Friday, January 06, 2006

How much money does it take to solve global warming?

I am a little pressed for time tonight, so I will let Steven Milloy tell you:

"2005 Ties for 2nd Warmest Year" - "With a global average temperature that was three-tenths of a degree Celsius warmer than seasonal norms, 2005 tied with 2002 as the second warmest year in the past 27, according to data gathered by NOAA satellites and processed at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH)." (Newswise)

Not so global global warming. Interestingly, the Northern Polar region appears to have a rising trend from 1992. The Southern Polar region, however, demonstrates no clear trend, having cooled slightly. Contrary to hysterical claims this is pretty much the coup de grĂ¢ce for the catastrophic anthropogenic greenhouse warming hypothesis. 'How so?' I hear people puzzling - it's actually pretty simple, let's walk through it:

  • the misnamed 'greenhouse effect' can be experimentally demonstrated in the lab;
  • logically, some warming (or not cooling) must have occurred with rising greenhouse gases;
  • whether this effect is sufficiently large in the real world to even be detected is moot;
  • anthropogenic greenhouse gases are well mixed in the atmosphere;
  • due to topography and population, the greatest concentration of cooling particulates is located in the Northern Hemisphere;
  • the cold, dry polar atmosphere has the greatest greenhouse warming potential;
  • the coldest, driest atmosphere is located over Antarctica;
  • air samples taken at the South Pole show anthropogenic greenhouse gases present at levels within a couple of parts per million of those taken elsewhere on the globe;
  • despite its lack of cooling particulates, the Southern Polar region shows no detectable temperature response (dose-response?) to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gases;
  • there is no postulated mechanism by which anthropogenic gases could cause warming in the Northern Polar region but not in the Southern Polar region;
  • this tells us that warming observed in the Northern Polar region is driven by something other than anthropogenic greenhouse;
  • since something other than anthropogenic greenhouse is driving all the observable (measurable) temperature change then we can be confident that tweaking anthropogenic emissions will have no measurable effect.

See? It needn't cost trillions of dollars to solve the greenhouse emission 'problem' after all.

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by