To believe or not to believe

I find the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis to be not believable for a number of reasons:

When I first heard about it, I was flying over the American Southwest several miles high in an airliner looking down on hundreds of square miles of empty desert and barren mountains. Shortly before, I had flown over the North Atlantic Ocean to St. Petersburg, and spent a week traveling in sparsely occupied Russia, after which I flew back to the United States over the Arctic Ocean and the icy wastelands of Canada. I thought about how thinly the earth is populated in proportion to the size of the atmosphere which encompasses the entire globe and is miles in depth; if all seven billion people were spread evenly on the surface of the planet, there would be about thirty-five in each square mile and fewer still in each cubic mile of atmosphere. It is said that less than five percent of the earth’s surface is occupied by humans, and the percentage occupied by industrialized, high CO2 producing humans must be far less than five percent. I tried to visualize how this ‘monkey on an elephant’s back’ group of homo-sapiens could impact the climate of the entire earth. I could not.

Then I did some research on the supposed climate culprit, Carbon Dioxide. It turns out that CO2 is only four one-hundredth of one percent of the atmosphere, or four molecules in each ten-thousand. Further, of all the CO2 produced per annum, and absorbed by the atmosphere, humans are only contributing three or four percent. This means that about one molecule in each eighty-five thousand of atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide that was produced by the activities of man. One part in eighty-five thousand might be significant in a biological context, but we’re talking about thermodynamics. The energy it takes to raise the entire earth’s temperature by one degree, necessarily including the oceans, is barely imaginable, certainly far more than could be captured by this thin trace of Carbon Dioxide except over millions of years. My sense of proportion will not accept the assertion that manmade Carbon Dioxide is driving the earth’s climate into runaway global disaster.

Next, I considered Paleoclimate. For more than two million years, the earth’s climate has been cycling between the current human friendly temperatures that we now enjoy and glaciated periods when much of the Northern Hemisphere is covered in ice thousands of feet thick. These cycles are one hundred thousand years in length, with ten or twelve thousand years warm and eighty thousand years cold. All this pre-industrial, of course. Clearly, there are far more powerful forces driving the climate than manmade Carbon Dioxide.

I do not contend that any of the above is based on hard, tested, or settled scientifically determined facts or that any of it will rise to the level of accepted Scientific Theory, but neither does the MAN MADE CATASTROFIC GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE MOVEMENT present hard, tested, or settled scientifically determined facts to support their contentions. Instead, they have resorted to computer based General Circulation Models as the principal support for their so called “SETTLED SCIENCE”, along with the spurious claim that 97% of climate scientists agree with their dire prediction of catastrophic climate change. As one wag put it: they average all of the wrong computer model outputs and call the average output the right answer. Apparently, however, the computer models don’t know all the facts. The models are saying the temperature should keep on warming while the real world stopped warming almost two decades ago.

An interesting observation is that if the General Circulation Models had been based on the assumption that a natural rise in temperature is responsible for the increase in Carbon Dioxide concentration (which would make more intuitive sense), and all other assumptions, real world data, and mathematic logic had been the same, the computers would be confidently churning out estimates for the amount of increase in Carbon Dioxide concentration for each incremental increase in temperature.

“Climate models’ estimations of ECS are implicitly based on the assumption that the 20th century warming was caused by CO2. Therefore any assertion that the models show that the 20th century warming was caused by CO2 is invalid (circular logic).”
Mike Jonas, MA mathematics

Since we know that warming ocean water increases out gassing of Carbon Dioxide and warming air increases out gassing of naturally occurring earth bound Carbon Dioxide, why do we not conclude that natural warming is the cause of increasing Carbon Dioxide instead of the other way around? The reason why is that a naturally occurring temperature increase serves no political/environmentalist agendas. If warming is natural, there is no need to deny ourselves reasonably priced energy. If no animals are being harmed, the World Wildlife Fund is spinning its wheels. Since there is nothing we can do about a naturally rising temperature, there is no need to de-industrialize back to the stone age. No need for WORLD GOVERNMENT, and no need to amass trillions of tax dollars through so called carbon credits to support it. No need for drastic de-population. No need for wealthy fools to contribute millions to the Zero Population Growth fund, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Union of Concerned Scientists, Earth First, and all the other NGO’s that depend on Climate Change propaganda for their major funding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *