming “greenhouse gas” theory.

The facts are: (1) carbon dioxide levels have no correlation to temperature increases. In the earth;s history they have been 20 times higher and we have done studies going back 500 million years that show increased CO2 does not increase temperature. “[M]ajor past climate changes were either uncorrelated with changes in CO2 or were characterized by temperature changes that preceded changes in CO2 by hundreds to thousands of years.” Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen, MIT, former chairman of NAS Climate Change Panel, before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on May 2,2001. See Idso, S.B. 1998. Carbon dioxide and climate in the Vostok ice core, Atmospheric Environment 22: 2341-2342; Petit, J.R. et al. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436(1999)[”the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years” and that “the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination”]; Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714; Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299:1728-1731 (2003);Rothman, D.H. “Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 4167-4171 (2002).

(2) Kyoto does virtually nothing to affect CO2 levels or climate change. The developing nations are exempt and within the next fifteen years, both India and China will pass the US as greenhouse gas emitters. Even if the Kyoto numbers were reached, its advocates privately concede under their own assumptions, it would only delay warming by six years. Bjorn Loomborg, author of the Skeptic Environmentalist, cited studies of the full cost of reversing CO2 levels, under the IPPC model assumption, at $3 to $33 trillion dollars. This is the cost associated with cutting fossil fuel use by 60-75% - which is what would be needed under the alarmists’ assumptions. Kyoto alone does virtually nothing to CO2 levels.

The only solution under the "global warming" model assumption is a 60-75% reduction in fossil fuel use. This will happen under many scenarios over market conditions in the next 75-100 years. Most studies indicate it will happen of its own accord long before the small incremental temperature changes cause any major impact. Is there any justification for multi-trillion dollar sacrifices before that time? Absolutely not.

Comments

Randy Mott said…
I have received two comments privately that question some of this information. 1. My most recent post on Barnett was challenged because the data came from the World Climate Report. Barnett started issuing press releases before his report was published, peer-reviewed or the data released. His earlier data does not seem to fit his new conclusions. I stand by the coments and my criticism of the Kyoto advocates for "science by press release." 2. Another comment was received that the adjusted satellite data show some stratosphere rise. I know that Christy moved to agree to some of the adjustment as appropriate, but I also posted a 2004 satellite study that does not show greenhouse gas effects in the latitude layers as was predicted. I will stand by the conclusion that the atmosphere is not behaving according to the IPCC model and the theory.

Again, I am struck by the very little evidence or logic necessary to keep a Kyoto advocate happy and on track: there does seem to be a suspension of scientific rigor evident in virtually everything that they assert.

Popular posts from this blog

Hitting Reality: Polish Energy Policy Meets the Facts

Pushing Electric Cars Will Do Little to Fight Air Pollution in Poland

Republicans Figure It Out! No to big government boondoggle!