I want to address the “Climate 101” lesson that Mr. Piazzon presented in his letter to the editor of July 9. The fact is that scientists generally agree that the climate is changing. In a glaring statement of the obvious, it’s been doing that throughout our planet’s history.
Where there is discord is in the causal factors.
To Climate 101: First, water does not expand when warmed. It only expands when frozen. This is why ice floats. Sea level rise will occur when there is a massive melting of polar ice. Sea level rise has been negligible since the retreat of the last ice age when sea level rise was profound closing the land bridge across the Bering Strait. An event that had nothing to do with CO2, anthropogenic or otherwise. As to forest fires, lightning strikes and flooding in the Midwest, these are all natural phenomenon.
The IPCC report you refer to is their executive summary, which is written concurrently with the science report which is never referenced. They focus solely on CO2. The most influential greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2. CO2 only represents 4 percent of greenhouse gases. Notably, CO2 rise follows temperature rise. “Follows,” doesn’t “cause.”
According to Dr. Dietrick Koellen, anthropogenic emissions in 2010 was 9.5 gigatons. Annual, ocean emissions are 90-100 gigatons and ground bacteria — rot and decay — emissions are 50-60 gigatons. Note the variances of oceanic and bacterial emissions both exceed anthropogenic emission. Total CO2 emissions are 196-226.5 gigatons. Anthropogenic emissions represent about 4.8 percent -4.12 percent of that. Additionally, according to Dr. Ian Pilmer, of every 85,000 molecules in the atmosphere, only 33 are CO2. Only one of those 33 CO2 molecules is attributable to anthropogenic emissions. All of this means we can eliminate anthropogenic emission to no noticeable effect.
The IPCC relies on climate models, from which comes the recent 12-year doomsday warning. History demonstrates that none, and by that I mean none, of the predictions from climate models have ever been remotely accurate. They have never replicated the observable data. This violates the scientific method, where evidence must be repeatable over and over again. Computers analyze evidence, they do not generate it.
The singular influence on our climate is solar activity coupled with the variances of our orbit and the wobble of our axis. Environmentally, do we humans have a lot to answer for? You bet. Climate isn’t one of them.