The scientific literature is beginning to swarm with articles rejecting global warming altogether, or at least refusing to ascribe it to man-made CO
2 sources.At the U. of Wisc. at Madison, scientists found that if the currently accepted (mainly by the press) computer simulations were correct, warming should be earliest and most intense in the Arctic. But Prof. Jonathan Kahl after an analysis of 27,000 temperature readings found a statistically significant trend in the opposite direction
¾toward cooling (Milwaukee Sentinel 11/23).The most recent rejections come from two articles in Science, both of which find a significant correlation between solar activity and temperature over the last 250 to 300 years. Solar activity as measured by the "Zurich sunspot number" since the mid-18th century is associated with higher or lower irradiance, i.e., amount of energy coming in from the sun. It fluctuates in cycles (maximum to minimum back to maximum) of average length 11 years, but neither the maxima nor the lengths of the cycles are equal; the latter may deviate from the 11-year average by as much as 4 years. The first of the articles quoted below correlates the temperature of the terrestrial atmosphere with the length of the cycle, the second compares it with the actual irradiance and the man-made sulfur particulates (which subtract from the greenhouse effect since they disperse and reflect the incoming radiation). The papers show that the Sun and the particulates play a major part in the warming at all.
In all these conflicting reports there is one aspect that no one disputes: that the carbon dioxide (CO
2) concentration in the air is really increasing. It now stands at about 360 parts per million in volume, compared to 280 ppm at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Nobody knows all the major reasons for this; the hypothesis that it is caused by man's fossil-fuel burning does not stand up to the historical record.But beyond the actual scientific points, there are also the "so what?" schools. An increase of 80 ppm over 250 years is no big deal in the first place, and even if, against all reasonable scientific expectations, global warming were to set in, there would simply be winners and losers. The corn belt might stretch far into Canada and maybe the Mid-West could grow tropical fruits, competing with California and Florida. So what?
But there are other scientists who belong to the "Thank God for the increase" school. CO
2 is a godsend for vegetation of all kinds, for with the help of chlorophyll it absorbs it turning it into glucose for nourishment and giving off oxygen into the bargain [6H2O +6CO2 + sunlight = C6H12O6 (glucose) +6O2 is the equation of photosynthesis, I remember vaguely from my high-school chemistry days 50 plus years ago]. This will not only increase the quantity of vegetation and its rate of growth, but also make photosynthesis more efficient. Moreover, it will lead to a sharp reduction of water loss per unit of leaf area. The reason is that the pores in leaves that admit air (i.e., CO2) also lose water; a higher CO2 content will partially close these pores.According to S.H. Wittwer (see below), a doubling of the CO
2 concentration would lead to an increase of plant productivity by almost one third. Nor are these computer simulations. The DoA Water Conservation Lab has compared the growth of orange trees at 650 ppm with the regular 360 ppm of CO2 (less than double). In their first two years of production, the former produced ten times more oranges. Similar reports (forest stock) come from Austria, Finland, France, Sweden, Switzerland and Germany.The increase in fruit seeds, leaves, branch and stem size will, of course, reverberate via the food chains throughout the entire biosphere.
That is why gaga Gore-Gore wants to saddle you with a carbon tax.
[More: On global warming and solar activity
¾P.M. Kelly, T.M. Wigley, "Solar cycle length, greenhouse forcing and global climate," Science, 11/26/92, pp. 328-330; M.E Schlesinger, N. Ramankutty, "Implications for global warming of intercycle solar irradiance variations," same issue, pp. 330-333. Effect of CO2 on vegetation¾S.H. Wittwer, "Flower Power," Policy Review (214 Mass. Ave NE, Washington, DC), Fall 1992.]
|
|
Vol. 20, No. 5
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Volume 20 Issue/No.: Vol. 20, No. 5 Date: January 01, 1993 11:03 AM Title: To the stars
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|