"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA IS BOGUS

There's been a lot in the MSM about global warming lately; many articles about atmospheric CO2 levels rising; and the rate at which the ice sheets are melting. These hysterics are meant to incite us to pass Draconian measures - as if this was the only way to "save the earth."

Well, it's all just more hysterical Leftist BS!First of all let's look at the CO2 numbers:
In its first Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, to be an annual publication, the WMO said that in 2004 carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere stood at 377.1 parts per million (ppm), 35 percent higher than in the pre-industrial age before 1750.
And NOAA chimed in with this:
the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere climbed to a record 381 parts per million last year, an increase sure to spark further debate on global warming.

The reading was up 2.6 parts per million, according to preliminary calculations, David J. Hofmann of the Office of Atmospheric Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Tuesday.
Let's look at those numbers CRITICALLY:
(1) a 2.6 PARTS PER MILLION increase is 1/2 of 1% increase in the level of CO2 - OR, an increase of .000026 % of the overall amount of additional gaseous matter in the earth's atmosphere. This is statistically INSIGNIFICANT.

(2)
In 1750 there were 800 million people in the world(this is the HIGH END estimate). There are 6 billion people now - that's 7.5 TIMES as many people. And the average length of life is twice as long, too. It would be unreasonable to claim that we should have the same "carboin footprint" now as then; it would be STUPID. Therefore this copmparison is MEANINGLESS and IRRELEVANT. The comparison is offered ONLY to make the most dramatic and hysterical case.

(3) CO2 levels have steadily increased since 1900, but global warming HAS NOT. Global temperatures rose from 1900-40, and then sank from 1940-1970, and have been rising since 1970. If CO2 were determinative of global warming then the global temperature rise between 1940 and 1970 COULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. This FACT is dispositive; it PROVES CO2 is NOT CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING. it also measn that any and all attempts at slowing global warming by reducing CO2 emissions IS A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME, RESOURCES AND MONEY.

(4) FINALLY: Global atmospheric CO2 measurements are NOT reliable.
SO WHY ARE THE LEFTISTS MAKING SUCH A BIG STINK OVER CO2!? SIMPLE:
(A) It allows the Left to harrangue against industrialism, and attack the USA as an evil nation greedily "OVER-CONSUMING" the earth's resources and despoiling the world.

(B) It allows the Left to call for HIGHER TAXES, to raise money for bureaucrats to dispense to THEIR favorite causes, organizations or nations. (This reinforces a most basic presupposition of Leftism: Leftists think that an elite should pick winners and losers, and that the course of human events should not be the result of free people making choices for themselves - the invisible hand of the marketplace.)

(C) It creates a huge and artificial "CARBON TRADING MARKETPLACE" where another elite of new-fangled "CO2 arbitragers" can make huge profits trading CO2 rights from the Third World to the industrialized First World. The rationale is that this creates income for poor Third World nations in a way which is "non-polluting."

In fact, (because there IS NO REAL GLOBAL CO2 problem), all it does it make the traders rich - while raising the cost of energy for everyone, as it garners income for CORRUPT THIRD WORLD REGIMES: The people of the Third World won't see BUPKUS of this income, just as they have seen NADA of all the BILLIONS of dollars of direct financial aid to their "governments" over the last several DECADES!
IN SHORT: The whole entire CO2 hysteria is a huge Leftist scam promoted by international bureaucrats, unscrupulous traders and irrational "earth-worshippers" who basically hate industry, capitalism and the USA.

AMONG THE MOST HYSTERICAL PREDICTIONS THESE LEFTIST FEAR-MONGERERS MAKE IS THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL LEAD TO A MASSIVE RISE IN SEA-LEVEL AND GLOBAL COASTAL FLOODING, (AND THAT THIS IS A HUMONGOUS DISASTER BECAUSE MOST OF THE WORLD'S PEOPLE LIVE ON THE COAST.

Well, guess what!? THIS IS PURE BS, TOO! Here's an excerpt from a recent MSM article relating "the ice sheet is melting! the ice sheet is melting!" hysterics from NASA:
Following two recent studies on changes to Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, NASA is touting a survey that it says confirms “climate warming is changing how much water remains locked in Earth’s largest storehouses of ice and snow.”
And this is also from NASA:
Scientists at NASA and the University of Kansas say the loss of ice from Greenland doubled between 1996 and 2005, as its glaciers flowed faster into the ocean in response to a generally warmer climate.

The study, according to a February 16 NASA press release, concludes the changes to Greenland's glaciers in the past decade are widespread, large and sustained over time. Further, the glacial change is progressively affecting the entire ice sheet and increasing its contribution to global sea level rise.
And THE UK-TIMES get ysterical, too: "Coastal cities could disappear as glaciers melt faster than predicted -
THE quantity of ice dumped into the ocean by Greenland’s glaciers has doubled over the past five years, suggesting that global warming will cause sea levels to swell more quickly than predicted...."
In fact, Greenland and the Antarctic are - because of "global warming" seeing an INCREASE of INTERIOR SNOWFALLS, and this will temper the loss of ice to melting, somewhat - BBC:
Sea levels are currently rising at about 1.8mm per year, largely because ice sheets in polar regions are melting, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said.

However, the panel also predicted that global warming would lead to an increase in snow fall over the Antarctic, because warmer air leads to more evaporation and precipitation.

Scientists from both sides of the Atlantic tested this theory by analysing the thickness of Antarctica's central ice sheets, using satellite radar altimetry measurements. They discovered that East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of 1.8cm per year between 1992 and 2003. The region, which covers 75% of Antarctica's total land area, holds 85% of the total ice volume.
Then there's this:
Scientists using satellite data to analyze thickness changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet have discovered that the amount of snow falling on the ice sheet interior actually increased by as much as 6 cm per year for the years 1992-2003, even as the edges of the ice sheet thinned. Changes in a regional atmospheric circulation pattern, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), seem to be responsible for the snowfall increase. It's not clear what these findings might mean for long-term climate trends, but a temporary increase in regional snowfall is not inconsistent with global warming scenarios.
In other words: snowfall is NOW ACTUALLY increasing in the interiors of BOTH Greenland and Antarctica; this off-sets - somewhat - the coastal ice-melt; this replensihes the glaciers.

But even if this were not the case - even if interior snow were not increasing at a rate that would completely off-set the ice-melt (and there is DEBATE about this) - would we REALLY suffer global flooding due to sea-level rising!? NOPE:
... the popular press got a another case of Global Warming vapors over the weekend when NASA reported that over the past three years, Antarctica has been melting "at the rate of 152 cubic kilometers (plus or minus 80 cubic kilometers) per year over the past three years."

For instance: According to the government of Australia, Antarctica is about 13,661,000 square kilometers in area. The Aussies further inform us that the ice is about 4 km thick so - counting on our fingers and toes - we multiply the surface area (13,661,000), times the depth (4) and we get a pretty big number: 54,664,000 cubic kilometers. That's over 54 MILLION cubic kilometers. With me so far? Ok, now let's divide the total amount of ice (54,664,000) by the amount which is melting each year (152) to see how long it will take for the last ice cube to disappear into the sea.

Assuming we are still counting years the same way, it will be Frozen Margaritaville for the continent sometime in the year 361,506.
Ok, the big deal with this calamitous melting is the amount of ice which is being released into the ocean equaling, as we have seen, the volume of Lake Tahoe. The actual number is .4 millimeters per year. Four-tenths of a millimeter. Four-tenths of a millimeter equals just a hair - a very, very thin hair - over .015 inches - fifteen thousandths of an inch. Each and every year.

So, in a thousand years, the melting of the Antarctic snow cone will raise sea levels by … fifteen inches.
FIFTEEN INCHES IN A THOUSAND YEARS. Hmmm.... So, if Manhattan is 12 feet above sea-level NOW, then in one thousand years it will still be more than 10 feet above sea-level. In conclusion:

I. GLOBAL WARMING leading to ICE SHEET MELTING = NO BIG DEAL.

II. Global warming is probably not man-made, and it will not adversely affect humanity for thosuands of years.

III. The Draconian measures Leftist are proposing are (a) not necessary and (b) raising the cost of energy for everyone unnecessarily (something which hurts poor people MOST!), and (c) diverting resources from where the marketplace would freely put them, and (d) empowering bureaucrats - especially international UNELECTED ones! Finally (e) the measures the Leftists are proposing would be ENTIRELY INNEFFECTIVE at slowing global wroming becasue man-made CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) have NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING. (Global warming may very well be the result of solar changes we cannot possibly effect.)

THERFORE: We should fight against the "man-made global warming crowd" with everything we've got.

7 comments:

David said...

Hey Reliapundit. Is that what you do? Close down comments when you get cornered? Prefer to post your rant answer and end all discussion do you? I know. It's your sandbox and you can play with whomever you want, and when you don't want to play anymore, everyone has to go home. Carry on.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, it's all solar change even though there isn't any documented change is solar weather patterns.

oh, and co2 has nothing to go with the green house affect that heats our planet, thats all just left wing lies made by comunists that want to destroy the American economy.

reliapundit said...

david - don't flatter yourself. i just got tired of your IDIOTIC comments.

a percentage is a percentage.

the fact that you want to obfuscate something so simple says everythiugn about you and other leftists.

i shut down comments becasue nothign new was being said.

now go away and don't be a troll.

as for ANON 5:40: you too are typiocal of knee-jerk leftists: you make NO ATTEMPT to deal with any of the links/facts I provided/researched.
yopu merely reply with sndie sarcasm.

which is more proof that leftists aren't reality-based, but ideology-based.

here is a linl to a debate about solar changes' effect on gloabl warming:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/varsun.html

and i also point out that ONLY a solar based explanation can BOTH explain the earth's warming AND the warming that is occurruing on Mars.

so stick your snide IGNOPRANT sarcasm where ther sun don't shine!

IOW: you don't have to remain a knee-jerk idiot. the truth is out there - if you want to find it!

reliapundit said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame

By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
(Filed: 18/07/2004)

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said:

"The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but

"it was impossible to say which had the greater impact." ...

To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.

The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991.

The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.

Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.

He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.

Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research.

"While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said.

"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.

"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."





BOTTOM-LINE: IF INCREASES OF CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL-WARMING THEN THE EARTH COULD NOT HAVE COOLED FROM 1940-1970 - AS IT ACTUALLY DID. THIS IS DISPOSITIVE.

Anonymous said...

It's strange that man-made global warming on Earth has also warmed Mars over the same period. Of course, this observation is never mentioned by the Chicken Littles, I wonder why?

Anonymous said...

Global warming is a daily occurence!

Everyday when I wake up and welcome the shining sun I am also thankful that the temperature will rise 10 or 15 degrees from the nighttime low!

In terms of energy the suns impact upon the earth is far more significant than human impact.

Fanatic greenies are a cult - who do not believe modern mankind to be natural...and who believe nature is some perfect, static and balanced system.

The gulf stream could shut down...the sun could scorch us with a solar flare...the magnetic poles could flip...but I am not convinced that humans are playing a significant role in hastening or delaying those events.

Lets focus on the real problems we can deal with...

reliapundit said...

zackly anon 306!