Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming Were Known About in the Late 50’s
In his latest Climate Denial Crock of the Week Peter Sinclair points out that we’ve known about the effects of CO2 and the Greenhouse effect since the 1950’s. The debate has never really been over whether CO2 can effect the world’s temperature, it’s always been about figuring out how much and how soon. I’ve known about this since the 80’s, and it was one of the factors that convinced me to become an advocate for nuclear energy – I was reading debates by some of my favorite authors about the various dooms posed by the Club of Rome and others, and nuclear energy seemed to address most if not all of those best. It was clean, and it could be cheap – with nuclear we could beat four of the horsemen: hunger, water shortages, global warming, and population.
During the past three years I’ve considered that the others were more important, and still do to this day. I published quite a few articles posing challenges to some of the more alarmist of the global warming claims thinking we had plenty of time to get there and that other matters were more important. That focus has changed, since the data keeps stacking up and getting more alarming, it’s time we start addressing global warming because waiting until the second half of the century will be too late. Something I had thought we could procrastinate on has come due.
I still do not think cap and trade and the other schemes are sufficient, and I don’t like them because they are coercive. Those type of plans usually fail. Instead I prefer that our country become the prime provider of clean, cheap, nuclear energy for a needy world — besides that clean energy is a bull market and blue sky – we need to stay ahead of that market for the future prosperity of our nation. Instead of billions in money flowing to other countries in a mad shell game we should instead just help build reactors. You can see some of the other factors that we need to consider and why nuclear is so important if we are to keep it real in this article where I roundly slam Al Gore.
UPDATE: Here’s one of the early modern articles from 1956 on CO2 and its effects, it wasn’t the slightest bit controversial when it appeared.
Following up on an earlier post on Lord Monckton’s anti-AGW campaign it turns out that he’s playing fast and loose with data, and apparently making things up. The sordid details can be found at RealClimate. What’s his defense going to be? That he was only trying to make the chart look good?
Christopher Monckton’s new paper analyzes the math of the IPCC model and 2007 climate report and finds it flawed. As many have asserted his math now proves that carbon forcing effects in the model are exagerated among other things such as:
• The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
• CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
• Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
• The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
• The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
• “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
• Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
• The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
• It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
• Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
• In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
The climate alarmists are sure to be out in force soon to attack these conclusions, watch for some major hysteria as this is a major scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal , the first among many to come. Now that we see demonstrable human suffering as outcome of misguided technocratic policy eyes are beginning to open. Scientists will be fully examining IPCC conclusion and basically fact checking their ass fully which is something the climate alarmists been given a pass on in the past. We undoubtably contribute some extra heat to the planet, to conclude that we must enact draconian measures before we know whether it matters or not is disastrously stupid.
Update:Charles points out that at American Thinker they outline what’s happened since, it appears that the paper might have been invited by APS, and then subsequently slammed due to the reaction that I said would occur.
More Updates: Tim Lambert submits that there might be flaws, Monckton asks for an apology and who reviewed his paper and their findings before the red label warning at APS was applied. It’s a full on science food fight folks.
Please also note that my statement is still firm: there is enough doubt about the extent of MMGW contribution that we should forestall policies based upon the IPCC findings. We should research more and actually fund some contrary studies. To enact more government policy before we know more would be scurrilious, and probably disastrous
UPDATE: It’s a year and six months later, Monckton’s paper has been debunked, and I’ve done much more digging into the data and studies. Anthropogenic Global Warming is something we must address this century, and if we wait until the second half to start it will be too late.
Who is WE? WE is Anti-Nuclear Activists and Energy Stasists
In the series of articles titled “Gore Lied, Peopled Died” and others on global warming here I outlined and demonstrated how Kyoto and other global warming initiatives create energy and food poverty worldwide which leads to starvation, high infant mortality, poor sanitation, increased prevalence of disease, hunger, and limited futures for the world’s middle-class and poor. All of that’s easily demonstrable with UN data and newspapers showing past and current food and fuel crunches. Now it’s time to dig into who the people in Al Gore’s Global Warming group really are — a surprising mix of strange bedfellows.
My brand of high-energy environmentalism runs counter to consensus on both sides, and it gores everyone’s political Ox as we will see when we delve into who “WE” is.