Global Warming and Climate Change:
The Skeptics Continue to Gain Strength
The Skeptics Continue to Gain Strength
It is amazing/revealing that so many scientists who once accepted the claims that human discharge of C02 into the atmosphere is causing global warming have changed their minds. From the Adam Smith Blog,
A new 'Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change' was initiated stating "that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life." Senator Inhofe’s register, put together by the USA Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, already contains more than 500 scientists who previously endorsed the IPCC views but have meanwhile changed their mind. The sceptics have reached a consensus on four key points:And let me add that even if those who disagree with the skeptics are correct, it might be cheaper and more efficient to deal with the effects of global warming rather than try to stop it.
1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.
Contrary to expectations the media coverage was excellent – that’s the new momentum.
Category: Economics, Global Warming Posted on
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 1:25am
<< main
1. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased over time. Temperatures have increased over time. The two are related. Since we know from laboratory experiments that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (air with higher concentrations of it retain more heat than air with lower concentrations of it), it's considered to be the causal factor behind temperature increases. This portion of global warming accounts for about 1 degree of warming in the next 50-100 years.
2. Once temperatures increase, there's a positive feedback effect from water vapor in the atmosphere, which amplifies the greenhouse effect. This portion of global warming accounts for 2-4 degrees of warming in the next 50-100 years.
If you watch the debate really closely, you'll see that the proponents of global warming really push the first part, and give really short attention to the second part, even though it would be responsible for the bulk of any future temperature increase. There's a reason for that - the science to date tends to support the first element, but not so much the second, although I believe one of your colleagues at Guelph recently demonstrated that perhaps half the measured warming to date is likely the result of socioeconomic factors (such as urban heat-island encroachment on temperature measuring stations), rather than real climate-driven factors.
The big problem with the second point is that it's flies against how nature tends to work. Nature is filled with processes and cycles that demonstrate a negative feedback effect (diminishing returns with increased inputs, if you will) while natural processes that involve positive feedback loops are truly exceptional and rare. I would think that if one were really inclined to use science to either demonstrate that the computer models supporting global warming are accurate or not, that would be a good place to begin.