The Earth’s future is not “threatened” by carbon dioxide
Wrighton is wrong.
The Earth’s future is not “threatened” by the accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The global mean temperature will likely continue to rise, just as it has done since the end of the Little Ice Age about 300 years ago. The pre-industrial part of this warming was natural, and is not understood (nor is the cause of the Little Ice Age understood). The more recent part is likely, at least in part, the result of man-made emission of greenhouse gases.
This warming had no adverse effects, nor is there evidence that there will be any in the future, aside from a very slow rise in sea level (about 15 inches per century). There is no evidence for an increase in storms or droughts.
Global warming is likely to be good for humanity. It extends growing seasons and makes winters milder. For good physics reasons, it does not make summers or the tropics hotter. We are setting records for mild winters and retreat of ice, but not for summer temperature highs.
Carbon capture and sequestration would increase the cost of electricity at least 50%, and perhaps more than 100%. People won’t vote to do that.
Nor will they freeze in the dark for the sake of a scientific theory, even a correct scientific theory.
Jonathan Katz
Professor of Physics
Washington University
Professor Katz,
I assume, that as a professor, you’re familiar with peer review.
The conclusion that we are in a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age is debunked by the fact that we have risen to levels higher than the assumed baseline climate. So even if some recovery were to be expected, why have we now exceeded that?
Your argument has problems similar to the more general “it is part of a natural cycle” argument.
The idea that we may know what causes global warming or cooling has also been debunked. Professor Katz now debunks the claim that there is a consensus among scientists that that man made CO2 needs to be limited by taxing and trading some sort of arbitrary unit that will enrich friends of the administration. Prof. Katz, do you or have you ever worked for big oil, big coal or “the man”?
Let me tell you something Mr. Prof Man Katz! It’s good to hear a voice of reason - even if only once every few hundred letters or so.
Who-da-thunk it? They can carbon-date carbon.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
Pure head-in-the-sand Ostrich. Sure can tell when some dodo with a fancy degree is just another wealth groupie worried he’ll have to pay for polluting the bejesus out of the atmosphere. To believe we can burn 200 million barrels of fossil fuels every day and not pay the consequences is like believing gambling boats are charitable institutions. I also doubt anybody will take environmental history lessons from Physics professors very serious unless they’re as goofy as he is.
@Jellio
I think you misread what the Professor is saying. From what I can tell, he is agreeing that carbon *is* causing global warming–and that it is likely man made–but he’s saying that Global Warming is not a bad thing.
“The more recent part [of Global Warming] is likely, at least in part, the result of man-made emission of greenhouse gases.”
He is also saying that there is no evidence that warming ever had adverse effects.
He also says that Global Warming will be a benefit to humanity–in my estimation it may be in the short term, but it will ultimately be a detriment to other species; that will likely affect us in the long term (in my own opinion).
The temperature of the earth is still below the average for the previous 2-3000 years. Climatologists have determined that carbon dioxide plays almost no part in the greenhouse effect and the increase in carbon dioxide may be the only way we can produce sufficient food to feed the rapidly increasing population of the globe.
Many operators of earth bound greenhouses enrich the atmosphere in the greenhouse with carbon dioxide to promote more vigorous and productive growth in their plants. It has the benefit of reducing the water and fertilizer requirements as well. Restricting carbon dioxde is an enormous mistake.
We should be far more concerned with the rapidly reducing supply of fresh water than with climate change. Climate change is constant and probably will continue.
“The pre-industrial part of this warming was natural, and is not understood (nor is the cause of the Little Ice Age understood). The more recent part is likely, at least in part, the result of man-made emission of greenhouse gases.”
Can you say hog-wash………global warming a.k.a. climate change is a bigger scam than OBAMA healthcare. Contrary to all the experts, noone rreally knows and the believers continue this dribble just to make a buck. I will drive my SUV until the day I die and then will it to my children so they can pass it on. Drill Baby Drill!
When you can show me that man himself can create snow in the desert (can control weather) then I might POSSIBLY believe that we puny humans can have any effect on the GLOBAL temperature.
— Kelly
.
You may now return your head to between your back pockets