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.
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plot_arctic_sea_ice_volume.svg){kind=link}
(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.”
References:
[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
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
[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