Approximately 1 year ago after super storm Sandy (a category 1 hurricane) slammed into the Ney Jersey & New York coasts. This prompted Bloomberg Business week to herald the headline “It’s Global Warming Stupid!” Seriously? Let’s examine the facts (I know, it’s a terrible thing to muddle emotion with hard Facts). The earth is 4.3 billion years old, and we have been keeping accurate weather statistics for approximately 150 years.
However, what we do know is that the earth has gone thru various cycles of warming and cooling over the millenniums, as shown by the chart on the left shows. It was obtained by Professor Don Easterbrook (geology) of Washington University via radioisotope dating of ice core samples. Professor Easterbrook goes on to say that we are actually entering a period of global cooling. This feeling is parroted by MIT professor Richard Lindzen who is a well known skeptic on global warming. He states that “there are political pressures on climate scientists to conform to global climate alarmism.”
Let’s look at some more facts. The EPA has concentrated on the emission of CO2 as the main culprit that causes man made global warming. How much carbon dioxide is there in the atmosphere, and how much of that is caused by man? Our atmosphere is mainly nitrogen, 78% and oxygen, 21% with a number of other elements comprising the remainder. Carbon dioxide is .0387% of our atmosphere, the decimal equivalent is .000387 (chart to left). Not too much. The next question is: of all the carbon dioxide that’s in the air, how much is contributed by man? Surprising, man only accounts for 3.4% of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The rest occurs naturally from decaying organic materials on the land and in the sea. Is this enough? After speaking to a number of scientists and environmentalists, I was able to glean the following:The first oil well in the United States was drilled in 1859, which accelerated the burning of fossil fuels globally. Prior to this, CO2 levels remained relatively constant at 220 parts per minimum (increased fossil fuel exploration and burning occurred as a result of a shortage of whale oil). As a result, CO2 levels spiked to more than 350 ppm (Scripts CO2 data, www.co2now.org) and as a result, humans are overwhelming the natural systems ability to absorb the excess CO2.
The above is a relatively cogent argument. However there are others who do. The following is an excerpt by Marc Moranao of climatedepot.com:
The above is a relatively cogent argument. However there are others who do. The following is an excerpt by Marc Moranao of climatedepot.com:
“The level of carbon dioxide, a trace essential gas in the atmosphere that humans exhale from our mouths, has come very close to reaching the “symbolic” 400 parts per million (ppm) threshold in the atmosphere. Former Vice President Al Gore declared the 400 ppm level “A sad milestone. A call to action.” New York times reporter Justin Gillis compared trace amounts of CO2 to “a tiny bit of arsenic or cobra venom” and warned that rising CO2 means “the fate of the earth hangs in the balance.” The New Yorker Magazine declared “Everything we use that emits carbon dioxide needs to be replaced with something that doesn’t.” And a UK Guardian editorial declared “Swift political action can avert a carbon dioxide crisis.”
But despite the man-made global warming fear movement’s clarion call of alarm, many scientists are dismissing the 400ppm level of carbon dioxide as a non-event. Scientists point out that there are literally hundreds of factors that govern Earth’s climate and temperature – not just CO2. Renowned climatologists have declared that a doubling or even tripling of CO2 would not have major impacts on the Earth’s climate or temperature.”
Let’s look at some statistics/facts. If you look at the attached chart on global temperature from 1979 to 2008, we’re going through a cooling period in recent years. Should we be worried about global cooling?
But despite the man-made global warming fear movement’s clarion call of alarm, many scientists are dismissing the 400ppm level of carbon dioxide as a non-event. Scientists point out that there are literally hundreds of factors that govern Earth’s climate and temperature – not just CO2. Renowned climatologists have declared that a doubling or even tripling of CO2 would not have major impacts on the Earth’s climate or temperature.”
Let’s look at some statistics/facts. If you look at the attached chart on global temperature from 1979 to 2008, we’re going through a cooling period in recent years. Should we be worried about global cooling?
If you look at a chart with a longer time horizon, from 1895 to 2009, we’re at the average, and if you look at the charts on the medieval warming period and Holocene Warming period, courtesy of Dr Ian Clark of the University of Ottawa, we’ve had warmer periods. If you’re confused, join the club.
How about the Bloomberg statement that “It’s global warming stupid”; this was stated after hurricane Sandy, a category 1 storm, hit the northeast coast of the United States. Are these storms all that rare. As you can see from the chart at the left, we don’t get hit like the southern coast, but they are not uncommon.
But what could be even more disconcerting, is the legislation that has been passed in the form of the clean air acts and the requirements of the EPA. There is no doubt that the clean air acts, from 1955 to 2005, have contributed to a cleaner atmosphere (attached charts), but it comes at a cost as exemplified by the charts from the Heritage Foundation. Do the costs in forgone GDP and higher unemployment justify the steps we’ve taken and regulations that have been implemented? What I find particularly troubling, is the number of coal fired power plants that have been closed by the EPA under the Obama Administration (chart). This translates to less energy and higher costs, all in the name of global warming, or is it global cooling. In 2008, President elect Obama stated “If somebody wants to build a coal fired plant they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them”. As a result of these plant closures, over 35 gigawatts of power generating capacity will close. This equates to less availability higher costs, and unemployment. Caterpillar recently reported an earnings miss as a result of a decrease in coal mining activity and subsequent decline in equipment orders. They will be laying off workers.
Is it worth it? Does the benefit of lower CO2 emissions outweigh the costs imposed on businesses and consumers?
In retrospect, one of the most intelligent analogies/statements that was given to me was from a colleague in the Economics department at Bentley, Professor Swati Murkerjee. Her analogy was as follows, “If an asteroid is headed towards earth and half the scientists say it’s going to hit the earth, and half say it’s going to miss, it’s best to be risk adverse.”
In retrospect, one of the most intelligent analogies/statements that was given to me was from a colleague in the Economics department at Bentley, Professor Swati Murkerjee. Her analogy was as follows, “If an asteroid is headed towards earth and half the scientists say it’s going to hit the earth, and half say it’s going to miss, it’s best to be risk adverse.”
RSS Feed
