masthead18 home
Contents list
Search
  Reprinted from Newsletter 113, dated 2004 October

Global warming: what is a reliable gauge? Steve Reed

Recent emotive statements about the impact of human activity on the biosphere include the assertion that there is “a third more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in 1860”.

   To estimate the CO2 fraction of the atmosphere with any accuracy requires an immense network of sampling stations at all heights — something we do not yet have. We had nothing of the kind, at all, in 1860.

   Also, the CO2 fraction is very small, so that any variation in the estimates registers as a large percentage change. (Always beware of “percentage changes” in statistics!)

The graphic is a vastly oversimplified diagram of how warm and cold water circulates (so far) in the Earth’s oceans.

   The question of the CO2 fraction is thus plagued by statistical spin and a lack of reliable data — and there is no rule-of-thumb which can compensate for this. If the CO2 fraction were to increase significantly — and enhance the greenhouse-effect — more heat would be retained in the weather-system, leading to faster evaporation from the oceans, heavier rain or snow fall, faster replacement of the icecaps, more rapidly moving glaciers etc. The system would be more vigorous, but the temperature would not rise, because all of these effects involve the transfer of latent heat (owing to the unique phase-change behaviour of water). It’s a thermo-static, water-cooled system.

   Worldwide precipitation data would tell us something — and enough might even be available now to give us a rough indication — but do the “climate-change” evangelists refer to it? Not a chance! Anecdotally, one hears that the rains are failing in central Asia and north Africa (and that English country gardens are about to become spiny deserts) — and the doomsters are quick to cry “global warming!” — but, in fact, these effects are the very opposite of those to be expected from more heat in the system.

      The only reliable gauge of global temperature, as opposed to heat content, is the level of the sea (owing to the heat-expansion of water). And sea level, despite the dire predictions of some, has obstinately refused to rise at a faster rate than it has been rising for 10,000 years. Indeed, over the last ten millennia, the rate of the rise in sea level has progressively slowed, and it appears to be still slowing.

      Certainly there is no justification, in the current furore about “emissions” and “climate-change”, for wrecking our economy, curtailing our personal freedoms or subjecting ourselves to pan-continental or global dictatorships — as some suggest we should.

      Local conservation of beauty-spots and general care of our surroundings — which I wholeheartedly support — are another matter entirely.


Steve Reed, who lives in Roman Way, is a longtime member of the Conservation Society. This is the first time he has written in the newsletter. He was a commercial translator in French, German and Arabic, and previously a botanist with the Avon Flora Survey, before becoming a security guard and taking up politics: he is the Wells and Weston-super-Mare chairman of the UK Independence Party. It follows that his views are his own.

   Let’s have a debate on this topic. Brief rejoinders are invited for the next newsletter — see contacts list on home page. [None came. —Ed., 2018]


Website first published in 2005. This 2018 revamp uses new, simple CSS and PHP (no Javascript) by Jim Nageltor.png