?

Log in

No account? Create an account
COL Takashi
Perspectives on East and West
Chris Cannon is right about global warming 
29th-Nov-2007 11:10 am
takashi

Chris Cannon was quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune that he thinks we need to be careful about running off half-cocked and doing expensive things to "fight" global warming with little knowledge of how effective or even necessary they might be. 

If man's combustion related CO2 is the cause of global warming, why was the year of highest tmperature in the last century in the US 1934? From 1935 to 1975, global temperatures dropped, even as we burned unprecedented amounts of fuel in World War II and the post-war industrial expansion. Meteorologists in 1975 were predicting we were descending into another of the periodic ice ages (which is overdue by 8,000 years). From 1976 to 1998, temperatures rose again, to almost the level of 70 years ago, but they have been pretty level since then.
   
   Back around 1000 AD, when the Vikings coloniezed Greenland and discovered America, temperatures were just as warm as they are now. That was certainly not due to man-made causes. Then in the 1300s they dropped again, and stayed down until the 1800s. Maybe the higher temperature of the Medieval Warm Period is the norm, and the colder temperatures have been the anomaly.
   
   Let's make some points clear: 

(1) Scientists have not demonstrated they can predict future climate. They flunked in 1975 and did not foresee the abrupt reversal. They have made an hypothesis about where temperatures will be over the next century, but we won't know if their prediction is correct until we get there. Their models do not even account for water vapor, which is ten times as significant a greenhouse gas as CO2, because as water vapor increases, so do clouds, which reflect sunlight and cool things down. 

(2) Temperature trends in the 20th Century have NOT correlated with CO2 concentration trends for 40 of the 100 years. If you presented this as proof in a science class, you would get an "F". 

(3) The actual consequences of warming are pretty minor: 

(a) Only 2 to 3 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by 2100, a hundred years from now! Whoop de do, it will only be 18 below zero in Idhao Falls instead of 20 below!  

(b) Sea level rise? Only 10 inches by 2100, versus the same rise during the 20th Century. If your beachfront house can't cope with one inch a decade, how do you cope with the storm surges of 10, 15 and 20 feet that are normal? Indeed, wouldn't it be simpler to put your beach house on stilts than make the rest of us go without heating and air conditioning and cars and beef?   

(c) No, Al Gore, hurricanes do NOT get worse due to warming: 2006 and 2007 had NO major hurricanes hit the US! Indeed, some scientists forecast warming would DECREASE hurricanes. 

(d) Glaciers? The Antarctic ice cap is GROWING. The glaciers that are retreating were doing so during the 40 year COOLING period of 1935-1975. Others are growing. Glaciers are like slow rivers; they depend on snowfall. 

(e) The polar bears are NOT actually dying off; there is no evidence of it. The species got through the Medieval Warm Period OK. It still gets to minus 60 in the Arctic, and there is plenty of ice. It's not going to turn into the Caribbean any time soon. And bears don't eat ice, they eat mammals, and their are lots of those on land as well. Polar bears can run and hunt on land (and do so around the landfills of Arctic villages). 

(f) Generally, being a couple degrees warmer is NOT going to hurt plants and animals in North America; it did not hurt them at the end of the ice age, they just expanded their range northward. 

(g) It still gets to minus 20 in the winter here in Idaho Falls. Whether we get more or less snow depends more on transitory chaotic phenomena like El Nino than worldwide average temperatures. Utah had some record cold days last winter.  How does that correlate with global warming? 
   
(4) The most important point is this: The US could shut down its economy, and CO2 buildup would continue, because China is determined to become the world's superpower, it is building a new major coal-fired power plant like the ones in central Utah EVERY WEEK, and it has told the Europeans that it is not going to worry about warming. China's output is going to overwhelm anything the US does. All we will accomplish by following Al Gore is send all industry to China, and impoverish the US. 

(5) Additionally, the CO2 in the atmosphere already, according to the UN IPCC, is enough to keep warming going indefinitely, so we won't even see warming slow down until 50 years in the future! Basically, Al Gore wants us to kill our economy and make us all poor and hungry so that summer air conditioning bills will be 5% lower in 2050 (although our winter heating bills will be higher).
   
   The only good news will be that illegal immigrants will find the economy in Mexico is better than here.

Comments 
30th-Nov-2007 04:02 pm (UTC) - It's not the science; it's the politics
Anonymous
The future of earth's climate is anyone's guess, as noted by Utah Rep. Steve Urquhart (R-St. George) on his blog at http://steveu.com/blog/2007/11/global-warming-soon-to-be-global.html. And, as you note, global warming really isn't all that bad.

The issue here is not science. (The global warmists and their fellow travelers chalk up everything -- more hurricanes, less hurricanes, ice thickening, glacial change, etc. -- to either global warming or George Bush's evil activities. They are experts in tautology.) The issue is control over people -- limiting freedom by force. It is yet another attempt to create a socialist utopia.

--Reach Upward
3rd-Dec-2007 08:18 pm (UTC) - Re: It's not the science; it's the politics
I agree. The whole global warming political campaign is just getting warmed up, now that the real science is getting shakier and shakier. I call it the Left's "Green Giant" agenda, where global warming is able to justify the Left's total control of everything we do and say. The companies who are jumping on board are just manifesting their usual desire to manipulate government regulation in order to give themselves a competitive advantage.
24th-Jan-2015 03:23 am (UTC)
I agree. Nice article.
This page was loaded Aug 21st 2019, 8:27 pm GMT.