Move over CO2


Professor Deepak Lal:

The CO2 theory of global warming could soon be superseded by an alternative concept based on clouds to explain climate change.

Yesterday wouldn’t be soon enough for this to happen.

[T]he cosmoclimatology theory argues that climate is controlled by low cloud cover, which when widespread has a cooling effect by reflecting solar energy back into space and vice versa. These low clouds, in turn, are formed when the sub-atomic particles called cosmic rays, emitted by exploding stars, combine with water vapours rising from the ocean. The constant bombardment of the planet by cosmic rays is modulated by solar wind, which when it is blowing prevents cosmic rays from reaching the earth and creating low clouds. The solar wind in turn is caused by the varying sunspot activity of the sun. When the sun is hyperactive with lots of sunspots, the solar wind is blowing intensely, fewer cosmic rays get through to form the low clouds, and the planet experiences global warming. When, as in recent years, sunspot activity decreases we get the global cooling observed over the last 12 years.

Now, sure, that’s just a theory, too, but it makes a whole lot more sense than trying to convince me an essential trace gas that makes up a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere, of which 97% of that is natural, and that the remaining human contribution is somehow dangerously driving the climate and aaaaahhhhhhh, were all gonna die!

Lal’s final observation is devastating.

The moral is: despite ideologues and rent seekers, real science will ultimately win against its politicised bastard.

Related, very related.

BTW, can it be expected the global warming chapters will be removed from some of Korea’s elementary school English textbooks?

And of course: now about that carbon dioxide tax Ms Gillard…

About these ads
    • Terry McGee
    • October 24th, 2011

    How do you get 97% of 400 ppm = 280 ppm? The 10,000 year average of 280ppm CO2 is very well established. 280 / 400 = 70% naturally occurring background CO2. If it was 289 ppm it’d be 97% naturally occurring and no-one would be worried.
    What are your calculations, James?

    • How do you get 97% of 400 ppm = 280 ppm?

      Not sure where I wrote that, mate. I’ve seen “skeptic” views that we contribute 3% of all the CO2; I’ve seen figures where we contribute 30% of CO2.

      It’s all moot. 3% or 30% of 0.04% is bugger all any which way you look at it.

  1. September 17th, 2011

Surely you're thinking something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 304 other followers

%d bloggers like this: