 | ||
 | | |
 | ||
| | |
 | ||||||||||||||
|  |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Writing about the climate crisis My slow awakening to climate change Climate sceptics answered: | Letter to the Editor Re: Global warming (comment on “Letters to the Editor”, HP January 2007, page 43) As the European Editor, Tim Lloyd Wright commendably signals views that impact the HPI. However, echoing authorities that not necessarily stick to the sound and agreed scientific method, as Mr Perry aptly commented, cannot contribute to clarify or resolve this most important issue. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an UN-committee with the sole mandate to only take inventory of any man-made influence on climate change, hence likely precluding or not studying in detail other possible primary causes like those of geophysical or astronomical nature. Also, the USA-stand towards Kyoto can only be understood if man-caused CO2-emission is not at the root of currently observed global warming. In fact, the IPCC produced a remarkable global temperature curve for 1860-2000 with an increase of about 0.5 deg.C in the period 1905-1945, then a decline of some 0.2 deg.C thru 1977, then followed again with an increase of some 0.5 deg.C. However, reported CO2-concentration thru 2005 reveals an almost linear increase of some 1 ppm per year, hence no correlation at all with the observed global temperature history. Besides, my scientific gut feeling has trouble to belief that just a few thousands of volume percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere would be the main cause of global warming. On the other hand, there is striking correlation between sunspot activities and other geophysical factors, thus not man-made. Much confusion stems from the hockeystick-curve from Michael Mann et al. (1998) for the last millennium, suggesting an unique current global temperature rise in history. Note that thermometers were only available since the 18th century, older data had to be inferred from growth rates of tree rings, corals, ice cores and historical events, hence less accurate. But recently (2003), Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick revisited Mann's dataset critically, revealing a global temperature increase around the year 1400 (in agreement with historic records) at least equivalent to the one currently observed. So, beware of blind statistics as potential supreme lies. On the other hand, Mr Perry's approach respects the scientific method, that is, any hypothesis should be confirmed or at least assessed by reasonable cause and effect data. So, let me add some further assessments to his response in HP, January 2007, page 43. At 60 deg.F (close to the global average temperature) and 60 % relative humidity, the lower atmosphere contains about 1 % (10,000 ppm) water vapor by volume versus a current 370 ppmv of CO2, both gases being so-called greenhouse gases that absorb and emit radiant heat (infrared) in specific band widths. The partial pressure ratio of water vapor to CO2 is therefore about 27. However, expressed in terms of emissivities for radiation, this ratio reduces to about five, still rendering water vapor for more than 80 % responsible for any greenhouse effect! Admittedly, CO2 at the same partial pressure as water vapor would render some five times more effect than water vapor on radiant heat capture. But Mr Perry is right that even the daily fluctuations in temperature and humidity is about 100 times more (not 1000 times!) for the water vapor concentration than the change in the minor concentration of CO2 during the last 50 years (or in terms of emissivity 20 times). The emerging conclusion is then that climate change is mainly caused by geophysical and astronomical factors (well evidenced), not justifying a doom and gloom scenario that deprives especially the developing countries of a fair share in economic growth next to draconian measures to reduce CO2-emissions with some 20 % or more in spite of the needs of a growing world population. In my opinion, a perfect recipe for a world wide war! Besides, if CO2 indeed proves not to be the bad guy, then the world avails of plenty of fossile fuels, including coal, for the next 1000 years. Well, only some 400 years ago the then prevailing authority (church) argued on the geocentric versus the heliocentric issue, history seems to repeat itself now on the (related) CO2-issue. Governments seem to overact on false premises, the HPI is challenged to remedy this by better scientific modeling, serving responsible care. Adrian G. Goossens, Chemical Engineer and Ethylene Consultant | ||||
 | |||||
Wingo is the project we started here on the archipelago outside Gothenburg to create a model of winning sustainable local development. You can visit wingo's website here. The website of our wind park has only just been registered. | |||||
| | | | | |