What rubbish

I'm apalled by Andy Ho's article "Global warming: Who or what is the real culprit?" I can't believe they allowed this poorly researched and grossly errored article on ST. Here's my email to him:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Andy Ho,

I read your article with great enthusiasm, as it seems to promise a different perspective to the Global Warming Debate. However, I was thoroughly disappointed by the number of geographical and scientific errors in your writing.

1) You've mentioned that there is a lag time of 800 years between a rise of carbon ( I assume you meant rise in carbon dioxide) and temperature increase. You have mentioned that human produce just "a small fraction of 1 per cent of all carbon" and that "Dying vegetation produces much more". But have you considered the following human activities that contribute to the rise in carbon dioxide composition?

a) Burning of vegetation: We are removing the very "tools" in nature that converts carbon dioxide into oxygen by storing the carbon in them. Yet, we are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air by burning the carbon in vegetation into carbon dioxide. If you think the forest fire in Sumatra in bad, the deforestation in the Amazon forest is a lot worst.

b) Burning of fossil fuels

If humans were to produce only just "a small fraction of 1 percent of all carbon", I assume you'll consider NEA's statistics of Singaporeans releasing about 150tonnes of Carbon dioxide per square kilometer per day as minimal as well?

You added on saying that methane is much more effective in trapping heat than carbon dioxide. True, but isn't cattle grazing (who produces methane throuch belching) as well as rice padi farms human activities as well? Hasn't that been on a rise? In fact, CFC is a much more effective heat trapper than methane. Didn't human release quite a bit of it too?


2) What are your sources that show that "0.6 deg C higher" "most of that rise occurred before the modern era of industrialisation"?
3) Since you claim that there is a time lag between changes in carbon dioxide and changes in temperature, why did you contradict yourself when you want to prove your point that carbon dioxide has no effect by stating that "When CO2 output rose dramatically - global temperatures actually were on a downward trend."? Wouldn't it be more accurate to your point if you show that when CO2 output rose dramatically 800 years ago, temperatures now were on a downward trend?

4) Your statistic of global temperatures "have been climbing for three decades now - by just 0.2 deg C" is the average global temperature I assume? However, these changes in temperature mask extreme temperature changes. For example, If Europe were to experience a drop of 30 deg C in temperature for their winter, and India were to experience a rise of 10 deg C in temperature for their hot season, assuming the temperature in all other countries and all other seasons remain the same, the average global temperature will be lowered by at least 10 deg C. Can you still say that there is barely any climate change then? If so, why are there still "worst heatwave" ever recorded or "worst winter ever recorded" in news these years?

5) You've mentioned that a rise in sun spot activity corresponded to a rise in temperature. However, that contradicted to what my lecturer have researched, that a rise of sun spot activity actually correspond to a drop in temperature. Please refer to LIM Han She at geolhs@nus.edu.sg

6) Your cloud theory is kinda flawed in my opinion.
a) Firstly, you've over emphasized the importance of cosmic particles in the creation of clouds. If that's the case, Singapore must have received lots of cosmic particles during our monsoon season, especially last year. If particles in the air were that effective in creating clouds, why is it that Indonesia have so much problem creating rain with cloud seeding?

b) Your theory assumes that the cloud cover is constant across all parts of the world. Unfortunately, that's not the case

c) Even if clouds were to reflect the sun rays away, it doesn't mean that the energy from the reflected sun rays would not be absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

d) Are the amount cosmic particles consistent enough for a few decades to drive such cloud formations and influence the temperature?

7) You ended saying that "the engine driving the Earth's climate change is sun - not carbon - and the transmission belt is water". The Sun is indeed the driver of Earth's climate system. But without intervening elements like green house gases to trap and store the energy from the sun in the form of heat, the Earth will be no different from the moon. An extreme case of too much green house gases is Venus. The issue is not how carbon produces heat, or how human produces heat, but how much more of this heat trapping element are we producing and releasing?

8) Lastly, you mentioned that Sheryl Crow's proposal on toilet paper is "kind of inanity". I didn't know our Malay and much of Southeast Asian counterparts have been so "inane" for so many years.
PS: to put it in context, he quoted Sheryl Crow wanting to propose a limitation on how many squres of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Well, it seems like Sheryl Crow wants to reduce the number of trees that needs to be cut down to make toilet paper, the very absorbers of carbon dioxide. How is such thing "inane" when our Malay and SEAsians counterpart has been able to use the toilet without toilet paper for so long?

Regards