I used to believe that Global Warming was a real threat - then I read Michael Chrichton's "State of Fear" - which prompted me to do my own research - I have subsequently spent 100's of hours reading both pro and con publications and have come to the conclusion that the whole fiasco is the most wanton scientific hysteria in history.
Here are some salient point to consider :-
1) According to the US Department of Energy, Water vapour accounts for 95% of the IR (Infra-Red) absorption "greenhouse effect" of which only 0.001% can be ascribed to the activities of man. (Is anyone seriously suggesting we control water emissions ?)
2) The spectra absorbed by CO2 are fully saturated (this means that all the available energy is already absorbed) - doubling the CO2 level will hardly make any difference.
3) CO2 absorption spectra are only about 8% of the total IR energy spectrum and less than 3% of total solar insolation of which less than 1% is available to CO2 because of redundant overlap with the absorption properties of water vapour.
4) That historically CO2 increases after temperatures increase - it is a result not a cause - this is clear in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change - under the auspices of the UN) report which disingenuously presents the data in reverse order so that it appears to be causal.
5) Studies written by numerous Emeritus Professors have stated that Planet Earth naturally puts out 196 BILLION tons of CO2 p.a.- human beings are responsible for approx 8 Billion tons.
6) That solar output variations more closely correlate to global and polar air temperature variations than does CO2.
7) CO2 correlates very precicely to sea temperature - CO2 is a result of warming oceans - it is not the cause.
8) The Oceans contain over fifty times (50 x) the CO2 in the atmosphere - the only thing keeping it there is temperature - if the seas warm they liberate vast amounts of CO2
9) The Oceans absorb 95% of the solar radiation that reaches it - Ocean warming is almost entirely a function of solar output.
10) The effects of global warming have been observed by NASA on Mars, Jupiter and elsewhere in our solar system - the only logical cause can be solar output.
11) Sea levels are not rising significantly when measured by the sidereal (astronomical time) rotation of the Earth.
12) Of the two approaches "Theoretical Modeling" and "Observational Science" only the theoretical modeling supports the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. A model unsupported by observation should be discarded.
13) The "Smoking Gun" of the global warming hypothesis is a predicted hot spot in the upper troposphere - has not been found despite intense and ongoing searching.
14) The AGW models also predict Stratospheric cooling - that hasn't been found either.
15) The AGW models require a process known as "radiative forcing" which in turn requires a reduction in outgoing radiation as the Earth's temperature increaces - this is contrary to the laws of physics & thermodynamics and the ERBS (Energy Radiation Budget Experiment) satellite sent up to look for it did not find it.
It did find that normal physics prevail and the radiation increaces with temperature. So the convoluted logic of "radiative forcing" is proven false.
16) That temperatures have fluctuated higher and faster in the past (twice within the last 2000 years alone) than current observed changes.
17) There is no evidence in the historical records to support the assumptions that the current climate is "normal" or that the rates of change are "abnormal".
18) CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" in that it absorbs infra-red. There is however no proof - NONE WHATSOEVER - that this is causing the current warming. This is merely an unproven assertion of the AGW hypothesis.
19) The "Greenhouse Effect" as applied to greenhouses relies on the prevention of convection rather than the "trapping" of Infra Red (IR ) radiation. This IR trapping model is false and originated in some 19th century hypotheses which were debunked over 100 years ago.
The "Greenhouse" is not a good analogue for the way our atmosphere behaves.
20) CO2 has throughout paleological history been higher than present (it has only been this low for the last 650 000 years and briefly again during the Carboniferous period).
21) CO2 is the building block of all life on earth. Photosynthesis stops at 100ppm the current 380ppm could be considered dangerously low for life that evolved in 1000-1200ppm environments.
22) The "Overwhelming Evidence" of warming is based on terrestrial weather stations which have been corrupted by the Urban Heat island Effect (UHI) and distinctly skewed towards the "hot" side by an unintentional bias introduced by station elimination, calibration and relocation.
The trerrestrial data does not correspond to the satellite data which shows only a slight warming trend + 0.1°C by 2000 which has since been lost to a recent cooling trend.
23) CO2 from burning fossil fuels is only 4% of the total CO2 liberated to atmosphere - even the 5% propounded by alarmists is insufficient for us to conclude that we can "Control" climate through the reduction of this one tiny variable. (even if CO2 is responsible for the warming - which it isn't.)
24) From the above - If CO2 is only 5% of the emmissions and can absorb only 3% of solar insolation - then even ignoring the fact that this 3% insolation is already 99.999% absorbed and two thirds of it are taken up by water vapour- these two combine to suggest that mans emmissions count for a maximum variable of only 0.15% (at best - in total - more realistically 0.0000005% allowing for current IR saturation and spectral overlap).
To suggest that we can use this insignificant amount to "control" the climate simply beggars belief.
25) CO2 is not increacing in the atmosphere pro-rata to our emmissions. In fact some 80% of our emmissions "disappear". Something is acting as a sink - evidence suggests that nature responds to more CO2 by using more CO2.
26) The AGW hypothesis is circular reasoning. The hypothesis predicts that the warming is caused by mans emmissions and then cite the warming as "proof". You cannot use the premise of a hypothesis to prove the hypothesis.
By such logic any hypothesis is true.
27) The IPCC's models ignore variation in solar output (insolation), water vapour & cloud cover by treating them as constants which they are not. Statistically this means they have no influence on the model outcome and could effectively be ommitted. Thus the IPCC's models ignore 99.9% of the things that actually drive the climate.
28) Constructing a mathematical climate change model which only has man's inputs as variables will unsurprisingly find that man is the prime mover of climate change. Indeed no other outcome is possible.
29) No credible evidence has yet been found that increaced CO2 is harmful to life - quite the opposite. Alarmist fears of CO2 ocean acidification and the like are simply bad science.
30) There is no "concensus" amongst scientists - this is propaganda intended to stifle debate. Thousands of respected scientists do not agree with AGW.
31) Currently temperatures have been falling (since 1998) whatever evidence there was of warming has been more or less been reversed by what appears to be natural cyclicality in the system. The upslope in temperatures between 1970 - 2000 can be seen as part of the "big picture" but in selectively looking only at this period one can easilly be alarmed.
As I said in a previous post - don't believe me - do your own reasearch - but please check both sides.
Pro-AGW papers and articles are extremely convincing - but if you look up the rebuttal position you will (I belive) find the AGW position is either grossly overexaggerated or completely false.
Ken
Here are some salient point to consider :-
1) According to the US Department of Energy, Water vapour accounts for 95% of the IR (Infra-Red) absorption "greenhouse effect" of which only 0.001% can be ascribed to the activities of man. (Is anyone seriously suggesting we control water emissions ?)
2) The spectra absorbed by CO2 are fully saturated (this means that all the available energy is already absorbed) - doubling the CO2 level will hardly make any difference.
3) CO2 absorption spectra are only about 8% of the total IR energy spectrum and less than 3% of total solar insolation of which less than 1% is available to CO2 because of redundant overlap with the absorption properties of water vapour.
4) That historically CO2 increases after temperatures increase - it is a result not a cause - this is clear in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change - under the auspices of the UN) report which disingenuously presents the data in reverse order so that it appears to be causal.
5) Studies written by numerous Emeritus Professors have stated that Planet Earth naturally puts out 196 BILLION tons of CO2 p.a.- human beings are responsible for approx 8 Billion tons.
6) That solar output variations more closely correlate to global and polar air temperature variations than does CO2.
7) CO2 correlates very precicely to sea temperature - CO2 is a result of warming oceans - it is not the cause.
8) The Oceans contain over fifty times (50 x) the CO2 in the atmosphere - the only thing keeping it there is temperature - if the seas warm they liberate vast amounts of CO2
9) The Oceans absorb 95% of the solar radiation that reaches it - Ocean warming is almost entirely a function of solar output.
10) The effects of global warming have been observed by NASA on Mars, Jupiter and elsewhere in our solar system - the only logical cause can be solar output.
11) Sea levels are not rising significantly when measured by the sidereal (astronomical time) rotation of the Earth.
12) Of the two approaches "Theoretical Modeling" and "Observational Science" only the theoretical modeling supports the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. A model unsupported by observation should be discarded.
13) The "Smoking Gun" of the global warming hypothesis is a predicted hot spot in the upper troposphere - has not been found despite intense and ongoing searching.
14) The AGW models also predict Stratospheric cooling - that hasn't been found either.
15) The AGW models require a process known as "radiative forcing" which in turn requires a reduction in outgoing radiation as the Earth's temperature increaces - this is contrary to the laws of physics & thermodynamics and the ERBS (Energy Radiation Budget Experiment) satellite sent up to look for it did not find it.
It did find that normal physics prevail and the radiation increaces with temperature. So the convoluted logic of "radiative forcing" is proven false.
16) That temperatures have fluctuated higher and faster in the past (twice within the last 2000 years alone) than current observed changes.
17) There is no evidence in the historical records to support the assumptions that the current climate is "normal" or that the rates of change are "abnormal".
18) CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" in that it absorbs infra-red. There is however no proof - NONE WHATSOEVER - that this is causing the current warming. This is merely an unproven assertion of the AGW hypothesis.
19) The "Greenhouse Effect" as applied to greenhouses relies on the prevention of convection rather than the "trapping" of Infra Red (IR ) radiation. This IR trapping model is false and originated in some 19th century hypotheses which were debunked over 100 years ago.
The "Greenhouse" is not a good analogue for the way our atmosphere behaves.
20) CO2 has throughout paleological history been higher than present (it has only been this low for the last 650 000 years and briefly again during the Carboniferous period).
21) CO2 is the building block of all life on earth. Photosynthesis stops at 100ppm the current 380ppm could be considered dangerously low for life that evolved in 1000-1200ppm environments.
22) The "Overwhelming Evidence" of warming is based on terrestrial weather stations which have been corrupted by the Urban Heat island Effect (UHI) and distinctly skewed towards the "hot" side by an unintentional bias introduced by station elimination, calibration and relocation.
The trerrestrial data does not correspond to the satellite data which shows only a slight warming trend + 0.1°C by 2000 which has since been lost to a recent cooling trend.
23) CO2 from burning fossil fuels is only 4% of the total CO2 liberated to atmosphere - even the 5% propounded by alarmists is insufficient for us to conclude that we can "Control" climate through the reduction of this one tiny variable. (even if CO2 is responsible for the warming - which it isn't.)
24) From the above - If CO2 is only 5% of the emmissions and can absorb only 3% of solar insolation - then even ignoring the fact that this 3% insolation is already 99.999% absorbed and two thirds of it are taken up by water vapour- these two combine to suggest that mans emmissions count for a maximum variable of only 0.15% (at best - in total - more realistically 0.0000005% allowing for current IR saturation and spectral overlap).
To suggest that we can use this insignificant amount to "control" the climate simply beggars belief.
25) CO2 is not increacing in the atmosphere pro-rata to our emmissions. In fact some 80% of our emmissions "disappear". Something is acting as a sink - evidence suggests that nature responds to more CO2 by using more CO2.
26) The AGW hypothesis is circular reasoning. The hypothesis predicts that the warming is caused by mans emmissions and then cite the warming as "proof". You cannot use the premise of a hypothesis to prove the hypothesis.
By such logic any hypothesis is true.
27) The IPCC's models ignore variation in solar output (insolation), water vapour & cloud cover by treating them as constants which they are not. Statistically this means they have no influence on the model outcome and could effectively be ommitted. Thus the IPCC's models ignore 99.9% of the things that actually drive the climate.
28) Constructing a mathematical climate change model which only has man's inputs as variables will unsurprisingly find that man is the prime mover of climate change. Indeed no other outcome is possible.
29) No credible evidence has yet been found that increaced CO2 is harmful to life - quite the opposite. Alarmist fears of CO2 ocean acidification and the like are simply bad science.
30) There is no "concensus" amongst scientists - this is propaganda intended to stifle debate. Thousands of respected scientists do not agree with AGW.
31) Currently temperatures have been falling (since 1998) whatever evidence there was of warming has been more or less been reversed by what appears to be natural cyclicality in the system. The upslope in temperatures between 1970 - 2000 can be seen as part of the "big picture" but in selectively looking only at this period one can easilly be alarmed.
As I said in a previous post - don't believe me - do your own reasearch - but please check both sides.
Pro-AGW papers and articles are extremely convincing - but if you look up the rebuttal position you will (I belive) find the AGW position is either grossly overexaggerated or completely false.
Ken
