The problem lies in the ignorance of the "exponential function".
Listen to this excellent presentation of professor Bartlett.
Let me preface it with a question: which is worse; " the crimecrate is increasing @ 7% or "the crimerate will double in 10 years". If you don't already know, you MUST see this presentation in its entirety.. enjoy.....
Good video. The math is always important to understand.
On the climate the math starts with the sun delivering 230 trillion horse power worth of energy to the earth around the clock. If all that energy stayed on earth, we would become a barbequed stone like Mercury. Most of that energy goes back into space. Now all the pollution, ice, plants, oceans and atmospheric gases capture some of that energy and keeps the earth’s temperature fairly constant.
Then as the distant from the sun changes, the energy coming from the sun will vary a little. Thus the 100,000 year cycles.
From what the math is showing us, is that as the earth warms, the atmosphere gases will change a little bit do to the warming from the natural distant cycles from the sun. One of the gases that increases in the atmosphere as the earth goes into the warmer part of the natural cycle around the sun is CO2. And the CO2 being one of the greenhouse gases will also help capture some of the sun’s heat and keep the earth warm.
Then as the earth moves further away from the sun in the natural cycle, no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere the earth will cool. We know this by fact from the ice cores. This pattern happens nine times every million years.
The ice cores shows us that the CO2 increases follows the warming of the planet by several hundreds of years. This pretty much proves the CO2 is not the cause of the warming, but is a helper in keep the planet warm once it gets into the atmosphere. Now once the atmosphere has CO2 in large amounts. The data has shown that in the past the CO2 has not been able to keep the planet from cooling. The atmosphere had 350 times more CO2 than it has today at one time and the earth was frozen. So clearly there is only so much the CO2 can contribute to helping keep the earth warm.
And once the earth is further away from the sun, it cools, and the amount of the CO2 in the atmosphere drops. Thus the CO2 amounts in the atmosphere has always been following the natural distant from the sun cycle for the last million years as proven by the ice cores.
Al Gore’s claim that the CO2 is the main factor of the warming has had major setbacks and cannot explain several actions of the climate cycle, mainly the warm and cold 100,000 year cycles.
Now Al never said the 100K cycle was not the driving force of the heat. Al just said that once the energy from the sun increased. The CO2 effect of helping hold the heat would cause the earth’s temperature to rise. Which is true.
But Al took the next step and said that mankind has added extra CO2 to the atmosphere and we could expect added heat to stay in the atmosphere and warm the atmosphere beyond the natural warming cycles. OK, that makes sense and we all agreed with Al and we all agreed that Al did a hero thing in bringing this to the attention of the world in a way that caught people’s interest.
And Al said that an unnatural rise of two degrees would totally upset the natural balance of life and weather on earth. Again, that makes sense and we all agreed with Al.
Then Al took another step and said that the CO2 was the driving force causing the earth’s temperature to rise, the natural cycle brought more sunlight, but it was the carbon that turned the sunlight to heat and kept the heat on earth. In other words, the CO2 greenhouse effect was not only the main driver but the controlling factor of the warmth of the planet.
This is where the math does not fit and the scientists could not agree. The scientists with the government grants and wanting more government grants back Al’s theory of Global Warming. The world agree that we needed to understand this Global Warming and save the earth. Big money investment was behind Al’s theory, right or wrong, the carbon credits was going to make them very rich.
Al’s theory scientists made several predictions that bad things were going to happen to us if we did not move to stop the carbon going into the atmosphere. And the best way to do this was with carbon credits.
When Al’s theory didn’t work, and yes there was some warming, but not much more than one would have expected in the natural cycle. Al’s theory started to include other theories and the name changed from Global Warming to Climate Change to include these new theories.
What did Al do wrong or could have done differently? That is simple, Al could have addressed the carbon lag in his charts. So why did Al not address the carbon lag? The only good reason is money. Carbon lag is bad for carbon credits.
By the time the computer models are running and we really understand the earth’s climate cycles enough time will have passed and the carbon credit taxes will be in place and the tax base for the one world order will have been established.
You’re right Write4U, it is all in the math, and we just have to do the math.