www.thomasnilsson.com.br
Paths for freedom and progress
   
 
   
Green house effect - a review of arguments
NOTICE ARCHIVE - 20/01/2019

Claims are highly controversial and far from basic science, because the climate system is complicated and still poorly understood. A more plausible interpretation is that the warming is not caused very much at all by the greenhouse effect, but rather that the Earth has received more energy from the sun, either by increased solar activity or by less cloud cover, or both. These two factors may even be causally linked.

 

Staffan Mörner, Sweden, review relevant arguments to the hypothesis of Dangerous Man-made (Anthropogenic) Climate Change because of Global Warming caused by greenhouse gasses, and provide all the facts you need to know.

 

https://climatefact.org/

 

The arguments:

1. 97% of scientists agree that the climate is changing dangerously because of human activities.

 

2. Dangerous Man-made Global Warming caused by greenhouse gasses is just a matter of basic physics, like the theory of gravity.

 

3. There is evidence of an ongoing amplified/accelerating greenhouse effect.

 

4. It is impossible to explain most of the warming since 1950 with natural causes, and thus we must conclude that it is mainly Man-made.

 

5. There are ample signs of Man-made Global Warming – melting ice, rising sea levels, more extreme weather, warming oceans, ocean acidification and coral bleaching.

 

6. The U.N. IPCC is a scientifically credible organisation.

 

7. Computer models reliably predict future climate.

 

8. No-one profits from promoting anthropogenic global warming.

 

9. Mitigation of climate change is all positive regardless of whether it is Man-made or not.

 

10. Better to be be safe than sorry – taking climate change seriously is like an insurance in case it really is Man-made.

 

11. It’s a good thing that we end our addiction to fossil fuels anyway.

 

 

CONCLUSIONS:

Claims are highly controversial and far from basic science, because the climate system is complicated and still poorly understood. More water vapor means more clouds, for instance, that increase the Earth’s albedo by reflecting sunlight back to space. Some reputable climatologists believe that the negative feedbacks dominate to the extent that the final result of both positive and negative feedbacks is a dampening of the warming to just 50% of the direct effect from greenhouse gasses alone

 

INCREASED SUN INTENSITY – NOT GREENHOUSE EFFECT
A more plausible interpretation is that the warming is not caused very much at all by the greenhouse effect, but rather that the Earth has received more energy from the sun, either by increased solar activity or by less cloud cover, or both. These two factors may even be causally linked.

 

TREND OF WARMING – THE REALITY
Alternatively, one might think that the mild warming could be the effect of greenhouse gasses in a climate system with low sensitivity. But that hypothesis would require at least some evidence that the warming actually is a greenhouse effect. Which there isn’t. Warming occurs before higher concentration of carbon dioxide. Although there’s a slight upward trend over nearly 200 years, primarily because of a few record years (around 1915, 1930 and 1960) but consistent with a mild warming trend globally, the main impression is that of a climate cycle, and the trend has been declining since 1970.

 

MONEY !
Money is in man-made global warming. Sky-rocketing carbon taxes, “cap’n’trade”, misguided subsidies and general waste of money will make us all poorer, which probably in the end will be detrimental for the environment from all aspects. Environmental care increases as societies grow more wealthy, so that’s probably what we should focus on instead. Wealthier societies also grow more resilient to all kinds of disasters, including climate change, natural or not. It is quite clear that renewable energy is not going to replace fossil fuels soon, because they are expensive, unreliable and still impossible to store in a convenient way. It’s true that some investments in renewable energy and “green” technology will stimulate economic growth, but if anthropogenic global warming is non-existent, a lot of it will be a waste and of no use.

 


EVENTUALLY GLOBAL COOLING
If we ought to prepare for the risk of catastrophic global warming we certainly should get an insurance for global cooling as well. Not only because there’s a considerable chance that the world will enter into a new Little Ice according to the Solar Cycles, but also because we are just one big volcanic eruption away from decades of a dark, global and bitter cold all-year-round winter. If that happens, fossil fuels would be helpful while solar panels and windmills (and even hydroelectrical power) would be useless.

 


RATHER INVEST IN ENRICHMENT OF SOCIETIES THAN THROWING AWAY MONEY IN “GREEN PACKAGES”
Cheap, plentiful and reliable energy has provided us with economic growth and resources for schools, hospitals, infrastructure and machines to do the heavy lifting in all industries, including agriculture, more efficiently. Fossil fuels have meant better housing, light at night, refrigeration, indoor climate control and washing machines. They have also made us safer against climate catastrophes, man-made or not! It’s not true that nature gives us a safe environment that we make dangerous. Rather, nature gives us a dangerous environment that we make safer thanks to cheap, plentiful and reliable energy.


SOURCE: Staffan Mörner

 


Copyright 2018 - Thomas Nilsson - All rights reserved - info@thomasnilsson.com.br
Views: 32794 - Atualizado: 17-02-2019