Hot Air Hysteria

Fox News ^ | Thursday, March 16, 2006 | Steven Milloy

[yhwhsman]

Hot Air Hysteria
Thursday, March 16, 2006
By Steven Milloy

Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are at record highs according to a new report from the UN’s World Meteorological Organization. The implication is that manmade greenhouse gas emissions and therefore, global warming, are spiraling out of control.

But the report is misleading to the extent it claims that the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) level – reported by the WMO to be 377 parts per million (ppm) in 2004 – is 35 percent higher now than during pre-industrial times when the CO2 level allegedly was around 280 ppm.

While there’s no dispute concerning the current CO2 level, there is plenty of room to dispute the WMO’s 280 ppm-estimate for pre-industrial atmospheric CO2, according to March 2004 testimony before the U.S. Senate by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, a senior Polish scientist who has spent 40 years studying glaciers in order to reconstruct the history of human impact on the global atmosphere.

Atmospheric CO2 can be measured directly by air sampling or estimated indirectly by, for example, studying air trapped in ice cores drilled from glaciers. Direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 taken by scientists during the 19th century – beginning around 1810 – ranged from about 250 ppm to 550 ppm, with an average value of 335 ppm, according to Dr. Jaworowski.

[yhwhsman]

Worth the read to add to your arsenol to refute global warming.

[Always Learning]

Global warming had me pretty baffled for a while, and I put a lot of stock in Milloy's stuff. But I had to keep investigating, which left me even more baffled. Basically I was trying to figure out if there was a real dispute among the professional scientists as to global warming. In doing so, I came across the best report & conclusion by a layman that I have seen after much reading. I strongly recommend this report from God And Science.Org

But to save time, the conclusion is that “global warming is real and most of the recent increases in temperature are directly the result of human actions. However, a number of predictions publicized in the media present unrealistic scenarios of doom and gloom.” So I'm adopting this view.

[Balding_Eagle]

You're still baffled.

[Always Learning]

Did you read it?

[Always Learning]

As it's evident you did not read the article from God and Science, I went back and re-read the posted article and my reference. Please note that the author stated that "after one year of study, I have decided to present a (hopefully) unbiased examination of the issue of global warming. This is a "big picture" analysis of the scientific studies related to global warming." I strongly suspect that that this Doonesbury, which I usually don't like, may hit home with you.

[Tarpon]

Ain't any wonder, look at how they clear fields in Myanmar -- See any pollution in the picture?

Hundreds of fires, outlined in red, continue to burn across Myanmar in this image acquired on March 10, 2006. Also visible are portions of China (upper right), India (far left), Laos (center right) and Thailand (lower right); the Bay of Bengal creeps into the lower left portion of the image. The grayish plumes of smoke blowing from left to right, with the prevailing winds, are readily distinguished from the brighter, white colored and clumped masses of clouds. Smoke tends to pool in the lower elevations, while the rugged Himalayas within the Yunnan and Sichuan provinces of China provide a barrier to further movement. It is highly likely that these fires have been set intentionally for agricultural purposes; fire is used to clear fields of ground cover and residual crops, as well as to add nutrients to the soil.

I always wondered why when the antique media talks about pollution the target subject never strays from our shores.

[reasonisfaith]

"I strongly recommend this report from God And Science.Org"

The author of this report reveals his bias in the beginning when he describes those on the left as "scientists" and opponents as "prominent conservatives."

If he were unbiased, he would have used the term "extreme commie leftists" or at least "scientists on the take" instead of "scientists."

[cyberdasher]

gotta love Milloy.

K, just thinking here about the scope of what the alarmists would envision for "setting things straight" for the climate.

Let's ballpark some numbers. . .

Say CO2 was 280ppm two hundred years ago (let's give 'em that for the sake of the argument). And it's 35% higher now.

Global CO2 output was, say, 1X two hundred years ago. Now, let's guestimate it's 250,000X now (how can anyone know?

What amount of our current CO2 output must we eliminate in order to get back down to 280ppm, if that is what is intented? And at what cost?

The madness. . .I'm so mad I can't even answer my stupid equation. LOL

[Always Learning]

You misread the opening paragraph, where the author said, "Many scientists have sounded the alarm that we must reduce our use of fossil fuels. Others (meaning scientists), including a number of prominent conservatives, have said that we have little to worry about."

He was saying the "other" scientists included prominent conservatives. As he was addressing a conservative audience, he was simply pointing out that many of the readers' ilk didn't believe in global warming. The true bias here is shown by your description of scientists, it would appear.

[stylin19a]

I couldn't get past the no explaination for this:

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has varied greatly over time, from a recent high of more than 380 parts-per-million (ppm) 25 million years ago, to a low of about 180 ppm during several periods of glaciation over the past 650,000 years (Figure 1).

As can be seen, CO2 levels go through cycles of increase and decrease over 100,000 year intervals, which correspond to eccentricity changes in the earth's orbit.

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 was relatively constant at about 280 ppm for ~1,000 years before 1750. Since 1750, the CO2 concentration has risen, reaching ~377 ppm in 2005."

It was hot, then it was cold, then it was moderate, now it's getting hot again.

If the sun energy output is 30% greater NOW, what made Co2 388 per million 25 million years ago ?

Your answer must be in the form of a question....<*sarcasm off>

[Always Learning]

Well, (chuckling), I do have an opinion on that issue, but it's not well researched nor do I intend to do so. I'm not a scientist nor do I pretend (or intend) to be one. I leave that to the pro's. My research was intended first to discover objectively whether there was a genuine dispute among the truly knowledgeable as to global warming. What I discovered was that there are a tremendous number of variables to the concept of global warming, including what creates the CO2 variations. Then I came across the article referenced in my post #2, written by what appeared to be a conservative Christian like me. He apparently did what I intended to do (and much more) from an unbiased perspective. Thus, my current view is that man has caused a minimal amount of global warming that doesn't require any emergency or drastic action. We should simply be aware of it and enact reasonable actions to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.

Anyway, you may wish to post your question over at realclimate.org. They are scientists who believe in global warming, but you could get their answer then approach Milloy. OK, enuf rambling.

[Waco]

What was the earth's pop. in the 19th century compared to today? Note how these 'expurts" discuss CO² levels without ever mentioning the CO² emitted by all mammels on earth.

[FOG724]

A lot of the studies that come out are computer modeling or based on computer modeling. Studying these studies means nothing.

I might add that the small amount of warming we have seen on Earth is also present on the other planets in the solar system.

[Richard Axtell]

I will un-baffle you as a courtesy. "Man Made Global Warming" is a cynical leftist elitist hoax, nothing more. It is based on faulty science and even more faulty logic, and I am fully capable of admitting that I am wrong, if it can be proven that I am. To date, no one with whom I have debated this issue can answer my 5 questions, as they have taken the "Global Warming" dogma to heart, without question or analysis, because of their ideological predisposition to do so. I have posted the following many times over the years, and am waiting for a logical and understandable argument that refutes anything I say here:

When next debating a "global warming alarmist," ask these 5 questions:

1.) Q: What percentage of the atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide?

A: About 0.06%, that's six one hundredths of one percent!

2.) Q: How much of an increase does this represent over the percentage of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere before the widespread burning of fossil fuels by humans?

A: That percentage is up from 0.04%, actually a 50% increase!

3.) Q: What is the most prevalent "greenhouse gas," and what percentage is it in the earth's atmosphere?

A: Water vapor. Between 0 and 4%, depending on local humidity. That's 300 times more on average than the percentage of CO2.

4.) Q: Since this much more common "greenhouse gas" is not at all dealt with by the Kyoto treaty, what do you propose to do about it?

A: Good question...

5.) Q: Do you actually expect us to buy this "global warming" crap in light of these facts?

A: Fill this in yourself.

I guarantee that any "eco-wacko" you might happen to "debate" on this issue will not be able to or will refuse to answer the first question. He or she will then get very angry and flustered, and sputter out something like "...what difference does that make?" or "What, ...are you some sort of wise guy?" You of course will answer " Yes, and very much wiser than you, for that matter." ____________________________________

Now, since I originally posted this, almost 4 years ago, much more has come to light that reinforces my argument that C02 emissions resulting from human activity couldn't logically be the cause of any measurable "Global Warming".

1.) The CO2 "concentrations" figures given here are lower than my original figures... at 0.0377% instead of 0.06% as a recorded maximum. Newer figures are more accurate, maybe?

2.) There is evidence that CO2 varied from 150 to 550 PPM in the past, all long before human industrialization, or even civilization itself.

3.) Most estimates are that human activity may contribute to perhaps 2% of the total amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere.

4.) Scientist have determined that Solar radiation output has definitely increased in recent years, fully accounting for any measured increase in average global temperatures.

5.) The history of global temperature variation has been clear from the beginning, that considerable increases and decreases, even in historic times, are the norm, not the exception. The figures I have seen figures that show that the period around 1940 as being higher in average temperature than today.

6.) And finally, and embarrassingly, most "computer models" that are used to predict global warming haven't taken any of the above facts into account, much less the real effect Water vapor has on the global weather system.

The Doonesbury cartoon cited in a previous post just illustrates the political cynicism of the left, and nothing regarding the easily understood science and basic logic that I have pointed to here. Expect the elitist left to swallow the "Global Warming" hoax without question or thought, as it supports their overall world view of Capitalism and America as destroyers of the earth. The purpose of the Kyoto treaty and the entire Global Warming controversy is to rationalize a way to impose global taxation on the United States, and other successful capitalist nations, stifle our economies, and reap vast funds for socialist UN bureaucracies and their "One World" agendas.

However the facts do not support this fraudulent money grab, even on a cursory examination. Now, I'd like to see just how I have misunderstood these facts, and come to the wrong conclusions about "Man made global warming"?

[reasonisfaith]

In fact, I read the paragraph correctly. I don’t mind taking the time to explain again, if it helps remedy the misunderstanding of my comments.

The word “scientists” is paired with the general leftist position in the global warming controversy, while the word “conservatives” is linked with the opposing position. If you understand the subtleties and nuances of language, you know that this particular arrangement of words and concepts will convey the fraudulent message that conservatives are in disagreement with scientists regarding a matter of science.

Certainly the author can make a somewhat plausible claim that he was referring to scientists with the word “others.” But I think what we have here is the old liberal trick of seeking an appearance which is the opposite of the truth. That’s why I say liberals will never come out and state clearly what they believe. They regularly package their statements to contain, in one form or another, two opposing sides of an argument. That way they can equivocate if the argument is challenged. Afraid to take a stand.

[Always Learning]

Well, unfortunately, I couldn't disagree more. You have concluded, based on non-existant nuances and, most importantly, a conclusion that you disagree with, that the author is a liberal, left-wing "scientist". In reality, the author is a Intelligent Design advocate, anti-evolutionist, fundamentalist Christian apologist who approached the issue objectively, without pre-formed opinions. A review of the website will furnish the proof. Which is what I did. Yet you concluded otherwise based on "nuances". You must look to why you did so. And I think both your forum name and, especially your tagline, suggest the answer. Please note, the islamofascists believe that faith is reason and they certainly "fight for their beliefs", and they are impervious to reason or truth, because their belief is "truth", no matter how irrational.

[Always Learning]

Ok. I simply don't have an answer to your post. I don't know if your questions and answers are the definitive issues that answer the question of global warming. However, I would compare the issue to that of Intelligent Design. ID'ers submit that it is irrational to conclude that randomness could result in our existence (simplistically said, obviously) and submit various examples in support. However, although it's not clear, most of their examples are red herrings. Likewise, as mankind is pouring unprecedented amounts of stuff into the atmosphere, one must conclude that it has an effect on the earth. I mean, you can visually see it (the smog) in LA, Phoenix, Denver, etc. Thus, global warming seems rational at first glance.

But, I ramble. I have attempted to post your post at realclimate.org, just to get their view. As I did that over 24 hours ago and the post hasn't appeared on their site, it may be that they can't refute it. I don't know, but it looks positive for your position.

Thank you for your information.

[AndyTheBear]

...global warming is real and most of the recent increases in temperature are directly the result of human actions.

Direct result of human actions? So when the Earth got cooler from 1940 to 1970, was this a direct result as well? Perhaps there was it was a "good" cooling type carbon dioxide we were pumping out then?

Kidding aside. I am hoping you misspoke (or rather mis-wrote) that this was a direct result. Climate has mostly to do with systems far bigger then mankind, at best we can only have an indirect effect on such a system.

[Always Learning]

No, I didn't misspeak or mis-write. I was quoting directly from the cited article. See also posts 11, 16 and 17. I do agree that "climate has mostly to do with systems far bigger than mankind..." However, I do believe that we have a direct, although smaller than many would suggest, effect. It has to be more than indirect. But are we the cause of massive hurricanes, etc., no.

[Richard Axtell]

as mankind is pouring unprecedented amounts of stuff into the atmosphere, one must conclude that it has an effect on the earth. I mean, you can visually see it (the smog) in LA, Phoenix, Denver, etc."

Would you believe me if I told you that we, we being the United States, are actually pouring less pollutants into the atmosphere today, than we were in 1970? Don't believe me, look at the available information on the Internet, as it is the Government's statistics that I am referring to.

You have however put your finger on the problem, if you compare the Global Warming alarmists with the IDrs. It seems that inconvenient facts, like the very existence of water vapor as a "Greenhouse Gas", are ignored by those who intend to convince those who are credible, and either ignore or demonize those who are not. In this way, the Globalers are much like the IDrs; they seek to convince the ignorant, rather than to test and prove a scientific theorem. Debate on this subject seems to be missing, all I see is accusations and propagandistic sloganeering. Just what we see in today's political discourse, unfortunately.

The inconvenient fact that CO2 is just a minute presence in our atmosphere, and that water vapor is obviously vastly more common can never be is dispute. So, those who contend that man-made CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming via the "Greenhouse effect" are counting on our ignorance of the fact that H2O is far and away the most important "Greenhouse Gas", therefore, its concentrations, must be more of a cause of global warming than CO2 could ever be.

This simple fact completely debunks the entire basis for the controversy. Man, specifically Capitalist man, more specifically American Capitalist Man, cannot credibly be accused of causing humidity. The clouds of the sky predate the appearance of man, even of life on earth, and do not make a convenient scapegoat for those who wish to find a way to use the fear of the unknown, the fear of ecological catastrophe, as a weapon against their political enemies, the United States and the capitalist system in general. It had to be something key to how capitalism worked, like the burning of fossil fuel, that had to be singled out. And only CO2 is even measurable on a global scale for this purpose. Viola! We have "Man made Global Warming".

Now, if one wants to actually perform experimentation and research, something that is not done by those who's minds are already made up, and determine first IF the earth is either gradually or dramatically warming up, and then seek the cause in factual data, I'm interested. But to START with the assumed cause, before it is even proven to be happening, and look no where else for the reason it is happening, seems to be quite an indication of fraudulent intent. I am open for any other explanation, but I have yet to hear one.