Using the best data available government agencies can't seem to agree on how much the Earth has actually warmed since 1900:
1.40 1.53 0.95 1.30 1.35 1.50 1.26 1.30 degrees Fahrenheit. It's interesting to note there is little agreement regarding temperature but many sources nail sea levels risen at about 8.5 inches per 100 years for the last 450 years.
So what is the source of the "97%" quote?
It's from the Abstract of Expert credibility in climate change - Sent for review December 22, 2009.
Jacob Harold - William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Dr. Stephen H. Schneider - Department of Biology, Stanford
Note the degrees in red or lack of any degree.
However herein lies the problem. If you asked all the scientist who worked on the 1,372 papers the above authors reviewed what three gasses make up 99.964% of our atmosphere I know from experience very few of those asked would know the answer.
FYI, the answer is Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon make up 99.964% of the Earth's atmosphere.
CO2 doesn't even make the list because it is measured in parts per million. At 400+ ppm it's a trace gas and will remain a trace gas regardless of what humans do. Even if we really tried we can't undo the 74 million year Carboniferous Period. That might sound radical but seriously think about how long it took to sequester all that CO2. Thinking mankind can reverse this in a few hundred years is beyond hubris.
CO2 doesn't even make the list because it is measured in parts per million. At 400+ ppm it's a trace gas and will remain a trace gas regardless of what humans do. Even if we really tried we can't undo the 74 million year Carboniferous Period. That might sound radical but seriously think about how long it took to sequester all that CO2. Thinking mankind can reverse this in a few hundred years is beyond hubris.
To put this into perspective CO2 readings in office buildings typically range between 600 and 800 ppm. I've been told CO2 levels in nuclear submarines hover around 5,000 ppm. Commercial green houses use CO2 generators to boost CO2 levels to 1500 ppm during the day for optimum plant growth. Yes green houses generate CO2 to increase production.
Consider all the science that has taken place in the last 100 years (starting with the discovery of the basic structure of the atom) it would seem foolish to think that energy production will be like it is today in say 80 years. Only science fiction writers have any inkling what the world will look like in the year 2200 when everyone I know will be long dead.
Don't get me wrong, our atmosphere is incredibly fragile but few of us understand how small a 1 in 10,000 (man's contribution is maybe half of this increase) increase in CO2 in the atmosphere actually is let alone what this tiny increase is capable of causing?
Consider all the science that has taken place in the last 100 years (starting with the discovery of the basic structure of the atom) it would seem foolish to think that energy production will be like it is today in say 80 years. Only science fiction writers have any inkling what the world will look like in the year 2200 when everyone I know will be long dead.
Don't get me wrong, our atmosphere is incredibly fragile but few of us understand how small a 1 in 10,000 (man's contribution is maybe half of this increase) increase in CO2 in the atmosphere actually is let alone what this tiny increase is capable of causing?
If someone looks you in the eye and says they know what temperature increase is associated with a 100 ppm increase in CO2 they are lying.
History is full of scientific theories that were later proved to be just flat out wrong and theories that at first, if not for decades, were laughed at only to be later proven to be true.
A Hundred Authors Against Einstein (not really but that's the name of the book) concluded Einstein was wrong by consensus. You might want to ask the Japanese how that worked out.
History is full of scientific theories that were later proved to be just flat out wrong and theories that at first, if not for decades, were laughed at only to be later proven to be true.
A Hundred Authors Against Einstein (not really but that's the name of the book) concluded Einstein was wrong by consensus. You might want to ask the Japanese how that worked out.
