Global Warming and CO2 Revisited

The August 8th article discussed the historical reasons why I do not believe CO2 is the cause of “anthropogenic global warming”.

Not being a climate scientist, I have avoided reciting complex information published by numerous climate scientists and meteorologists. Much of the published information is complex and difficult to explain.

There are some scientific facts, however, that can be easily communicated, and it’s probably worth citing them as additional reasons for why CO2 is not playing any significant role in “anthropogenic global warming”.

One of these is that there has been no rise in global temperatures for at least ten years – and possibly fifteen years. The 1998 El Nino and the El Nino this year have been the only years showing temperature spikes.

It’s also worth remembering that the temperature rise since 1850 has only been about 1.4 deg F or 0.8 deg C, and that there have been other periods in the 1900s when temperatures declined for a decade or more. Atmospheric CO2 has risen steadily while temperatures have risen in fits and starts, which seem to indicate there isn’t a direct linkage between CO2 and temperatures – or at least, that other natural forces hold greater sway over climate.

Professor Lindzen (MIT), when testifying at a House committee hearing pointed out that the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures are not linear, but exponential.  He said, “A doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce a warming of about 1 deg C, which means that atmospheric concentrations would have to rise to 2160 (parts per million) ppm from the preindustrial level of 270 ppm, for temperatures to rise by 3 deg C from temperatures in the mid 1800s, or to rise by 2 deg C from today.”

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated that a 2 deg C rise in temperatures from today would be the threshold for when serious adverse consequences would come from “anthropogenic global warming”. But this is mere speculation and there may not be any severe consequences from a temperature rise of 2 deg C.

The recent annual growth rate of atmospheric CO2 has been just under 2 ppm.

CO2 atmospheric levels today are about 390 ppm, so with a 2 ppm annual growth rate, it would require around eight hundred years before reaching 2160 ppm, the supposed threshold for dire consequences.

The hoopla surrounding “global warming” has been caused by computer programs rather than science. GIGO, garbage in garbage out, is a reality when it comes to using computer programs to predict the future.

When computer program forecasts are compared to actual temperatures over the past few decades, none of the computer programs have been able to predict what actually happened. If they can’t replicate what happened over the past few decades, they certainly shouldn’t be relied on to predict the next hundred years.

Dr. David Douglass, Professor of Physics at Rochester University in upper New York State, published research that established a serious discrepancy between the IPCC’s model-based predictions and the observed reality.

The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report predicted that, if and only if Man’s greenhouse-gas emissions were to blame for “global warming”, the tropical upper air would warm two or three times faster than at the surface.

Satellite temperature readings of the atmosphere at the equator show that temperatures have not risen.

The first picture shows what computer models have predicted for temperature rise over the equator if CO2 caused “global warming”.

The second picture shows that actual temperatures over the equator have not increased, which demonstrates that CO2 is not causing “global warming”.

High Temps over Equator
Computer Forecast Temperatures

 

No Temp Rise over Equator
Satellite Shows No Temp Rise

Energy policies shouldn’t be distorted because of CO2 emissions.

Our economy needs to use fossil fuels, as do the economies of developing countries.

Our living standards depend on inexpensive energy. Eliminating poverty around the world also depends on inexpensive energy.

*  *  *  *  *

[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]

© Power America, 2010 – 2011. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power America with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

0 Replies to “Global Warming and CO2 Revisited”

  1. I am not a climate scientist either. But I wouldn’t think of publishing a blog with various scientifically researched pieces of information and call them “easily communicated scientific facts”.

    What made you think of doing this? I suspect you have judged the increase in labor and other natural resources (and who makes and receives payment for these items) required to produce energy of some preconceived acceptable quantity without burning ancient natural carbon deposits would produce a negative trend in the progress of worldwide human civilization. Is that it? What’s you evidence of this?

    What makes you so insistent on the fact that power MUST be garnered at the lowest possible cost in order for human kind to progress? Labor is furnished by workers in a free and open market to US employers at orders of magnitude more expense than the whole world’s employers on average, but the country leads the world in progress. Progress has actually slowed since the labor costs have leveled over the last three decades, infant mortality, education level and retirement security have all suffered while we bargained down the price we pay to have others do stuff for us. If it makes economic sense for a factory to pay more than they used to and put solar PV panels on their roof after fossil fuel prices rise, doesn’t that have the potential to actually increase total production?

    I also don’t understand your logic of not relying on scientific predictions of bad outcomes because they aren’t as accurate as everyone would like. When the actual outcome of an action is unknown, how is the uncertainty about the outcome justification for continuing the action unchecked? Doesn’t the uncertainty itself demand prudence and restraint of the action until certainty is improved?

  2. Sorry for my delay in responding, but I have been out of the country.
    Facts are facts and it’s up to individuals to determine what to make of them.
    The facts cited in my article support the contention that CO2 isn’t causing global warming. If you have contradictory facts then send them to me. The IPCC report by itself is not a fact, as it has been largely supplanted by the NIPCC report.
    With respect to the cost of energy, I stand by my comment that human progress has been achieved as the result of low cost, widely available energy. I also stand by my comment that underdeveloped countries need low cost abundant energy to eliminate poverty.

Leave a Reply