About once a month
I take a break from
summarizing other
people's climate
science articles
and studies.
One draft.
No numbers ,
if possible.
I call these
'climate raps'.
There are laboratory
science experiments
to prove CO2 acts as
as a greenhouse gas.
Experiments in
a closed system,
with artificially
dried air.
CO2 experiments
go back to the late
1800s.
It's annoying when
climate change
skeptics deny the
experiments, as if
CO2 couldn't have
a similar effect
in our atmosphere.
Unfortunately,
it's still not possible
to declare that
climate change
NOW has virtually
no natural causes,
and is dominated
by changes of the
emissions of man
made CO2.
Yet we still have
people declaring
CO2 can not cause
any global warming,
and far more people
declaring CO2 levels
'control the climate'.
Both very likely
to be wrong.
In the atmosphere,
CO2 competes
with the primary
greenhouse gas
of water vapor.
Both hinder our
planet's cooling
ability (via infrared
heat rising into space.)
The science suggests
cool, dry areas should
be most affected by
the greenhouse effect.
In the Arctic,
we do have
that pattern -- much
more warming than
in the tropics, mainly
in the colder, drier
six months of the year,
and mainly measured
as warmer nights.
As I have said here
many times -- what's
so bad about warmer,
winter nights in
Alaska?
In Antarctica,
there is ice
that's growing
thicker !
There is
a small amount
of local warming,
on the edges
of the Antarctica
glacier that
happen to be
located near an
undersea volcano.
That's not a pattern
of warming caused
by changes to
the greenhouse
gas levels.
Long term tide gauges,
that are mounted
on solid bedrock,
do not reflect any
acceleration of sea
level rise in the past
150 years.
So there is
no signature
of global warming
from Antarctica
"melting",
which would
raise sea level.
Arctic ice melting
would not cause
a change to the
sea level (because
that ice is floating).
Most of the glaciers
on this planet,
which happened
to cover Canada,
Chicago and Detroit
20,000 years ago,
melted between
10,000 and 20,000
years ago.
As a result,
sea level rose
about 400 feet
( 120 meters )
in that 10,000
year period.
My own acre in
southeastern
Michigan was once
under a glacier !
Lab experiments
suggest mild,
and harmless
global warming
is likely from more
CO2 in the air.
There has been
mild, harmless
global warming
since 1975,
but not from 1940
to 1975, even as
CO2 levels rose
from 1940 to
1975 too.
Climate alarmists
claim incoming
solar energy was
partially blocked
by air pollution
from 1940 to 1975,
offsetting the warming
effect of rising CO2.
That sounds reasonable,
for a moment, until you
consider that our current
global warming started
in 1975.
All that sunlight blocking
air pollution did NOT
suddenly fall out
of the sky in 1975 !
In fact, it took many
decades to gradually
reduce that real air
pollution.
And that was
with the pressure
of environmental
groups spurring
our government
to do something.
Yes, environmentalists
once cared about real
pollution, but now the
real air pollution in many
large Chinese and Indian
cities is ignored
by the so-called
environmentalists.
They have decided to
demonize fossil fuels,
by attacking harmless
CO2 emissions,
rather than attacking
the real pollution
from burning the same
fossil fuels without the
use of modern pollution
controls.
The causes
of climate change
could be100% natural,
100% man made,
or some combination
of both.
No one knows.
Many scientific papers
about the climate
are nothing more than
wild guesses of the
future climate,
that too many people
take seriously,
even though no one
has ever accurately
predicted the
future climate.
The media love
scary predictions.
So they can
get attention
by ramping up
the public hysteria
about harmless
climate change.
"tbd Will Be Worse
Than We thought"
Then, the next year:
"tbd Will Be Worse
Than Worse Than
We Thought"
The headlines get
more hysterical
as the climate gets
slightly warmer,
and more pleasant !
But lets not forget
there IS a real climate
crisis !
That crisis is the
irrational desire
to replace inexpensive,
reliable sources of
power to generate
electricity, with expensive,
unreliable sources --
wind and solar power.
That is a waste
of money.
There are about
one billion people
in the world with
no electricity !
Why not spend
some money
to help them,
for the first time ?
How about giving
them some small
solar powered
water heaters ?
Just an idea.
Replacing coal
powered power
plants with nuclear
powered plants
seems like a good
idea too.
But leftists seem
to be needlessly
frightened by
nuclear power,
just as they are
frightened by CO2.
And never mind that
greenhouse owners
buy and use CO2
enrichment systems
to double or triple
the ambient ( outdoor
air ) CO2 level inside
their greenhouses !
What could greenhouse
owners know about
green plants?
And never mind the
thousands of studies
proving that higher CO2
levels boost plant growth.
A tiny percentage of studies
did not reach that conclusion.
So they must be right ?
Welcome to the wacky
world of modern
government bureaucrat
controlled science -- the
" because we say so",
always wrong, assertions
about the future climate !