Apr 8, 2018

Climate Change on One Foot – Concise Arguments Against the Hypothesis of Human-Caused Global Warming

The actions against global warming are led by lobby groups organized under the UN and its climate arm – IPCC, being enthusiastically supported by media, entertainers, politicians, and activists involved in social studies. Many scientists and technically educated people understand that the actions are unreasonable and harmful, but they are often caught out by friends who ask: “How come you do not believe that human-caused warming exists? Have all the countries in the world not signed the Paris agreement on the climate change? Is there not a consensus among 97% of scientists about the warming?” We should be ready to respond to our friends.

Once, rabbi Hillel was asked to explain the whole Law while standing on one foot, and he famously succeeded by providing one sentence: “Do not do to your neighbor what is hateful to you“. We may be less concise than Hillel, but below we summarize the ideas of the anti-warming fighters in ten points in red, and we also present facts contradicting all the points – in green background. In the end we provide a UN-anti-warming-policy rejection that can be announced while standing on one foot.

(1) There has been an exceptional rise of the average Earth surface temperature (T) during the last 150 years.
(1) Science can reconstruct the Earth surface temperature (T) for at least the last 500 million years. The climate was warmer than today in most periods. Whether considering time sections of thousands or millions or 500 millions of years, the present T or T change is by no means extraordinary. [9][5][1]
(2) Due to burning fossil fuels by people, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere (CO2) has increased during the last 150 years. The today CO2 level of 400 ppm is exceptionally high.
(2) Humans add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but other sources contribute more, the undersea volcanos being the strongest of them. As for the present CO2, the same atmospheric level was found also during several periods in the 19th century. During the geological history, the CO2 level was mostly higher than today, sometimes even 20 times higher. [1][9] 
(3) The T rise during the last 150 years has been caused by the increasing greenhouse effect of CO2.
(3) Scientists have assessed both CO2 and T in various geological eras, and have found very weak correlation between the two parameters [9]. There was some correlation during the ice ages, but the T shift preceded the CO2 shift by several hundred years [12], so that the T variation was the cause and the CO2 variation was the effect [8], reflecting the decreasing solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans with increasing T [7]. As for the 20th century, CO2 increased by 70 ppm and the T by 0.5°C [4]; however, T increased more in the first half and CO2 in the second half of the century [3]. The scientists have found that the sun activity [13] and the cosmic rays influence the climate much more than carbon dioxide [2].
(4) If people continue to burn fossil fuels, the CO2 associated greenhouse effect will lead to the T increase of between 2°C and 6°C till the end of the 21st century.
(4) The Earth surface T is expected to be -18°C according to its distance from the Sun, but the observed average T is +14°C. The difference of 32°C is caused by the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. Most of the greenhouse effect is ascribed to the water molecules, and about 10% to the molecules of carbon dioxide [14]. So that CO2 raises T by 3°C at the present concentration, but the eventually doubled CO2 level will not result in another increase of 3°C, because the greenhouse effect increases with the concentration only logarithmically [6]. Various calculations of the exact scientists provide assessments of between 0.25°C [16] and 1.5°C for the T increase if CO2 rises to 800 ppm, the value of 0.5°C being the most probable value [6][2] (UN has been putting the value between 1.5°C and 5.5°C). Even if all fossil fuels are burnt, CO2 would not double; some carbon dioxide would react, some would dissolve in the oceans, and some would be consumed in photosynthesis [8], so that the eventual T increase would not be greater than 0.5°C anyway.
(5) The warming has increased the number and the intensity of catastrophic events, such as hurricanes and desertification.
(5) Meteorologists’ statistics teach that the number of hurricanes and their power have not increased during the last 150 years [15]. No increased desertification has been observed [1]. Due to the increased population and its standard of living, however, more damages are reported. The progress in science and communication results in better follow up and documentation of all natural events, and in their broader reporting. 
(6) The warming leads to species extinctions, including polar bears, and to higher human morbidity and to higher social instability.
(6) The observed T rise of 0.7°C during the last 150 years, or of expected 0.5°C in the future, can hardly endanger any animal or plant, as the T differences may sometimes reach 50°C between the day and night and 100°C between summer and winter. The polar bears prosper better than ever [17], and the news about their extinction is fake. As for people, they are more sensitive to cold than heat. Any T decrease led to hunger and populations extinctions in human history, to the lack of political stability and to falls of empires. The T increase, on the other hand, led to better harvest, lower prices, and better health, whereas the societies were more stable and the cultures flowered [1]. Sahara used to be populated with elephants, giraffes, and people whose paintings have survived, but a cooling that came 8000 years ago wiped the life out from Sahara. Moreover, the higher CO2 is, the more intensively the photosynthesis runs, and the plants grow quicker [18]. Importantly, according to the known ice ages periodicity, we are on the brink of another glacial, of which occurrence would be tragic for today humankind, so that any T rise may only be helpful.    
(7) The melting Arctic ice will result in a catastrophic sea level rice and in flooding large areas, including the Maldives.  
(7) The Arctic ice recedes but the Antarctic ice grows [11]. Besides, the seasonal changes in the Arctic ice are giant – much larger than the ice losses over the recent years [10]. Popular TV shots show how an ice mountain splashes to the sea; the shots are taken in summer, but a winter movie would show a recreation of the ice mountain and its rise from the sea. Nowadays, the ocean level rises by 2 mm (0.08 inch) per year, which is slower than during the last 14,000 years, in which the average sea rise has been 9 mm per year [1]. As for the famous Maldives, they tend to rise, so that the sea level around them recedes during the last years.
(8) Cattle release methane, which has a strong greenhouse effect, so that meat consumption should be reduced.
(8) It has been recently found that not only cows but also other animals release methane. For example, termites, whose total biomass on earth is similar to that of cows, release a similar methane quantity as cows. Methane is also produced by bacteria growing on immense area in the earth surface. Surprisingly, it has now been found that even plants produce methane during their usual metabolic processes [19]. Accordingly, it is not necessary to reduce meat consumption.
(9) There is consensus among 97% of scientists that human-caused global warming exists.
(9) The 97% consensus among scientists in regard to global warming is a myth originating from an article published in 2004, which evaluated thousand publications related to climate and brought said conclusion. However, an accurate analysis from 2013 showed that the method used in the 2004 article had been erroneous, and that a correct evaluation would produce much lower “consensus” [20]. Moreover, generally mentioned consensus comprises social and other non-exact scientists who have no means to understand and assess the subject. Despite political pressures bordering on terror, many exact and natural scientists express their scientific views contradicting the anthropogenic warming hypothesis of the UN, even though media do not give much space to such views. Many representatives of exact sciences have signed on petitions against the non-scientific and non-democratic character of the climate politics; for example, the Oregon petition was signed by 32,000 scientists and engineers [21]. The best scientists can be found among the active opponents of the warming hysteria, including British mathematician Freeman Dyson, Australian geologist Ian Plimer, or Israeli astronomer Nir Shaviv. Under the pressure of the climate sceptics, the UN has been continually softening their catastrophic predictions, and even have substituted the term “global warming“ with the term “climate change”.
(10) He who does not agree with the above climate theses is a primitive, bigot and a climate denier, and should be silenced and ostracized as a holocaust denier.  
(10) The climate deniers are not more primitive than other scientists silenced in the history of science, including Giordano Bruno or Galileo Galilei, who had conflicts with the authorities which represented a “consensus of opinion” in the 17th century. A similar consensus existed in Nazi Germany that rejected the “Jewish physics” of Albert Einstein or in Soviet Russia that rejected the “Zionist genetics” of August Weismann. The climate fighters are clearly on the immoral side; they threaten those who have different opinions, prevent any scientific discussion, falsify data, and lie. The anti-warming actions result in immense waste of resources (such as admixing vegetable oil to diesel fuel, etc.) [22] and in distraction from really serious problems, such as the population explosion in the underdeveloped countries resulting in the total destruction of nature.

On one foot: We may persuade our friends if, after the above ten-points explanations, we proclaim:
“The weather in Europe was warmer in the 13th century than today, and science clearly shows that there is no global warming now due to carbon dioxide; even if all fossil fuels are burnt, the temperature will not rise by more than half a centigrade; any warming would be beneficial to humans anyway; the main ecological problems nowadays are the population explosion in the underdeveloped South countries and the fraudulent ideology of the political correctness in the developed North countries.”

[1] Ian Plimer: Heaven+Earth, Global Warming: The missing Science, 2009, Connor Court Publishing Pty Ltd., Australia
[2] Nir J. Shaviv and Ján Veizer: Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?, GSA Today 13, 2003, pp 4-10
[3] P.D. Jones at el.: Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Reviews of Geophysics 37, 1999, 173-199  
[4] Comparison of Atmospheric Temperature with CO2 Over The Last 100 Years, 2011 
[5] D.J. Jacob: Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry, 1999, Priceton University Press http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html 
[6] The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide, 2010
[7] The Solubility of Carbon Dioxide
[8] Temperature Is Driving CO2, and Not Vice Versa, 2013 
[9] Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
[10] Arctic Sea Ice Volume, 2017 
[11] Antarctic Sea Ice, 2017
[12] CO2 lags temperature,
[13] Correlation of global temperature with solar activity
[14] Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System
[15] U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade
[16] The Saturated Greenhouse Effect, 2008
[17] Polar bear status, distribution & population
[18] D.R.Taub: Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):21, Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants
[19] At the methane source of plants, 2014
[20] Research & Commentary: The Myth Of A Global Warming Consensus, 2014
[21] Global Warming Petition Project  http://www.petitionproject.org/
[22] Is there a future for biofuel in Europe?, 2017

No comments:

Post a Comment