At this website by various means we seek to defend life, to encourage Christian faith, to promote Catholic tradition, to edify Marriage in its link to the Creator, to encourage families and individuals, and to support missionary disciples of Jesus. G.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion: Research shows that global warming isn’t natural
By Shaun Lovejoy, Special to The Gazette June 9, 2014
Photograph by: Tony Gutierrez , AP
Last
year, the Quebec Skeptics Society laid down a challenge: “If anthropogenic
global warming is as strong as scientists claim, then why do they need
supercomputers to demonstrate it?”
My
immediate response was: “They don’t.”
Indeed,
in 1896 — before the warming was perceptible — Swedish scientist Svante
Arrhenius, toiling for a year, predicted that doubling CO2 would increase
global temperatures by five to six degrees C. This turns out to be close to
modern estimates of how much temperatures would rise in that scenario.
Yet the
skeptics’ question resonated.
For
decades, scientists have done their best to prove the hypothesis that the
warming is human-made. In September’s fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the
International Panel on Climate Change concluded that it is “extremely likely
that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since
the mid-20th century” — thus strengthening its 2007 assessment, which said it
was “likely.”
But this
consensus among scientists hasn’t stopped climate skeptics from insisting that
the computer models are wrong, and that the warming is simply a natural turn of
events.
So I
decided to tackle the Quebec Skeptics Society challenge by taking a new
approach.
Rather
than trying to prove that anthropogenic warming is correct, I believe I have
conclusively proven, in a study recently published in Climate Dynamics, that
natural warming is incorrect: that it has such a tiny probability — less than
one per cent; probably less than 0.1 per cent — that it can be dismissed.
The
demonstration has two parts: the first uses instrumental data since 1880 to
estimate the industrial-period global warming, while the second uses tree rings,
ices cores and other proxies to estimate the probability of large temperature
changes — on the order of 0.9 degrees C — over 125-year periods during the
pre-industrial era. The beauty here is that whereas no scientific theory can
ever be proved to be true beyond reasonable doubt, a single decisive experiment
can disprove a theory, in this case that the warming is natural. Even better,
the disproof doesn’t need supercomputers — only data and a little non-linear
geophysics (my field of research).
Within hours
of the paper’s findings being disseminated online, one leading contrarian, Lord
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, had deliciously dignified it as “a
mephiticly ectoplasmic emanation of the forces of darkness.” A few days later,
a Calgary-based group with the Orwellian name of Friends of Science dismissed
my study’s conclusion and called on McGill University’s chancellor to retract
the university’s press release about it. Their argument: that between January
1663 and December 1762, records show that the temperatures in central England
also experienced a changed of 0.9 degrees C, so that my conclusions must be
mistaken. However, since all of England is only 0.04 per cent of the globe,
this is hardly a global-scale change: the actual global value is only about 0.2
degrees C.
In
contrast, much more favourable reactions came from such media as LiveScience,
Epoch Times, TheStreet and Radio Canada International.
Without
natural variability to fall back on, the only way to avoid the conclusion that
the warming is human-made is to invoke a third alternative, a miracle-type
hypothesis of the sort “let’s temporarily suspend the laws of physics.”
Where
does this leave us in Canada? The axing of the Canadian Fund for Climate and
Atmospheric Science (CFCAS) in 2011, which undermined Canadian climate
research, is symptomatic of our government’s priorities. Rather than trying to
better understand and protect our fragile boreal environment, northern
investment has focused on new military installations. Rather than making bold
initiatives in carbon-free energies, the government has shamelessly promoted
the dirtiest fuels for the richest multinationals. Rather than supporting
international efforts to limit climate damage, no matter how imperfect, it has
reneged on its Kyoto accord responsibilities and has sabotaged international
cooperation.
Here in
Quebec, the situation is only a little better. Our enormous hydroelectric
capacity enables us (in principle, at least) to decarbonize our economy much
more easily. Yet the former Parti Québécois government — now followed by the
Liberal government — has blessed the Enbridge pipeline project that will bring
us dirty oil, and the government is leaving open the possibility that Anticosti
Island may be exploited for petroleum.
When will
we take advantage of our unique situation in the world to carve out a role at
the forefront of green technologies?
We need
to change course, quickly.
Now is
the time to invest in a sustainable future.
Shaun Lovejoy is a professor of physics at McGill University. He is also president of the Nonlinear Processes Division of the European Geosciences Union.
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Earth Observatory
Is Current Warming Natural?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page4.php
In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming.
A biographical sketch of Milutin Milankovitch describes how changes in Earth’s orbit affects its climate.
These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades. We know this because scientists closely monitor the natural and human activities that influence climate with a fleet of satellites and surface instruments.
At this website by various means we seek to defend life, to encourage Christian faith, to promote Catholic tradition, to edify Marriage in its link to the Creator, to encourage families and individuals, and to support missionary disciples of Jesus. G.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004-2021 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal QC
© 2004-2021 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
No comments:
Post a Comment