Is global warming complete bosh
The alarmists want to reduce
the use of fossil fuels and scare us with
stories of temperature rises of 2°C or
AS TEMPERATURES PLUNGED in the northern hemisphere in their winter so did the remaining credibility of the manmade global warming scare. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” wrote David Viner, an alarmist scientist in Britain in 2010. Other alarmists predicted warmer winters in the northern hemisphere due to manmade global warming. Now that Europe and Northern America have suffered one of the coldest Decembers on record, the alarmists – with breathtaking dishonesty – are claiming it’s because of manmade global warming. The fact that they were quite wrong proves they were quite right. Do they believe that sophistry themselves? Perhaps not.
Just over a year ago a large number of emails from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) were leaked to the public. They showed the small group of scientists behind the climate scare plotting to hide data, erase data, manipulate graphs and silence and denigrate any scientist who questioned them. These scientists make sure the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only reports horror and alarm: all the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 and other nonsense. But one of them – Kevin Trenberth, in email 1255352257 – wrote: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” He was lamenting the fact that, contrary to alarmist expectations, global temperatures haven’t risen since 1998 despite rising CO .
The alarmists want to reduce the use of fossil fuels and scare us with stories of temperature rises of 2°C or more. As the recent Cancun Conference suggested, the first aim seems doomed. What about their scientific claims?
Though the earth’s climate is complicated beyond comprehension, the claim that rising CO will cause dangerous change is simple to refute. CO is a weak greenhouse gas. Its only significant band (15 micron) is already saturated at its peak, so adding more has a small and diminishing effect. Think of a room with many windows. Paint a layer of black paint over one window. The room darkens. Paint another layer on the same window. The room darkens – but less than before. Keep painting. Eventually it makes no difference how many layers you add because the paint has stopped all the light entering that window. It’s roughly the same with CO in the air.
Standard radiant heat transfer shows that doubling CO from its current level of 390 parts/million (p/m) would increase global temperatures by around 1°C if there were no feedback (response to change). The overwhelming evidence, from recent satellite observation and the climate record shows negative feedback (countering the change). So the final change would be insignificant – much less than 1°C.
The negative feedback probably comes from clouds: as temperatures rise, more evaporation makes more water vapour, the vapour condenses into clouds and clouds cause cooling by reflecting away sunlight. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas but its heating effect is overcome by the cooling effect of the clouds.
To get the earth heating by 2°C or more you have to assume positive feedback (amplifying the change), which is what the alarmist climate models do. But there’s no evidence for it. In fact, with it the climate would be so unstable higher life could probably not exist.
Since multi-celled life proliferated (about half a billion years ago) CO has averaged over 2 000p/m. Great fluctuations in it have had no noticeable effect on global temperatures. Green plants, upon which we depend, would grow better if CO increased from the current extremely low level. The effect on the climate would be negligible.
Last month my flight home from London was delayed by three days due to snow. I was furious. Heathrow airport had taken no measures to prepare for a severe winter, which seemed likely to everyone except the global warming idiots.