Propagandizing or Educating? Why children fear global warming
An article by Johanna Sorrentino at Education.com (titled "Get Your Kids Global Warming Savvy") reveals survey results "of more than 1,000 middle school students across the country [that] found that kids fear global warming more than war, terrorism or the health care crisis." Not only does this statement suggest the US has a non-existent "health care crisis" but it demonstrates the dangerous power of misinformation in education.
An article by Johanna Sorrentino at Education.com (titled "Get Your Kids Global Warming Savvy") reveals survey results "of more than 1,000 middle school students across the country [that] found that kids fear global warming more than war, terrorism or the health care crisis." Not only does this statement suggest the US has a non-existent "health care crisis" but it demonstrates the dangerous power of misinformation in education. Sorrentino's article is full of the very misinformation that leads to the unwarranted fear children have about "global warming."
Appearing at the education.com website, Johanna Sorrentino's article, "Get Your Kids Global Warming Savvy" (http://www.education.com/magazine/article/Global_Warming_Savvy/) is a classic example of the misinformation that is crippling our children and young adults when it comes to the climate change/global warming issue. Sorrentino's article refers to survey results "of more than 1,000 middle school students across the country [that] found that kids fear global warming more than war, terrorism or the health care crisis." It is no wonder, given the constant drumbeat of misinformation directed toward children in schools and in the biased media.
For parents who want to provide a good education about global warming and climate change (and how teachers are misleading students), there is an excellent book for "kids [who] fear global warming more than war, terrorism or the health care crisis." It is The Sky's Not Falling - Why It's OK to Chill about Global Warming (for children and adults) by Holley Fretwell and it can be purchased at Amazon.com: [ Buy Now! ]. Well organized, this book presents a fairly comprehensive view of climate change and global warming designed to calm any fears children may have from gross exaggerations they may have heard at school, on TV, or in other media. While the book is written for children, it is excellent for adults whose education failed to prepare them to understand why the notion that humans can cause "climate change" is absurd.
Clearly, Sorrentino would benefit from reading Fretwell's book. Sorrentino needs to better educate herself about both climate change and climate science. Those who do not understand the science ought not be trying to influence others about climate change.
Here are the facts:
CO2 is not and never has been a significant force for climate change. Over the past 560 million years, the amount of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature are not correlated. While correlation does not necessarily prove causation, lack of correlation is sufficient to disprove causation:
The human contribution to atmospheric CO2 amounts to less than 19 ppm of the current 385 ppm. As a percent of total atmosphere, that is a miniscule 0.0019%.
The most dominant (by far) "greenhouse gas" is water vapor, accounting for ~95% of atmospheric heat retention (CO2 and all the other atmospheric warming gases account for the remainder).
While CO2 may be an effective atmospheric warming gas, it is a minor player in atmospheric warming and its contribution to warming diminishes as more is added to the atmosphere. This is a physical property of CO2 and radiated heat from the Earth via IR (infrared). As an example, suppose you're in a closed room with a single window allowing sunlight to pour into the room. You have a supply of shades you can pull down to cover the window. Let's say that each shade is capable of blocking 75% of incoming light. Pull down the first shade and you're left with 25% of the light when the window was unobstructed. Pull down the second shade. Can you get the same reduction in sunlight? No, because you only have 25% of the light left! Does that mean that all the light is now blocked? No, because you're only going to be able to block 75% of that remaining light (or about 19%, for a total of about 94% of light blocked). Pull down a third shade and you've now got less than 2% of the original light coming in. Pretty dark by now. This illustrates that, although each shade is identical, the more shades you pull down, the less light is blocked (simply because there isn't as much light to block!). That is the same principle at work with atmospheric CO2 (the shades) and radiated heat (the sunlight in the example). Each 20 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere has less net effect on radiated IR than the previous 20% CO2 added because there is less IR to absorb/reflect. That's elementary physics and is undeniable. The details:
The IPCC/Gore theory is built on an assumption about how much additional warming will come from water vapor if CO2 increases lead to a warming of 1°C. The unproven assumption (and scientifically refuted) claims a more than 3 to 1 positive "feedback" (or temperature forcing) -- which means that for every degree of warming from CO2, the additional water vapor that the warmer atmosphere could hold would lead to 3°-4°C of additional warming (since water vapor dominates atmospheric heat retention). IPCC general circulation models (GCMs) were constructed under that assumption and to nobody's surprise, they got the result they wanted. However, in the real world, climate tends toward stability. Consequently, natural processes would develop a negative feedback (lower temperature forcing) and not a positive feedback (rising temperature) from additional CO2 warming. The IPCC failed to consider that additional water vapor brings more clouds (greater albedo) and more precipitation, each leading to cooler temperatures (negative feedback) rather than warmer temperatures. As a consequence of the atmosphere's ability to retain slightly more water vapor from a temperature elevation due to greater CO2, there is a net temperature effect of zero (or slightly negative) . (see http://www.webcommentary.com/climate/monckton.php)
Earth's climate is currently in an "ice era"! Ice eras are atypically cold departures from Earth's typical climate that generally last from 40 to 65 million years. There have been seven ice eras in Earth's climate history. The current ice era began about 65 million years ago. What can we conclude from that? The climate is also in a shorter cycle cold regime called an "ice epoch" (ice epochs span several million years). These are relatively cold periods within an ice era. Within ice eras and ice epochs, we have ice ages cycles lasting 125,000 years (cycles of glaciation with much shorter warmer episodes called "interglacials"). Earth is currently near the end of an interglacial period that began about 15,000 years ago. Interglacials have smaller cycles, both warmer and colder periods, lasting hundreds or thousands of years. Within climate periods Earth experiences decadal cycles of warming and cooling. There is absolutely nothing unusual about warming and cooling during the current interglacial. No "unprecedented" cycles. What is commonly done is to show a very brief time frame for climate, e.g., several decades, and claim that the natural rise in temperature over that timeframe is "unprecedented" when, in fact, it is routine when much longer timeframes are viewed. This is deceit, pure and simple and it is routinely practiced by global warming alarmists.
Ice eras account for less than 10% of Earth's climate just since living organisms have existed (roughly 3.0 - 3.5 billion years). During Earth's more typical climate, global temperatures are about 18°F warmer than at present and there is no permanent ice anywhere on the globe at sea level (that includes the poles).
Earth is currently in a decadal cooling trend of a warm (post Little Ice Age) period embedded within an interglacial of an ice age cycle, within an ice epoch of an ice era. Climate is always changing from natural sources. The claim that a human element to recent warming is discernible is laughable. It simply is not possible to point to any temperature increase as of human origin, unless, of course, we refer to the highly biased surface record in the US as a consequence of sloppy placement and maintenance of temperature monitoring stations. See SurfaceStations.org for detailed information about the warm bias in the US surface station temperature history.
If the next ice age glacial cycle were to begin (and it will), the suggestion that we could fend it off by burning fossil fuels would be laughable.
Glaciers in Alaska, Norway, most of the Himalayans, parts of Greenland, and Antarctica have stopped their retreat (Alaska's began retreating 100 years ago!) and are now advancing. Record snowfall across Canada and the northern US during the past several years. New all-time coldest temperature (since recordings began) recorded in Maine this past winter (-50°F). Record Rocky Mountain snowpack leading to spring flooding in north central states as repeated spring blizzards pile on more snow. UK experienced very cold summer in 2008 with increasing winter snows, deeper southern penetration and cold this past winter. Coldest summer on record for Anchorage, Alaska, in 2008. Near record cold for June in much of the northeastern US. Massive cold waves and deep southern penetration of snowstorms in Asia during past few winters. Middle East experiences 4" snowfall in areas where there isn't even a word for snow it is so rare. While none of these taken alone is sufficient to suggest that warming is not occurring, when taken all together it is hard to explain how the planet could be warming and experiencing these contrary symptoms at the same time!
The IPCC global warming theory requires polar regions to warm more rapidly than other regions. Recent Arctic warming was the result of decadal cycles of atmospheric and oceanic circulations that have, in the past decade, switched from warm phase to cold phase. Despite a deeply flawed study claiming the contrary, the vast majority of Antarctica has been cooling for the past five decades (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_man_made.pdf). The ice shelves that break off from Antarctica are being forced seaward by additional ice accumulation inland (upland). The ice isn't falling off because it is melting, it's merely breaking off and then melting in the warmer ocean.
If the planet is in a dramatic warming, how can the following be explained? Worldwide continental all-time high temperature records and year recorded for each non-polar continent:
Quoting select "scientists" who are well out of the mainstream of scientific opinion is a tool of the deceivers. Sorrentino, either knowingly or unwittingly, has joined the deceivers. There are more than 31,000 scientists in the US alone who have signed a petition stating that humans are not causing global warming. These signatories have had their credentials verified and are in some field of science that would qualify them as knowledgeable. Consequently, these scientists are better-suited to support their view of climate and climate change. There are a little over 2000 IPCC scientists contributing to working groups (the number is often inflated - deliberately - by merely adding all the scientists in all working groups, but many scientists participate in more than one working group!). Fewer than 1000 are actually involved with climate change science (many others address effects of climate change from any source, not just human). Over 600 of those scientists refute the conclusions of the politicians writing the IPCC summary report! There is no consensus of scientists claiming the IPCC position is valid. The contention that human-caused global warming is held by a consensus of climate scientists is merely a myth propagated by an irresponsible media.
Education can be a wonderful thing, but not when it misinforms. Propagandizing is not educating. Ignorance leads to spreading nonsense about climate and climate change.
A Primer on CO2 and Climate (Second Edition), pg 24 (Table 1), Howard C. Hayden, PhD, Physics, 2008, Vales Lake Publishing
Biography - Bob Webster
Bob Webster, a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.