Not all ‘facts’ add up about global warming

The economy-damaging Waxman-Markey (cap-and-trade) bill has passed the U.S. House of Representatives and is now being considered by the Senate. A cap-and-trade law will cost an average family in America thousands of dollars each year in hidden taxes on industries, particularly the energy industries.

The sole premise upon which Waxman-Markey is based is that the recent minor increase in global temperature was due to carbon dioxide increases resulting from human activities — anthropogenic global warming — and that adding more CO² will lead to catastrophic warming.

Explanations are needed as well as a challenge.

Concerning explanations, the first question is with regard to the eons of historically clear correlation between carbon dioxide concentration and global temperatures as observed in ice cores. The implication of this correlation, of course, is that of cause-and-effect.

Normally in a proven cause-and-effect situation, the cause occurs contemporaneously or prior to the presumed effect. But more recent data show that the temperature increase has always occurred at least a century before the increase in atmospheric CO² concentration.

How, then, could the CO² increase cause the temperature increase? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to posit that the temperature increase caused the CO² increase? And doesn’t this mean that the warming was caused by something other than greenhouse gases?

Next, all experts both pro and con agree, and all of the models show, that if the recent global warming trend were caused by an increase in greenhouse gases, there would be a large hot spot in the tropical atmosphere, from about 30 degrees north to 30 degrees south at between eight and 12 kilometers elevation. This is the famous “greenhouse signature.”

Actual temperatures measured over dozens of years by weather balloons and satellites demonstrate that no hot spot has ever been observed. The greenhouse signature is missing. The question is, therefore: Doesn’t this mean that the recent warming is caused by something other than greenhouse gases?

Also, all of the computer models have predicted that the average global temperature should rise dramatically during the decade since 1998. CO² levels continue to rise apace, but the temperature has been essentially flat, so once again, the models were entirely incorrect.

Doesn’t that mean that the brief warming period between 1970 and 1998 — which followed a cold spell between 1940 and 1970 and which was not as warm as the 1920s and, especially, the 1930s — was caused by something other than greenhouse gases?

CO² concentrations have already nearly reached their maximum level of contribution to warming. The reason for this is that the energy absorption and emission spectra of CO² have a limited number of activity sections in the infrared energy region and those portions are extremely narrow bands.

No matter how much more CO² is added, virtually no more energy will be absorbed and then emitted. Doesn’t that mean that any further present-day global warming will be caused by something other than greenhouse gases?

There are many other questions to be asked, some of which are: Why is the ice mass in Antarctica increasing rather than decreasing as predicted by the global warming alarmists? Why are they still quoting the infamous “hockey stick” scenario as it appeared in Al Gore’s movie when it has been meticulously discredited for multiple reasons including faulty statistical analysis, reliance upon inappropriate proxy temperature indicators and flagrant inconsistency with historical records?

Why do the global warming alarmists continue to claim consensus among scientists concerning the matter when it is clearly not the case and the original paper claiming research proof of a consensus has also been discredited?

Science is a process of asking and answering questions about the nature of the universe by gathering and analyzing data, and often by constructing mathematical models that represent the observed phenomena. This leads to the challenge.

The challenge is for the global warming alarmists to produce some science that attests to the thesis that recent warming trends are in fact human-caused by increasing concentration in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide.

No such science has been presented thus far and the vast predominance of evidence is to the contrary.

William F. Condon is professor emeritus of chemistry at Southern Connecticut State University. He originated and for 20 years taught the upper lever environmental chemistry course there. Readers may write him at 355 Route 81, Killingworth 06419. His e-mail address is