The Greenhouse Effect
Over the past few years there has been an increase in temperature
in many parts of Western Europe. This is often attributed to human
activity - for example, the burning of fossil fuel, but it's not easy to
prove. Some scientists think that rising temperatures may be due to
random fluctuations, in spite of the publicity given to "global warming"
and greenhouse gases. Others believe that the earth goes through cycles of
lower-than-average followed by higher-than-average temperatures.
There is a growing body of opinion that the "greenhouse effect"
(the trapping of heat by a "greenhouse layer" of various gases, mainly
water vapour) is increasing as a result of man's activities.
There's apparently a scientific consensus on this issue, according to a
recent report signed by about 1600 scientists.
At the time of writing, the details of the report have not been released.
Its contents are awaited with interest .
The gases below are known to trap heat effectively. Their contributions
to the greenhouse effect are shown, based on their concentrations (parts per billion) and adjusted
for their heat retention characteristics. (calc. done by Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist)
95.000% water vapour
3.618% carbon dioxide
0.360% methane
0.950% nitrous oxide
0.072% CFCs and other gases
The only greenhouse gas which matters is water vapour. Everything else is tiny in comparison.
If carbon dioxide is responsible for just 3.6% of the greenhouse effect, one wonders why
so much time, effort and money are being used in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
For the record, here's a graph of what's happened to the carbon dioxide level
in the atmosphere over the last thousand years. You'll see copies of it everywhere. It's pretty spectacular,
especially with the displaced zero.
But ... look at the figures ... 3.6% ...
.... global warming?
Or bad science?
ND comment:
Someone asked me a question recently about the "consensus" mentioned above. Regarding
scientists working in the public sector, he said
"how free are they to express views which may be against current government thinking?"
Regarding global warming, I told him it's not surprising that so many are sceptical.
A few days ago the weather forecasters said that the UK was due for
six inches of snow and days of traffic chaos. We got an inch, and it was gone within 48 hours.
If we can't forecast
the weather two days hence, what chance do we have with predictions about global warming?
FOOTNOTE
Curiously, the day this article was completed, I found that the Australian academic Jon Ray had
made some comments about scientists working in the public sector:
.........how seriously can you take the scientific consensus when there's a debate about whether to use
90% or 99% as the likelihood that we're changing the earth's climate? That's not science. That's politics.
How seriously can you take the scientific consensus when there are serious scientists
suggesting the whole thing is a hoax? These folks aren't saying the estimates are off by 10%.
They're saying the whole thing is a hoax.
How seriously can you take the scientific consensus when you
know that a lot of the experts are on the government and foundation funding gravy train and their
livelihood depends on remaining on the right side?
For the full article, see Jon's blog, 11 Feb 07.
