Previously I asked for the science that justifies my having to read Scientific American in a cold, “scented”, outdoor biffy every morning rather than a warm, floral scented, indoor commode..Notwithstanding the canard that 97% of scientists have settled the science, reasonable people can disagree with what the data are telling us. In fact, science is never settled as Mr. Einstein demonstrated to Mr. Newton. What I want to know is how much of the current climate furor is based on ideology and how much is based on science.. Chart 1 Lytle .This NASA chart shows the change in temperature since record keeping began in 1880. The scale used on the left side of the chart is from 56.0 to 59.5 degrees Fahrenheit.. Chart 2 .Here is the same data with the temperature range on the vertical scale from -20.0 to 120.0 degrees Fahrenheit. A scary chart turned into a not scary chart. This is a basic trick used throughout the scientific world and is favoured by geologists and geophysicists to create “X marks the spot” maps for guileless engineers. (Just kidding.).Here is a fun temperature chart which indicates decadal numbers of record temperatures since 1880. I can figure out the lack of data in the 1940’s but why were so many temperature records set in the 1930’s? How much CO2 was being produced in that decade?. Chart 3 Lytle 10 June 2023 .Well, we know that automobiles in Canada were not much of a problem as they were mostly being pulled by horses. Perhaps it was the horses. But maybe not. Note that CO2 concentrations continued to increase from the 1930’s which certainly casts doubt on any correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide or its role as the earth’s thermostat..So, is CO2 really a pollutant? Carbon dioxide constitutes 0.04 percent of the atmosphere which is up from 0.028 percent at the birth of Christ. On a comparative basis that is a significant shift but on an absolute basis it is going from very little to very little. On the face of it, one might think that the sun has a more profound impact on temperature than the lowly little carbon dioxide atom. Here is how one author argues against my assertion that carbon dioxide is being maliciously maligned. He discusses the different isotopes of carbon dioxide but rests his argument on an unproven correlation between increasing levels of carbon dioxide and temperature..“The levels of CO2 are going up therefore temperature will increase.” (My words and not his.).To paraphrase the Wizard of Oz — ignore what is behind the 1930’s curtain (or the Medieval Warm Period curtain for that matter..The early 19th century greenhouse gas theory posits that carbon dioxide has an outsized ability to store heat energy and its low concentration in the atmosphere is more than compensated by this physical attribute. Therefore, more CO2, more heat stored and higher temperature. I think it is a very clever and elegant theory and wish I was capable of such original thinking..But greenhouses are closed systems. They have windows to keep the carbon dioxide in the greenhouse. This means that, for the theory to work in the context of climate, the CO2 must be trapped in the near-earth layers of the atmosphere. Until recently this seemed to be the case. Now we have learned that the molecules escape to much higher altitudes above earth and make those higher altitudes colder, so our atmosphere is not, in fact, a closed system. There are no “glass panels” to keep the carbon dioxide near the earth. What does that mean? It means we are doomed because when it comes to climate change ideologues, everything leads to doom..I could go on, but you get the point. In Greek mythology, Icarus was warned by his father, Daedalus not to fly too close to the sun with his waxed wings. Unlike some today, the Greeks believed that the sun had enormous power to warm things and Daedalus was concerned that the wax would melt, and the wings would fall off. Icarus ignored his father; the sun melted his wings and he fell to his death. Hubris (pride) meets nemesis (consequence)..Climate science is complicated, and we have more questions than we have answers. When I look at the weather forecast for tomorrow, it says that there is a 32% chance of rain. When I read a United Nations report on climate change, it says that one hundred years from now the temperature will have risen over two degrees Celsius. No probability, just certainty. Hubris meets nemesis..I would be happier if Greta would scream and cry saying, “There is a ten percent chance that we will all die in the next three days!” which was her prediction five years ago about three days from now. If she gave me her estimate of the probability of impending doom, then we could talk..I conclude that the net zero climate alarmists won’t deal in probabilities because they are driven by ideology rather than science.
