For years, various international organizations have floated schemes to reduce the world’s production of CO2 in order, supposedly, to prevent or reverse global warming. Such efforts have consistently failed, going back to the Kyoto Protocol, but alarmists and professional Greens haven’t given up, and the Obama administration wants to commit the United States to a significant reduction in CO2 output at this year’s Paris meeting. (The entire global warming enterprise would founder if meetings were required to be held in, say, Akron, Ohio.)
This essay by Anthony Watts reviews the beliefs that must be true for a “Paris Protocol” reducing global CO2 emissions to make sense.
...It is likely that not just one of these assumptions is false, but rather, all seven. There is lots of good information at the link, but here are a few significant points:
The warming the Earth has experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age has been entirely benign.
The warming since 1850 (165 years ago) is estimated by the Hadley Climate Research Unit to be about 0.79°C, a rate of 0.48°C per century. If this rate were to continue for the next 100 years (to the year 2115), the world would be 0.48 °C warmer than today. Since most of the world experiences a typical daily temperature variation of 6°C or more, this hardly seems threatening.The key to this Belief is the phrase: “human caused”. If only half the rate is caused by humans, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) would be even less threatening.
Alarmism is based entirely on models, and the models are wrong.
According to global warming theory, the positive feedbacks posited by the models should be strongest in the tropical upper troposphere. But satellite measurements in the tropical upper troposphere show that the models’ predicted warming is not taking place:
Global warming alarmism is anti-scientific: it privileges agenda-driven theory over observation.
Human activity has little to do with greenhouse gases.
No comments:
Post a Comment