Current ice coverage is 85.4% and probably not yet at its peak for the year. So people who live in the Great Lakes area are likely going to experience two of the coldest winters in the last forty years. Last winter saw the lakes frozen over to the highest degree since 1979. If things keep going as they have recently this year could set an all-time record for ice coverage. Wouldn't it be grand if the entire Great Lakes were frozen?
As I looked at the graph copied above I began to get a strange idea. For some reason that I do not understand I began to contemplate the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the earth. Carbon dioxide, as most people know, is that notorious greenhouse gas that is allegedly responsible for the global warming we are presently not experiencing. Now there is an interesting thing about greenhouse gases in general, and carbon dioxide in particular. Global warming priests tell us that the relationship between carbon dioxide and the temperature of the earth is direct. In other words, when the amount of carbon dioxide goes up, so does the temperature of the earth, the water on the surface of the earth and the air that surrounds the earth. Take a look at the graph below and tell me if you notice anything.
Notice it? I did to. How can the relationship of carbon dioxide and the temperature of the earth be direct if the two graphs are wildly different from each other? One possible answer is that the earth is not a closed system and the impact of carbon dioxide upon the temperature of the earth could vary as carbon dioxide enters and escapes the system at random. But the earth is a closed system. No carbon dioxide escapes to outer space and no carbon dioxide enters from outer space. So that theory does not pan out. Since I could not figure out why the two graphs were not mirror images of each other I consulted with those who claim to understand things better than I do.
I went here to find an answer to my question. In answer to the question, "Why doesn't the temperature rise at the same rate carbon dioxide increases?" I learned the following things:
- "Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect." I did not claim that it did. I am not claiming that the relationship between carbon dioxide and the earth's temperature is proportionate. I am claiming it is direct. There is a difference between the two. This first reason given in answer to the question is nothing more than a dodge.
- "The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time." I wish this humility was evident when talking about periods of time that are not short. This answer is not really an answer at all. The author simply admits that he has no answer to the question but then goes on as if the question was never asked in the first place. This answer is also nothing more than a dodge.
- "As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science..." Here we go again. This is not an answer to the question. This is a dodge. I am not claiming that carbon dioxide and temperature are proportional ("at the same rate"), I am claiming that they are direct and that in a closed system there should be no cases where one rises while the other falls. Rather than answer the question the author says the issue is a "hot topic," whatever that means.
- "The rate of surface warming has slowed in the past decade. Yet the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases cannot change. The same energy they were re-radiating back to Earth during previous decades must be evident now, subject only to changes in the amount of energy arriving from the sun - and we know that has changed very little. But if that’s true, where is this heat going?" Several things are evident in this sentence. First, all impact from the sun upon the temperature of the earth is immediately discounted. Given that the radiation received from the sun is unquestionably the most significant reason the earth is warm, it seems a bit premature to discount its impact up front. The author acknowledges that the physical properties of greenhouse gases cannot change and then asks the same question I have asked, "where is the heat going?" How does he answer that question? Go to the next quote.
- "The Earth’s climate is a complex system, acting in ways we can’t always predict. The energy that man-made CO2 is adding to the climate is not currently showing up as surface warming, because most of the heat is going into the oceans. Currently, the heat is moving downwards from the ocean surface to deeper waters. The surface gets cooler, humidity reduces (water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas), and air temperatures go down." So when the average temperature of the earth goes up the global warming priests claim that it perfectly fits their models of man-made global warming. But when the temperature of the earth goes down, as it has the past ten years, they say that the earth is "acting in ways we can't always predict." No kidding! Ultimately the answer to the question is their belief that oceans are absorbing the heat created by global warming so that it does not show up in temperature readings from the atmosphere. Under the new theory, created to explain data that does not fit the old theory, warm water sinks and cold water rises. As the warm water sinks the surface of the water gets colder, yet somehow the added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which must be increasing the temperature of the air according to their theory, does not manage to warm the water near the surface. As a result there are fewer clouds and the temperature of the earth goes down because water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. Do any of you remember a couple of years ago when global warming ministers told us that fewer clouds would cause the temperature of the earth to rise since less radiation was being reflected back into space? So do I. I guess that theory no longer fits the data.