What initially troubled me, years ago, was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which had been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused(!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks "Climategate" to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW "cause" has taken on a life of its own.
Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc - after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up, given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide, that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.
In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument for impending worldwide disaster as it applies to carbon dioxide is untrue. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.
I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand "Progressive" ideologues and others with statist philosophies; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations when drawing conclusions.
Please feel free to copy these essays and post them wherever you think it will do some good. The more people have a chance to read and consider these facts, the better.
5 comments:
Muito legal seus comentários, difícil encontrar na internet pessoas com a cabeça aberta para esses assuntos..a maioria não questiona.
Um ponto muito interessante além das industrias e do controle total dos governos nesta questão entra também em parte o benefício social onde todos estariam preocupados em fazer o bem ao planeta e também em consequência ao próximo e seria eliminado a questão do consumo desenfreado que deixa em escassez certas regiões do planeta.
Claro que por mais produtiva que uma região seja é necessário que se encontre meios de que se chegue aqueles que estão famintos, mas só é possível com todos interessados agindo com um mesmo propósito de ajuda mútua não de concorrência competitiva.
Observação não sou comunista, acredito nas livres iniciativas e nas liberdades individuais, entendo que se um país produz mais é porque seu habitantes se preocupam mais com esta questão ao invés das zonas escaças que muitas vezes só pensam em destruir a propriedade alheia.
Harold, tell me why the temperature of the Earth is rising.
Mr. Kamburoff, I have. Read it again.
W.Jackson Davis lists Gavin Foster (2017) as the source of the estimated CO2 levels over 420 Mya. Being a competent researcher actually working in the field, his conclusions are quite different, and his research takes into account many things that Davis ignored (such as the Faint Young Sun paradox, in which the sun has been getting hotter, even as CO2 levels trend downward.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845
Abstract
"...The evolution of Earth’s climate on geological timescales is largely driven by variations in the magnitude of total solar irradiance (TSI) and changes in the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere.
"...Here we show that the slow ∼50 Wm−2 increase in TSI over the last ∼420 million years (an increase of ∼9 Wm−2 of radiative forcing) was almost completely negated by a long-term decline in atmospheric CO2. This was likely due to the silicate weathering-negative feedback and the expansion of land plants that together ensured Earth’s long-term habitability.
"...Humanity’s fossil-fuel use, if unabated, risks taking us, by the middle of the twenty-first century, to values of CO2 not seen since the early Eocene (50 million years ago). If CO2 continues to rise further into the twenty-third century, then the associated large increase in radiative forcing, and how the Earth system would respond, would likely be without geological precedent in the last half a billion years.
Dear Anonymous posting about the Davis chart Feb.m26 2023:
Thank you for your comments. I used the Davis chart because it was the. most complete assembly of temperature and CO2 concentrations over geological time I could find and was not at all concerned abut what he concluded, aside from the accuracy of his mathematical analysis of the data points, which you are not disputing.
For my purpose here, it was sufficient to point out that current values for temperature and CO2 levels are near the low end of the range reported throughout the Phanerozoic Eon, and that to account for the data there have to be other factors at work providing a significant effect. Solar luminosity certainly appears to be one of them, at least at this scale, and it is stating the obvious to point out that if you have two (or more0 factors significantly affecting RF in the relation a+b=RF, then changing factor a will also change the relationship b=RF.
Change in luminosity is estimated at 1 degree Celsius ;per 100 million years, significant at that time scale. But at the time scale of the next 200 years, by the 23rd Century, that would amount to 0.002 Celsius, which is not significant. For time periods of mere centuries, it going forward, it seems the saturation level of CO2 nearing 100% is the major factor limiting the further contribution of CO2 to RF unless and until other factors make a significant increase in radiation from the earth. (The same goes for methane, even more emphatically than for CO2, by the way.) Is it possible Gavin Foster overlooked that?
Post a Comment