The IPCC will have you believe that human produced CO2 is a significant driver of global warming, however a quick check of the facts shows that it's insignificant.
The problem with the IPCC is that it's a political org with a UN agenda. Their science is
pseudoscience and they sell it using scaremonger tactics. Even their
pseudoscience review process has been discredited see:
If we postulate that CO2 “in our lower and upper atmosphere, including its effect in the Troposphere” does have an overall uncontrolled warming effect, and given that man is responsible for approx 3% of current CO2 production, and even though this is minor, especially when compared to the normal NATURAL variation of CO2 production (approx 12%), then if that postulate is proven to be correct, it must be concluded that man does indeed add to the warming.
Proceeding with the assumption that our postulate’s true; let’s look at the magnitude of this problem. The average global surface temp for the period 1988 to 1998 rose by 0.5deg C. That’s the temp excursion that put the world in a tizzy.
Now, if we were to stop all industry/power generation/cars etc and live in the trees using bows and arrows to catch our food, then with that 3% less CO2, the average global surface temp rise for that period would have been the same +0.5degC. We simply could not detect the change given the coarseness of our measurement accuracy.
So we must conclude at the outset that the problem is miniscule.
Now, how do we prove our postulate valid?
If we were the IPCC we would find every possible piece of evidence that might prove our postulate true. That mountain of data would usually be enough to convince most people the postulate was indeed valid.
On the other hand, if we were a science org, we would exhaust every possible means of disproving our postulate. If after that process we still hadn't refuted it, then, under science rules, we can accept it as fact.
For this postulate, the IPCC relies heavily on the fact that CO2 can be proven to be a GHG using a relatively simple lab experiment. Unfortunately it’s impossible to simulate the atmosphere and all of its gasses/impurities/particles and concentrations right up to the troposphere in the lab. Hence, this in itself is not proof.
Last year we had a solar flare event that allowed NASA scientists to do measurements in the Troposphere and those measurements concluded CO2 and NO were “natural thermostats” in as much as they emitted heat to space via radiation. Here’s the article.
I
was one of many that misinterpreted this, thinking it had repercussions on CO2,
in as much as it was not only a GHG, but also provided a temperature limiting
function. We got a rebuttal from “Watts up with That“ for our efforts. Here it
is:
The point of raising this is not to show
my stupidity but to highlight the comments on this post. There are a lot of
very good points made. I’m not totally satisfied that we are wrong with our
interpretation. One suggested some gasses present (or H2O vapour) could take
the heat up into the Troposphere where it would warm the CO2 by conduction, which in turn would radiate it to space, as it did for the solar flare heat
energy.
The
most significant problem for our postulate is the last 16 years of real surface
temperature data, which indicates temperatures remain essentially flat, even
though the CO2 level continued rising. We should have more heat, so where
is it? Under the rules of real science we must deem our postulate invalid unless
we can come up with an explanation of where the additional heat has gone. I've seen IPCC articles on the possibilities but none have impressed me at all. Here
is the most even handed article I could come up with:
Note the sentence “Or, as an increasing
body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to
higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly
understood before“
Well I’ll buy that! So maybe there’s
something in our “radiation to space from CO2 in the Troposphere” theory.
Conclusion:
So does human CO2 cause global warming or not? The truth is, us humans haven't figured that out yet.
With the current inconclusive state of
climate science and our previous conclusion that it's a minuscule problem
anyhow, one has to ask; why are we panicking over this and why are we putting so
much effort and $$$ into it?
And a little PS while I have your
attention.
Things
like this don’t help the alarmist’s case at all.
So
there you have it. Now I brace for the expected degrading and demeaning remarks
from the alarmist lobby in line with their usual scaremonger tactics:
No comments:
Post a Comment