How could such a tiny increase in temperature cause the end of the world?
LA writes to A. Zarkov:
How can it be that the entire theory of global warming rests on an increase (or a supposed increase) of 0.8 degree Centigrade over the last 157 years, as indicated in the graphs used by the global warming theorists? How can the difference between things being stable and things going into global catastrophe be so tiny?A. Zarkov replies:
It is not correct that the entire idea of global warming rests on an increase of 0.8 C (degrees Centigrade). That’s a necessary, but not sufficient condition, or, more specifically, it’s a needed fact in the alarmist chain of logic that leads to global catastrophe. The temperature rise is supposed to establish the link between warming and CO2. Given that link, the climate scientists can then make predictions using computer models that predict from 1.5 C to 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2. An increase of 4.5 C would be a lot—8.1 degrees Fahrenheit. That amount of warming could conceivably lead to the kind of irreversible and catastrophic effects given in that list by the Potsdam Institute. The increase is also supposed to provide a validation of the model by using the model to back predict what has already happened. If global temperature has not increased at all over the last 100 years, that would be a real problem for the alarmists. It would break the link. It would mean industrial development has little to no effect on the earth’s temperature.LA replies:
Thanks. Let me state my understanding of what you’ve said the theory says, to see I have it right.A. Zarkov replies:
Yep, you have it, if “near future” means a 100 years or so. I think the major catastrophe is supposed to be sea level rise. Another major worry is that a massive melting of polar ice would dump fresh water into the ocean and change ocean water salinity leading to a breakup of the Gulf Stream making Eastern Seaboard and Europe much colder. In other words, global warming might make big parts of the world colder, hence the name “climate change.”LA replies:
You wrote:LA continues:
So, to repeat what is understood by people who follow the issue, but it’s worth putting it all together: not only is the warmists’ historical record of global average temperature based on information from the recent and more distant past that is highly questionable in light of CRU’s manipulation of adjusted data and the disappearance of the original data so that their current adjusted data cannot be checked; but their entire future catastrophic warming scenario depends upon a supposed correlation between a projected atmospheric CO2 increase and a global atmospheric temperature increase that may be entirely false.
Phil M. writes from Georgia:
Another problem is looking at variables related to climate change and making simplistic conclusions. For example Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth stood before that huge graphic reproduction of ice core temperature and atmospheric CO2 and said: “There is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer.” That statement denies other process variables and thermal dynamics. A careful study of the data shows that rises in carbon dioxide lag the temperature rises, which negates Gore’s argument. Unfortunately, the layman is not exposed to these details and the lag is difficult to see. [LA replies: I think you’re overstating the problem somewhat. The counter-AGW argument, that CO2 increase is a result of, not a cause of, temperature increase, has been made innumerable times by warming critics, mainly at conservative magazine and websites. It’s accessible to anyone who reads. Obviously it’s not accessible to people who limit their reading to the New York Times or USA Today. But that’s true of all non-liberal truths.]Larry G. writes:
How could such a tiny increase in temperature lead to global catastrophe?MBS writes:
Here is a video that is 87 minutes long, it explains many areas of global warming.Rick U. writes:
Here’s a good article from American Thinker yesterday which is a pretty good re-cap of the Climategate issue.Morgan writes from England:
I think you may thoroughly enjoy this tour de force by MoncktonRick U. writes:
The other issue to remember in this whole global warming err climate change debate is that CO2 is a trace element comprising only about 0.038 percent of the total atmosphere. The argument that adding 100 parts per million of CO2 to the atmosphere since 1880 due to human activity will warm the climate obviously denies or ignores the economies of scale involved in the entire atmospheric system—not to mention the Sun’s role in the system which is not considered or is modeled as a constant by the IPCC “scientists.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 07, 2009 08:01 AM | Send