Climate Change, Case Closed???

By: James Burge

I just finished reading a blog article from the Huffington Post about Climate Change and the ‘global-warming-is-an-exact-science’ crowd, and have a few things to say.

I have to start out with the typical disclaimers that seem to be required for anyone debating the global warming myth. Firstly, I too see our climate changing and I too am concerned about the possible outcomes. Secondly, we do not require an excuse to be better to our environment or to question the workings of this complicated biosphere. Lastly, my genuine concern for our planet (and its future residences) exists regardless of the global warming science that is typically used to induce guilt.

That being said, there remain a few clarifications.

As pointed out in the article mentioned above, our climate is always changing.

There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago.

This last ice age, as some of you may be aware, saw the majority of what is now North America under glaciers. But of course, one could (wrongly) assume that after the ice age temperatures leveled out and have remained relatively constant ever since. Average temperatures have gone through warm periods, where civilizations thrived, and cold periods, which tended to coincide with plague, famine, and empire collapse. “History shows that periods of cold are far more stressful to humanity than periods of warm.”

Another thing that was brought up by the Huffinton Article is that the relationship between temperature and CO2 levels aren’t as cut and dry as some would like us to believe. Scientists have found that there is about an 800 year delay between the rise in global temperatures and the rise in CO2. This is to say that the CO2 levels could not have ‘caused’ the initial warming, but that it may contribute in some way to the continued warming cycle. So could this actually show that increase in global temperature has an effect on the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere?

When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing.

Doesn’t seem quite as cut and dry when you look at it that way.

Do you know what the most common greenhouse gas is?

Methane?

Carbon Dioxide?

Nitrous Oxide?

Water vapour…

I wonder how long until water vapour becomes a controlled substance and hanging clothes up to dry outside cited for the increase in global temperature? I guess it depends on how much money governments can make outlawing CO2 emissions. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is well above the levels of CO2, so why aren’t we hearing about it in all of the global-warming hoopla?

So since water vapour is a greenhouse gas, an increase in water vapour will increase global temperatures, right?

Wrong! Increased water vapour actually reflects more UV light thereby decreasing the amounts seen on the ground. Increase water vapour would also contribute to high levels of precipitation that also have a cooling effect. Also, due to the high heat capacity of water, a lack of water vapour in the air contributes to increased temperature fluctuation from day to night as seen in most arid climates.

The fact is our planet has seen global averages well above and well below levels we see today. The only certainty is that the climate will continue to change. The resulting questions are two fold, 1) how will humans adapt to climate change? And, 2) will guilt, through man-assisted-global-warming be used to justify these adaptations? or will the natural sense of pride in our Earth along with the acceptance of a dynamic/changing climate?

The article goes on to mention the fact that there is evidence that other planets in our solar system are warming and that cosmic rays from other galaxies could actually have an effect on cloud cover here on Earth.

As NASA has corroborated, the number of cosmic rays passing through our atmosphere is at the maximum level since measurements have been taken, and show no signs of diminishing. The result: the seeding of what some have taken to calling “Svensmark clouds,” low dense clouds, principally over the oceans, that reflect sunlight back to space before it can have its warming effect on whatever is below.

My point: ‘Proof’ exists on both sides of this issue, and although I agree that Climate change will likely be one of the major tests of humanity, in my opinion, the human influence on climate change is irrelevant and is only wasting time. Also, the claim that climate change is case closed is at best dubious (would they not welcome science showing that we aren’t doomed as some claim). There is no statute of limitations on truth, something seen as true in science today can (and will likely) be proven false at least in part, whether the science was in already or not (see Newtonian Physics vs. Quantum mechanics). The best evidence for ulterior motive is when ones mind seems to be made up and evidence is then cherry-picked for only those discoveries that prove that point.

In conclusion, should we recycle and use less energy and be more environmental? Of course!!! Should we sturdy the climate and begin preparing for monumental shifts in climate? Of Course!!! Should we each pay governments to save us from the boogie man climate change? HELL NO!!!