The link to NRDC site on Global Warming Basics.
The link to NASA's Global Warming Page.
The greenhouse effect theory is all wrong
While there are many experts and ultra-experts in greenhouse effects who publish a lot complicated calculations and math, a few observations should be enough to crash their weak edifice.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (air) is less than 1000 ppm (or 0.1%) . The greenhouse theory rests on this gas as the most important element to "trap" the heat of the earth. They claim that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up from 400 ppm to 700 ppm in several centuries. To put this in perspective, most of the earth's atmosphere is nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%)and argon (0.9%). What they are claiming is that in a 1000 molecules of air, the one molecule of carbon dioxide is the most important in determining the average temperature of the earth. The other 999 molecules which not carbon dioxide are not important. You would think that we are talking about radioactivity...with such small concentrations of a gas in the atmosphere being completely responsible for determining the earth's temperature.
The simple explanation that most of the air at the surface of the earth is heated by conduction and convection, from the solid earth absorbing heat or the ocean water absorbing heat, and then transferring this heat to the lower atmosphere, is discarded. The main mechanism is conduction between the earth's surface and the atmosphere (primarily comprised of nitrogen and oxygen for thermal conduction purposes). After that convection will naturally distribute this heat within the atmosphere.
The radiation related absorption of heat by carbon dioxide, is an irrelevant factor in determining the temperature of the atmosphere. The heat transfer is from directly contact of the air with the hot object-and later the redistribution by convection. The composition of the air being mostly nitrogen and oxygen, they alone are responsible for the heating effect of all hot objects, liquid or solid, on earth.
I find it silly when they say that that if all carbon dioxide were to be removed from the atmosphere, the earth would be much colder than it is-knowing that carbon dioxide is such a minor part of air.
Another supposed greenhouse gas, water vapor, is about 100 times more abundant than carbon dioxide. If greenhouse effect were real, shouldn't they worry more about water vapor than carbon dioxide?
Averages don't mean much for highly varying distributions
NASA and other sites claim that the temperature rise is 1C in about hundred years, or for sea rising 1mm per year. The deviation (range) per day in temperature of a place is at least 5C or the sea level is 1m (1000mm). If something is varying so strongly per day, does it make any sense to worry about 1C of rise in 100 years or 1mm rise in the sea level per year? Averages of data don't make sense for data which is very variable.
Intuitively speaking, for the temperature data, does it make any sense at all to talk about the mean temperature of a place over a year??? Given that the temperature per day is varying about at least 5C, consider a place like Dallas, TX, USA-where the temperature is between 25-35 C in the summer, and 0-10C in the winter, can we even infer anything at all if we say that the average temperature of Dallas over a year was 20C! The deviation from the mean is so large that just talking about the average becomes meaningless. If you average the data over the whole earth it becomes even more meaningless, not less.
NASA is careful to not publish the standard deviation (S.D.) of this data. They are crazily averaging the temperature over the whole year for all places, and using "using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment-as their website says"..something which you never do with data! They are plotting the deviation from the mean, which obviously has less standard deviation that the data itself. Here's the GIS temp data which they are using.
You can't talk about just the average in highly variable distributions! There is no such thing as the average temperature of the earth, it is an insult to statistics to talk about the average temperature of a place, let alone of the entire earth, which is 75% water! Because the temperature at any given moment on the earth is varying from -20C to 40C, you can't talk about the average as being representative at all, because the standard deviation is very high.
The global warming scientists are very careful to hide the variability of the data. In most publications, they will never answer a simple question like "what's the average temperature of the earth today vs. 10 or 20 years ago?". Instead, they will take the moving average, and take deviations from the moving average, as a data point. This is to confuse the naive observer into thinking that moving averages are something different and you NEED TO measure deviation from there..in reality, the simple data they have is a time series of temperature recordings. The data is massaged to only publish moving averages, and since no one talks about Standard deviation of a moving average in statistics, the problem is "solved" by these wily statisticians. This happens also in the stock market (moving average of stocks is often used to see long term trends). But the deviation in the stock market is much less than the temperature data (per day), and that's where the statistical juggling by these environmentalists is needed; and they oblige readily.
Some organizations in global warming do publish the average temperature of the earth. It is about 14.6C, see details here. Nowhere on this website (and there are many others) is there a mention of the standard deviation (variance) of the data. Apparently, the average temperature has gone from 13C to 14C in 100 years. It is the same data as NASA data, but in a more clear to understand form. Now think to yourself, given that every moment in the earth, the temperature is between -20C to 40C, and given that each point itself is varying about 5C per day (24 hours), what can you conclude by averaging out all the data for one full year, and coming up with one number, of 14C? Ask these pseudo-scientists the distribution of the readings, and what is the S.D. of their own data, and they will look at you with strange eyes. The distribution of temperature data for a whole year, over the whole earth, is all over the place, and the temperature of 14.6C as an average tells you nothing at all!
If the temperature of all points or most of the points on the globe were going up, and going up considerably (after accounting for the standard deviation), you would have a strong case that there is global warming. Mathematically, this would mean that the covariance of the temperature data for all places, taken pairwise, would be significant. The correlation coefficient would be very high as well, to account for the standard deviations-just high covariance with a high standard deviation does not mean that the correlation coefficient is high, because the standard deviation (squared) enters in the denominator of the calculation of the correlation coefficient. But any series where the standard deviation is so large as is the temperature data, you can clearly see that the correlation coefficient will be quite small if the data is published pairwise (e.g. correlation coefficient of Dallas vs. Tokyo, two cities in the Northern Hemisphere). Taking the overall mean of all this data and concluding stuff from it is really not good mathematics, as this wonderful blog post by Jason Cohen shows. Jason explains well that the mean and even the standard deviation fail to capture the details; and sometimes you have to stare at the raw data to see what's going on. Think of the Matrix numbers being dropped from the top of your computer monitor, and if it were temperature data of the planet earth, you would need to pick it up by staring at the monitor, without calculating the easy means and standard deviations.
Digression: In general, I am a believer that good data shouts at you-I borrowed this phrase from Nassim Taleb. If you have to do a lot of data massaging and discarding, there's probably nothing inside the data, or at least nothing very strong. Good strong correlations shout at you-and if you are experienced with looking at numbers, you don't need to calculate statistical variables to prove the correlation. If you are doing so, the correlations are very weak, and your theories are very weak as well. Global warming theories are just an example of these types of weak correlations, which will show up by careful data massaging, or just due to randomness.
Another problem with temperature data is that all of it is really the temperature of the air at the Earth's surface, wherever the temperature data is being taken. The atmosphere is several kilometers in length, and the temperature of the air in the atmosphere decreases as we move up. Can we say that the temperature reading we have just at the bottom of the atmospheric column represents the atmospheric air temperature? Note the dimensions here...you are taking a point measurement, and concluding the temperature of the air. Also note that this is not the temperature of the earth's crust at all, which is the solid matter below the atmospheric column. Things are more complicated when talking about the earth which has 75% of the surface as water. There can be no inference of the temperature of the atmospheric air, the water in the oceans, or the solid earth just from a point measurement of the temperature on the surface air. Not to mention that talking about the temperature of a massive solid ball which is thousands of kilometers in diameter sounds like a very foolish thing to me.
The same problem is there with the sea level data-which they claim is rising 1 mm per year. The sea is in constant motion, and you can see waves of a meter or so everywhere...what is the sea level accuracy to 1 mm??? Again, bizarre averaging down without reporting standard deviations. The waves are 1 m (1000 mm) high even in a relatively calm sea, and we are talking about 1 mm average rises over a year. Makes no sense to me. Also, rise in sea level does not necessarily mean that it is because of global warming-there might be other reasons. Glaciers have been melting since the ice age, and an accelerating in the melting does not necessarily mean that we will see an increased temperature of the earth or the earth's surface. Those are two different things-and you can imagine a scenario where the sea level is really rising without any global warming, for reasons not known to us
The other problem which these global warming enthusiasts are not telling the truth about is that even if there is global warming, it doesn't mean that it is bad for us. There is a lot of exaggeration on the bad effects of global warming and sea level rising.
Vladimir Putin seems to get it. In 2003 at the World Climate Change Conference, President Vladimir Putin said "Russia is a northern country. It's not scary if it's two to three degrees warmer. Maybe it would even be a good thing. We'd have to spend less money on fur coats and warmer things." In general, Russia seems to not care about global warming, which is the right thing to do not for just Russia but for the entire world.
Even if the earth is rising in temperature gradually, while this may lead to a tough life for penguins and sea lions and all other animals which live in the poles and cold areas-but as Darwin explained to us so very well in The Origin, Life loves warm weather. The number of species of both plants and animals goes down as we goes away from the Equator. For every penguin dying in Antartica, there are maybe hundreds of deer and snakes and other tropical creatures who are born, and they will lead to the formation of new Species. For plants it is an absolute party as well-a warmer earth will lead to a REFORESTATION of the Amazon jungle in the long term (unfortunately I don't know what that long term is). But this is directly from Darwin, and some simple observations of life around us on our planet. Living things, both plants and animals, multiply better in warm weather, and a warmer earth is good for Life on earth. And come to think of it-what percentage of humans have actually seen a glacier or hung out with a penguin in Antartica? There are plenty of penguin in zoos nowadays-and we can always raise them well there in case there is a complete melting of ice caps (we did domesticate dogs, cats, and all kinds of other animals, this one will be harder, but we have a long history of domesticating animals!). Warmer earth is also good for population of plants and animals in the sea-e.g. the number density of fish species goes down as you move away from warmer waters to colder waters.
Ocean levels rising even at a larger rate is not as catastrophic at these scientists want you to believe. They say that with the current rate of rise of ocean levels, assume all goes according to what all these climate scientists think, Maldives might disappear in 2100 (assuming their projections are true, which is highly doubtful, but let's just say the are). Maldives has a population of 300,000 today, and even if this happens as these scientists claim-do you think that humans are so brutal that large land mass countries around Maldives like India or Africa or even Europe will let these people just drown??? Of course not. Most countries would be happy to take these immigrants today-it is a very small number of people.
As far as the rise in sea levels on all coasts in major continents-people forget that The Netherlands has been below sea level forever, and human industry of the Dutch has kept it one of the finest, richest countries of Europe in the last 400 years at least. As long as there is a big land mass around, like the Dutch have (unlike Islands like Maldives) we can always reclaim land if needed.
Since the last ice age the earth has been getting warmer (a good thing!) but this present 100 or 200 years acceleration caused by human activity is highly doubtful.
Firstly, whether global warming as measured by a few decades of data, with rising sea levels etc. is not just a simple noise, a simple standard deviation of natural phenomena can't be discarded. It would be like saying that the earthquake frequency is going up in Chile right now, given that for 1 year we have been having a lot of them. There is not enough data to draw conclusions like that about the earth-geological and climactic phenomena are to be measured in thousands of years, not a few decades. A few decades of the earth's temperature rising and the sea level rising doesn't mean much at all.
Earth is greener today because of agriculture
Secondly and more importantly, I believe the earth is actually much greener today than a few hundred years ago, BECAUSE of the growth in human population. When you land in any airport in Europe or any developed country, or even developing countries in South America, it is a wonderful sight to see the farms and plantations of humans. To support a rising population, cultivation has increased considerably; and while we may have lost some rain forest and some other jungles in the world; the overall greenery in the world is much greater now than before. I doubt that in 1500 Europe or North America would be so green as they are today. The plantations of grains, fruits and vegetables, wines, etc. has lead us to massive reclamations of complete deserts-witness Califorina and Nevada and Arizona in the US, or Mendoza in Argentina. Humans may have cut down forests to expand, but most forest has been cut down to plant more food, and NOT for cities. A dozen cherry trees are much better than a wild pine tree for the carbon footprint. And if we add the deserts and waste lands reclaimed, I believe it can be easily argued that we are much greener today than before.
Just as a farmer throwing seed in the ground would be called a madman by someone who didn't know that this seed will multiply many fold to give even more seed (example of Dr. Burns cited by Smith in Wealth of Nations); similarly, just because we lose a forest doesn't mean that by cutting it we will have less plants than before. If the cut forest is replanted with trees and crops for human use, and maintained green and productive all year round, you will come out much ahead. And I have first hand knowledge from a forest company that the lumber they cut down grows back 100% in some years-thanks to humans taking care of the land, putting fertilizer, supplying water, etc. Not to mention the desert and other lands you reclaim and agriculture-that's a real addition to greenery on the planet. You can see this plainly in California, Arizona in the US, and in Mendoza, Argentina. What was once a desert is now fully grown fields of crops-oranges, wines, olives, etc.
There is a theory on faster hurricanes because of warmer weathers (see links above). There are a thousand other effects of global warming published everyday, and all they are are theories to scare humanity, in my humble opinion.
What we are doing is restraining economic development by all these carbon caps etc. Energy is becoming expensive to produce-and since cheap energy is the CAUSE of economic development (just like all cheap raw materials) we are increasing the costs to humans because of bad science polluting the world.