Man-Made Global Warming: Good or Bad Science?

For the last 30 years and more there has been a continuous reduction of man-made CO2 being released. Since Obama has been elected, the policy on global warming has shifted. There is a bill lawmakers are considering whose purpose is “to make energy more expensive” so we use less in order to effect a climate change for the better.

This is an interest story, because of my locality where the electric company has asked the state for an increase in rates. The United States is in a recession, so why would the electric company want to raise rates? Their reasoning is this, profits are way down, because they are not selling the electricity they once did. Did you see that? This is totally contrary to what lawmakers for the energy bill are proposing. So it appears the consumer is a bad position, if we use less our rates might go up, if we use more, our rates go up, who is this benefiting? Certainly not the average consumer or poor person! This sort of squeeze happens in the science aspect of it as we shall see in a moment.

The sun has been in a quiet mode so low in fact it’s creating records for the least activity in it’s known history. ICR reports

“There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the 366 days in 2008 (73 percent), and as of May 7, 2009, there had been no sunspots on 109 of the 127 days since the year began (86 percent). Solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center concluded, “We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum.” Sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center agreed, stating, “This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century.”

The energy we observe coming from the sun is a major driving force for the earth’s climate system. It has been already observe that little or zero solar activity has caused global cooling for example, the Little Ice Age between about 1550 and 1750 A.D. It had nearly zero sunspot activity and temperatures were generally cooler over most of Europe.

Today, with low sunspot activity, we have been also seeing a cooling change in the climate, back in 2003, NASA reported that the world’s oceans have been losing heat. Temps since 2001, have been going down. Even in my locality, for this summer, the temp average is down 5.9 degrees. It hasn’t been a very hot summer at all, although it has had some hot moments.

So let’s say we eliminate the industrial age, would that be a cure all? No, this is where the squeeze comes in. Science daily reported man-made global warming happening 5,000 years ago! These types of studies imply, if man wasn’t around, the earth would be just fine.

In conclusion, man-made global warming is bad science but very profitable for those who study it and advocate it like Al Gore. The climate is a very complex system in which we do not fully understand. We do observe a temp flux on how the sun behaves rather than what man produces.

Historical warming and cooling are normal, we don’t have the power to alter the weather. Does that mean, we should pollute more with our cars? No, it would be nice someday to be driving all electrical cars that’s if it’s affordable, then it would be practical.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Man-Made Global Warming: Good or Bad Science?

  1. “So let’s say we eliminate the industrial age, would that be a cure all? No, this is where the squeeze comes in. Science daily reported man-made global warming happening 5,000 years ago!”

    So the existence of man-made global warming 5,000 years ago by the invention oif agriculture falsifies the existence of man-made global warming by the invention of the steam engine. Michael, your logical prowess astonds me. Although not in a good way.

    “These types of studies imply, if man wasn’t around, the earth would be just fine.”

    Well, yes. But that proves my point, not yours.

    “In conclusion, man-made global warming is bad science but very profitable for those who study it and advocate it like Al Gore.”

    Ah, the conspiracy theory again! I’m sure that Al Gore is becoming a billionaire from the profits of his movie.

    “The climate is a very complex system in which we do not fully understand. We do observe a temp flux on how the sun behaves rather than what man produces.”

    Change “rather than” to “in addition to” and I’ll buy it. (Except that you misuse the term “flux.” Heat has a flux, not temperature. You’ll have to quit using that thermodynamics textbook as a doorstop.)

    “The sun has been in a quiet mode so low in fact it’s creating records for the least activity in it’s known history. ICR reports…”

    And yet, global average temperatures continue to increase despite falling solar output. Please tell me why this does not show exactly the opposite from your contention? Solar heat decreases, global average temperature increases. Only other source: human activity.

    Global average temperatures have correlated with CO2 levels for the past 670,000 years. Why should they suddenly not do so now? (Oh, that’s right; as a creationist, you do not believe in counting glacial ice rings.)

    You must have made this post up yourself. The ICR doesn’t shoot itself in the foot quite so plainly.

  2. “So the existence of man-made global warming 5,000 years ago by the invention oif agriculture falsifies the existence of man-made global warming by the invention of the steam engine. Michael, your logical prowess astonds me.”

    No, my logic says, regardless of industrial age or not, some scientists like in scientist daily will come up with ways (in this case a computer simulation) to claim man-made global warming. This is what I called; “the squeeze.”Tell me Olorin, what scientific data do you think says there is an amount of man-made CO2 acceptable for the planet’s survival or are we just playing it by ear? Do you really think the United States can change the weather if it cuts back on CO2 like it’s been doing the last 30 or more years?

    “These types of studies imply, if man wasn’t around, the earth would be just fine.”

    “Well, yes. But that proves my point, not yours.”

    In your dreams, human existence doesn’t destroy through changing of the weather.

    “Conspiracy theory again” because the likes of Al Gore made a lot of money off his speeches against man-made CO2, gain more fame with the movie. No, not a conspiracy, a factual observation.

  3. Michael: “No, my logic says, regardless of industrial age or not, some scientists like in scientist daily will come up with ways (in this case a computer simulation) to claim man-made global warming.”

    Your statement assumes that the scientists were using creationist principles—that is, that they decided on an outcome, then wrote a simulation to produce that outcome. But this was a scientific experiment, using known present data to generate a model, then running the model on historical findings for agriculture 5,000 years ago. The model was also verified by comparing its results with CO2 and global average temperatures from 5,000 years ago.

    Michael: “Tell me Olorin, what scientific data do you think says there is an amount of man-made CO2 acceptable for the planet’s survival or are we just playing it by ear?”

    Science does not deal with what is acceptable. Science tells you what consequences may follow from given amounts of CO2. Then politicians must decide which are acceptable and which are not. The forest-fire season in California has increased by 78 days in the past 3 decades. Is this acceptable? A 4-foot water-level rise around Manhattan from global warming will flood the subways and demolish utilities. Is this acceptable? Sea-level rise in Bangladesh in the past few decades has produced 2.5 million refugees because of salt incursions into their cropland. How many more refugees would be acceptable?

    These are questions of human survival. The planet will survive any amount of CO2. At a sufficiently high level, its weather will be like that of Venus, and we’ll all be dead from an overdose of folly. I recently read a study about an “ethical discount rate.” This is the rate at which people are willing to sacrifice the well-being of their children and grandchildren in order to avoid their own discomfort or expense. In the US, the rate was uncomfortably high.

    Olorin: “These types of studies imply, if man wasn’t around, the earth would be just fine. Well, yes. But that proves my point, not yours.”
    Michael: “In your dreams, human existence doesn’t destroy through changing of the weather.”

    What is your basis for that conclusion?. The weighty and growing evidence says that human activity has changed the weather, is now changing the weather, and will continue to change the weather unless we stop pouring greenhouse gases into the system. The IPCC report, which a few criticize as fear-mongering, is actually understated, in my opinion from reading some of the individual primary studies. Your conclusory denial sans evidence carries no credibility.

    Michael: “ No, not a conspiracy, a factual observation.”

    Than I’d like to see some facts in support of a conspiracy. The conspiracy must be extremely wide to encompass 12,000 climatologists all over the world, numerous government bodies, and international organizations..I’d really like some facts as to how all of them gain personally from demonstrating global warming, and how they cooperate clandestinely to achieve this goal.

    Ultimately, however, you again employ an irrelevant religious argument to a scientific issue. As I’ve emphasized before, you cannot overthrow a scientific finding by impugning the character or motives of its proponents. If you can controvert the evidence for the findings, then the findings must fall. But the findings are not invalidated because Al Gore may be making a lot of money from publicizing them.

    Several points in the previous comment, and many others in your prior posts, demonstrate that your weltanschauung cannot accommodate itself to science. There are inappropriate theological arguments against scientific theories. There are assumptions that the evidence must fit preconceived ideas, rather than vice versa. .You see agency everywhere, and cannot fathom the concept of natural causes. You will make no progress in understanding science until that mindset changes. Let’s hope that occurs by the time we run out of options to combat human global warming. But I am not optimistic.

  4. krissmith777: “I reserve judgement [sic] on this issue.”

    On global warming, reserving judgment is no longer an option, unfortunately. By the time the answer become obvious to the fence-sitters, many options will have disappeared.

    Already some are seriously discussing mega-projects such as seeding the world’s oceans with millions of tons of iron, even though the second-order effects would be unknown.

    What do you think the problem in Darfur is all about? Tribal rivalries? Their water is disappearing, and millions are are killing each other over what is left. Multiply that by a hundred when the refugees in Bangladesh move inland to their neighbors’ cropland.

    Closer to home. Why do you suppose that the oil companies are advertising on TV for “exploiting the oil that we already have right here in the US”? Doesn’t this make you suspect there might be opposition? You bet. Every ton of oil shale mined in the Western US takes 10 tons of water to process it. At present water levels, this would leave very little water for farmers and ranchers. Since water tables have been falling in that region for some time, and fossil water has already been tapped, the oil companies will be using all of it. Nothing left for anyone else.

  5. Olorin

    “On global warming, reserving judgment is no longer an option, unfortunately. By the time the answer become obvious to the fence-sitters, many options will have disappeared. “

    I realize the risk of doing nothing, which is why I said that I support cleaning up the planet.

  6. Well, I guess it depends upon what you mean by “cleaning up the planet.”

    If that entails reducing human-caused green-house emissions by a suffiecient amount, then we have no disagreement. But this will be long, difficult, and expensive. The problem is that we have been getting all this energy out of the ground for free, and dumping our wastes into the atmosphere for free. Why do people think that charges for doing this is a tax? It’s merely paying for what we have been getting for free.

    Then of course there is the finite-resources problem. Whenever we use stuff out of the ground a million times faster than it is being replenished, sooner or later we will run out of it. That’s a no-brainer.

    And there is the problem that in some areas, supporting the resident human population requires 70% of the total resources that are available to support all forms of life. That seems excessive on its face.

    As to human-induced global warming, it is now past controversy that ti occurs and that it is serious. Europe has started a mitigation, but it’s a weak one. The US has a chance to lead, and by example, leverage other countries. China, believe it or not, devotes large efforts to conservation and to green technology—people don’t notice because their total energy growth is so large, and much of it has to be coal at this point. India is a laggard, unfortunately, as is Russia. The rest of the world will follow us, Europe, and China; they’ll have to.

    The ironic part is that, by reducing global temperatures and dirty energy, we will all actually live better. We just don’t want to go through a period of cost and effort to get there. What if the uS had felt the same way (and many did, actually) about World War II? We’d be living under a dictatorship today. But, painful as it was at the time, we came out with a better standard of living for the experience.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s