Free Markets, Free People

AGW – Settled Science? Hardly…

It seems like everyday more and more is discovered that affects the climate and it is clear those touting the “science” of AGW being settled were clueless about it. For instance:

Whether devastating faults, dank caves or mud cracks on a drying desert plain, Earth’s surface is riddled with fractures.

Now a new study had found that the cracks exhale large quantities of gas, perhaps enough to affect global warming.

Now, I’m not saying this overturns their arguments, but one thing I can say without contradiction is this isn’t modeled in their climate models. And, while at this point there is still not enough information to determine if it is indeed enough to affect global warming, its obvious the AGW crowd didn’t even know this problem existed.

Here’s what scientists found:

Noam Weisbrod of Ben Gurion University of the Negev and a team of researchers monitored a crack about 2 meters long (6.5 feet) and 1 meter (3.3 feet) deep for two years in the Negev Desert is Israel. Each night, they watched as warm air in the crack drew water vapor out of the surrounding rock, and lifted it into the cold evening air.

If air in the crack is just 7 degrees warmer than the ambient temperature, it is buoyant enough to rise out of any crack in the ground bigger than 1 centimeter (0.4 inch) across, bringing with it any gases that leak out of the surrounding soil or rock.

But the team was surprised to find that the crack they studied gave off water vapor up to 200 times faster than areas without fractures.

The next time one of the AGW crowd tries the “settled science” canard, remind them of this little beauty and ask them how it affects the theory. I hope you enjoy the sound of crickets chirping.

~McQ

6 Responses to AGW – Settled Science? Hardly…

  • I’d settle for somebody explaining how those dolphins in Canada are trapped by sea ice when we were ASSURED that all the sea ice was going to melt.

  • This reminds me of the 2005 study done by German scientists where satellitess measured significant amounts of methane emitted by the rainforest in South America.  They had no idea that methane was emitted in such great quantities from living (as opposed to decomposing) orgaanic material.  I remmebr being struck at the time with the fact that science is making new discoveries all the time and that, even if there is a consensus position at any given moment, it may change with new scientific inquiry.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5724/1010

  • The next time one of the AGW crowd tries the “settled science” canard, remind them of this little beauty and ask them how it affects the theory. I hope you enjoy the sound of crickets chirping.

    They will simply say that this is part of the natural 180 billion tons.  It’s the 6 billion man made tons that is causing the warming.

    A better question to ask is why in the past when CO2 was higher than it is today did it not sustain the high temperatures that preceded the rise in CO2.

    Another question they can’t really answer is why does the rise and fall of temps coincide so well with the cycles of the sun.

    And finally why has temperatures not continued to rise over the last 10 years with the increase in CO2.

  • Mac is correct,

    Increased levels of atmospheric CO2 are a result, not a cause of global warming.  CO2 lags temperature by 800 to several thousand years.

    Human activity since the discovery of fire,  has contributed only 0.00022 % Earth’s of CO2.  On a planetary scale, we humans are, as Stephen W. Hawking says, “Pond scum.”  The arrogance of the AGW advocates is breath taking.

    Pre industrial atmospheric levels never stabilized at 280 ppm.  Of the 90,000 scientifically collected CO2-temperature data sets Michael Mann, the UVA, now Penn State, computer modeler used only one in the 19th and only 19 in the 20th century.  Some CO2 measurements were as high as 440 ppm in the 19th century, higher than today’s 384 ppm. 

    The modelers to cherry picked their data and selected four independent variables.  As John von Neumann, the father of computer modeling, once said, “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk..”

    CO2 is called the gas of life.  Without it, all plant life would die.  If CO2 is a pollutant, we might think about the consequences.  First, tell all those people who drinking carbonated beverages from coke and pepsi to champagne, they must stop.  Fermentation, the process used to produce wine and some spirits, should be outlawed.  Baking leavened bread also gives off significant CO2 as does smelting.  No more steel production.  

    One of the largest producers of CO2 is respiration, which according to NASA, adds 30 billion metric tons to the atmosphere annually.  Here we have a significant opportunity for community service.  All AGW advocates should hold their breath… forever.

  • There has been a slight increase in global temperatures over the past century, which itself might be substantially a result of changes in measurement methods rather than real change in temperature. But either way, so what? Earth’s temperature and climate changes. Stipulating to some global warming, the only thing close to be settled about the science behind global warming being caused by human activity is that it could be a hoax gone viral as a mimetic contagion.

  • Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. — Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961