BRIGHT
A little common sense
Let’s add a little common sense lucidity to the ongoing blitzkrieg about so-called “ man-made” climate change. Advocates of this theory are currently all aglow about a “report” from the United Nations telling us that the earth is doomed.
DAR
This is misleading. From
wiki:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to assess the risk of human-induced climate change, based mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature."
The IPCC report represents the consensus of more than 2,500 leading scientists from more than 30 countries - including the United States.
"Doomed" is a loaded adjective. A rise in sea level causing the displacement of millions of people and the loss of drinking water due to absent glaciers (to name two likely future events) will be very serious consequences of global warming.
It is imperative that we consider the source of this document. In the first place, it is not a “scientific” study. The authors of the “report” were nothing but appointed bureaucrats whose careers and income were at stake should they come up with the “wrong” answer.
DAR
Assertion without evidence. These reports of the IPCC represent the work of thousands of scientists and expert reviewers. Does Bright know what a "scientific study" is? Bright gives not a drop of evidence that there is a right or wrong answer or that a greater reward follows with either "answer."
To put it bluntly, the document is a fraud.
DAR
No evidence for this claim whatsoever. Lets see if he tries to put forward some in the following.
A glimpse at the historic climate changes of earth can easily explain the natural phenomena that, today, is being touted as “ man-made”.
DAR
That's false. I can confidently quote the IPCC's latest findings on this knowing that if I need back it up there will be a very tall stack of scientific material supporting the claim. What does Don Bright have? He doesn't even pretend to back his claim up with anything other his mere say so.
From one of the main findings of the latest IPCC report:
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"
And:
"Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years."
LINK
Consider these facts: • Today’s global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age.
DAR
No source and the statement is nonsensical. You might as well say the earth started warming billions of years ago. The Pleistocene Ice Age is not relevant to todays claim. Extensive and rapid warming of the earth is occuring and the best science says we are 95% certain *most* of it is due to human action. There is obviously no precident for this during the history of the earth.
• CO 2 (carbon dioxide ) in our atmosphere has been increasing for the last 18,000 years.
DAR
Here is a little history of the rise and fall of C02 during the last 400,000 years:
Here is a little zoom in on what the chart looks like for the last 200 years:
• Earth’s temperature and CO 2 levels today have reached levels similar — but not equal to — a previous interglacial cycle of 120, 000-140, 000 years ago.
DAR
It's rather disturbing that this claim is not remotely true (even though it was a couple decades ago). See the above chart which shows just that in the last decade we have exceeded CO2 levels for the last 650,000 years. More importantly is the speed it is increasing. It would be nice if one could politely presume that Brights source is just two decades out of date. But he provides no source for his erroneous information.
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2001:
"Although contemporary CO2 concentrations were exceeded during earlier geological epochs, present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 million years."
source
• Approximately 99. 72 percent of our “greenhouse effect” is due to natural causes. This is comprised of mostly water vapor.
DAR
All global warming models of earth climate change, without exception, take into consideration and calculate for the effects of water vapor. This is a common GW Denier false claim.
The "99.72%" claim (no reference) would leave only .23 percent of the earth's increased temperature due to human causes. It's safe to say that no practicing climatologist on the planet believes this. It's also hard to imagine somewhat informed GW deniers not being embarrassed by this gross overstatement. Actually: "According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect."
source
And consider:
"There is no climate model or climate textbook that does not discuss the role water vapor plays in the Greenhouse Effect. It is the strongest Greenhouse gas, contributing 66% to 85% to the overall effect when you include clouds, 36% - 66% for vapor alone. It is however, not considered as a climate "forcing" because the amount of H2O in the air varies basically as a function of temperature. If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times), similarily, due to the abundance of sea surface, if you somehow removed water from the air it would quickly be replaced through evaporation...
CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, has an atmospheric lifetime of centuries before natural sinks will significantly absorb any excess from the air. This is plenty of time to have substantial and even longer lasting effects of the climate system."
More on this
here.
• Total human contributions to “greenhouse” gases account for about 0. 28 percent of the “greenhouse effect.”
DAR
No source for this patently false claim. Consider:
"Despite its small concentration, CO2 is a very important component of Earth's atmosphere, because it absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode) and enhances the greenhouse effect."
And:
"Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by approximately 110 µL/L or about 40%, most of it released since 1945. Monthly measurements taken at Mauna Loa[7] since 1958 show an increase from 316 µL/L in that year to 376 µL/L in 2003, an overall increase of 60 µL/L during the 44-year history of the measurements. Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased man-made CO2; deforestation is the second major cause."
source
• Variations in sun activity are responsible for both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature.
DAR
This claim is palpable nonsense. In fact, according to Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York: "there has been no effective change in any solar indices since about 1950..."
source
The scientific consensus on this point is more like this:
"solar contributions [are about] 10% or less for 1950-2000 and near 0% and about 10% in 1980-2000 using the PMOD and ACRIM data, respectively.
source
Two other sources:
"According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.
There has been work on reconstructing past trends in solar irradiance over the last century before satellite records were available. Acording to the Max Plank Institute there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940."
source
Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO2 may be the “effects” and our own sun the “cause.”
DAR
No reputable climatologist believes this and Bright doesn't even try to back up his claim with a source. See above regarding the carefully measured and documented effect of the Sun. As an article in the UK Observer noted in their descussion of the latest IPCC report:
"And in a specific rebuff to sceptics who still argue natural variation in the Sun's output is the real cause of climate change, the panel says mankind's industrial emissions have had five times more effect on the climate than any fluctuations in solar radiation."
source
• Plants absorb CO 2 and emit oxygen as a waste product.
DAR
This is simplistic and misleading. "Plants also emit CO2 during respiration, so it is only during growth stages that plants are net absorbers."
Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO 2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant.
DAR
And humans and animals have evolved and adapted to breathe CO 2 at a little below current levels. The comparison with a "nutrient" is childish.
Consider:
"Carbon dioxide content in fresh air varies and is between 0.03% (300 ppm) to 0.06% (600 ppm), depending on location and in exhaled air approximately 4.5%. When inhaled in high concentrations (greater than 5% by volume), it is immediately dangerous to the life and health of humans and other animals. The current threshold limit value (TLV) or maximum level that is considered safe for healthy adults for an 8-hour work day is 0.5% (5000 ppm). The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues would be significantly less.
...Concentrations higher than 1000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of occupants, and the discomfort will increase with increasing CO2 concentration."
source
• Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Will this pleasant condition continue? Probably not. Now the terminology has changed to “climate change,” whereby no matter the direction of temperature trends the headlines can universally blame humans.
DAR
This is nonsense. We don't believe the earth is heating, and largely because of human influence, because of "the headlines." Sensible people believe climate change is a serious concern because of literally mountains of solid peer-reviewed science put together over decades.
Listen to Petr Chylek, professor of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhouse University, Halifax, Nova Scotia: “ Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a ) way to scare the public... and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.”
DAR
The idea that all of the world's climatologists are in on some kind of greed based grand conspiracy to scare the public is really too absurd for comment. And as an article in The Guardian last week pointed out:
"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group [The American Enterprise Institute] funded by [Exxon] to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today."
There is lots of money to be made supporting the Global Warming denial position, but very few real scientists, climatologists, are going for the money it seems. AEI has since dropped the offer.
Like always, when dealing with the United Nations, one needs to follow the money.
DAR
The United Nations is not a money making organization. They actually have a very small operating budget.
Much of the blather on global warming coming from the United Nations is driven by greed.
DAR
How greed is involved is not explained. Anyway, the science on global warming to be concerned about is coming from 2,500 scientists from 30 different countries. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme simply coordinate the efforts of the best scientists in the world.
While there is evidence that some pressure is being applied to influence what the scientists say on this matters, it is all coming from the Global Warming deniers. As MSNBC reported Jan 30:
"Lawmakers received survey results of federal scientists that showed 46 percent felt pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming” or similar terms from communications about their work."
source
Since the climate will continue of its own accord to change, our resources may be better spent adapting to global cooling and global warming instead of crippling the world economy in order to achieve insignificant reductions in any global effects due to man-made additions.
DAR
No supporting evidence is provided for the claim that the world's economy would be crippled if we took measures to deal with CO2 output or improved the effciency of our energy using devices. It may be true that we will have no other choice at this point than to deal with the higher temperatures and all of the problems this may cause. But this will no doubt cause tragic losses for the planet.
In fact, eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.
Don A. Bright / Fayetteville
DAR
Again not a bit of supporting evidence for this claim, and of course it is purely a strawman fallacy to suggest that anyone is proposing "eliminating human activity altogether."
regards,
Darrel Henschell
