|Previous Chapter||Next Chapter|
The main reason for this move to “renewable” energy and the main purpose of the Green Energy Act, is to save the planet from our emissions of CO2. This is called Anthropic Global Warming, a.k.a Human Caused Climate Change. The IPCC and environmentalist NGO’s around the world have the Western World in a frenzy about humans changing the climate with some catastrophic future soon to come. They claim the science is settled. Just as “settled” as gravity, plate tectonics, genetics, evolution, etc.
Well, let’s dispel that myth right now. Nothing in science is ever settled. Only dogmatic positions make such claims. But isn’t gravity settled? No it’s not, not by a long shot. Let’s separate two things here because those who claim AGW is settled are deliberately confusing two entirely different things — events and mechanisms.
Gravity exists yes. When we see gravity in action that is an event. But the mechanism of how gravity works is not even known, has several theories of how it might be working, and is in no way even close to being settled. So those who claim AGW is settled like gravity is are fundamentally and logically flawed in their argument. Yes, the climate changes. We see climate events taking place. There is no question that climate changes. The mechanism of how that change happens is in no way settled, and can never be settled. But what these AGW dogmatists are doing is claiming the mechanism of AGW is settled, but using events to prove that it is. Well, if that is the case, then climatology is unique of all the sciences that can have mechanisms unquestioned and settled. The default position in AGW dogma is that humans are causing all the changes until empirical evidence of natural shows otherwise. You see it in the news every day, some weather event happens, it’s blamed on us, we are the mechanism of that event. That’s a logical fallicy.
This is completely backwards to how every other science works. In no other science is the default position of natural causation first supplanted with a human causation. Only in climate science is that done. This is why AGW is not science. It’s not following the rules of science.
Oh, but there is that consensus. Well, in science, nothing is settled by consensus. So it does not matter who says what. It does not matter who claims to be an expert. It does not matter which scientific organization endorsed what. All that counts in science is evidence — nothing more. Never, ever, let the argument from authority trump evidence.
Now let’s look at that evidence. Let’s start right at the beginning with some thoughts on CO2 emissions. Yes, there is evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing since accurate measurements were started some 100 years ago. Daily readings since the 1950s shows CO2 is clearly increasing. But is this bad? Will it have a deleterious effect on the planet? Will our planet become like Venus as some claim? No! CO2 is actually quite low now in a geological time frame. In fact, CO2 levels are the lowest in geological history. CO2 levels were as much as 20 times today some 400 million years ago.
Even as recently as 3 million years ago CO2 levels were 3 times today, — yet the planet didn’t cook. 55 million years ago CO2 levels were 4 to 5 times higher and it was the time of the great diversity of mammals. The planet was a tropical climate all the way to the poles. Greenland had palm trees then. The planet didn’t cook, life flourished! It’s periods like the one that we are in today, the rare glacial periods, that are the real killers of life.
Here are a few references on CO2’s effects:
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L21710, 5 PP., 2009
Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.
The main effect this increased CO2 has on the atmosphere is that it traps heat, hence raising the world’s temperature, or so the models claim. Yet, what isn’t acknowledged by the AGW dogmatists is that these scientists have not figured out the heat budget of the planet. So how can the models predict anything in the future if they don’t understand what is happening right now? They can’t.
Is the temperature of the planet increasing? We keep hearing in the news that it is. They keep showing us that graph of temperature going up since industrialization began. Graphs such as this.
What are they presenting in that graph of increasing temperature? Is it a measurement or a calculation (big difference)? Well, it’s the global average of the yearly mean temperatures. What is that? Well, they get the daily high and low temps for each day and average it. They then average all those averaged temperatures to get a yearly average (thus ignoring seasonal changes), they then average all the years for that location from that yearly average. Then, they average all the locations on the planet to get the global average. So, no, that graph they are showing (above) is not a measurement, but a calculation of many layers of averages. It really is quite meaningless because it lacks context.
It’s kind of like this. The average road speed in the country is 55km/hour (that’s a guess, but play along). If it was 50km/hour 20 years ago, does that mean cars are moving faster? No, that’s not true, not at all. One can have more vehicles moving on a highway going highway speeds, which increases the average, but the top speed of cars on highways is not increasing. Just more cars travelling at highway speeds. All you need to do to increase the average speed is to increase the speed limit on a road that once had a school that is now closed! That is the problem with averaging of many layers. All that averaging loses a lot of detail. It loses it’s context on how the average was obtained. Hence it’s a meaningless number.
The question has to be asked, what is physically happening to increase the average speed on all the roads? Thus in translation, what is physically happening during the max and min temps of each season to make the average temp increase?
Can you have an increase in the average yearly temperature over the century without it getting hotter? Oh, absolutely! In fact, in Canada that is exactly what is happening. See this analysis for details on what is actually physically happening with temperatures in Canada. The bottom line is that summers are cooling in every location in Canada. 1/3 as many days in Southern Ontario are over 30C today than in the 1920’s. Winters are becoming “not as cold”. Half as many days are below -20C in Southern Ontario since the 1920’s. The difference in the summer and winter temperatures in Canada are more moderated, narrowing, and converging since the 1900’s. If the trend continues, then some 800 years from now summer and winter would be the same basic temperature of some 18C, thereafter winter would be warmer than summer. Since that is physically impossible, then at some time in the future, this convergence between summer and winter temps must reverse and start to diverge, regardless of how much CO2 we emit. In other words, this trend is just a normal natural cycle.
There is more than enough evidence that the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period were warmer than today, and global (see list of references here). By warmer, that means the summers were the same as today, but just that the winters were less cold, and they had a longer growing season. It’s no co-incidence that during the MWP the great cathedrals were built (There was enough food that people could specialize in building them!) and it abruptly stopped after the 1400’s when the Little Ice Age hit (shorter summers, with deep long winters). Millions staved during that 400 year-long period from crop failures.
But what about weather extremes? What about them. “Extreme” weather events have been happening since this planet had an atmosphere. What is “extreme”? Any event that is “extreme” must have never happened in all of history, at least human history, even recent human history (last 5000 years, which is nothing). That’s obviously going to be difficult to figure out. But there are papers published that show storms, cyclones, rain fall, snow fall, are no different now than in the past 5000 years (see subject listing here).
The bottom line about the climate is this. Nothing is happening in the climate or weather today that is beyond normal variation of 1000, 10,000 and 100,000 year cycles. Nothing, zippo, nodda. Not storms, not rain, not snow — nothing abnormal is happening. That’s what the evidence shows.
But what about all those expensive computer models? One thing that must be stated very clearly is predictions from computer models is not evidence! It’s speculation! There are more than enough studies done on the accuracy of computer models which shows them to be quite lacking. It’s really simple to see the game these climate modelers play.
Their predictions of the future are a range of probabilities. There are as many different outcomes of these probabilities as there are software programs that generate those results. Yet, as soon as the future becomes the past, these models magically predicted that with pinpoint accuracy. Why? Because when the future becomes the past the climate modelers adjust their programs to match what actually happened. And then they have the gall to claim they predicted that all along! Now if that isn’t a lie.
So here we have it. The entire Green Energy Act, the reason for all these turbines and solar panels, the reason you are demanded to pay more, is all based on a deception. That our CO2 is changing the climate. It’s not.
For more on this visit the following sites on a regular basis:
|Previous Chapter||Next Chapter|