Is global warm­ing com­plete bosh

Finweek English Edition - - FRONT PAGE - AN­DREW KENNY

The alarmists want to re­duce

the use of fos­sil fu­els and scare us with

sto­ries of tem­per­a­ture rises of 2°C or

more

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.

arkenny40@ab­samail.co.za

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.