Global Warming and Other Bollocks. Stanley FeldmanЧитать онлайн книгу.
and some even question this.
In our present society, government bodies and authorities increasingly make decisions for us about the kind of life we live. It is essential, therefore, that their recommendations are based on sound evidence. Too often they are the result of an ill-conceived overreaction to pressure by special-interest groups, a media campaign or zealots presenting their beliefs in the guise of fact. As a result, the way we live, what we eat, what we do and how we spend our money is often based on a doubtful dogma that originates from often well-meaning government circles. This can be dangerous, as it undermines the influence of credible government warnings and advice, such as the benefits of using seat belts in cars, and dangers of drinking excessively or of smoking.
Good advice is helpful and should be welcomed, but it must be based on evidence and not on questionable dogma. It should be permissible for governments to admit that the evidence upon which they have to base policy is at the civil rather than criminal level of certainty and often not even as good as that.
STANLEY FELDMAN
We have to ride the theory of global warming, even if it is wrong.
—Timothy Wirth, ex-president,
United Nations Foundation
Solutions to climate change must be based on firm evidence, not dubious ideology… Policies must be based on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.
—Pope Benedict XVI,
December 2007
DOGMA
Manmade CO2 is causing global warming, which will cause catastrophe.
SINCE THE INVENTION of the telescope, the possibility that there was life on other planets has excited astronomers. As we learned more about our galaxy we soon came to realise that most planets are such inhospitable places that life, in any recognisable form, is improbable. One of the most compelling arguments against there being life on most of the planets is the extremes of temperatures that occur on their surface. When they are exposed to the full effect of the sun the temperatures soar, but once the sun sets the cold is so intense that most forms of life would freeze.
The reason why Earth is not subjected to these extremes of temperature is the presence of its peculiar ‘atmosphere’, which provides a protective blanket of gases, containing nitrogen, oxygen, water, argon and a tiny amount, 0.038 per cent, of carbon dioxide. Without this atmosphere the average temperature on the planet would be about minus 18ºC. It is thanks to their effect that our planet is habitable.
It was the observations of the French mathematician Baron Joseph Fourier in 1822 that led to our understanding of the importance of the atmosphere in making our planet habitable. He suggested that it was the presence of particular gases in the atmosphere that moderated the extreme heat produced by the sun. Some years after Fourier, John Tyndall – the Irish physicist who described the Tyndall effect caused by refraction of light – demonstrated that, of the various gases in the atmosphere, only a few of them had a significant effect in preventing the full force of the sun’s energy reaching the surface of the Earth, causing it to become unbearably hot and, by preventing the warm surface losing its heat at night, they prevented it from freezing. He suggested that these gases captured and stored the sun’s energy that made the Earth warm. As a result, they acted as a buffer for solar energy. He studied some of the gases that occur in the air and found that, of the gases he investigated, CO2 was the most important buffer.
In fact, molecule for molecule, water is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, since it absorbs energy over a far wider energy-wave spectrum. One has only to consider the effect of supplying energy, in the form of heat, to water in a kettle, or in the form of microwaves in an oven, to appreciate its ability to absorb energy. It is this energy-absorbing property that makes it useful in dowsing fires.
Methane is also about 20 times more potent than CO2 as a buffer of energy because it absorbs energy over a larger energy-wave spectrum than CO2, but it is present in only minute amounts in the atmosphere and its overall contribution to this effect is very small. In spite of their high concentrations, nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb energy in the infrared energy spectrum and do not contribute significantly to this buffering effect.
Birth of the greenhouse analogy
It was the Swedish polymath Svante Arrhenius (1859–1927), who in his dissertation in 1896,‘The influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air on the Temperature on the Ground’, first used the greenhouse analogy. He prepared the way for our understanding of the ‘greenhouse-gas effect’. In his experiments he confirmed the importance of CO2 in preventing the Earth from cooling rapidly when the sun goes down. He believed the effect was so powerful that, as a result of the large amount of wood burned in winter in Sweden, sufficient CO2 would be given off to increase the greenhouse effect and to produce a warm, productive climate all the year round. Using the Stefan–Boltzmann equation, he calculated that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase the temperature on the ground by an overall 4–4.8ºC. At the time he made his observations there was no way of measuring the concentration of CO2 at the very low levels present in the atmosphere. As the actual concentration of CO2 is less than 0.038 per cent, it is easily doubled by what, in global terms, is a very small increase in CO2. It is the fear that in the next hundred years human activity will add significantly to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that has provoked the present global-warming panic.
Although the term ‘greenhouse-gas effect’ has come to be used to describe the total effect of all elements in the atmosphere on the temperatures we enjoy on the surface of our planet, it was only the part played by CO2, methane and sulphur dioxide, in preventing Earth from freezing when the sun sets, that was highlighted by Arrhenius.
The sun is the only major source of heat on our planet. When it shines it warms us up. Some of that energy is absorbed by the Earth’s crust, warming it up. Some of that heat diffuses from the surface into the soil and rock below. This is geothermal heat and it can be tapped into by the heat pumps that are used to supplement domestic heating. As the surface of the Earth gets hotter, it acts like a radiator, dispersing its heat back into the atmosphere. Because this radiation is in the infrared, invisible spectrum, we cannot see it happening, although we can feel its effect as it warms us up. It is the infrared radiation given off by the planet once it has been warmed that is buffered by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They do it by absorbing the energy within their molecules. It was Arrhenius who pointed out that it was those gases that had the capacity to absorb energy with a wavelength in the infrared spectrum that could buffer heat energy in this way. He studied CO2, methane and sulphur dioxide, all of which share this property. However, it is water molecules that are the most potent of the greenhouse gases because they absorb energy over a very wide range of wave bands, from infrared to visible light.
Were it not for the blanket of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the temperatures on the earth would be boiling hot during the day and freezing at night. It is the result of the presence of these gases in our atmosphere that some of the infrared energy that would otherwise reach the surface of the Earth when the sun is shining is absorbed, reducing the extreme heat that would otherwise ensue.
Because of