Climate Change: Debatable

13 05 2009

iceberg_melting2

After all the media time dedicated to Global Warming and the new proposals to stop such apparent threat, little is often heard about voices that have tried to explain logical inconsistencies inside the IPCC Man-made Global Warming theory. This is why Eco Wanderer wishes to present its readers with the other side of the argument, and ultimately let the readers make their own logical conclusions from analysis of the information.

The article will now present 4 pertinent arguments that point out inconsistencies in the current widely accepted theory that Man is responsible for the increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation.

1. Consensus

The notion that “debate time is over” and that we should base our opinions on the opinions of scientists without readers looking at the data themselves is not only unscientific but misleading.

This is why, when it comes to science, the debate is never over, especially because in this particular case, there is no actual unanimous consensus over the theory.

List of Scientist opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of Global Warming

A parallel between climate science and meteorology can also be drawn. Consider that for meteorologists to predict the weather (which they cannot predict with over 99% certainty) they only take into account 5 factors: temperature, air, pressure, water vapor and the gradients and interactions of each variable, and how they change in time. Climate science has to take into account a lot more variables, such as: atmospheric boundary layer, circulation patterns, heat transfer (radiative, convective and latent), interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans and land surface (particularly vegetation, land use and topography), and the chemical and physical composition of the atmosphere. This is why many scientists are skeptic when stating that they are 100% sure their predictions are accurate or even mildly accurate.

2.Relation Between CO2 and Climate Change

Information of ice core is often cited as the main proof that CO2 is the gas that drives earth’s climate in the greenhouse effect.

However, the ice core information doesn’t show that CO2 changes climate. Instead it shows, very clearly, that variations in temperature precede rises in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 – and not otherwise. Sometimes the two phenomena are set appart by several thousands of years of difference.

Imagem1Imagem2

It is observable that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased due to the increase in industry

Imagem3

In the above graphic, which is the same graphic presented by Al Gore in his Inconvenient Truth, and by turning our attention to a specific date, such as 130 000 years-100 000 years, we see temperature droping while the concentration of CO2 remains the approximately constant, instead of leading the way.

Such modest difference could seem trivial at first glace, but it needs to be remembered that the scale of the graphic is very large, which means any trivial difference such as this occurred over tenths of thousands of years.

Imagem4

The well known “Hockey Stick” theory graphic has also been dismissed due to incorrect data. It is common knowledge for geologists that the earth has gone through many wide temperature differences throughout its history. This graphic helps understand that the earth itself undergoes natural ciclical temperature differences and that it does not tend to stability at any point.

However, we can see another inconsistency closest to our current days:

Imagem6Imagem5Instrumental_Temperature_Record

From these 3 graphs it is worth noticing the time frame between 1940 and 1970, where the use of fossil fuels continued to increase exponentially (and consequently, the increase in concentration of CO2), yet where there was a consecutive period of 30 years where the temperature declined, giving rise to Ice age scares.

3. CO2 Greenhouse Effect

Normally we hear of CO2 (and CH4) as the only relevant Greenhouse Gas. In fact, there is a far more common Greenhouse Gas: Water Vapor

Imagem7

This is why it is important to factor water vapor when doing calculations on the greenhouse effect.

Imagem8Imagem9

Role of atmospheric greenhouse gases (both natural and anthropogenic) as a relative percentage of their contribution to the “greenhouse effect”

Water Vapor, the most relevant greenhouse gas, is accountable for approximately 95% of the greenhouse effect. Among climatologists this is common knowledge, but among certain interest groups, governmental groups or news reporters such fact is not mentioned and ends up ignored.

Imagem10

Even by comparing the other 5% of greenhouse gases, we can see that the percentage of human contribution is very small compared to other sources, in the case of CO2, such as naturally degrading organic materials, volcano eruptions, etc

gases

To finish up the math, by calculating the adjusted contribution product of CO2 to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and the percentage of concentration derived from anthropogenic activities (3.225%) we see that (0.03618×0.03225) or 0.117% of greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 derived from human activity. Other greenhouse gases contribution is displayed below.

For those interested, the formula that was used was:

(concentration) X (the appropriate GWP multiplier of each gas relative to CO2) = greenhouse contribution.

Imagem11

4.Live Climate Change

Global warming is expected to cause changes in the overall distribution and intensity of specific weather events. Some people, like Al Gore, state that those changes are already visible, in cases of occurrence of snow storms and hurricanes.

Imagem14Imagem15

Imagem16Imagem17

Such trend is not visible for now.

So there you have it, a different look at Global warming.

For those interested at the source of many arguments against the theory of man-made global warming, please visit the following websites:

http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm

http://www.junkscience.com/

Advertisements

Actions

Information

6 responses

8 01 2010
comdenom

This is a good looking blog! Great and just argument, I wish your graphs were a little larger for readability but thanks for taking the time to put this together. I also have a different perspective with a scientifically proven fix in a post titled “Oh C’mon…please” found at http://comdenom.wordpress.com I hope you read it.

8 01 2010
hayenmill

@comdenom: I’m glad you like it. If you have difficulty on reading some of the graphs, just click on them and it will link you to larger versions of them. I’ll check out your post as well.

10 01 2010
comdenom

Hey, that works better…thanks!

20 01 2010
theenvirokid

I love good science, and we all know Al Gore is notorious for his lack thereof, so one is correct in not taking his info seriously, but I would like to make a comment of your data you chose to display. Water vapor is indeed a crucial greenhouse gas, but it has a special weapon that we like. Water vapor collects to form clouds which are responsible for a considerable amount of solar energy deflection in the troposphere, thus lowering the heating trend so many scientists claim is occuring. It’s these kinds of arguments that always seem to have a different meaning that is not supposed to come out that frustrates me. Many of the scientist that say global climate change is not influenced by man tend to have nothing to lose in their careers and/or are not quite qualified to give such a bold conclusion. And even if man has no influence at all, wouldn’t you agree that all of our CO2 contributing activities have harmful effects on people/ecosystems? Look at that spike in asthma in the past few decades. That sounds like an issue that needs to be resolved, regardless. Thank you for taking the time to post these numbers, I appreciate it.

20 01 2010
hayenmill

@theenvirokid:

rise in CO2 does not necessarily imply global warming.

The very modest increase in global temperature predicted for a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 is about one degree Celsius. This extra energy is available to evaporate more water. But think about the evaporation cycle. When water evaporates it takes latent heat from the surface which results in a cooling of that surface. The water vapor raises to the cloud tops where it condenses out to form clouds. Condensing water vapor releases latent energy which now being above most of the atmosphere (and above almost all of the water vapor which is the dominate greenhouse gas) is largely radiated back out into space as outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).

The AGW crowd would have you believe that the atmosphere retains that moisture, that is that the relative humidity will stay constant instead of raining out to keep the global greenhouse factor constant as required by the energy minimum principle. What warrant do they have to make that claim?

We have no where near doubled the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. The natural variability in year-to-year rain/snow patterns is so great that it would be next to impossible to isolate any increase in participation due to increased CO2 out of the data. But, then again, I haven’t tried to do so either.

See natural variability here: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=1&ui_sort=0

Anyway, the whole focus of my post is to try to shift all of this unnecessary attention of global warming to more difficult problems which do need our focus, like land and sea pollution, for example.

20 01 2010
theenvirokid

I never made any rebuttal to your beloved claims of CO2 increase and its effect on global temperature. I said the human activities that release CO2 as a waste product are directly responsible for the introduction of other more harmful chemicals into the air we breathe. And quite frankly these scientific reports from either side of the debate aren’t accurate and how could they be? The world is massive, and no ice sample is going to give you the kind of info that you want them to. There are too many variables. The point is that people don’t care about the North Pacific trash gyre, they don’t care about land fills. They care about their wallets and their gas tank. When you get people to stop consuming so much (and think that they’re saving the planet) then those other problems can begin to get better. Like I said, there’s always an alternative motive for what politicians want you to think, and in the case of global climate change, it is beneficial to us as a nation, both environmentally and economically-speaking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: