Confuting The Fallacies Shrouding Anthropogenic Climate Change

It is incontrovertible that there has been a change seen in the earth's climatic behaviour over the past century with vast amounts of experimental evidence corroborating this as fact. Nevertheless, is this change in patterns really something that should cause such grave amount of concern? Are all the polar bears going to drown by 2050 due to the lack of ice caps as some predict? I think not. The Greenhouse effect and "Global Warming" are used synonymously but are starkly contrasting principles. "Global Warming" is a generic colloquial term used to characterise the changes on the planet whilst misappropriating the Greenhouse effect which is an exact scientific principle. The Greenhouse effect is perceived by many to have an adverse effect on the earth due to its ties with global warming, although mathematically this is not the case. If we treat the earth as a black-body and apply the equation: I = ? TE4 We can obtain the result that there is an intensity of 239Wm-2 which gives an equilibrium temperature on earth of -18oc rendering the whole planet a ball of ice. Whereas when we incorporate the greenhouse effect there is an intensity of 480Wm-2 giving an equilibrium temperature on earth of +15oc. Therefore the greenhouse effect is a positive principle as the increase in 33oc enables us to sustain life and not slip into a glacial period which we would without the greenhouse effect. The Al Gore type scaremongers of climate change would say global warming is a result of the excessive emissions of CO2 resulting in too much of a greenhouse effect as allegedly shown by Figure 1. It can't be denied that CO2 levels are rising as unequivocally shown by Figure 2, although the role of CO2 can be more than questioned. Research has been conducted showing that after a certain limit CO2 becomes saturated in the atmosphere and any surplus emissions will have no outcome with regards to the greenhouse effect and raising of temperatures. The interesting feature is that we have essentially already reached that stage, as shown by Figure 3. This could be interpreted as humans having polluted the atmosphere in a drastic fashion however anthropogenic forces have only raised the temperatures 0.4oc as shown by figure 4, it was prior to the industrial era of humans and it was the natural forces of creation which gave rise to the rest of the "greenhouse gas blanket." The limited role of humans is shown by the Carbon cycle as oceans & vegetation contribute to 97% of the carbon emissions whereas humans only contribute to 3% of this. This begs the question why is CO2 perceived to be such a foe when it comes to global warming? It most certainly should not be deemed as a foe. Unfortunately this misconception is as a result of projections like those of the IPCC whose models predict that the 0.4oc worth of greenhouse effect raising temperatures humans have produced from CO2 will be a catalyst for a positive feedback system. This positive feedback system will release water vapour (20 times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas) from the oceans as a result of evaporation and intensify the albedo effect resulting in a 5.5oc natural increase in temperature. Although this model is to be taken tentatively considering they have a 500% margin of error for their predictions as shown by figure 5 Therefore is there anything we can do? It is publicised that the implications of climate change are irreversible however this is misconstrued; it is the secondary effects which are irreversible such as the extinction of animal species whereas the greenhouse effect itself is reversible as on average a CO2 molecule only lasts 5 years in the "blanket" before it moves on in the cycle, so we could reduce the saturation and consequently reduce light intensity. Although in my opinion this need not be necessary as I feel we are being too reductionist and not holistic enough in terms of our approach as the concept of "global warming" has only been around for at most half a century. All the panic that has been generated is due to the fact that this is a change of not even half a degree over a period of one human lifetime, but on a geological, atmospheric and cosmological time scale 50 years is negligible considering the earth is 4.6billion years old. As shown by figure 6 a variation of 0.4oc is nothing of concern it is just a natural fluctuation, it is only deemed as a contemporary issue as previously we haven't had the technological competence to think otherwise. In my opinion trying to fight a natural phenomenon with the power of the sun is ultimately futile and we should simply let nature takes its course.