Global Warming Theory Is Based on False Science
Author: David Evans
Publisher: Gale: Opposing Viewpoints in Context
Publication Date: 2012
Link:
Picture:
This graph is showing what David Evans said. The satellite is showing having the highest of temperatures in 1998 and having going down and leveling out in 2001. Also, it shows how, for the majority of the time, the satellite’s temperature is lower than the surface data.
Summary:
Both alarmists and skeptics believe “carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature.” In fact, this was proven by “laboratory experiments.” What the alarmists and skeptics dispute is the magnitude of the effect. Alarmists believe it makes a big difference; skeptics, a much smaller impact. The controversy all started with the assertion that the effect was a 1 to 2 ratio—one part carbon dioxide and two parts moist air—causing the air temperature to rise. However, more recent findings reject this simple ratio for a much more complicated relationship than first hypothesized. First off, there is the weather balloon debacle. It shows “as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above.” However, during the past couple decades, there has been no sign of a hot spot, showing the overestimation of the heating from carbon dioxide. Another important fact has to do with the thermometers. About 90% of our measurement thermometers are “too close to an artificial heating source.” Thermometers are close to areas already producing hot air, like “airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines.” This location causes an increase in the temperature readings. Now, at the same time, satellites have taken readings of the earth’s temperature and shown that the hottest year recently was 1998, and since 2001 temperatures have “leveled off.” On top of this, the earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1680. Further complicating the data and analysis is the fact that humans did not start sending significant amounts of carbon dioxide into the air until roughly 1850, a time lag of nearly two-hundred years after the measured warming had begun. This data record makes man-made warming a challenge, because it would seem to require the effect coming two-hundred years before the attributed cause. That analysis is troublesome on its face. Clearly, something has to be explained.
Opinion:
What this article is showing is another side to the global warming debate. I have always known global warming is a major controversy, and I have also heard the one side: we are sending CO2 into the air and causing global warming. However, I have not heard much on the other side. After reading the article,I found it made some very good, legitimate points that are not told very often—the other side of the story. I do believe Global Warming is something that still is up to experiment. CO2 may or may not be the cause of the rise in temperature. The point is that data from the last ten years shows that the “science” is not nearly so “settled” as some have claimed. Here is where the matter gets very personal: the reduction in standards-of-living that would have been necessary if “the science were settled” may not be needed after all. I would gladly sacrifice if necessary. But that’s a big “if” given the current new data.
Questions:
- After reading this article, what is your stance on global warming?
- How can the average person really know “when the science is really settled”?
- Polling data show that more and more people are coming to doubt the earlier claims about man-made global warming. Is global warming an issue that should pay any attention to opinion polls?
Opinion/Reflection
ReplyDeleteI never really thought that global warming was false. We are always taught in class and see on the news that global temperatures are rising, and the facts supporting those statements always seems so credible that I agree with it. After reading this article, though, I take a second look at the issue. I never knew that there was a Little Ice Age in 1680, and that probably affects a lot of data. Before the Little Ice Age, maybe temperatures were the same as they are now, and now just seems so much warmer because it's being compared to temperatures of the Little Ice Age. It really shocked me that 90% of thermometers are within a close distance of an artifical heat source. I know that when I try to take temperature using a thermometer, I always make sure nothing emitting heat artificially is far away. But now I wonder if people intentionally put artificial heat near thermometers to try and start a problem. I agree with Kim that Global Warming now seems ambiguous and I am uncertain whether it is a true problem or just something that occurred before, and is just happening again.
Answer to Question 1
After reading the article, my stance on global warming was definitely swayed. The facts, including the one about thermometers being close to artificial heat, makes all the data seem possibly invalid. Now I question whether global warming is over exaggerated. I also wonder whether or not things I rely on everyday, like the temperature on the news or my phone, is correct. After reading the article, I also think that possibly 'global warming' is the same temperature we had before the Little Ice Age, and that since we have no data from before the 1600's, the only temperature we can compare now to is past 1680, and since we started almost after an Ice Age the temperatures look higher than they should, and maybe the temperature is just returning to normal. And since weather stations are noticing a plateau in global temperatures, global warming may not be a problem at all.
Opinion:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this summary I am completely shocked about how people are considering global warming to not be man made. I highly believe we are creating global warming for many reasons. Personally, I did a research project on the controversy and found many statistics blaming the human race for climate change. As said in the article, carbon dioxide may not be as large of a contributor, but it is still to blame. Humans pump carbon dioxide in the air, and cut down millions of trees, messing with the carbon cycle and the global temperature. And speaking of temperature, I found it shocking that over 90% of thermometers are “too close to an artificial heating source.” As frustrating as this is, scientist these days should know where to place thermometers to receive an accurate temperature to make logical conclusions about a global controversy. Also, some may think that global warming is not man-made but it is still very logical and ethical to reduce carbon emissions and stop deforestation for the benefit of the world's environment.
Question 3:
I strongly believe opinion polls should not have any influence on the global warming issue and its prevention tactics. Whether or not it is man-made or natural, we have to find a solution to the crisis or disastrous effects are to come. Scientists know that carbon dioxide increases global warming, maybe not as much as thought, but still we can reduce the heating if we cut emissions. We can also halt deforestation to slow climate change as well. Simply, the problem is there, whether it is our fault or Mother Nature's, therefore opinion of "who done it" should not matter. The only thing that should matter is how we can fix it and save our future generations from cleaning up this mess before it is too late.
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteThis article really made me question whether or not earths rising temperatures were from us. I always was told in class that global warming was from burning too many fossil fuels. Now this article is telling me that everything we heard about global warming could be false. I heard before that global warming could be false but I didn’t get any facts so I just forgot about it. Many facts such as how the measurement thermometers are near airports and get blasts of hot air, which makes them inconclusive. Also the earth has been heating up since the end of the little ice age in 1680. The earth has been heating up for over 300 years. I think that carbon dioxide still is a cause of global warming but not as big as I thought it was.
Answer to question 2.
People can know if the science is settled from reading it by themself the information for this or to really believe what they want to believe. They could look up both sides of the view and see what the think about it such as articles like this, which really show the other side that isn’t really talked about. Or people could believe and accept what some scientists say such as global warming is from fossil fuels or is just natural causes. So really people can know if the evidence is very good or just accepting either of the arguments.
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteI find it very weird to read about global warming not being man made. I usually hear from science classes and the news about CO2 being the main factor that increases global warming. I always thought that global warming had to do with our generation polluting the air with CO2 and because of this I never looked at the other side of things. For example, I would have never suspected anything like temperature readings to be mistaken because of location. Like it said in the article about airport’s thermometers temperatures rising higher due to heat coming out of jet engines. Now that I look back into things it surprises me to find myself looking at what I would think to be something that increases global warming is actually something I mistaken for that does not. CO2 may not be increasing temperatures to global warming but I do believe that CO2 is definitely doing something bad to our environment. From what I see I think that it is hard to tell whether something like industry or nature could be affecting global warming. The article said that since the Little Ice Age in 1680 the temperatures started to rise. This was definitely the time before industry started to get huge but how can the increase in temperatures be explained? Well I think that for some cases like these it may be due to a change in Mother Nature that happens somewhat randomly rather than industry and cars effecting temperature. However I do have to say that given current data with new technology and science we have a lot to investigate and look at with global warming.
Question 3:
I believe that opinion polls should not have any influence on the global warming problem. Opinion polls will just give opinions of what people think on topics. They do not give answers or solutions to problems like global warming. I think that we should put more focus on the science behind global warming to find out more on global warming and what is causing it. Up to this point many people including scientist believe CO2 emissions are the reason for global warming. However some scientist believes in nature having weather problems. Overall we can cut down on energy usage to stop adding oil to the fire, the oil being our CO2 emissions and fire being global warming. With all this said there is one conclusion we should see here, fixing our environments as well as our new generation from global warming.