As I scientist, my training leads me to examine all claims with healthy skepticism. I actually find both sides of the global warming debate to be religious about their beliefs to the point of fanaticism, quoting computer models as if they are dogma and labeling those who disagree as heretical. The site to which you link is a prime example of this. I will take original studies published in peer-reviewed journals any day over blogs that can pick and choose what information they want to present. John Cook, the publisher of the blog you linked, clearly states that he is "not a professional scientist". Yet he chooses to ignore studies published by those who are. For example, a study published by NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer in 2011 in the peer-reviewed astronomic journal Remote Sensing brought into question assumptions made by Cook in his blog and by others advocating the "hockey stick" computer model of global warming (remember, this is a computer model, not a proven climatologic phenomenon, in spite of Cook's claims to the contrary).
I also take issue with the assumption by Cook and other GHG alarmists that CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to the amount of cirrus cloud present in the Earth's atmosphere. Cirrus clouds are in the upper troposphere and can reflect heat radiating from the Earth's surface back toward the surface, much as the layers of reflective coating surrounding the inner surface of a thermos reflect heat back into the liquid contained inside. The problem with the theory that industrial CO2 emissions significantly increase cirrus cloud cover is that the proportion of CO2 present in the Earth's atmosphere is about 0.04%, most of which is not industrially produced, while the lighter gases oxygen and nitrogen comprise 99.03% of the atmosphere. Given that the heavier molecular weight of gases such as CO2 causes them to be disproportionately distributed in the lower atmosphere compared to those with lower molecular weight, the proportion of CO2 present in the upper troposphere where cirrus clouds form must be significantly less than 0.04%, an amount which some would claim should have a negligible effect on the formation of cirrus clouds. Lower cloud cover, on the other hand, is believed to have a cooling effect due to its reflection of the sun's light back into space. In theory, because CO2 is heavier than the gases that comprise 99% of the atmosphere, it should actually produce more of this lower, sunlight-reflecting, cooling cloud cover than it does of the radiative heat-reflecting higher cirrus cloud cover.
This is not to say that global warming is not taking place; I believe it is silly to claim otherwise. The true question is why it is occurring and when and at what temperature it will stop. Global warming and cooling cycles have been shown to be part of the natural history of the Earth, for eons prior to the appearance of the first primates. There is always either global warming or global cooling taking place, there is no such thing as global "staying the same". There needs to be far more research into the effects of emissions of CO2 (and IMO, much more importantly, aerosols and other pollutants) on the Earth's biosphere, and a whole loss rhetoric.
And for the record, I am in favor of reducing our ecologic footprint on the Earth as much as possible. I have spent a year designing a new home with the best insulation and most efficient heating possible, including attention to minute details of heating duct placement, length and configuration. I spent months researching the feasibility of heating the home with a geothermal plant. I am just unconvinced by lobbyists who claim that "clean coal" or hydroelectric energy generation are more "green" than oil, or especially natural gas. I applaud Apple's use of solar and fuel cell technology to power its data centers, but I do have concerns about some of the substances released in the production of solar panels, substances which according to some researchers have a much stronger greenhouse effect than CO2 (although they are admittedly released in minute amounts compared to the predicted lifespan of the panel). I even have an idea for a different kind of solar panel design, that if I had the time, I should really try to patent. But IMO, the true future of cleaner energy will likely be nuclear fusion, although there is still the issue of radioactive waste to deal with, albeit much less than it is with nuclear fission. And there may be a future for geothermal heating, as well (although this is also complicated, because an improperly designed system can use more electric power than the energy it saves in the burning of fuel). In the meantime, however, I believe our efforts should be focused more on energy conservation and elimination of waste, rather than energy-expending tactics like pumping CO2 under the earth's crust as some jurisdictions have proposed to reduce their net CO2 emissions, because we have become so fixated on CO2 emissions that we are completely ignoring all the other things we are doing to harm our environment.
BTW, my favorite way to reduce GHGs is to plant a lot of trees (my new home will sport at least 40 of them).
Last edited:
