In Danish popular story telling, there’s a collection of tales about a special group of people in the eastern part of Jutland (Jylland). Ostensibly they hadn’t invented neither the wheel nor the deep plate, i.e. they were intellectually challenged - in modern parlance. One of them once had a problem with a stork trampling the growth in a wheat field and didn’t know how to chase it out. As he couldn’t walk in there himself without destroying even more, he asked 4 of his friends to carry him into the field to take care of matters.
The stork went away.
Case solved.
This story reminds me of the CO2 explanation to the climate change these days.
Why? Because CO2 is not the direct problem and in the meantime we are trampling our wheat fields into pieces.
Here’s another important graph, in addition to the information I provided in my blog before:
 |
| CO2 increase vs Global Temperature variation: falling, rising, falling, and - - - - ? |
It can be seen, that from 1958 to 1977 the avg. global temperature decreased, while CO2 increased, bar small variations.
But then from 1977 to 2002 the average global temp. increased, at the same time as the CO2 content of the atmosphere increased.
OK, so there is a delayed effect, you say?
How about the general decrease in the avg. global temperature from 2003 till now then, while the CO2 level continues to rise?
Anyone with a little brain should begin to ask serious questions about CO2 by now.
The terrible fact, however, is, that the UN, the IPCC and most governments have signed up to the completely unscientific conclusion: it’s the CO2 that does it.
And now it is difficult to erase the signature without losing face.
Greenhouse Gasses (GHG - CO2, Methane, etc.) are major players in the Earth’s calorific accounts, no doubt.
Water (vapour), however, is one of them and by far the most voluminous and variable GHG we have.
This is important to understand, as we know relatively little about the details of how clouds are formed, the sun’s radiation effects and the multiple other parameters (aerosols, dust, cosmic rays, etc.) that make up the parameters of the physics of the atmosphere.
New research shows that there may be a direct correlation between the Sun’s activity, its radiation and the cloud formation and that this has a direct impact on our climate, both short and long term via amplifying effects, where CO2 very well could play a secondary role.
But not a primary one.
The Danish researcher, Henrik Svensmark from Denmark’s Technical University, has developed a series of theories that are as simple as they are revolutionary: cosmic rays over the past 500 mill years, e.g. from supernovae (and the Sun), hitting the earth and being primary agents of cloud formation, have, together with the tectonic movements and changing sea-levels, had a major impact on life on Earth.
And on the climate!!!
The impact of the Sun is not surprising. It is after all the key supplier of energy to the Earth, to the tune of 170.000 TW p.a.
But there’s is clearly much more going on than caused by a little CO2 released by Aussie BBQs in the summer time.
When it was proved, that the Sun had a major effect on aerosols, the very germs of cloud formation, IPCC retracted with some excuse, that laboratory experiments and real atmospheric processes could not be compared.
But even this excuse has been deflated, as it has been proven (and accepted) that a decrease in cosmic radiation causes less cloud formation and less water content in the clouds.
More clouds, lower temperature - less clouds: warming of the surface.
That simple.
This therefore has a major impact on the Earth’s heat-accounts, eliminating the conclusions drawn by IPCC in their 2007 report.
it seems clear to me that the Sun – and cosmic rays – have a major impact on the Earth’s climate and this is something that sits very badly with the IPCC.
The enormous role of the oceans (and Henry's law) also seem dramatically underplayed.
It is now fair to conclude, that CO2 must come way down on the list of active agents.
So there we stand!
Major political decisions are being made based on a probably totally wrong basis.
This has severe economic, social and cultural implications that we can’t even begin to contemplate.
It does now look like:
1) There is absolutely NO correlation between the atmospheric CO2 at present and in the immediate past and the global temperature development.
2) The climate models used by IPCC are numeric, use too many assumed factors and do not even predict the present status, if data from the past are entered. Using such models to predict the future is close to religion, certainly not to science.
It is now a political – and probably deeply psychological – problem, how we turn this situation around and declare: “we were wrong”, before major damage has been done.
Perhaps it is already too late.
Both the Danish and the British government (and likely others) have chosen an expensive, faulty and deeply disastrous route to green energy production: Windmills.
They are expensive, only work intermittently, energy cannot normally be stored and they will not cover more than a few % of our energy need at about 10 times the cost of e.g. gas or nuclear power stations. In the UK it means installing 10 windmills pr day for the next 30 years - and not achieving our target from COP 2009.
£120bill for the UK -- DKK 120bill for DK - - it will cripple us with no benefit.
I shall probably come back to the socio-economic consequences shortly.
The psychological factors determining group thinking and opinion manipulation also deserve my pen at a later time, but frankly, the present situation makes me feel tired – and who am I to hope, that politicians one day will exhibit some genuine brain function rather than just producing hollow cavity noises directed at vote collection?
Until then, here's a little home-work for the thinking population: if I am right in the above statements, what does it mean, economically, that we invest in everything "green"? How sensible is it to buy our right to CO2 production, e.g. when we fly or on a larger scale when our industries produce CO2? Haven't we sacrificed our competitive advantage on a guilt-altar to a CO2 god, that doesn't exist? Are we not throwing away the child with the bath-water?
Energy professors Ian Fells and Gordon Hughes have warned the British Government.
You'd do well in googling their opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment