You might be wondering why it matters to you that global warming skeptics have scientific evidence and aren’t just trying to stir up trouble or be ridiculous. Well, some people may say that global warming, as explained by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a fact that everyone just needs to accept as truth, but there are several people, including a scientist named Doug L. Hoffman, who disagree. I think that it is important for everyone to know both sides of an argument and not just the side with the loudest voice. One of his reasons for his skepticism is that “greenhouse effects”,when the suns radiation is reflected off the earth’s surface into the atmosphere and the heat is absorbed to warm the earth, have already warmed the earth. This is definitely a good thing because if they hadn’t the earth would have a surface temperature of -1 degree Fahrenheit, just a little bit too cold if you ask me.
Doug L. Hoffman also uses band saturation, which is how much radiation is absorbed at a specific frequency, as another example of how the IPCC’s information is completely wrong. Frequency is how many particles of energy are absorbed in a specific wavelength (i.e. that chart of colored waves that your science probably has in the classroom). If close to 100% of a gas’s radiation is being absorbed, the absorption cannot exceed 100%; meaning that no matter how much radiation is added, the amount of radiation absorbed will not change. So basically the change in temperature would be relatively low even if more CO_2 were added to the atmosphere. Ok, so I know that radiation and frequencies of radiation aren’t something that most high school students know about or even pay attention to. The fact is that these things are important though because this world’s problems will be yours one day, and you will have to find a way to fix them. Hopefully by learning about this now, you can be more knowledgeable in the future.
According to the IPCC, the temperature will rise not only because of “greenhouse gases” but also because of “feedback” loops, which means that each natural system has a consequence whether negative or positive that occurs. Hoffman refutes that by saying each natural system has a different “feedback” so even if more of one gas is added to the atmosphere it could have different effects. For example, if water vapor is added to the atmosphere, the earth’s temperature will most probably warm slightly because water vapor is responsible for more global warming than carbon dioxide, but the temperature change will not adversely effect the earth. In fact, according to research, the earth’s temperature has only risen by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 150 years. That’s definitely not enough to melt huge glaciers, destroy the ozone layer, and hurt the world’s natural systems.
According to Hoffman, IPCC’s version of global warming is completely incorrect because we as people and scientists do not understand the climate enough to predict all the things that will supposedly happen in the future. I personally agree with him. How can some climate scientists claim that global warming is going to completely change the earth in just between 30 and 100 years from now when sometimes we can’t even predict what the weather will be tomorrow?
According to an article by Express.co.uk called “Climate Change Lies are Exposed”, the IPCC was put under fire in an inquiry by the InterAcademy Council, a group of scientific academies who give knowledge about global issues, in August of this year because of the IPCC’s inaccurate predictions about the future in regards to global warming. One of these predictions was that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. This prediction is ridiculous because it was based on a conversation with an obscure Indian scientist, who has since admitted that his claims were just “speculation” and not based on actual research and facts. According to Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University, “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.” Obviously, the IPCC’s failure to put out accurate research and predictions is unacceptable and needs to be examined.
Unfortunately,the IPCC’s report had many mistakes in it, not just those about the glaciers. For example, it said that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level when the actual figure is 26 percent. It also said that water supplies for between 75 million and 220 million people would be at risk for depletion due to climate change; however the actual figure turned out to be between 90 million and 220 million. This may not seem like as big of a deal as the glacier incident; however, it is very important for such a high level climate research group to know that its data is accurate. Despite these blunders, the chairman of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, said ““We have the highest confidence in the science behind our assessments.” When it has just been shown that your reports were extremely inaccurate, I don’t think that this is the attitude that anyone should take. If there is a problem, I think the chairman should have admitted their mistake and said that they would work hard to fix the inaccuracy.
The media can also be a great source of support for global warming and condemnation of those who don’t support it; however, according to Global Warming Hoax, some of what the media says is just not true. For example, the media often says that sea ice today is depleting which is why global warming is starting to have a great effect on the climate. Now some of you may be saying, “What is sea ice?” Well, to be honest, that’s exactly what I said when I read this article so I looked it up. According to the Encyclopedia of Earth, which gathers its data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, sea ice is just frozen ocean water. Ok, so why should you care about it, right? Well, the more sea ice there is, the colder it gets because the more sea ice you have the more sunlight gets reflected back into the atmosphere without heating the earth. All right, now that I’ve cleared that up, back to why the media is wrong about global warming and sea ice.
According to the article called “Antarctic Sea Ice for March 2010 Significantly greater than 1980,” the sea ice percentage has increased in extent (how far it stretches) 14% from 3.5 square kilometers to 4.0 square kilometers since 1980. It has increased in concentration (how deep it is) 30% from 2.0 square kilometers to 2.6 kilometers. So examining this information, one would hopefully come to the conclusion that the amount of sea ice since 1980 has increased and, as such, the sun would be warming the earth less because more of it’s rays would be reflected back to the atmosphere. Basically, that would mean that the earth would have gotten slightly cooler since 1980. That doesn’t really agree with global warming, does it?
So, let’s recap. The article by Nature says that those who disagree with global warming are ridiculous. Well, I’ve given you the point of view of three different areas of skeptics: a scientist, a news website, and a “global warming denier’s” website. In each of these articles, the author gave scientific facts and quotes from credible research. Obviously not all people who deny global warming can be called ridiculous.
“Climate of Fear.” Nature. 10 March 2010. Volume 464. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7286/full/464141a.html
Herron, John. globalwarminghoax.com. “Antarctic Sea Ice for March 2010 Significantly Greater Than 1980.” 6 April 2010. http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.133
Duffy, J. Emmett. The Encyclopedia of Earth. “Sea Ice.” 2 September 2008. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Sea_ice
Hoffman, Doug L. The Resilient Earth. “Why I Am A Global Warming Skeptic.” 7 February 2010. http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-i-am-global-warming-skeptic
Bowater, Donna. Express.co.uk. “Climate Change Lies Are Exposed.” 31 August 2010. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/196642/Climate-change-lies-are-exposed
Glacier Picture. http://stigmanusia.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/2.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment