Global Warming: CO2 increase is a symptom, not the main cause
Tradução para o inglês do meu artigo Aquecimento Global: aumento de CO2 é um sintoma, não a causa principal publicado em 2010 neste blog e na página do GlobalResearch.
From the addendum
Global Warming: CO2 increase is a symptom, not the main cause
By Francisco Roland Di
Biase
Disclaimer: (January 2018)
The original title of this article (Climate Change is Not Cause by Man) has been changed since the central theme is that CO2 is only the symptom of the problem and not the main cause. Of course, because CO2 has a small role in the greenhouse effect (water vapor is the major prompter) once its concentration in the atmosphere increases, a vicious cycle begins.
The original title of this article (Climate Change is Not Cause by Man) has been changed since the central theme is that CO2 is only the symptom of the problem and not the main cause. Of course, because CO2 has a small role in the greenhouse effect (water vapor is the major prompter) once its concentration in the atmosphere increases, a vicious cycle begins.
The vast majority of people think global
warming is serious, and that scientists have reached a consensus on what is
happening. The debates are only about how long we still have. The mainstream
media along with many environmentalists led us to believe that unless we take
immediate steps we will head for an environmental cataclysm where sea levels
will rise causing millions of refugees around the world. The ecosystem will
change, breaking the food chain and leading to mass extinctions.
For those who saw the movie "An
Inconvenient Truth", from the former U.S. vice president Al Gore, the
impression is that there aren’t dissenting voices in the scientific community,
or if it exists, they are paid by big oil corporations. Also there is a
widespread idea that climatology, climate science, is very complicated, and that
probably you will need a PhD to understand it. Any science to those who weren’t
trained in it is complicated, and so is climatology. It works by the observation
of the present and especially of the past through the examination of ice
samples from different epochs from various locations on Earth, in an attempt to
determine how climate has behaved in the past to give an idea of how it will
behave in the future.
Returning to Mr. Gore’s film, that won the
Oscar - and Gore himself won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in
"enlighten" people. It shows many infographics and computer
projections that give the impression that everything he says is based on
concrete and indisputable scientific facts.
Well, one fact about the movie that is little
known is that in 2007 the British High Court ruled that "An Inconvenient
Truth" ceased to be shown in schools because were found at least nine
factual errors or exaggerations in the "scientific facts". For
example, the film shows that many coastal towns on the planet will be flooded
due to rising sea levels. Mr. Gore shows a projection where the seas will rise
by seven meters by the end of the century while the IPCC report says it will
need thousands of years to reach that level.
Another unproven issue, in this case completely
unsubstantiated, is that polar bears are threatened. The truth is that to date
there are no scientific studies indicating that the population of polar bears
is shrinking. On the contrary, in the area where they have being monitored it
seems that their population is increasing. In addition, it is known that about
8,000 years ago there was a warming period on Earth, larger than the current
one, called the Holocene Optimum Period, which lasted more than three thousand
years, the polar bears survived as everyone can attest. We can’t forget also that
scientists knows from long time that in medieval times there was also a warming
that allowed the Vikings (Nordics) to colonize Greenland and develop
agriculture. Also permitted grapes cultivation in northern England and agriculture in Greenland,
which is impossible today because of the cold.
As the planet has been hotter in the past it
also has been colder in others eras. In the last ice age (12,000 years ago) the
ice covered almost the entire temperate zone of the northern hemisphere. Places
like Canada, northern USA, Russia
and northern Europe were covered by ice. It is
safe to conclude that there was a warming since the ice retreated to their
present positions in the Polar Regions. We
also know that shortly after the medieval warming occurred the "Little
Ice Age" in the fourteenth century when Greenland
was covered in ice. In winter the cold was so intense that even the River
Thames in London,
was completely frozen allowing skating on its surface as shown in the picture
below.
During the last ice age the planet's
temperature was around 12°C
only 2.4 degrees of difference for the 14.4°C of today. But remember that during most
of the planet's history the temperature was around 22°C. Only tropical and
subtropical regions existed, there was no ice in the polar caps, and this was
not a catastrophic scenario. Patrick Moore, founding member of Greenpeace, says
that when we analyze the pattern of biodiversity in the regions of the globe we
realize that going from tropical to subtropical and then to temperate zones,
where there are frosts and snow in winter, there is a drop of 90% of
biodiversity. He argues that the ice may be considered an enemy of life and
that it would not be a bad thing if the planet warmed slightly as was in the
past.
Man was not responsible for these climate changes
that happened. They are part of natural cycles of warming and cooling that
exist on our planet. If we look at the graph of temperature variation (graph 1
below) we see that it fluctuates and is not a straight line with a sudden rise
in the twentieth century (graph 2 below) as the IPCC has put in its 3rd report.
Graph
1 - Temperature Variation
Graph
2 - Hockey Stick (IPCC) 1
This IPCC graph called "Hockey Stick"
because of its resemblance to the object in question has been thoroughly
discredited by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They used the same data of
the IPCC scientists (Mann et al.) in a proprietary method and obtained very
different results. Then they analyzed the method of Mann et al. and realized
that it looks exactly for the data sequence required to form the hockey stick
graph. As if they were thinking: we want this result (constant temperature and
heating in the twentieth century - hockey stick graph) then we create a method
that from the available data will provide this predetermined result. When we
ignore the scientific method we don’t produce science but something else
without any scientific value.
Another factor that influences the climate,
recently discovered, is a small cycle of warming and cooling that lasts about
30 years related to the operating cycle of the Pacific
Ocean, hot or cold. The data show that in this first decade of the
21st century the ocean went from hot to cold mode. And as Professor
Richard Lindzen of MIT, a former member of the IPCC confirms there was no
significant increase in temperature during this period, contradicting with the IPCC
predictions, and virtually absolving the guilt of CO2 since China
has significantly increased its emissions in the last two decades. It is very
likely that we will be entering a cooling period.
Alternate cycles of
warming and cooling since 1470 AD. (Blue is cold and red is hot) - based on
oxygen isotopes rates in the Greenland ice
core GISP2.
The map above shows
cooler temperatures in blue in the ocean (note the North
America coast).
The graph shows how
the Pacific was changing between its modes hot and cold over the last century
and an extrapolation for the next years based on previous years.
This cycle of 30 years is more evident when we
look at the data and see that the 1930s were the warmest of the 20th
century and the year 1934 the hottest and not 1998 and 2006 as the IPCC said.
By contrast in the 1970s there was a substantial cooling that led some
scientists raise the question if we were going enter into a new ice age. One
such scientist was Stephen Schneider, one of the leading voices of the
movement. Today, the same Stephen Schneider is a leading member of the IPCC and
special adviser to Al Gore (Schneider was with Al Gore when he received the
Nobel Prize). The same person who, 30 years ago said that we would freeze, says
we'll cook today.
A fact that the mainstream media likes to show a
lot as --- evidence of global warming is the
glaciers breaking up and thus reducing the Arctic icecap. But according to
Professor Syun Ichi Akasofu, founding director of the International Artic
Research Center,
the ice began to decline in 1850 not in the 20th century when the CO2
concentration increased in the atmosphere. And besides, the latest satellite
data shows that the area covered in ice in the summer of 2008 was bigger than
in 2007 (figure below).
It's always good to remember that the IPCC is
not a scientific institution but a political one. It was created by the UN (a
political organization) to analyze the causes and impacts of climate change.
And as their sponsors, the same of UN (U.S. is the largest), have specific
objectives, the scientists do their best to achieve the expected results for
its funds continue flowing. One of the basic patterns of the scientific
process, the peer review publication, has been dropped. In the IPCC you are
your own editor and decides what is relevant to review. This led to publication
of conclusions, at least exaggerated ("hockey stick" graph) and the
fleeing of several scientists from fields such as geology, geophysics,
astrophysics, epidemiology and others because their views contradict those
desired. Nevertheless their names still appear in the reports. Today the IPCC
is basically composed of meteorologists and environmentalists making
conclusions very limited if not erroneous.
One of the scientists who left the IPCC is
Prof. Paul Reiter from Pasteur Institute in Paris who only got his name removed from the
report after threatening it with legal action. He says the idea that further
warming will increase the incidence of diseases like malaria is false. The
premise of the IPCC is that as malaria is transmitted by mosquitoes and
mosquitoes do not survive in the cold, warming will increase the amount of
mosquitoes. Reiter says that this is not true, that mosquitoes are extremely
abundant in the Arctic and that one of the largest epidemics of malaria
occurred in the Soviet Union (now Russia) in the 1920s, with 13
million cases and 600,000 deaths. His findings never got to the report, but his
name was listed as a contributor.
As we all like Al Gore and we were shocked when
the 2000 presidential election was stolen from him, lets talk about his biggest
"misunderstanding" not to say manipulation.
In the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" he
shows the relationship between temperature and CO2, only with the
graph of the variation of the two (below) and explained that the relationship
is very complicated concluding that the increase in atmospheric CO2
causes an increase in temperature on the planet. We have a serious problem here
because without knowing what is the relationship between temperature and CO2
we have to believe, take as faith, in the word of Mr. Gore, a person who is not
a scientist but a politician (what was the last time you believed in a
politician?).
The relationship that is supposed very
difficult for Mr. Gore is not that much to someone with a little patience to
understand it. The first interesting fact is that if we look closely at the
graph we see that there is a time delay between the change in temperature and
CO2. First we see the temperature increase and then we finally see
the increase in CO2, as is clear from the graph below that shows a
delay of approximately 800 years. Just this fact leads us to suppose that the
temperature is not a consequence of CO2 but the opposite, first the
temperature needs to increase and then the CO2 level increase. But
back to the relationship between the two. Today oceanographers as Professor
Carl Wunsch of MIT know that a temperature rise in the oceans causes the dissolved
CO2 in the sea to be release into the atmosphere and when the
temperature decrease the CO2
is absorbed by the sea. The oceanography also tells us that any effect we are
seeing in the ocean today is because they happening 800 years ago simply because
the oceans are very big and takes about 800 years to warm up or cool down.
We know also that sunspots are closely linked
to cloud formation on Earth. When the sun's activity increases, increasing the
number of sunspots, the sun's magnetic field, where Earth is inserted,
increases. This field provides us with a kind of shield against cosmic rays,
originating from very distant supernova. The stronger the shield (magnetic
field) fewer rays reach the Earth. These rays are directly related to the
formation of clouds because when they reach the planet causes the molecules of
hydrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, to join to form micro-particles of water
and hence clouds. If we have a decrease in cosmic rays (magnetic field stronger
and more sunspots) we’ll have a decrease of clouds and more solar rays will
reach the surface of the planet warming it.
So the relationship between temperature and CO2
is: Increased solar activity causing increased sun's magnetic field (seen by
the number of sunspots), resulting in fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth which
leads to fewer clouds in the sky causing more solar radiation focuses on the
surface increasing the temperature of Earth. Consequently with increasing
temperature, the oceans begin to release CO2 increasing the concentrations
in the atmosphere.
Looking at the solar activity (sunspot) graph
below and temperature, produced by the team of Prof Eigil Friis-Christensen,
director of the Danish
Space Center,
is clear the relationship between the two.
When this relationship became evident, Prof.
Ian Shaviv of the Physics Institute of Jerusalem University decided to compare
his data from cosmic rays with the temperature data of Prof. Ian Veizer dating
back thousands of years in the past and the result was even clearer. In the
graph below the temperature blue line was inverted to show the inverse
relationship between temperature and cosmic rays.
So is little wonder that Mr. Gore has said that
this relationship is very complicated because if he explain it would became
clear that is not the CO2 that makes the temperature rise but the rise
in temperature that increases the CO2.
We can’t perceive that the increase in CO2
occurs before the temperature in the Al Gore’s graph because he uses the same
trick that magicians use, simply diverts our attention to the similarity
between the two and we don’t look at the scale he uses. The problem of the time
scale used is that it’s very large, hundreds of thousands of years, making it
difficult to see only 800 years. But increasing the chart and looking closely we
can see that in the mark "a"
the CO2 decrease as temperature rises and in mark "b" the CO2 increases as
the temperature decreases, illustrating that not always when the CO2
is increasing the temperature is also increasing.
Another factor rarely publicized is that we
have greenhouse gases and not a single gas. The biggest greenhouse gas is water
vapor, responsible for at least 75% of the greenhouse effect. CO2
has little involvement and the part which is generated by man (understood
burning of fossil fuels) is small compared to the CO2 generated in
nature. The volcanoes, animals, and decaying leaves produce more CO2
than man. But by far the largest producer of CO2 is the ocean as we
have seen. We must not forget that CO2, the gas they say will cause
a disaster, is one of the basic elements of life, without CO2 there
would be no life on Earth. Plants need it to do photosynthesis and in the respiration
process of living beings it’s released constantly.
Even if the current warming was due to the
greenhouse effect would be natural that the troposphere warmed faster than the
surface. But data from both satellites and weather balloons show no such
warming. Indeed show that the surface is warming faster contradicting the
theory of the greenhouse effect and confirming the theory of higher incidence
of solar radiation on the surface.
The environmental movement today, as Patrick
Moore says, has become a political movement. And its most extreme portion
became anti-development and therefore anti-human. Because once you tell poor
countries not to use oil, gas and coal to generate electricity and that they need
to use solar and wind energy, in truth you're saying they can not have
electricity. If in developed countries solar and wind energy are expensive
imagine for an underdeveloped African nation. And if you're thinking that
electricity is not so important, after all we survived thousands of years
without, imagine your life without fridge, light and hot water. Imagine a world
without steel. Electricity is the main factor in developing countries and in
improving the living conditions of people.
In Brazil we do not think much of the
impact that would have if power generation from fossil fuels stopped because
most of our energy is generated by hydroelectric dams. But do not forget that
85% of energy generation in the world comes from fossil fuels, including in
developed countries. Much of the energy generated in the U.S. has coal as fuel. Energy from
fossil fuels is inexpensive making it affordable for a large portion of the
population. If we restrict its use the development in several countries will
stagnate and may even regress, particularly in Africa
which has large reserves of oil and coal, and only now start to use them.
Today the few scientists who speak against the theory
that global warming is caused by man are marginalized as if they were saying
that the Holocaust did not happen. Often they see their funds decrease and are
repeatedly attacked by the media.
For the people who think the discussion is closed
it is worth remembering that the
scientific debate can never be
suppressed, it is against the
very principle of
the scientific method. A good example is the field of physics. With
Newton's
Gravity Theory it was thought that it was just a matter of time for everything
to be explained until
Einstein came up with
the Relativity Theory and showed that Newton's Theory was only an
approximation of reality. We have
quantum physics where there are several branches.
There is a predominant
but the others were
not annihilated and discarded. The debate
has lasted for nearly a century and nobody
knows which one
is correct, if there is even
a correct one.
A great scientist and fomenter of science once
said: "The theory that is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or
revised for more than we liked the idea,"
his name was Carl Sagan. Do not watch "An Inconvenient Truth" as the
definitive popular presentation on global warming as Carl Sagan did with the
"Cosmos" series. Al Gore is not a scientist, much less Carl Sagan.
Addendum: Others factors to consider
January 2018
We must not forget that methane is 21 times more potent than CO2 for the greenhouse effect. Any specialist in the field will tell you that when we drill a petroleum well or natural gas it is impossible not to have leaks. In the oil wells there are pockets of gases, including methane, that end up being released into the atmosphere before beginning the extraction. This is part of the normal well drilling process.
But when do we have accidents like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico? This catastrophe was commonly called the oil spill, but the oil was not the only hydrocarbon that left the Macondo well for 84 days. Scientists have reported that up to 40% of the leak was gas, mostly methane that is invisible to the naked eye. Their findings were published in the journal Nature Geoscience. The authors, Samantha Joye, Ian MacDonald, Ira Leifer and Vernon Asper, calculate that the total volume of gas released was 260,000 up to 520,000 tons. In addition, the impact on the ecosystem was terrible. Several gulf fishing communities were devastated with several people losing their livelihood. A chemical was used to sink most of the oil that was on the surface making the bottom of the sea uninhabitable.
As we can see our focus should not be whether CO2 is the main culprit for global warming or not, but how to live in harmony with the environment. The use of harmful substances should be the minimum necessary, and in the future through science eliminated. Thus, we can consider that renewable energy sources are the evolution necessary to abolish once and for all the harmful sources. They are already economically viable. In many countries they are even cheaper than hydroelectric, fossil fuel and nuclear. There is no longer any justification for continuing to burn fossil fuels because the by-product is not just CO2. Other harmful substances are also generated as sulfur, carbon monoxide and various micro-particles that damage our respiratory system. Nuclear energy is expensive and subsidized by governments, and the risks in the event of an accident is too high. Just look at the recent disaster in Fukushima. To date, the nuclear reactors have not been controlled and a huge amount of seawater is needed to cool them. This contaminated water in turn is dumped back into the ocean. Hydroelectric plants, while not releasing greenhouse gases directly into the atmosphere, have a huge environmental impact. The moment we dam a river the whole ecosystem of the river, its banks and surroundings is affected. The larger the dammed area the worse the impact. In addition, all the vegetation that remained in the flooded area starts rotting away releasing methane into the atmosphere, ie indirectly hydroelectric are responsible for the release of greenhouse gases as well.
References:
Documentaries films
An Inconvenient Truth of Davis Guggenheim
Not Evil Just Wrong of Phelim McAleer & Ann
McElhinney;
The Great Global Warming Swindle of Martin
Durkin.
Articles
Global Cooling is Here - Evidence for
Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades of Prof. Don J.
Easterbrook – Department of Geology of Western Washington
University
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to
answer questions? of Prof. Richard S. Lindzen – Program in Atmospheres, Oceans
and Climate. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
There Is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming of
Prof. Richard S. Lindzen – Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Global Warming: A Convenient Lie of Andrew
Gavin Marshall – Research Associate with the Center for Research on
Globalization (CRG)
75 Reasons to be Skeptical of "Global
Warming" of Josh Fulton – Graduation Student of North Caroline University
Climate Science: Observations versus Models of
Richard K. Moore – Independent writer
Copenhagen and Global Warming: Ten Facts and
Ten Myths on Climate Change of Prof. Robert M. Carter – James
Cook University
(Queensland) and University
of Adelaide (South Australia)
Frosty, Frigid Global Warming of Ted Twietmeyer
From the addendum
Up to 40 Percent of Gulf Oil Spill was Potent Methane Gas, Research Shows de Lisa Song published at Truthout:
The Methane Monster Roars de Dahr Jamail published at Truthout:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28490-the-methane-monster-roars 
Comentários
Postar um comentário