There was an error in this gadget

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

More Global Warming, Cooling, Whatever

"NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can't tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data."

Considering the now totally discredited "evidence" for "global warming", one would have to be a really, really true believer to have any confidence whatsoever left in this hokem "theory".

But then I think it always was a matter of faith and hysteria. These sorts of scares happen all the time in history and are usually so embarrassing that once they're over, everyone wants to forget about them. As a result, we forget to be careful about the next one as well. The new ice age didn't happen, the ozone layer must have fixed itself, and I predict that in a couple years you won't be able to find anybody that admits to "believing" in "global warming". (HT: Instapundit)

4 comments:

Max Weismann said...

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant or a greenhouse gas. It is a wholesome, naturally occurring, colorless and odorless gas. In fact, if carbon dioxide suddenly disappeared, at least 99% of the species on earth, including man, would die. Without carbon dioxide, there would be no photosynthesis of green plants, and without photosynthesis, we would have no oxygen to breathe and no food to eat.

Chemists tell us that carbon dioxide molecules retain heat a bit longer than does the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the air. Chemists also tell us that if you combine gasses of different temperature, convection currents will equalize the temperature of the gas molecules. As the air cools during the night, the temperature of the nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules equalize. Therefore, the amount of heat released from the atmosphere into outer space during a twenty four hour cycle would be the same for nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide. Affect on global warming — zero.

Where does carbon dioxide gas in the air come from? 1) Oxidation of living and dead plant and animal life, 2) Volcanoes, and 3) Forest fires. The amount of carbon dioxide coming from industry is immaterial in comparison to these three sources.

Is the earth warming? Yes, the earth is recovering from the "Little Ice Age." We have enjoyed two centuries of intermittent recovery from the bitter cold which the American Founding Fathers suffered through. However, the warming earth has not yet reached the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period. Northern Europe enjoyed bumper crops during the Medieval Warm Period, the population tripled and European civilization revived. Europe had suffering a Dark Age during a time of cooling but civilization revived late in the subsequent warming phase. When a new cycle of global cooling began in the fourteenth century, the mild, relatively stable weather of Europe during the Medieval Warm Period gave way to fierce storms, flooding and famine.

Glenn Knight said...

Human feces is not a pollutant or a public health problem. It is a wholesome, naturally occurring, brown (and somewhat varicolored), odiferous semi-solid. Since it occurs naturally, it must be good for us. It is even useful for fertilizing crops.

Someone once pointed out that a weed is a plant which happens to be in a place where you don't want it to be. Similarly, everything you say about carbon dioxide is true, except for your conclusion. The problem with carbon dioxide is that, in excessive quantities it is an greenhouse gas, and it contributes to an increase in the average temperature of the earth.

Your entire statement about the equalization of the temperature of the various gasses is irrelevant. Global warming isn't a matter of carbon dioxide being hotter than other gasses. It is a matter of carbon dioxide not being as transparent to reflected sunlight as other gasses. Moreover, this entire question is physical, and not chemical.

Agim Zabeli said...

Glenn:

You make a valid point. All that is 'natural' is not necessarily good. This is obvious to anyone with intelligence, experience in real life, and a basic understanding of logic.

But I believe you then - after making a valid point - commit the standard AGW mistake of believing speculation to be fact. There is no "proof" that variations in the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere have "caused" warming. The scandal about temperature data shows that no one has shown real evidence ot such a cause/effect relationship, let alone "proved" it. Max also makes an excellent point that CO2 is both naturally occurring and necessary to life on the planet. The proposition that it might be as dangerous as shit (literally) is a bold enough claim that the burden of proof should be quite high, has not been met, and indeed seems to have been faked by people that claim to be doing "scientific" work.

Glenn Knight said...

Agim, you caught me again! David Hume showed that we can never prove causation, because causes are always and only imputed. We can only show constant connection, and, even so, the best correlations are subject to multiple interpretations.

As to whether the evidence shows that there has been such a constant connection between man-made CO2 and global temperature change is not, I think, in much doubt. There is certainly a relationship there. The causative nature of that relationship may be a matter of interpretation, but it's hard to see how global warming could cause an increase in CO2 emissions; I would think that the reverse would be the case.

And that leads me the "scandal," "climategate," the "faking" of data. I will say that some of the researchers involved appear to have been a little too ready to suppress contrary opinions. But there is no evidence whatever that anyone concocted data, suppressed data, or deliberately distorted data.

Some time ago, I wrote a long post on the subject of global warming, in which I pointed out that, in my opinion, we lacked a sufficient timespan of consistently collected data to be sure of anything. I still think that, but I might note, as the Economist does, that the very doubt as to the magnitude of climate effects behooves us to take out some insurance by taking action against what may be a literal "sea of troubles."