Climate has always historically changed. The Earth has documented, specifically at the end of the Dark Ages in Europe, (helped to bring them out of the plague due to the excess food supply) times of warmer and longer summers. In a couple hundred years, it cooled down, and we are currently due for another warm up according to history. There were ice ages before there were humans, for example.

I believe, for certain, that we should take precautions to prevent any POSSIBLE irreversible change to the Earth. That doesn’t mean everything should stop. The only 2 countries that really would need to do anything are India and China (over 1/2 the world population). A lot of people say the US is polluting on the same level as China, which is factually inaccurate. A recent study found that a large amount of US “pollution,” specifically on the West Coast, was a result of the dominant winds dragging pollution from China drifting into our atmosphere. That being said, it is time to get into the science.

Global warming is the idea that chemicals that are being pumped into the atmosphere are creating “blanket-like” effects of heat transfer in the Earth’s atmosphere far faster than the Earth can keep up with.  It adds to the extremes, which is counter-intuitive to many when they hear “warming”.

Now here is where the questioning comes in. The data has been unbelievably doctored by a ton of people, but the facts do remain. Methane is one of the worst insulators but is rarely sent into the atmosphere. CO2 is dumped into the atmosphere, but is far less insulating. CO2 is used by plants, but the concern is that deforestation has impacted this potential limiter. The thing is, most of the math is a guesstimate. We don’t understand ALL of the chemical reactions that reduce chemicals in the atmosphere. This is why we just recently discovered the effect CFCs have on the Ozone layer (which BTW, the hole is filling up).

It is disputed whether or not the Earth is even warming.  Some studies show that the world is COOLING and the data was changed.  Some say the opposite.  Deciding who to believe is hard, especially when NASA says the Earth is warming.  The ice loss is not easy to calculate, some of the ice gets piled on top of the other ice, so satellites can’t just check the square area of the ice sheet.  Most people site the Arctic ice loss, but it is one side of the story.  “Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km).”  “Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.”

“Well-known scientist Art Robinson has spearheaded The Petition Project, which to date has gathered the signatures of 31,487 scientists who agree that there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Although this last quote is minor, as only about 300 scientists had anything to do with weather (although you really don’t need to be to understand the science)

In my class, the professor told us how somehow pollution is causing the hole in the ozone at the poles due to some wind convolution storm in the spring. To me, it doesn’t make sense that pollution is causing the holes in the ozone at the 2 least populated places on the planet. It makes more sense that it is fluctuation with the constant radiation received at the poles by the sun (6 months of sun due to Earth’s wobble). The “climate” is most likely “changing” due to a normal cycle (Maybe Earth’s wobble is changing?) like seen in history.  The hole, by the way, is closing.

The problem is, the climate measurements are just taking into account short term variations, AKA just weather. IMO, millions of years of massive volcanic eruptions would have been far more damaging to the atmosphere that anything humans are doing in the last 100. The eruptions would have spewed ash clouds, methane, CO2, CO, and far more damaging compounds at huge amounts (probably more than humans have ever put into the atmosphere in one huge atmosphere) to destroy the atmosphere, if the current math was right, over the millions of years to the point that all heterotrophic life, and most plant life, would have died due to the inhabitable atmosphere.

In summation, the combination of plants and the invention of catalytic converters should eliminate most of the pollution. We don’t understand EVERYTHING that happens in the atmosphere. The numbers (emissions, intake, and CO2 debt) are largely guesstimates and we aren’t even sure that those guesstimates were figured out in good faith after the data doctoring. We SHOULD take steps to prevent anything that COULD hurt us.

That being said, raising water levels isn’t too big of a deal IMO. Flooding cities will just have to move more inland. It isn’t like it is a tsunami. If the temperatures do increase, more land will open up, and the land becomes farmable. Not the worst thing in the world.

So yes, I don’t trust most of what these scientists are saying. Especially when I sit in a class and hear the ridiculous suppositions that are made to connect the dots and when I hear people who worked for climate change organizations tell me how the data was changed.

My conclusion (may be different from yours, I just gave you the tools to succeed) is that you should not cripple the world in fear but you should still take preventative measures.  In other words, expect the best and prepare for the worst.  I believe the Earth is in very little danger.   Yes, the Earth is warming.  The causes and severity (which is the crux of the data doctoring…  Supposition on a lot of numbers and changing them as well) are what I’m disputing.  Humans have an effect for sure, but I think that it is most likely a very small effect.

I know CO2 can make the Earth warmer, but I doubt the severity of the effects of warming (mentioned earlier) and I believe the Earth could easily reset itself (also we don’t understand all atmospheric chemistry, CO2 is used by plants to make oxygen).  I believe that the data was doctored for scientists to continue receiving grants for this “huge” problem.  I don’t want to screw up and make the planet unlivable for sure, but I just can’t reconcile the lying.

Advertisements