Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Huge increases in CO2 with little increase in temperature - is it really CO2 or just Solar cycles?

Ok, not a climatologist here. But maybe someone can tackle a question on the effect of CO2 on temperature.

Science argues that the temperature of the Earth without the Greenhouse effect would be 0 degrees F. The result of CO2 in our atmosphere adds 59 degrees F for an average planetary temperature of 59 degrees F.

Science is claiming that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased from 280 PPM (parts per million) to 380 PPM. Alarmists argue that these levels have never been higher in the last half-million years and that CO2 levels of this level, and increasing, spell doom.

So again, not being a climatologist, I have to wonder where the complete effect is of a 36% increase in CO2? In simple terms, if 280 PPM has resulted in a 59 degree F increase in the Earth's temperature, why wouldn't another 36% increase in CO2 result in a further increase of 21 degrees F? But the alleged planetary increase is just ~1 degree F.

Alleged evidence of increasing CO2 levels above the magic 280 PPM go back nearly 200 years. But why have planetary temperatures not been in a steady increase since the beginning of that increase in CO2? Why has science argued in just the last 100 years of global cooling and colder temperatures while CO2 has been consistently increasing with growing worldwide industrialization?

What if historical CO2 levels have been the cart behind the temperature horse, and current CO2 increases are simply the result of industrialization, but with little real effect on global temperatures? In other words, two separate causes for CO2, with one being a natural link between temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere, with a second component being man-influenced increases in CO2 without any "real" effect on temperature?

I too believe that global warming - and global cooling - is the result of fluctuations in solar output. Recent articles point out that Mars has seen a planetary temperature increase that compares to Earth's, but there is no identified reason why Mars would see an increase in CO2 or other cause, if not simply attributing that planet's increase to increased solar input.

The sun is the most influential source of energy in the Solar System and is an inconvenient source of energy for the Global Warming advocates. An even more inconvenient reality is that the sun's output varies over time, and not measured in just years, but centuries, or even millenniums.

But while measured CO2 in the atmosphere may be the result of increased industrialization and burning of fossil fuels, measured temperatures, themselves coming under assault as impossible in our dynamic and variable atmosphere, don't reflect much of a change when considered in an atmosphere with an alleged 36% increase in CO2.

In the end, I can't help but consider the messenger when looking at alleged crises like Global Warming. The political benefits of this issue for Democrats and leftists aligning to this crisis are monumental. The willingness of the left to grasp this crisis with so little real certainty also attacks the credibility of their arguments and the alleged crisis.

I just heard Al Gore refuse to commit his own lifestyle to the changes he calls on others to make. I heard him talking about Carbon offsets and his being a carbon-neutral household. He uses more than others, and buys unused credits to justify his excessive use. He's a hypocrite, but the champion of the Global Warming cause.

So in summary, if CO2 is accountable for 59 degrees F of Earth's temperature, why hasn't a 36% increase in that gas caused a commensurate increase in global temperature? If it had, this whole argument would have been moot for a hundred years by now, and Democrats wouldn't be using it to create the climate of fear they accuse everyone else of doing.

Oh, and please don't fire back with the easy rebuttal that the effect of the CO2 is delayed for decades, or even centuries. That I won't buy.

No comments: