Just a quick note here. Apparently today 40 environmental groups are going to protest at a power plant near the Capitol - protesting the inability of the plant to be made carbon neutral. It is an old plant whose efficiency has been worked over and its emissions decreased as much as technology allows., but Congress has quit trying to do more. And they have even given up buying carbon offsets to pretend in making it carbon neutral.
Congress needs to realize that CO2 is good for us and not a pollutant. We lack the technology to trap and store all of this gas anyhow. It is tilting at windmills to try to expensively trap a gas which is not a problem.
It is time to bite the bullet and learn the real science which clearly shows that CO2 is not a problem and that a lack of CO2 is a much more serious threat. Below 200 ppm many plants cannot grow.
Dr Hansen of NASA is in the protest. He is the leader of the idiotic push to cripple the world for no reason. He is so deep into this scam that he cannot afford to extricate himself.
Apparently mass civil disobedience is also said to be acceptable to these protestors" and:
"The action is timed to coincide with the final day of PowerShift09, a four-day "National Youth Summit" that is bringing some 12,000 students to Washington to lobby for action on climate change. Organizers have said the young people from over a dozen countries "will acquire the tools to build the movement larger," "
Be afraid, very afraid. This is the beginning of the March of the Deluded. The scam is on and growing!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Antarctica NOT Warming
The unbelievable news of the day is:
AP – A Nov. 9, 2007 file photo shows melting icebergs in Antarctica. Environment ministers and other representatives …
"Ministers get close look at Antarctic ice threat
AP – A Nov. 9, 2007 file photo shows melting icebergs in Antarctica. Environment ministers and other representatives … TROLL RESEARCH STATION, Antarctica – A parka-clad band of environment ministers landed in this remote corner of the icy continent on Monday, in the final days of an intense season of climate research, to learn more about how a melting Antarctica may endanger the planet."
When the Antarctic has been breaking records for winter ice extent, these idiots want to pretend that it is melting. Only the Western peninsula which extends out into the Southern Ocean shows any melting.
A recent, very flawed paper, which erroneously extrapolated a warming Eastern Antarctica from adulterated data, has been soundly debunked and the satellite data which has consistently and clearly shown the main mass of the continent to be cooling is still considered accurate. With the ice extent breaking records, it correlates well with the satellite data.
These politicians would deny the Sun lit the day if their goal was to put in 24 hour street lights for their own reasons. Their agenda is to use manmade global warming to control human activities and their means is blatant propaganda in the form of lies and denial of the real facts of our climate. They like to call us denialists, but what are they when they claim warming, sea level rise, melting, and ecological changes which are not happening?
This news article is a true joke. They pretend that we know little about the Antractic and that what we do not know has to be bad.
We know that the Antarctic has been breaking records for winter ice. And, guess what? When you have lots of sea ice, there is lots to melt the next summer!
We know that the major ice mass is gaining, as is that of Greenland. Melting around the edges there is more than offset by the mass it gains in the interior, as in the Antarctic.
"The answers are so elusive that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a Nobel Prize- winning U.N. scientific network, excluded the potential threat from the polar ice sheets from calculations in its authoritative 2007 assessment of global warming."
They had to leave it out, what? Because it is so unknowable? Or, if it was included, it would have to be a negative in terms of sea level change? Hmm.
The IPCC scientific network is a political joke network of scientists who have an agenda to form a one-world government while maintaining their revenue stream for their research. Their research funding depends on finding ways to show global warming and to implicate human activities. They have no other reason to be.
"The IPCC forecast that oceans may rise up to 23 inches (0.59 meters) this century, from heat expansion and melting land ice, if the world does little to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for atmospheric warming. "
Sea level really has not changed in 30 years except in anecdotal spurious sites or those bad sites chosen by the IPCC to support their opinions - yes, bad sites that are known to be inaccurate for sea level measurement. The oceans are currently cooling and ice masses growing - the IPCC produces all of the desired sea level rise by chosing bad data or claiming predictions from faulty models.
"And yet the West Antarctic ice sheet, some of whose outlet glaciers are pouring ice at a faster
rate into the sea, "could be the most dangerous tipping point this century," says a leading U.S. climatologist, NASA's James Hansen.sponsored links "
Wow, flowing glaciers are healthy glaciers. Sick, melting glaciers are receding, not flowing. Regardless, it is not a problem when the main mass is actually growing. Dr. Hansen, once again, is misleading the public, as is his habit and his political agenda. He claims rampant warming while the real world is actively cooling. He has to do so or he will have to admit in being wrong for the last 10 years.
""We are out of out cotton-pickin' minds if we let that process get started," Hansen said of an Antarctic meltdown. "Because there will be no stopping it."
What incredible arrogance by Dr. Hansen. He really thinks that we can control the climate? He is not in contact with the real world.
The concept of "tipping points" is fascinating as they are completely hypothetical and based on pure speculation. They are the "boogeyman" of global warming. Since our climate has been much warmer in the past, even the recent past, and CO2 has been much higher several times in the last 200 years, where are these tipping points? They are indeed imaginary and invoked to alarm the public.
It is so much fun to see what foolishness they will come up with tomorrow. Pretending to go to the Antarctic with the supposed goal to assess its future dangers, when it is the hallmark of the cooling of the planet and is behaving exactly the opposite of what they claim, is to implicate the Antarctic by feigned concern. This can only be interpreted as a sham for the benefit of the general public.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Cool, the Warm and the Ugly
The Cool, the Warm and the Ugly
It is hard to believe sometimes how opposite sources can be. Here I have two articles which are exact opposites. But, which one appears to have more substance?
The Cool:
I found an article by Don Easterborrk called "Global Cooling is Here: Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades."
This article is packed with science and data and references. It describes the role of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and its correlation with the Glacial Decadal Oscillation (GDO), Dr Easterbrook's area of extertise. There is strong evidence here for 30 years of cooling up to the middle to late 2030's.
He does miss something crucial here:
He refers several times to past temperature fluctuations that have occurred before CO2 began to rise. He misses the fact that CO2 has been going up and down over time as often as the temperature, as the oceans warm and outgas CO2 and cool and take up CO2. CO2 was high (aboove 440 ppm and hitting 550 ppm occasionally) several times in the last 200 years. It was over 440 ppm as recently as the 1940's. It is nowhere close to that even now. C0rrections regarding interpretation of ice core data also indicate that CO2 was as high or higher than now during most of the ice ages. It is easy to assume it was low, but that does not appear to be the case. (See Beck's 180 Years of CO2 Data and work by Jaworowski, it's fascinating.)
I believe that Dr Easterbrook should stop saying that climate changes happened before CO2 began to rise. Instead, he should be emphasizing that CO2 and temperature are not a cause and effect pair, respectively, and that, if there is a relationship, it is that temperature changes and CO2 follows, just as CO2 peaked (in the mid-1940's) about 7 years after temperature peaked in the late 1930's and CO2 plunged after the temperature dropped in the 1950's. This is just a real application of Henry's Law for dissolved gases.
The Hot:
In contrast, I found a recent declaration by Dr Chris Field, a co-chair of the IPCC ("AAAS_ Tropical forests are drying out because of global warming."
Instead of mentioning anything about current global cooling, Fields apparently has been hiding indoors and playing with the computer models. He is claiming that the predicted warming could be as much as 6.4 deg C by 2100 and that the rainforests are going to dry up and catch fire. He blames China and India for greenhouse emissions and says something should be done now.
Actually, the way this news article was written, it sounds as if these forests are drying out now. This appears to be entirely unsubstantiated and is just more alarmist journalism, designed to make people submit to taxes and restrictions that they would normally reject or oppose.
The Ugly:
How far apart are these two articles?
One addresses the real world and the related science and is rather conservative in its conclusions, while the other relies solely on computer models which cannot even predict or simulate the recent past and makes wild claims that cannot be confirmed.
None of the models can predict the last 10 years of global cooling, let alone the climate years into the future. One model has been given a small temporary adjustment to create a temporary cooling, but it was done to create the semblance of accuracy rather than an honest functional output by the model.
As long as the models are a Swiss cheese of missing pieces and misvalued input (overblown CO2 emissions, altered thermodynamic constants, low resolution, cloud cover inadequacies, and complete misuse of water vapor), they cannot be trusted to provide any useful output.
These computer models are designed to tip, as they do not include the factors that make our climate as stable as it is. With usch a bias and their many imperfections (major flaws), they certainly should not be used to form or decide on any public or governmental policy.
I must give Dr Field credit for imagining a new and novel fantasy for something which is not happening. His alarmist blinders keep him from thinking spurious thoughts, such as warming causing more evaporation and more rainfall, or that forests with much less rainfall all over the world simply do not burst into flame oor burn uncontrollably. He seems to make the unfounded assumption that warming would radically change rainfall patterns - he would have to assume so to support this scenario/fantasy. Maybe he can make the equatorial zone go away all together . . . hmmm.
Next, I need to address the temperature of the planet, its past performance, and major real factors which make it what it is.
It is hard to believe sometimes how opposite sources can be. Here I have two articles which are exact opposites. But, which one appears to have more substance?
The Cool:
I found an article by Don Easterborrk called "Global Cooling is Here: Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades."
This article is packed with science and data and references. It describes the role of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and its correlation with the Glacial Decadal Oscillation (GDO), Dr Easterbrook's area of extertise. There is strong evidence here for 30 years of cooling up to the middle to late 2030's.
He does miss something crucial here:
He refers several times to past temperature fluctuations that have occurred before CO2 began to rise. He misses the fact that CO2 has been going up and down over time as often as the temperature, as the oceans warm and outgas CO2 and cool and take up CO2. CO2 was high (aboove 440 ppm and hitting 550 ppm occasionally) several times in the last 200 years. It was over 440 ppm as recently as the 1940's. It is nowhere close to that even now. C0rrections regarding interpretation of ice core data also indicate that CO2 was as high or higher than now during most of the ice ages. It is easy to assume it was low, but that does not appear to be the case. (See Beck's 180 Years of CO2 Data and work by Jaworowski, it's fascinating.)
I believe that Dr Easterbrook should stop saying that climate changes happened before CO2 began to rise. Instead, he should be emphasizing that CO2 and temperature are not a cause and effect pair, respectively, and that, if there is a relationship, it is that temperature changes and CO2 follows, just as CO2 peaked (in the mid-1940's) about 7 years after temperature peaked in the late 1930's and CO2 plunged after the temperature dropped in the 1950's. This is just a real application of Henry's Law for dissolved gases.
The Hot:
In contrast, I found a recent declaration by Dr Chris Field, a co-chair of the IPCC ("AAAS_ Tropical forests are drying out because of global warming."
Instead of mentioning anything about current global cooling, Fields apparently has been hiding indoors and playing with the computer models. He is claiming that the predicted warming could be as much as 6.4 deg C by 2100 and that the rainforests are going to dry up and catch fire. He blames China and India for greenhouse emissions and says something should be done now.
Actually, the way this news article was written, it sounds as if these forests are drying out now. This appears to be entirely unsubstantiated and is just more alarmist journalism, designed to make people submit to taxes and restrictions that they would normally reject or oppose.
The Ugly:
How far apart are these two articles?
One addresses the real world and the related science and is rather conservative in its conclusions, while the other relies solely on computer models which cannot even predict or simulate the recent past and makes wild claims that cannot be confirmed.
None of the models can predict the last 10 years of global cooling, let alone the climate years into the future. One model has been given a small temporary adjustment to create a temporary cooling, but it was done to create the semblance of accuracy rather than an honest functional output by the model.
As long as the models are a Swiss cheese of missing pieces and misvalued input (overblown CO2 emissions, altered thermodynamic constants, low resolution, cloud cover inadequacies, and complete misuse of water vapor), they cannot be trusted to provide any useful output.
These computer models are designed to tip, as they do not include the factors that make our climate as stable as it is. With usch a bias and their many imperfections (major flaws), they certainly should not be used to form or decide on any public or governmental policy.
I must give Dr Field credit for imagining a new and novel fantasy for something which is not happening. His alarmist blinders keep him from thinking spurious thoughts, such as warming causing more evaporation and more rainfall, or that forests with much less rainfall all over the world simply do not burst into flame oor burn uncontrollably. He seems to make the unfounded assumption that warming would radically change rainfall patterns - he would have to assume so to support this scenario/fantasy. Maybe he can make the equatorial zone go away all together . . . hmmm.
Next, I need to address the temperature of the planet, its past performance, and major real factors which make it what it is.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
CO2 and the IPCC - What's the evidence?
CO2 and the IPCC - What's the evidence?
There are two ways to address the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW): describing the IPCC’s rationale or proof of its case, or describing the real conditions, principles, and science of the Earth and its climate and how it disagrees with AGW.
So, initially I will address the IPCC’s basis for the idea that man-made CO2 is warming the planet. There is no empirical order in which they need to be presented as they add up to their argument of AGW, but I will try to put it in a logical order regarding their needs to support AGW.
First, the IPCC makes the unsupported and unfounded assumption that CO2 in the atmosphere determines our climate. They say that, until man-made CO2 began to accumulate, the climate was ruled by natural factors and even solar influences. But, they also assume that the introduction of man made CO2 with the industrial revolution has swamped all natural factors and CO2 now drives the climate.
The concept, or more accurately musing, that CO2 in the atmosphere could warm the planet goes back almost 180 years. Gerlich & Tscheuschner summarize the situation nicely:
“The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation."
. . . and . . .
"Although the arguments of Arrhenius were falsified by his contemporaries they were picked up by Callendar (1938) and Keeling (1960), the founders of the modern greenhouse hypothesis.(. .) Interestingly, this hypothesis has been vague ever since it has been used.”
- G Gerlich and RD Tscheuschner, Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Ver. 3.0, 11 Sept 2007. (In the latter quote, the reference numbers of Callendar and Keeling were replaced with the year of the first publication by each.)
This concept has never been confirmed as it is fundamentally flawed. It is true that atmospheric water vapor (at 2.7%, 27,000 ppm) and CO2 (currently at 0.000380%, 380 ppm) keep our planet warmer than it would be without them. However, the first 20 ppm of CO2 had the lion’s share of its effect long ago and higher levels yield diminishing returns, such that roughly 90-95% of its ability to warm has already been realized. Furthermore, water vapor has a much broader absorption spectrum than CO2 and overlaps a significant portion of CO2’s absorption spectrum, such that CO2’s effect is compromised. Water vapor, averaging 70 times the concentration of CO2 and with a broader absorption spectrum, definitely dominates the atmosphere.
Despite the unfounded nature of this concept, it is an important part of the IPCC’s case as, if it is simply assumed to be true, then they can focus on CO2 and its origins to explain global warming. As you hopefully will understand below, none of their stipulations or assumptions have any real scientific merit.
Second, the IPCC needed to show that CO2 was historically low and is now high and increasing in an abnormal way. There are two types of data regarding historical CO2 levels: direct chemical measurements and indirect measurements.
There are thousands of direct chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 from publications going back to 1810 (180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods by Ernst-Georg Beck), long before the start of CO2 monitoring at Mauna Loa in 1950. Most of these used valid and reproducible methods. Only a couple of studies used a recognizably inferior sulfuric acid extraction technique which typically yields under-measurements of CO2 concentrations.
Now, it must be mentioned here that the IPCC case needs to show that CO2 has been historically low and steady until the Industrial Revolution. However, direct chemical measurements showed that atmospheric CO2 levels had varied quite widely over time (from 252 to over 550 ppm), going back to 1810, long before man made CO2 could be an influence.
This obviously did not suit the IPCC’s needs. So, with the unfounded assumption based on their opinion or feeling that CO2 was around 280 ppm in the 1800’s, they discounted as too variable almost all of the direct measurement publications, some done by Nobel laureates, and lauded as wonderfully accurate two French papers, which used the deficient sulfuric acid method mentioned above, for their valid (low) results.
But, how did the IPCC arrive at or support their low CO2 in the past? They found support in a graph by Callendar (shown below) in which CO2 values from 1810-1955 were shown and a selection of low values were taken from 1865-1938 and averaged to create a value of 292 ppm for historical CO2 levels. This is cherry-picking of the data and yields a patently invalid result. The real average for this time period is 335 ppm, 43 ppm or 15% higher.
But, the IPCC needed to support Callendar’s spurious, artificial average or it would be instantly shot down. So, they turned to ice core data with the stipulation or excuse that they had to since direct chemical data was too variable (it did not fit their opinion of what CO2 levels should be; they could not have it going up and down over time at the reported levels). Thus, the basically ordained that indirect data was much more reliable.
They adopted Antarctic ice core data which is composed of fairly low CO2 results (185-300 ppm) and goes back 400 thousand years. It fit their need nicely for there to have been consistently low CO2 in the past. In passing, it should be noted that these CO2 data were often below 200 ppm during actual ice ages. Plants are in serious distress at such concentrations. They thrive in higher concentrations - it is plant food. (Greenhouse growers often use 1000 ppm to enhance plant growth. Humans become uncomfortable at levels above 2000 ppm.)
Unfortunately, ice core data is useless for recent times as it takes nearly a hundred years for ice to consolidate and trap air bubbles in its structure. Thus, ice core data ends about 1890, leaving a 60 year gap between the ice core data and the beginning of the Mauna Loa data in 1950 (graph shown below). In addition, the 1890 ice core data showed CO2 levels at about 330 ppm, equal to Mauna Loa data in 1960, part of the “frightening” rise in CO2 that is ongoing today.
The IPCC had a problem. How do you join these two data sets and how do you disappear the 1880 high CO2 levels? Their cure was to adjust the ice core data by moving it 83 years into the future until it overlapped the Mauna Loa data (graph shown below). Viola, problem solved. They simply did some creative editing and it was gone!
Not only is this mixing of data sets from entirely different origins, indeed opposite ends of the world, and methods completely invalid, but moving the timeline of the ice core data is fraudulent and scientifically dishonest. But it served the purposes of the IPCC to a “T”.
I have already indicated that direct chemical CO2 data shows that CO2 has fluctuated quite a lot over the last 180 years. Beck has put this huge body of data together (180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods by Ernst-Georg Beck) (graph shown below).
This shows very nicely why the IPCC just had to make this direct chemical data go away by discounting it as too variable. Obviously man did not cause these variations.
In contradiction to the IPCC's adoption of raw ice core data as blindingly accurate measurements of past CO2 levels, Jaworowski, an expert in ice core analysis, published detailed descriptions of problems with ice core data. He has described the factors that dictate that, at depth and high pressure, the original bubbles have collapsed to form solid ice containing water complexed gas molecules (“clathrates”). During the drilling for retrieving ice cores, the pressure change allows the ice to expand and undergo dense cracking and “sheeting”, generate new bubbles, and suffer significant gas loss to the driller tube and the atmosphere. In addition, even at -78 deg C ice contains uncrystallized water which allows CO2 to dissolve out of the newly formed bubbles, further increasing CO2 losses. He concluded that ice core concentration measurements of CO2 are 30-50% low and that ice core data may be good for observing trends but should not be used for determining absolute CO2 values.
If one takes the values observed in the ice core data and Jaworowski's estimates of error, the adjusted values are as high or higher than the CO2 values we have today, even during the actual ice age periods. These adjusted values also match the range of CO2 levels reported by Beck from the direct chemical measurements. This completely negates the utility of ice core data for the IPCC’s claim that CO2 has been low for many thousands of years and is unusually high today. (Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 by Zbigniew Jaworowski)
Very telling from Jaworowski’s work is his observation that the Siple ice core data, used in the graphs shown above to show pre-industrial CO2 levels, do not show previous atmospheric CO2 levels at all, but more precisely “show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth.” That is to say, that the deeper you go, the greater the CO2 losses.
Recently, a treatment of ice core data by JJ Drake presented a simple correction process which takes into account that the above problems described by Jaworowski would be directly related to the age (or depth and pressure) of an ice core sample. The greater the age, the greater the losses due to the decompression damage. His correction produces corrected CO2 values completely in accordance with Jaworowski’s conclusion - values no different from today or higher. The resulting graph still shows the ice ages and interglacial periods, but shows higher values also in line with Beck's range. (A Simple Method to Correct Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Ice Core Data for Ice / Gas Age Difference Perturbations, 17 May 2008)
These corrected values are also in line with the great probability that the biosphere in the warmer latitudes was probably thriving during the ice ages, as well as the interglacial periods (see graph below; remember that plants do not do well at CO2 levels less than 200 ppm). Our tropical biodiversity contradicts the CO2 stressed values indicated by the raw ice core data.
To return to more modern times, Beck’s data show that CO2 was above 440 ppm in the 1940’s, significantly higher than today’s 380 ppm. At the current CO2 rate of increase, we would not reach this level until about 2060, or later as recently the rate has been slowing. I completely fail to see that there is anything unusual about the atmospheric CO2 levels we have today or might have in the next 50 years.
Another problem the IPCC had was to establish manmade CO2 is responsible for the recent rise in CO2. In other words, they contend that CO2 from the warming of the oceans is not the problem. They want to maintain that manmade CO2 comprises most of the CO2 which has been added to the atmosphere in the last half century. I will pretend to believe the Siple/Mauna Loa Curve and explain their position.
They discount that the oceans can absorb much CO2 despite the huge solubility of CO2 in such a relatively alkaline solution. This means that, as CO2 dissolves, it the forms carbonic acid (H2CO2) which goes to bicarbonate (HCO3-) and then even to carbonate (CO3-2), further enhancing absorption of more CO2. Anyhow, their major ploy, without going into their complicated model of CO2 flow through the various natural systems, is that CO2 has a 200 year half-life in the atmosphere. With this unfounded assumption - entirely unproven - they could now claim that manmade CO2 from even as far back as the 1800’s has been accumulating in the atmosphere. Otherwise - are you ready? - we have not emitted enough CO2 to explain the actual rise in the atmosphere. They effectively discount the oceans as having a role in outgassing or absorbing CO2 as they change in temperature. Talk about spreading the blame. Remember the goal here: it has to be all our fault.
Unfortunately, making up numbers out of thin air rarely yields valid results. Actual analyses using isotopic distributions have shown the half-life to be 5-6 years (5.4 years, T. V. Segalstad), a much shorter time indicating a rather dynamic turnover rate and a very active exchange rate with the oceans and plants.
The oceans are a major CO2 sink; they contain much more CO2 than the atmosphere (35,000 versus 700 gigatons). When the oceans warm, they outgas CO2 according to Henry’s Law, the way a soda pop gives off CO2 as it warms. When the oceans cool, they soak up CO2, and with such a short half-life, that means it is a rather rapid process, on the order of years to decades. This huge sink and its rapid exchange does not materially bother the IPCC's position; they give it a minor role, as they do all natural factors.
In fact, that is another of their unfounded assumptions. They assume that CO2 in the atmosphere and, more specifically, manmade CO2 added in the last 50-200 years has now overwhelmed all natural climate processes and drives the climate.
So, that’s the CO2 picture of the IPCC and CO2. I find no credible evidence that the CO2 levels we have now or might have in the future to be at all unusual. Furthermore, with the oceans' ability to absorb CO2, a good argument could be made that there is not enough fossil fuel on Earth to double the CO2 in the atmosphere. As the oceans appear to be cooling, CO2 stands a good chance to decrease in the not too distant future.
It should not go unsaid that it is ingenuous to pretend that we will keep emitting CO2 at current rates for many decades to come, let alone until 2100. We do not do things like that; we are forever changing our technology and it uses. Conserving our carbon resources in the future will be important for making pharmaceuticals and plastics and, more immediately, for not sending a large proportion of our money overseas to foreign oil producers. The recent spike in the price of crude oil created the largest mass transfer of wealth in the history of the world. We do not want that to happen again.
The remainder of the IPCC's world view is filled out by their climate model fixation, their almost religious belief in the ability of these inadequate programs to predict the future, and insisting that the predictions are coming true regardless of the real facts. Their predictions have to come true or they have to admit either a colossal waste of time and money, a monumental scam, or unbelievable stupidity and gullibility.
The issue of global warming and, in particular, anthropogenic (manmade) global warming (AGW), the link between temperature and CO2 levels, and the issue of solar influence on climate will be discussed in later postings.
There are two ways to address the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW): describing the IPCC’s rationale or proof of its case, or describing the real conditions, principles, and science of the Earth and its climate and how it disagrees with AGW.
So, initially I will address the IPCC’s basis for the idea that man-made CO2 is warming the planet. There is no empirical order in which they need to be presented as they add up to their argument of AGW, but I will try to put it in a logical order regarding their needs to support AGW.
First, the IPCC makes the unsupported and unfounded assumption that CO2 in the atmosphere determines our climate. They say that, until man-made CO2 began to accumulate, the climate was ruled by natural factors and even solar influences. But, they also assume that the introduction of man made CO2 with the industrial revolution has swamped all natural factors and CO2 now drives the climate.
The concept, or more accurately musing, that CO2 in the atmosphere could warm the planet goes back almost 180 years. Gerlich & Tscheuschner summarize the situation nicely:
“The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation."
. . . and . . .
"Although the arguments of Arrhenius were falsified by his contemporaries they were picked up by Callendar (1938) and Keeling (1960), the founders of the modern greenhouse hypothesis.(. .) Interestingly, this hypothesis has been vague ever since it has been used.”
- G Gerlich and RD Tscheuschner, Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Ver. 3.0, 11 Sept 2007. (In the latter quote, the reference numbers of Callendar and Keeling were replaced with the year of the first publication by each.)
This concept has never been confirmed as it is fundamentally flawed. It is true that atmospheric water vapor (at 2.7%, 27,000 ppm) and CO2 (currently at 0.000380%, 380 ppm) keep our planet warmer than it would be without them. However, the first 20 ppm of CO2 had the lion’s share of its effect long ago and higher levels yield diminishing returns, such that roughly 90-95% of its ability to warm has already been realized. Furthermore, water vapor has a much broader absorption spectrum than CO2 and overlaps a significant portion of CO2’s absorption spectrum, such that CO2’s effect is compromised. Water vapor, averaging 70 times the concentration of CO2 and with a broader absorption spectrum, definitely dominates the atmosphere.
Despite the unfounded nature of this concept, it is an important part of the IPCC’s case as, if it is simply assumed to be true, then they can focus on CO2 and its origins to explain global warming. As you hopefully will understand below, none of their stipulations or assumptions have any real scientific merit.
Second, the IPCC needed to show that CO2 was historically low and is now high and increasing in an abnormal way. There are two types of data regarding historical CO2 levels: direct chemical measurements and indirect measurements.
There are thousands of direct chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 from publications going back to 1810 (180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods by Ernst-Georg Beck), long before the start of CO2 monitoring at Mauna Loa in 1950. Most of these used valid and reproducible methods. Only a couple of studies used a recognizably inferior sulfuric acid extraction technique which typically yields under-measurements of CO2 concentrations.
Now, it must be mentioned here that the IPCC case needs to show that CO2 has been historically low and steady until the Industrial Revolution. However, direct chemical measurements showed that atmospheric CO2 levels had varied quite widely over time (from 252 to over 550 ppm), going back to 1810, long before man made CO2 could be an influence.
This obviously did not suit the IPCC’s needs. So, with the unfounded assumption based on their opinion or feeling that CO2 was around 280 ppm in the 1800’s, they discounted as too variable almost all of the direct measurement publications, some done by Nobel laureates, and lauded as wonderfully accurate two French papers, which used the deficient sulfuric acid method mentioned above, for their valid (low) results.
But, how did the IPCC arrive at or support their low CO2 in the past? They found support in a graph by Callendar (shown below) in which CO2 values from 1810-1955 were shown and a selection of low values were taken from 1865-1938 and averaged to create a value of 292 ppm for historical CO2 levels. This is cherry-picking of the data and yields a patently invalid result. The real average for this time period is 335 ppm, 43 ppm or 15% higher.
But, the IPCC needed to support Callendar’s spurious, artificial average or it would be instantly shot down. So, they turned to ice core data with the stipulation or excuse that they had to since direct chemical data was too variable (it did not fit their opinion of what CO2 levels should be; they could not have it going up and down over time at the reported levels). Thus, the basically ordained that indirect data was much more reliable.
They adopted Antarctic ice core data which is composed of fairly low CO2 results (185-300 ppm) and goes back 400 thousand years. It fit their need nicely for there to have been consistently low CO2 in the past. In passing, it should be noted that these CO2 data were often below 200 ppm during actual ice ages. Plants are in serious distress at such concentrations. They thrive in higher concentrations - it is plant food. (Greenhouse growers often use 1000 ppm to enhance plant growth. Humans become uncomfortable at levels above 2000 ppm.)
Unfortunately, ice core data is useless for recent times as it takes nearly a hundred years for ice to consolidate and trap air bubbles in its structure. Thus, ice core data ends about 1890, leaving a 60 year gap between the ice core data and the beginning of the Mauna Loa data in 1950 (graph shown below). In addition, the 1890 ice core data showed CO2 levels at about 330 ppm, equal to Mauna Loa data in 1960, part of the “frightening” rise in CO2 that is ongoing today.
The IPCC had a problem. How do you join these two data sets and how do you disappear the 1880 high CO2 levels? Their cure was to adjust the ice core data by moving it 83 years into the future until it overlapped the Mauna Loa data (graph shown below). Viola, problem solved. They simply did some creative editing and it was gone!
Not only is this mixing of data sets from entirely different origins, indeed opposite ends of the world, and methods completely invalid, but moving the timeline of the ice core data is fraudulent and scientifically dishonest. But it served the purposes of the IPCC to a “T”.
I have already indicated that direct chemical CO2 data shows that CO2 has fluctuated quite a lot over the last 180 years. Beck has put this huge body of data together (180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods by Ernst-Georg Beck) (graph shown below).
This shows very nicely why the IPCC just had to make this direct chemical data go away by discounting it as too variable. Obviously man did not cause these variations.
In contradiction to the IPCC's adoption of raw ice core data as blindingly accurate measurements of past CO2 levels, Jaworowski, an expert in ice core analysis, published detailed descriptions of problems with ice core data. He has described the factors that dictate that, at depth and high pressure, the original bubbles have collapsed to form solid ice containing water complexed gas molecules (“clathrates”). During the drilling for retrieving ice cores, the pressure change allows the ice to expand and undergo dense cracking and “sheeting”, generate new bubbles, and suffer significant gas loss to the driller tube and the atmosphere. In addition, even at -78 deg C ice contains uncrystallized water which allows CO2 to dissolve out of the newly formed bubbles, further increasing CO2 losses. He concluded that ice core concentration measurements of CO2 are 30-50% low and that ice core data may be good for observing trends but should not be used for determining absolute CO2 values.
If one takes the values observed in the ice core data and Jaworowski's estimates of error, the adjusted values are as high or higher than the CO2 values we have today, even during the actual ice age periods. These adjusted values also match the range of CO2 levels reported by Beck from the direct chemical measurements. This completely negates the utility of ice core data for the IPCC’s claim that CO2 has been low for many thousands of years and is unusually high today. (Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 by Zbigniew Jaworowski)
Very telling from Jaworowski’s work is his observation that the Siple ice core data, used in the graphs shown above to show pre-industrial CO2 levels, do not show previous atmospheric CO2 levels at all, but more precisely “show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth.” That is to say, that the deeper you go, the greater the CO2 losses.
Recently, a treatment of ice core data by JJ Drake presented a simple correction process which takes into account that the above problems described by Jaworowski would be directly related to the age (or depth and pressure) of an ice core sample. The greater the age, the greater the losses due to the decompression damage. His correction produces corrected CO2 values completely in accordance with Jaworowski’s conclusion - values no different from today or higher. The resulting graph still shows the ice ages and interglacial periods, but shows higher values also in line with Beck's range. (A Simple Method to Correct Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Ice Core Data for Ice / Gas Age Difference Perturbations, 17 May 2008)
These corrected values are also in line with the great probability that the biosphere in the warmer latitudes was probably thriving during the ice ages, as well as the interglacial periods (see graph below; remember that plants do not do well at CO2 levels less than 200 ppm). Our tropical biodiversity contradicts the CO2 stressed values indicated by the raw ice core data.To return to more modern times, Beck’s data show that CO2 was above 440 ppm in the 1940’s, significantly higher than today’s 380 ppm. At the current CO2 rate of increase, we would not reach this level until about 2060, or later as recently the rate has been slowing. I completely fail to see that there is anything unusual about the atmospheric CO2 levels we have today or might have in the next 50 years.
Another problem the IPCC had was to establish manmade CO2 is responsible for the recent rise in CO2. In other words, they contend that CO2 from the warming of the oceans is not the problem. They want to maintain that manmade CO2 comprises most of the CO2 which has been added to the atmosphere in the last half century. I will pretend to believe the Siple/Mauna Loa Curve and explain their position.
They discount that the oceans can absorb much CO2 despite the huge solubility of CO2 in such a relatively alkaline solution. This means that, as CO2 dissolves, it the forms carbonic acid (H2CO2) which goes to bicarbonate (HCO3-) and then even to carbonate (CO3-2), further enhancing absorption of more CO2. Anyhow, their major ploy, without going into their complicated model of CO2 flow through the various natural systems, is that CO2 has a 200 year half-life in the atmosphere. With this unfounded assumption - entirely unproven - they could now claim that manmade CO2 from even as far back as the 1800’s has been accumulating in the atmosphere. Otherwise - are you ready? - we have not emitted enough CO2 to explain the actual rise in the atmosphere. They effectively discount the oceans as having a role in outgassing or absorbing CO2 as they change in temperature. Talk about spreading the blame. Remember the goal here: it has to be all our fault.
Unfortunately, making up numbers out of thin air rarely yields valid results. Actual analyses using isotopic distributions have shown the half-life to be 5-6 years (5.4 years, T. V. Segalstad), a much shorter time indicating a rather dynamic turnover rate and a very active exchange rate with the oceans and plants.
The oceans are a major CO2 sink; they contain much more CO2 than the atmosphere (35,000 versus 700 gigatons). When the oceans warm, they outgas CO2 according to Henry’s Law, the way a soda pop gives off CO2 as it warms. When the oceans cool, they soak up CO2, and with such a short half-life, that means it is a rather rapid process, on the order of years to decades. This huge sink and its rapid exchange does not materially bother the IPCC's position; they give it a minor role, as they do all natural factors.
In fact, that is another of their unfounded assumptions. They assume that CO2 in the atmosphere and, more specifically, manmade CO2 added in the last 50-200 years has now overwhelmed all natural climate processes and drives the climate.
So, that’s the CO2 picture of the IPCC and CO2. I find no credible evidence that the CO2 levels we have now or might have in the future to be at all unusual. Furthermore, with the oceans' ability to absorb CO2, a good argument could be made that there is not enough fossil fuel on Earth to double the CO2 in the atmosphere. As the oceans appear to be cooling, CO2 stands a good chance to decrease in the not too distant future.
It should not go unsaid that it is ingenuous to pretend that we will keep emitting CO2 at current rates for many decades to come, let alone until 2100. We do not do things like that; we are forever changing our technology and it uses. Conserving our carbon resources in the future will be important for making pharmaceuticals and plastics and, more immediately, for not sending a large proportion of our money overseas to foreign oil producers. The recent spike in the price of crude oil created the largest mass transfer of wealth in the history of the world. We do not want that to happen again.
The remainder of the IPCC's world view is filled out by their climate model fixation, their almost religious belief in the ability of these inadequate programs to predict the future, and insisting that the predictions are coming true regardless of the real facts. Their predictions have to come true or they have to admit either a colossal waste of time and money, a monumental scam, or unbelievable stupidity and gullibility.
The issue of global warming and, in particular, anthropogenic (manmade) global warming (AGW), the link between temperature and CO2 levels, and the issue of solar influence on climate will be discussed in later postings.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Are We Warming?
The first good question to ask and answer regarding Global Warming/Climate Change would be:
“Is the Earth warming? What are the long and short term trends?”
First, no, we are currently cooling.
We hit a peak of warming in 1998, dropped a little, went level or slightly cooling for about 7 years until last year when we started cooling more quickly. For recent temperatures, there are several sources:
GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) Click on the top graph and then go down to the bottom right graph of the set of four at the bottom of the page. It gives a month by month mean surface temperature of 2005, 2007, and 2008 compared to the peak temperatures of each month. They update this graph about the 10th of each month.
HadCRUT (Hadley Climate Research Unit)
UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) Their Oct. 2008 graph is below.
Watts UP with That? Check out the graph, then read the text.
Atmoz (a good discussion of the 4 main temperature data sources).
Note the bottom graph describing the trends: If you average over 20 years, we are on a warming trend, but that could be considered a biased view. Whenever a pattern takes a turn and it is analyzed by averaging, the peak will be moved forward as the peak temperatures are still in the average long after the real temperature peak was passed.
A telling point: if you are looking at a variable parameter, why be insisting on trying to fit a straight line to it? The answer: they use the unfounded assumption that temperature will go up regardless of . . . any evidence to the contrary.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) are ocean circulation patterns which are much larger, longer term, and influential than the La Nina and El Nino effects. The PDO, in particular, has a huge influence and flips between warming and cooling about every 30-35 years - and it flipped to cooling last year according to NASA. The NAO can also join the fun, which it appears to have done this time.
By the way, lobstermen have known of this warm-cold pattern for many decades. Back in the 1960's, a wonderful old, grizzled captain told me that the "lobsta don't like the cold or the hot" every 17 years, but liked the temperatures in between. 'Makes sense to me to favor the most common temeperatures.
Here’s one source for the PDO and a good discussion, “Shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from its warm mode to cool mode assures global cooling for the next three decades.” Scan down to the bottom graph which shows the warm and cold phases.
Hmmmmm, no wonder they talk about “climate change” now and not “global warming". But, never fear, the intrepid supporters of global warming say any cooling is only temporary and warming WILL continue. The evidence for this is lacking completely except for their computer models which only predict different degrees of warming. THe IPCC has claimed that CO2 has swamped all natural variation, but now they are admitting that variation may be "temporarily" canceling the CO2 warming effects. We shall see.
There are also much longer term temperature records which I will not include aat this time. Suffice it to say that there was indeed a Little Ice Age (to address at another time) which we have been climbing out of for the last 200 years, so a mild warming over the centuries would not be unusual or unexpected. There was an unpleasant relapse to cold in the late 1700's-early 1800’s called the Dalton Minimum, which among other things was one of the stressors that tipped France into its revolution.
Now, here’s a controversial point. The IPCC discounts solar activity from having any detectable influence on climate change. They say the graph below shows the effect of CO2. I will not go into the faulty science of the CO2 curve below, that's another post, but they are willing to present this as true.
From the Woods Hole Research Center.
The only factor I have seen anywhere which is in lock step with the global temperatures is solar activity. CO2’s curve over the last 50 years may go up as does the temperature, sort of, but it is a poor fit.
The solar activity, however, is a good fit and hard to ignore, particularly when a group in Denmark found that it is the length of the solar cycle which really correlates.
See the graph below of the length of the solar cycle period versus the global temperature anomaly (how far it is from average). Cycle length on the left axis and temperature anomaly on the right axis.
From the Danish Meteorological Institute.
The most startling paper I have read in the last 3 years came out this year. “Predicting Solar Cycle 24 and beyond”. Solar researchers took six identified, low-frequency, solar oscillations, with cycles of 22 to 420 years, that modulate, or alter, the intensity and periods of the 11-year solar sunspot cycle and ran them at the same time to view how they interfered with each other, by constructive and destructive interference.
What they found was a pattern which is incredibly similar to the known 200 year record of sunspot activity, including the Dalton Minimum, which was not only a time of cold temperatures, but also a known time of low solar activity.
This is so cool, what a match! Their graph is below - the solid line is the sunspot record and the dotted line is their model of the oscillations/solar activity.
Remember, this is not a computer model which attempts to recreate all of the variable of the globe’s climate by programming and twiddling factors. It includes solar characteristics and lets them interact. A much simpler approach and devoid of programmers writing code for what they want to happen.
But, wait, the pattern also shows that the next two cycles should be very similar to the Dalton Minimum activity! To make matters more amazing, the most recent cycle, Cycle 24, has been very slow in starting and the predictions are that it will be a low activity cycle.
So, are we warming? We were.
What are we doing? Currently cooling. Possibly for the next 25-30 years.
Are these changes abnormal? No, not at all. They are perfectly normal and, apparently, even predictable.
Between the perdictable PDO warm/cold/warm flip-cycle and solar acitivty correlations over the long term, there are some big influences out there that cannot be just written off for political epediency, particularly when politicians are going to make huge policy decisions based on their idea of the climate. It had sure be the best and most realisitic idea or we will be suffering the consequences of bad decisions and at great costs.
The head of the UN IPCC just recently declared that warming is faster than ever, right now! How can we let him spout such obviously wrong stuff? "Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored" It's disheartening to hear of such blithering, but then he does have to defend his huge multibillion dollar budget, eh? Lies will do it.
Another time I will go into more detail regarding the cyclic nature of the warm peaks at 1938 and 1998 and the cool interims, which describe the Gleissberg cycle. It is nothing new and perfectly normal.
The first good question to ask and answer regarding Global Warming/Climate Change would be:
“Is the Earth warming? What are the long and short term trends?”
First, no, we are currently cooling.
We hit a peak of warming in 1998, dropped a little, went level or slightly cooling for about 7 years until last year when we started cooling more quickly. For recent temperatures, there are several sources:
GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) Click on the top graph and then go down to the bottom right graph of the set of four at the bottom of the page. It gives a month by month mean surface temperature of 2005, 2007, and 2008 compared to the peak temperatures of each month. They update this graph about the 10th of each month.
HadCRUT (Hadley Climate Research Unit)
UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) Their Oct. 2008 graph is below.
Watts UP with That? Check out the graph, then read the text.
Atmoz (a good discussion of the 4 main temperature data sources).
Note the bottom graph describing the trends: If you average over 20 years, we are on a warming trend, but that could be considered a biased view. Whenever a pattern takes a turn and it is analyzed by averaging, the peak will be moved forward as the peak temperatures are still in the average long after the real temperature peak was passed.
A telling point: if you are looking at a variable parameter, why be insisting on trying to fit a straight line to it? The answer: they use the unfounded assumption that temperature will go up regardless of . . . any evidence to the contrary.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) are ocean circulation patterns which are much larger, longer term, and influential than the La Nina and El Nino effects. The PDO, in particular, has a huge influence and flips between warming and cooling about every 30-35 years - and it flipped to cooling last year according to NASA. The NAO can also join the fun, which it appears to have done this time.
By the way, lobstermen have known of this warm-cold pattern for many decades. Back in the 1960's, a wonderful old, grizzled captain told me that the "lobsta don't like the cold or the hot" every 17 years, but liked the temperatures in between. 'Makes sense to me to favor the most common temeperatures.
Here’s one source for the PDO and a good discussion, “Shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from its warm mode to cool mode assures global cooling for the next three decades.” Scan down to the bottom graph which shows the warm and cold phases.
Hmmmmm, no wonder they talk about “climate change” now and not “global warming". But, never fear, the intrepid supporters of global warming say any cooling is only temporary and warming WILL continue. The evidence for this is lacking completely except for their computer models which only predict different degrees of warming. THe IPCC has claimed that CO2 has swamped all natural variation, but now they are admitting that variation may be "temporarily" canceling the CO2 warming effects. We shall see.
There are also much longer term temperature records which I will not include aat this time. Suffice it to say that there was indeed a Little Ice Age (to address at another time) which we have been climbing out of for the last 200 years, so a mild warming over the centuries would not be unusual or unexpected. There was an unpleasant relapse to cold in the late 1700's-early 1800’s called the Dalton Minimum, which among other things was one of the stressors that tipped France into its revolution.
Now, here’s a controversial point. The IPCC discounts solar activity from having any detectable influence on climate change. They say the graph below shows the effect of CO2. I will not go into the faulty science of the CO2 curve below, that's another post, but they are willing to present this as true.
From the Woods Hole Research Center.The only factor I have seen anywhere which is in lock step with the global temperatures is solar activity. CO2’s curve over the last 50 years may go up as does the temperature, sort of, but it is a poor fit.
The solar activity, however, is a good fit and hard to ignore, particularly when a group in Denmark found that it is the length of the solar cycle which really correlates.
See the graph below of the length of the solar cycle period versus the global temperature anomaly (how far it is from average). Cycle length on the left axis and temperature anomaly on the right axis.
From the Danish Meteorological Institute.
The most startling paper I have read in the last 3 years came out this year. “Predicting Solar Cycle 24 and beyond”. Solar researchers took six identified, low-frequency, solar oscillations, with cycles of 22 to 420 years, that modulate, or alter, the intensity and periods of the 11-year solar sunspot cycle and ran them at the same time to view how they interfered with each other, by constructive and destructive interference.
What they found was a pattern which is incredibly similar to the known 200 year record of sunspot activity, including the Dalton Minimum, which was not only a time of cold temperatures, but also a known time of low solar activity.
This is so cool, what a match! Their graph is below - the solid line is the sunspot record and the dotted line is their model of the oscillations/solar activity.
Remember, this is not a computer model which attempts to recreate all of the variable of the globe’s climate by programming and twiddling factors. It includes solar characteristics and lets them interact. A much simpler approach and devoid of programmers writing code for what they want to happen.
But, wait, the pattern also shows that the next two cycles should be very similar to the Dalton Minimum activity! To make matters more amazing, the most recent cycle, Cycle 24, has been very slow in starting and the predictions are that it will be a low activity cycle.
So, are we warming? We were.
What are we doing? Currently cooling. Possibly for the next 25-30 years.
Are these changes abnormal? No, not at all. They are perfectly normal and, apparently, even predictable.
Between the perdictable PDO warm/cold/warm flip-cycle and solar acitivty correlations over the long term, there are some big influences out there that cannot be just written off for political epediency, particularly when politicians are going to make huge policy decisions based on their idea of the climate. It had sure be the best and most realisitic idea or we will be suffering the consequences of bad decisions and at great costs.
The head of the UN IPCC just recently declared that warming is faster than ever, right now! How can we let him spout such obviously wrong stuff? "Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored" It's disheartening to hear of such blithering, but then he does have to defend his huge multibillion dollar budget, eh? Lies will do it.
Another time I will go into more detail regarding the cyclic nature of the warm peaks at 1938 and 1998 and the cool interims, which describe the Gleissberg cycle. It is nothing new and perfectly normal.
Friday, November 7, 2008
So much for my original plan
I am starting this blog with the intention of presenting a fairly organized blow by blow, one item at a time, description and discussion of the many aspects of the global climate change controversy.
The goal is to avoid including opinions and unsubstantiated statements and to document with references as much as possible. Too much of what is being published in the news, and even in some journals, is written in terms which are designed to create an emotional response in the reader, opinions are mixed wantonly with selected facts, and avoid stating the whole picture or all of the conditions of the story.
The bottom line: there is no credible basis for the global warming "crisis". It is called "climate change" now as even the alarmists have to admit that we are currently in cooling phase - and we are supposed to fight "climate change", even when it goes down? But, they say, have faith, it will go up.
So, for each post, I plan to pick a topic and try to clearly state the situation from both sides and let the reader decide which is more believable. One warning here is that the global alarmist side does not have much in the way of hard science behind it, in which case I will have to present their opinions, anecdotal material, and projections.
Is my point of view biased? No, it is realistic. If there is no real science involved, it is impossible to present some. I am a scientist, I cherish scientific integrity, and I believe that one cannot make crucial, real world decisions without knowing the real facts and science involved. It is a crime to take advantage of the public trust by misrepresenting science and facts to create a non-existent crisis for which all have to pay.
Keep in mind that you need to identify in yourself two ways of thinking: faith and confidence. Faith is an irrational and unfounded belief in something, while confidence is a firm trust based on fact or experience. I do not have faith in gravity, I have confidence in it. There is a big difference; faith can allow one to believe in something regardless of the facts. Confidence only derives from the consistency and validity of the facts or experiences.
Imagine trying to convince someone that they can warm themselves by standing in front of an open refrigerator. They'd quickly lose confidence in you. But, recently one of the global climate computer models was reprogrammed to deal with the fact that it had (miserably) failed to predict the last 9 years of climate cooling. They effectively reprogrammed it to include a temporary cooling cycle and then published the "fact" that their model predicts cooling and that "in fact" warming can cause cooling!!! Yet, because much of the public has faith in the news, they believe this complete nonsense.
Imagine reading a headline that says that the Earth has failed to warm as predicted according to computer models. Whoa! The Earth cannot fail. It is the models which have failed to model the Earth's climate. Since when are computer models to be believed over reality? There are so many variables in the climate that it is impossible to include the all of the starting parameters, and the interactions are so complex that we cannot predict the weather very well beyond a week from now, let alone years down the line.
So, now I must trash my original plan and point at the concern of my day.
I read a report in the news of "the 10-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which sells state allowances required by electric power plants to emit carbon dioxide."
And then I read about the President-elect's plan to push through legislation for a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions.
This is really scary stuff. I hope to relate in later blogs the details of the following statements, with references, but I have to say at this point that cap-and-trade will cost every person in the country dearly as a hidden tax. The money generated by this new trading economy will benefit a small number of people (Al Gore's carbon trading business GIM was banked with Lehman Bros. In the last few years, he's reportedly gained $150 million; not bad for having <1 million not long ago) and the government, garnering funds supposedly for developing alternative energy sources. We will develop those anyhow. And you can guess that the money will be put to many other uses as good plain old gov't income.
Here's the problem: CO2 is incapable of warming the planet. It was well above 440 ppm (at 380 ppm today) back in the 1940's (180 years of chemical CO2 data, number 1, "the paper"; for a short version, AIG News) and the temperature dropped while CO2 was high. There is just too little CO2 to do what they say. It is a trace gas. (More of the science of this in a later blog.)
In quick summary, the IPCC:
- refuses to recognize any possible effects from solar activity (the real science says the opposite),
- assumes all natural climate cycles and influences are swamped out by manmade CO2 (an unfounded, draconian assumption),
- artificially and fraudulently attributes water vapor with contributing to warming (it does not, but does quite the opposite),
- inflates the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere from 5-10 years to 200 years to make their projections work by claiming that our emissions are accumulating, and
- lets the public assume that all CO2 increases are manmade (it is far from the truth).
They also let the public assume that, if we stop emitting CO2, the CO2 will eventually go down, but that we have to start now to allow it to go down decades from now. They are building in the idea not to expect results while they rake in their (our) carbon trading dollars. Talk about something for nothing - this is the perfect nonperformance scam. Nothing will happen and you pay for it!
In fact, the experiment of decreasing CO2 emissions has already been done. During the Great Depression, our emissions dropped about 30% (graph on page 13) and the temperature rise and CO2 rise at the time did not falter, at all! Other records of longer time frames also show that temperature increases preceded CO2 increases, and NOT the other way around. It's called outgassing by the oceans.
The bottom line to this is that they want to alter the economy of the US and the world, creating a carbon economy which will cost us all money for something which is not a real problem. In fact we need the CO2 to increase food production. Greenhouse growers habitually add CO2 up to 1000 ppm to make their plants grow faster.
And, of course, with the planet cooling, we will need every advantage in growing more food as the world population increases this century.
By the way, the Arctic ice cap is easily a month ahead in freezing up this Fall. It has made a miraculous recovery for something predicted to disappear altogether, but that's another topic.
Here's another aspect of the problem. This is coming to the US, just wait:
Cheers, C. Higley
The goal is to avoid including opinions and unsubstantiated statements and to document with references as much as possible. Too much of what is being published in the news, and even in some journals, is written in terms which are designed to create an emotional response in the reader, opinions are mixed wantonly with selected facts, and avoid stating the whole picture or all of the conditions of the story.
The bottom line: there is no credible basis for the global warming "crisis". It is called "climate change" now as even the alarmists have to admit that we are currently in cooling phase - and we are supposed to fight "climate change", even when it goes down? But, they say, have faith, it will go up.
So, for each post, I plan to pick a topic and try to clearly state the situation from both sides and let the reader decide which is more believable. One warning here is that the global alarmist side does not have much in the way of hard science behind it, in which case I will have to present their opinions, anecdotal material, and projections.
Is my point of view biased? No, it is realistic. If there is no real science involved, it is impossible to present some. I am a scientist, I cherish scientific integrity, and I believe that one cannot make crucial, real world decisions without knowing the real facts and science involved. It is a crime to take advantage of the public trust by misrepresenting science and facts to create a non-existent crisis for which all have to pay.
Keep in mind that you need to identify in yourself two ways of thinking: faith and confidence. Faith is an irrational and unfounded belief in something, while confidence is a firm trust based on fact or experience. I do not have faith in gravity, I have confidence in it. There is a big difference; faith can allow one to believe in something regardless of the facts. Confidence only derives from the consistency and validity of the facts or experiences.
Imagine trying to convince someone that they can warm themselves by standing in front of an open refrigerator. They'd quickly lose confidence in you. But, recently one of the global climate computer models was reprogrammed to deal with the fact that it had (miserably) failed to predict the last 9 years of climate cooling. They effectively reprogrammed it to include a temporary cooling cycle and then published the "fact" that their model predicts cooling and that "in fact" warming can cause cooling!!! Yet, because much of the public has faith in the news, they believe this complete nonsense.
Imagine reading a headline that says that the Earth has failed to warm as predicted according to computer models. Whoa! The Earth cannot fail. It is the models which have failed to model the Earth's climate. Since when are computer models to be believed over reality? There are so many variables in the climate that it is impossible to include the all of the starting parameters, and the interactions are so complex that we cannot predict the weather very well beyond a week from now, let alone years down the line.
So, now I must trash my original plan and point at the concern of my day.
I read a report in the news of "the 10-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which sells state allowances required by electric power plants to emit carbon dioxide."
And then I read about the President-elect's plan to push through legislation for a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions.
This is really scary stuff. I hope to relate in later blogs the details of the following statements, with references, but I have to say at this point that cap-and-trade will cost every person in the country dearly as a hidden tax. The money generated by this new trading economy will benefit a small number of people (Al Gore's carbon trading business GIM was banked with Lehman Bros. In the last few years, he's reportedly gained $150 million; not bad for having <1 million not long ago) and the government, garnering funds supposedly for developing alternative energy sources. We will develop those anyhow. And you can guess that the money will be put to many other uses as good plain old gov't income.
Here's the problem: CO2 is incapable of warming the planet. It was well above 440 ppm (at 380 ppm today) back in the 1940's (180 years of chemical CO2 data, number 1, "the paper"; for a short version, AIG News) and the temperature dropped while CO2 was high. There is just too little CO2 to do what they say. It is a trace gas. (More of the science of this in a later blog.)
In quick summary, the IPCC:
- refuses to recognize any possible effects from solar activity (the real science says the opposite),
- assumes all natural climate cycles and influences are swamped out by manmade CO2 (an unfounded, draconian assumption),
- artificially and fraudulently attributes water vapor with contributing to warming (it does not, but does quite the opposite),
- inflates the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere from 5-10 years to 200 years to make their projections work by claiming that our emissions are accumulating, and
- lets the public assume that all CO2 increases are manmade (it is far from the truth).
They also let the public assume that, if we stop emitting CO2, the CO2 will eventually go down, but that we have to start now to allow it to go down decades from now. They are building in the idea not to expect results while they rake in their (our) carbon trading dollars. Talk about something for nothing - this is the perfect nonperformance scam. Nothing will happen and you pay for it!
In fact, the experiment of decreasing CO2 emissions has already been done. During the Great Depression, our emissions dropped about 30% (graph on page 13) and the temperature rise and CO2 rise at the time did not falter, at all! Other records of longer time frames also show that temperature increases preceded CO2 increases, and NOT the other way around. It's called outgassing by the oceans.
The bottom line to this is that they want to alter the economy of the US and the world, creating a carbon economy which will cost us all money for something which is not a real problem. In fact we need the CO2 to increase food production. Greenhouse growers habitually add CO2 up to 1000 ppm to make their plants grow faster.
And, of course, with the planet cooling, we will need every advantage in growing more food as the world population increases this century.
By the way, the Arctic ice cap is easily a month ahead in freezing up this Fall. It has made a miraculous recovery for something predicted to disappear altogether, but that's another topic.
Here's another aspect of the problem. This is coming to the US, just wait:
“Every adult in Britain should be forced to carry ‘carbon ration cards’”
Key concept is "Control by Carbon", but really it's control by the government and radical environmentalists (Gore (wealthy Mr Howell), Pachauri (Gilligan), and Hansen (the "Professor") as the figureheads) and lots of money changing hands.Cheers, C. Higley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
