Global Insanity Over Global Warming Climate Change - The Latest Governmental Folly (updated 7/7/07)
Contrary to the propaganda you've been fed by the IPCC, Al Gore, and the dominant media, greenhouse gases in general and carbon dioxide from fossil fuels in particular are not significant contributors to climate change.
On the eve of a solar minimum that could usher in the coldest climate period since the Little Ice Age, an Associated Press story out of Washington, DC, begins:
President Bush on Thursday urged 15 major nations to agree by the end of next year on a global emissions goal for reducing greenhouse gases.
With the United States accused of dragging its feet on combatting climate change, Bush called for a meeting this fall of 15 countries identified as major emitters of greenhouse gases. This list would include the United States, China, India and major European countries.
Of all the examples of recent imprudent government action, it would be hard to top Bush's call for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (ostensibly to reduce climate warming).
If you've fallen for the message of the relentless media and political assault on sanity that the cult of "global warming" represent, then you're probably pleased that President Bush has finally joined the concerned mob who are convinced that our climate will return to "normal" if we just stop burning fossil fuels.
If so, you'd be dead wrong ... just as dead wrong as is Bush.
There is no valid scientific evidence that demonstrates carbon dioxide has any significant impact on climate change, regardless of its source.
Meanwhile, the cult behind the demonizing of the oil industry and the burning of "fossil fuels" as the cause of "global warming" has established fossil fuels as their cult's "devil" with government regulation being their god.
Their theory claims carbon dioxide from fossil fuel consumption is dramatically warming climate to the point where large portions of coastal lands will be inundated rendering tens of millions of people homeless and destroying ports around the globe. They relentlessly point to warmer temperatures over the past 100 years (conveniently failing to note the cooling trends spanning decades that are embedded within that record) and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations as "proof" that the only possible explanation for both is human activity consuming fossil fuels.
Time for a reality check, folks.
First, there is that inconvenient little problem that the IPCC, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, John Edwards, NPR, The New York Times, etc., ad nauseam, have evidently chosen to completely overlook. Carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas is a very minor contributor to the overall greenhouse warming. Clouds and water vapor are responsible for up to 95% of the greenhouse blanket effect. But even more telling is the terribly inconvenient fact illustrated by the University of Chicago's MODTRANS facility that established the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and average global temperature increase:
Chart from "Climate Outlook to 2030" by David C. Archibald
In conjunction with the temperature response established by Idso (Idso, S., 1998, CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change, Climate Research, 10, 69-82) of 0.1°C/watt/m2, this relationship reveals that the ability of atmospheric carbon dioxide to warm climate diminishes rapidly and logarithmically. This relationship has the startling effect of revealing that the first 20 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide has greater warming effect than the next 400 ppm added by any source! Each additional 20 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide has less and less impact on temperature.
Looked at another way, the following chart (from Archibald) shows the existing and potential effects of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide to influence global temperature:
The chart above clearly shows that, at any projected level of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide that would yield a total of up to 1000 ppm, the diminishing contribution of carbon dioxide to greenhouse heat retention limits potential climate warming to no more than 0.5°C!
The chart below (from Archibald) shows two important projections. The projections shown are not based on flawed computer models, but they are based on emerging scientific knowledge about the Sun as a factor in climate change coupled with the limited potential of carbon dioxde as a greenhouse heat retention agent. This chart projects near-term climate change based on anticipated future solar activity and projected anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxde.
The green line represents past and future annual average temperature from non-anthropogenic sources based on historic records and the effects of projected solar activity to 2030. The blue line is adjusted to include the anthropogenic warming. It is clear from this chart that anthropogenic warming is an insignificant factor of any past or future climate change.
The following are Archibald's conclusions concerning the impact of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on climate change:
These conclusions speak for themselves. They also demonstrate how grossly misleading contrary conclusions of the IPCC are that are based on a flawed theory that drives computer projections of future climate in a mannar designed to vastly overstate the impact of both carbon dioxide as a climate change force and, in particular, that grossly overestimates the anthropogenic component of future climate change.
Another distortion of the IPCC has to do with estimates of the impact of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on plant growth and hardiness. Doubling the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide increases plant growth and yield and provides hardier plant growth that is able to better survive stress. Yet, to listen to the IPCC and other hawkers of climate doom and gloom, you'd be misled to believe we could experience crop failures, famines, and warming in excess of 5°C by the mere act of burning fossil fuels!
Do you see how horribly you've been misled?
Still believe atmospheric carbon dioxide can significantly warm the planet? Then how about a little historic evidence, if you won't believe the science.
The geologic record of past climate (paleoclimate) reveals that over the past 500 million years, atmospheric carbon dioxide has been an order of magnitude higher than it is today (up to 16 times higher)! Over that same time span, Earth has experienced four ice eras (colder than normal climate regimes lasting 45 million to 65 million years). During the coldest of those four ice eras, 450 million years ago, Earth was a virtual snowball of ice - while atmospheric carbon dioxide was 15 times higher than it is today (about 5600 ppm)! According to the IPCC/Al Gore theory, that would have been impossible. Yet the record is clear. Oh yes, it should be noted that Earth is still in the last of those four ice eras, though the record reveals the current ice era is the mildest of the four and Earth should emerge from the current ice era in a relatively short time (within the next five million years).
Looked at over any meaningful time frame of 100 or more years, Earth's climate has never demonstrated any correlation showing atmospheric carbon dioxide as a climate change force that could support the IPCC/Gore theory that climate responds to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. In the 500+ million year geologic record described above, there is no correlation whatsoever. While not evident at the scale of the chart below, over the more recent 400 thousand year record revealed by the Vostok ice core data from Antarctica (and confirmed for lesser periods by Greenland ice core data), atmospheric carbon dioxide has been shown to correlate only as a response to climate changes with a lag of 200-1000 years! The lag in the response of atmospheric carbon dioxide to temperature change was subsequently revealed as higher resolution data analyses were performed on the data. Since then, ice core analyses going back close to one million years continue to show the same reaction of atmospheric carbon dioxide to temperature changes. The cause of this reaction and the difference in the length of lag is due to the enormous capacity of oceans to respond to atmospherice temperature changes. As temperatures cool dramatically, oceans will take longer to lose heat stored during warmer climate. Also, as more water vapor becomes frozen in ice, oceans shrink in size, thereby adding to the variability of the lag. Similarly, when climate warms dramatically, oceans will respond much more slowly. Eventually, as oceans become warmer in response to warmer climate, outgassing of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere increases dramatically.
With all this scientific evidence in this historic record and the limitations of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse warming agent, how have we reached the point where the vast majority of people, politicians, and now President Bush, have been so misled that they believe a false theory for which there is no sound scientific foundation?
Do you still believe the media are not biased? They have managed to scaremonger the public with their persistent campaign to accept as valid science a flawed theory for which there is no scientific foundation. The relentless propagandizing is found throughout the culture, even as the scientific community is becoming more and more convinced that the real "skeptics" are those who believe a fatally flawed theory which flies in the face of actual climate history and emerging scientific knowledge about the true forces that change climate (solar cycles and cosmic radiation).
Finally, consider the following scenario. Suppose scientists just discovered that Earth is about to emerge from the interglacial of an ice age cycle that has driven climate for about 15,000 years and begin another ice age cycle. This next ice age cycle is expected to be as severe as the last when mile thick glaciers of ice covered most of North America from the Arctic to about as far south as the route of Interstate 80 (further south in parts of the Midwest). Europe was covered in ice as far as northern Italy, and the UK was connected to mainland Europe, thanks to both the advancing ice and the shrinking oceans. This scenario is inevitable, but let's just suppose that climatologists have just determined that it truly is just around the corner. What could humans do to stop it?
Are you still convinced humans can change Earth's climate?
Bob Webster, a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.