Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Global Warming Re-Visited !!!

Following are two articles of interest, that seem to be fact based, regarding 'global warming'. I am becoming more and more convinced, as per my last 'Rant', that this whole global warming thing, aside from feigned hysteria, is all about making money, nothing more. I am kicking myself for not being smart enough to cash in on opportunities like this, and, I am totally dismayed that Al Gore is obviously much smarter than I am.


NZCPD Guest Forum Augie Auer 18 February 07 Imagining Climate Change

What a wonderfully powerful human trait is the imagination. No other form of animal life can think creatively as we humans…to dream up scenarios of passion…love, joy, hatred, anticipation. But distort our imaginative powers with a bit of fear & guilt instilled by mischievous science…and presto, you have the makings of the catastrophic global warming [ooops, I’m sorry], I mean, climate change hysteria. This hysteria was reinforced on 2 February when the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its ‘Summary to Policymakers’ (SPM); but the report on which the Summary is based, IPCC’s 4th Assessment 2007, will not be published until May. The problem is that the SPM was produced, not by the scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments. Is it any wonder that this SPM attracted considerable media interest because of its alarmist dogma. The “Man bites dog!” stories always do. So what is going on? Are we are a course of certain environmental Apocalypse? Of course we’re not. Here’s why. Every one of the outcomes predicated on present & continued burning of fossil fuels by mankind are projections generated by computer simulations of future climatic patterns. They are not reality, not certainty, rather a kind of computer imagination. And even with all the mathematical manipulations, the climate models are only as good as the knowledge that is imputed to them. And as much as we would like to think that our knowledge of all atmospheric processes is substantial, the fact is it’s grossly lacking in both scope & thoroughness especially when it comes to looking decades into the future. This means that high levels of accuracy & certainty just can’t be achieved. Sometimes computer models can’t predict our local weather with useful certainty just 48 hours in advance. Then there’s the matter of CO2…that harmful gas that Al Gore would have us believe is choking us all to death, that greenhouse gas which Jeanette Fitzsimmons claims “the planet is groaning under the weight of”. Again, let’s set the record straight. To start with, CO2 is not a harmful, pollutant gas! It could best be described as an airborne fertilizer that humans exhale. Diesel exhaust, now that’s a pollutant. The Earth’s constituent gases consist of 77% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen with the 2% balance comprised of the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’. These trace gases are water vapour (averaging about 1%), followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) at a whopping 0.038% (usually reported as 380 ppm [parts per million]), methane at 0.00015% and even lesser concentrations of minor gases. So how can a gas that occupies a measly 0.038% of our atmosphere warrant so much attention? That’s what needs to be challenged. The greenhouse effect is a near–miraculous process that carefully regulates the temperature of the planet. By absorbing & re-radiating downward some of the heat energy that would escape to space from the Earth, greenhouse gases effectively keep the average temperature of the planet near 15C rather than at (minus) –18C. So the greenhouse effect is required for life! Water vapour is, by far & away, the most dominant and naturally-produced of all greenhouse gases, contributing to a massive 95% of the beneficial warming process. Within the remaining 5%, there isn’t much clout available for carbon dioxide; it only contributes a meagre 3.5% or so. And when this input is subdivided into naturally produced & anthropogenically sourced, just under 97% comes from Nature, just over 3% from mankind. This means that the human contribution of CO2 to the Earth’s greenhouse warming process is an inconsequential 0.12%. Even if CO2 doubled in the atmosphere due to man’s activity, its impact on greenhouse processes would remain miniscule. Furthermore, the efficiency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas does not increase with concentration, as the Al Gores of the world tell us. Its effectiveness obeys the law of diminishing returns. Only the first 150ppm or so is all that is needed for the planet’s greenhouse effect to operate near maximum. Additional carbon dioxide only serves as a spent force. Because of the dominance of a simple, Earth–unique gas, water vapour, we could say that mankind could not alter our climate if we wanted to! Since carbon dioxide is not the problem, there is no need for any mandatory reduction of planetary CO2 or punitive taxations to prevent its use. Note that this not a proposal to abandon our responsibility of stewardship of the planet’s atmosphere. Scientists have an ethical responsibility to be truthful in their research, to avoid being arrogant, intimating & intolerant. This is not intended as a criticism of all those involved in climate research, but it is directed in some regard to politicians & policymakers who, in interpreting the ‘science’, tell us “You have a problem, we can solve it & no other opinion matters”. They communicate through a seemingly biased media emphasizing unsubstantiated fright & sensationalism: e.g., a rise in sea-levels that would inundate Pacific island nations. “We must act now!”, the global warming zealots scream. Yet I recall my Dad warning about high–pressure salesmen with the ‘It must be done now’ pitch. Where’s David Russell when you need him? Recall the admonition of Robertson Davies, a 20th century journalist/novelist: “Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.” Imagine that!


20 November 06 An Inconveneient Truth By Ron Goodwin

All people interested in global warming should see Al Gore’s film, if only to appreciate how the whole world is being hoodwinked by pseudoscience. There is no question that the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing for many decades, albeit from a very small percentage to a larger but still very small percentage, currently about 0.035%. However, there is no sound scientific evidence that I am aware of, that this or any other factor is actually causing any global warming. Nature is such, that there always has been and always will be enormous extremes in climatic conditions from time to time. That is why urban development plans consider what will happen in a 1 in 100 year storm and hydro dams work on 1000 or 2000 year events. Glaciers will continue to grow and recede. The Arctic Ocean will continue to freeze up and thaw. Large areas were unfrozen in the 1930s as they are today. Such is the ebb and flow of nature. The Vikings used to grow corn in Greenland . The River Thames froze so solid around 300 years ago that thousands of people and even an elephant walked on the ice. Mountains like Mt Kilimanjaro will continue to lose snow, not due to any evidence of global warming, but due to a reduction in precipitation caused by the post-colonial deforestation of surrounding areas. Massive hurricanes will continue to come and go. The movement of tectonic plates will continue to make coastal areas rise and fall. And what’s more, the ozone hole will continue more or less centred over Mt Erebus so long as this massive active volcano continues to spew over 1,000 tonnes of super-heated chlorine gas straight up into the stratosphere every day, as it has done since 1982. If the ozone hole was caused by man-made emissions, it would be in the northern hemisphere, where 90% of the world’s atmospheric pollution comes from. Yes, there are records and graphs of temperature increases. As any meteorologist knows, most long-standing weather stations were originally established in major towns and cities, most of which have now become large metropolitan centres. These are now subject to what is known as “the urban heat island effect”, a warmer micro-climate caused by all the energy consumption and other factors peculiar to major cities. The increase can at times be as much as 2oC to 6oC for very large urban centres. The graphs of mean annual temperature for small cities and remote places are what should be studied. Invercargill has accurate records from 1946. Whilst each year varies from the trend line by differing amounts up to 1oC, the trend line over 60 years is actually a reduction in temperature of 0.3oC. Christchurch , still a very small city by world standards, has accurate records from 1864. Each year varies from the trend line by up to 1.1oC. But the trend line over that whole 140 year period is dead level. Better still, how about a remote Pacific island where there is absolutely no heat island effect - only the effect of global warming, if there is any. Norfolk Island has kept proper met records from 1915. The trend line has a slight downward gradient, a temperature drop-off of 0.2oC in 90 years with peak years typically up to 0.8oC above and below the trend line. Temperature records from numerous other remote weather stations display a similar trend; absolutely no increase in temperature, and many with a slight decrease as for Norfolk Island . So I am sorry Mr Gore, the fact that there is absolutely no solid scientific evidence of global warming, man-made or otherwise, is your “Inconvenient Truth”.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

So how can a gas that occupies a measly 0.038% of our atmosphere warrant so much attention?

You're right. And we can extend this logic to other areas that these enviro-fascists keep harping on like mercury. Hell, one gram of mercury is only 0.001% of the mass of a 180 lbs person! That's almost nothing! Therefor it is not a problem.