Monday, November 30, 2009

Climate Change on Grapes

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Global Warming Could Make Fine Wines Go Dry. A leading organization in France's fabled wine industry sounded the alarm Friday about the ill-effects of rising temperatures on the livelihoods of winegrowers ahead of a climate summit in Copenhagen next month. Climate change has sped up harvests in Burgundy, altered the taste of Alsatian wines and disrupted hydration patterns of grapes grown along France's Mediterranean coast, an industry expert said. (bnd.com)".

This could be good for the US! We now have a high unemployment rate in Michigan. Consider the fact that global warming could lead to a warmer Michigan climate, which would be much more adaptable to growing grapes. Tending vines takes a lot of hand work. We could put a lot of people to work in Michigan as the new wine capital of the world.

Let's not have the US government monkey around with climate change legislation. If the climate is going to change, so be it. We will be able to adapt to it, with many advantages not now anticipated.

Cash for the Climate Change Hoax

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Upfront Money Needed to Ease UN Climate Deal. Money on the table -- perhaps $10 billion a year or more -- could help close a deal in Denmark next month and keep climate talks moving toward a new global treaty in 2010. But if poorer nations see too little offered up front, the UN conference could end in discord. The money would help developing countries cope with ocean flooding, drought and other effects of climate change, while also helping them cut down on emissions of global-warming gases. The funds might eventually come from new sources, such as a tax on airline flights, but negotiators for now are seeking quicker infusions. (chron.com)".

Do you want more proof that the whole climate change consideration is about money?

It used to be that the US, through Foreign AID would help out countries who got into problems through their own stupidity. Those were matters "after-the-fact". The existing AID program already has its deficiencies. Will we now try to capture the title of "Extreme Stupidity" by paying for something before it happened or even without any guarantee that it will happen?

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Copenhagen Conference

E-mail to Congress:

Here is President Obama's specific push on climate control, which I mentioned in my recent e-mail.

EIN News says, "Obama to Attend Climate Talks in Copenhagen, Set Goals to Reduce Emissions. The White House announced Wednesday that President Obama will attend U.N.-sponsored climate talks in Copenhagen next month and commit the United States to specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The administration's decision to identify a series of goals, including cutting emissions over the next decade "in the range of" 17 percent below 2005 levels, is a calculated risk, given that Congress has never set mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. (washingtonpost.com).

He is trying to "grab all the marbles". If you let him get away with this, he will likely grab every game in the future, and you will be left "holding the bag". When the public sees the penalty they have to pay for this deception, you will lose your position, if you have made no attempt to seriously defeat this proposal.

Copenhagen Conference

E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

You replied to one of my e-mails as follows, "Should the Obama Administration agree to a treaty at the Copenhagen meeting, the United States Senate would need to ratify that treaty for the United States to implement it. I am deeply concerned by the Obama Administration's pursuit of an energy policy that could lead to America's reduction of industrial output and reduce our competitiveness with other countries. I opposed legislation known as "cap and trade" that would tax carbon output when it came before the House of Representatives, and I will continue to oppose any costly mandate on CO2 reduction, particularly as long as China, India and other emerging industrial countries are exempt from agreements and do not make similar commitments."

I appreciate your reply and your position.

The general public has been overcoming its fear of global warming from a continued barrage of negative information, including the release of a stack of original e-mails showing at best the difference among scientists concerning the validity of the consideration, including greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide. There are now seems to be less than a majority of voters who believe global warming is a valid consideration.

In spite of the change in public attitude, President Obama and his Administration continue to push a program, which would involve the United States in a disastrous energy-use capability and markedly increase the US deficit, as it delivers funds to undeveloped countries for their support in the fiasco.

President Obama is placing his reputation on the line, in the belief that Congress will support him in about anything he says or commits to with regard to climate control. This is now a key element in determining whether the US is controlled by President Obama or the U.S. Congress. The fight is on! If you and your associates in the House, and especially in the Senate which will be required to ratify a treaty, are able to defeat President Obama on this issue, he stands a good chance of rapidly losing face and his ability to do further damage to the economy and individual freedoms of the American people.

I am sure that Representatives and Senators have been concerned with challenging President Obama previously, because of his high public approval, which implied that you might be voted out of office if you challenged. That has now changed. President Obama's public approval is considerably reduced and the majority of those who maintain his support are in a non-reliable voting category. Now is the time to institute the challenge, because the voting public is likely moving toward a more conservative position, and you may be voted out if you support President Obama or do nothing to help in his ouster.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

E-mail exchange with son-in-law:

GJW: I wish to touch this issue once more.
First, my [earlier] sentence was badly written: "No one will argue that CO2 contributes significantly to the insulating effect of the atmosphere". I meant to agree with you, meaning one would "argue" i.e. "try to defend" the position that CO2 contributes significantly to the insulating effect.

ACS: I still disagree. The whole position of the CO2 enthusiasts is that CO2 in the atmosphere allows incoming radiation from the sun without any insulating effect of the CO2 at that time. However, radiation from the Earth to outer space is later impeded by the insulating effect of CO2.

GJW: I am beginning to think the word "insulating" is not getting to the issue. And recall that the claim is that other wavelengths than IR are what are "converted" at the earth's surface into IR re-radiated toward space, so that CO2 would in fact absorb incoming IR but would allow other wavelengths to pass.

ACS: The word "insulating" does get at the issue. It means retard passage and that is the essence of the 'greenhouse" claim. Greenhousers say CO2 in the atmosphere retards passage of heat from Earth to outer space.
There are two mechanisms by which the greenhouse theory could work. Atmospheric CO2 would have to allow all incoming radiation to strike the Earth's surface but not allow heat or any radiation associated with heat to escape. Or, all heat or radiation associated with it from incoming radiation is absorbed and regenerated as heat. We know this second one is false by the example of the green house, wherein heat is generated within the structure.

GJW: I am not sure I agree that Infrared radiation is heat, which is what you seem to imply. It is electromagnetic radiation, like light or UV or X-ray, and generates kinetic energy of molecules that absorb it. So the white and black surfaces differ in their absorption and reflection, and they may also differ in their consequent radiation of Infrared, but that infrared is not heat and has to strike another molecule to excite and generate heat.

ACS: OK. We need not argue about whether infrared radiation is heat. The point is that the sun's radiation is composed of many wavelengths of energy which are delivered to the Earth. At least some of those wavelengths are converted to heat. Take a greenhouse, which appears to be a traditional example. The sun's radiation travels through the transparent atmosphere and the transparent glass or plastic covering of the greenhouse, without any apparent heating of the atmosphere or the glass/plastic. The radiation than strikes nontransparent services. Some of these are black or mixtures of black-and-white and are able to convert the incoming radiation to heat. Pure white surfaces are apparently reflective and any radiation striking those services tends to bounce, until it finds a surface which can convert the convertible portion of radiation to heat.
I have no difficulty with the mechanism you describe. It is not really dissimilar to what I have said. Infrared or other portions of the electromagnetic spectrum are all energy, some of which can be converted to heat by striking certain substance molecules. Other nontransparent molecules can convert a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum into electrons (photovoltaics). If a molecule becomes "excited" by absorption of an energy quantum, that is only a temporary situation. That molecule will return to a steady state by loss of the energy quantum, and the energy quantum is available for conversion to heat, if it has not already done so.

GJW: if this is true, then the gases that can absorb IR light are the ones that "trap" what is re-radiated from the earth. In this case "trap" means absorb and release heat into the atmosphere.

ACS: I agree that the previous paragraph is true, but what you have just said is not. If CO2 is a "trap" gas, it will absorb incoming IR from the Sun and convert it to heat it at that time. It would not wait for the conversion until the IR has been reflected and is now on its way to outer space.

GJW: This point is moot because as I mentioned above it is other wavelengths that are "converted" and re-radiated as IR that are in question.

ACS: I don't think it is moot, because we are talking about heat and any radiation that acts as a source of this heat. Non-reactive radiation wave lengths are irrelevant.

GJW: CO2, Water, Methane, etc, can absorb IR while O2 and N2 do not, and this absorptivity, not thermal conductivity, is what greenhouse effect is about.

ACS: I believe this part is really important. Let's say water and methane are similar to CO2 and just talk about CO2. If a molecule of CO2 absorbs a quantum of IR, the molecule is excited on a temporary basis. It will return to its steady state by either releasing the quantum of IR unchanged or converting the quantum of IR to another form of energy, such as heat.
You say 02 and N2 do not do that. I suspect you have no basis for that claim.

GJW: Well there is a theoretical basis which is fairly compelling to me just now. I have inserted something off the web below. See what you think.

ACS: I have read it. An interesting theory to explain a result, which is only speculation. His last sentence says, "This is the mechanism by which greenhouse gases absorb energy from infrared photons." But, what is the new nature of the now infrared photon activated CO2 molecule? Is the activation temporary? How short the duration of activation? What is the molecule doing in the activated state? Bouncing around more? Does that generate heat from friction with other molecules? Consider the gas laws and gas theory. As molecules get hotter, they are said to move faster. We know that they pound harder on a container wall; increased pressure.
All this doesn't really tell us anything. Let's track the heat. We could get some facts by going back to to the experiment I previously cited. Irradiate different gases and measure their temperatures before and after radiation.
It would also be illogical that there would be a plus or minus effect. You might be partially correct in saying that CO2 has a greater propensity to absorb and convert IR to heat than does oxygen or nitrogen. However, this could be easily demonstrated in the laboratory. Take an enclosed volume of pure CO2, shoot it with IR, and measure the CO2 temperature. Do the same with 02, N2, or any other gas. I suspect you will find a slight rise in temperature for all of them. CO2 may give the most rise, but then we have to discuss the fact that CO2 is present in the atmosphere only to the extent of 0.038%. We also have to go back to the previous (third) statement involving why CO2 in the atmosphere would not have converted incoming IR to heat, rather than wait until the IR was outgoing.

GJW: I sure would like to get this all sorted out.

ACS: I don't believe this can be sorted out at the present time. Only time will give an appropriate resolution. This would be akin to the round versus flat Earth in Galileo's time.

GJW: Under a separate email I am sending an article on new ideas for cooling the troposphere. (if needed)

ACS: I've covered that separately. It is mostly silly.
E-mail exchange with son-in-law:

ACS:
We agree on who is in charge. Man causes most of his own problems in trying to remedy perceived imperfections.

Big problems do require big solutions. The difficulty is usually determining whether there is a big problem and whether the supposed solution will be either ineffective in the grand scheme or will do more harm than perceived good.

I suppose DDT took care of the locust swarms in Africa, and that was a perceived advantage. Were environmentalists later motivated by the Holy Spirit to observe that DDT apparently caused thinning of the eggshells of certain birds and led to DDT being banned worldwide? The biggest health problem in Africa is now malaria, as a result of anopheles mosquito proliferation. Perhaps this is in the grand scheme.

Some problems are easy to see. Others less so. Los Angeles smog was visible and poisoning of rivers by mining runoff could be tracked fairly easily. The Los Angeles smog was caused by effluent from millions of vehicles and was controllable by catalytic converters. Similarly, poisoned rivers from mining runoff was caused by actions of one or a few persons. That could also be controlled and in many cases corrected by a legal obligation to the perpetrator.

I agree that everything is a trade-off, and with billions of people, there will always be someone who has a perception that there is a need for action. I don't believe now is the time for control of carbon dioxide emissions, which will cost additional billions of dollars. It is time for further study to determine the need for control. That study should be undertaken by people who can look the science relatively objectively, without some previously developed notion concerning absolute purity or the like, or without a financial or other beneficial interest in the result. This involves individuals, groups, and even countries. The latest information on the Copenhagen Treaty is that underdeveloped nations (mostly African) will not support a UN proposal unless the United States guarantees significant financial aid (pay off, bribe, etc.).

Dad

-----Original Message-----
From: Woodward,Gary,ST. LOUIS,Palatability Management [mailto:Gary.Woodward@rdmo.nestle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:35 PM
To: Arthur Sucsy
Subject: RE: If Emissions Cuts Are Not Enough that it will


As to the matter of "who's in charge". I couldn't agree more and I am pretty convinced that extra CO2 will generate counter forces like really big trees etc which will compensate. A couple of volcanoes blow their tops and the sulfur aerosol will be taken care of.

But I am quoting a man who was very influential to me as a youngster when I remind you that "Big problems require big solutions". He was referring to the locust swarms in Africa and the boon of DDT. On a smaller scale, there are lakes that used to be and Los Angeles smog that used to be overwhelming and mining runoff that and on and on because we treated these as someone else's problem (which it was), but many of these have been fixed by rules and regs and lots of dollars. Everything is a trade-off and to someone there is a line that when crossed triggers a need for action.

gjw

Copenhagen Conference

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "At Least 60 Leaders to Attend Climate Conference. Prospects for a global deal at the climate change summit in Copenhagen next month have been given a boost after it emerged that more than 60 presidents and prime ministers plan to attend. Leaders from Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Indonesia and Brazil are among the latest to have confirmed that they will travel to Denmark on December 7 to attend the climate conference. (net.au)".

This is bad news. However, there are still some encouraging aspects. Notice that it is now a "conference", rather than a "treaty". Also while 60 leaders (presumably countries) are expected to attend, only seven are mentioned here. Presumably the US will attend and since the conference will be held in Copenhagen, Denmark will attend. This brings the total named attendees to 9. Who will be the other 51 attendees? I suspect it will be mostly African countries, who have previously tipped their hands by indicating they could be bought. They were holding out for a whole sack of money previously, but have apparently now decided that half a sack is better than nothing. The money is not expected to come from the named attendees. It is expected to come from the US. However, we are already broke. Will we go deeper into debt to redistribute wealth based on a myth of global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions? Only Congress will be able to answer that one.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Scientific Feud over Global Warming

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Climate Emails Stoke Debate; Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud Over Global Warming. The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming. The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain. (wsj.com)".

I read a number of these e-mails, which were sent to me as a stack by my nephew. They are difficult reading, because they use a lot of professional (?) jargon, nick names, abbreviations, and other writing shortcuts. However, I think the Wall Street Journal has summed up correctly in reporting that there is a lot of confusion and difference of opinion on the scientific basis and promotion of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. I would go one step further in noting that the original proponents established the theory with a religious zeal, but could not get everybody on board. I find this equivalent to the Jones situation in Guyana. Not everybody took the cyanide laced Kool-Aid.

I have said before and continue to assert that we should kill any attempts to control climate through limiting carbon dioxide emissions. The low carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has no significant effect on global warming, even if emissions increase the concentration twofold. The whole Cap and Trade program is a financial scam intended to redistribute wealth, increase government size, and line the pockets of a few.

If we cannot kill Climate Control now, we should do our best to postpone it. Time will show the unrealistic aspects of the proposal, but once we have accepted the program, it will be almost impossible to backtrack, even with the ultimate determination that the program is based on a hoax.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Misguided Climate-C Hange

Open e-mail to Sen. Klobuchar:

Dear Sen. Klobuchar,
Chemical and Engineering News had an article entitled "Climate-Change Maneuvers" in their 11/9/09 issue. In that article, they quoted you as follows, "We want to make sure new wind-turbine plants are built in Minnesota, not in Denmark and that the next car battery plants are in Youngstown, Ohio not in Shanghai".

I agree completely with your statement, but may I respectfully suggest that Sen. Boxer apparently has you confused with respect to a Climate-Change bill. The Climate-Change bill that Sen. Boxer and others are promoting is fundamentally a control on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and an associated Cap and Trade program. It has nothing to do with wind turbines and car batteries.

Your interest would involve an Energy bill, not a Climate-Change bill. An attempt might be made to sandwich wind turbines and car batteries into a Climate-Change bill in an attempt to gain your support, but associated damage will be done by Cap and Trade. There is no plausible scientific data to indicate that the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has any bearing on global warming and any attempts to control it would be silly.

Please keep your eye on promoting energy development and avoid side issues, which are usually introduced as financial scams.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Delayed Senate Climate Bill

E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Senate to Put Off Climate Bill Until Spring. Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday they would put off debate on a big climate-change bill until spring, in a sign of weakening political will to tackle a long-term environmental issue at a time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty. Legislation on health care, overhauling financial markets and job creation will be considered before the Senate takes up a measure to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change, Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday. (wsj.com)".

GREAT NEWS! Perhaps we are making a little headway, as we continue to beat the drum against the ridiculousness of trying to control atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, when there is no plausible scientific data indicating that carbon dioxide has any significant effect on global warming in the extremely low concentration that exists.

The only thing better than a postponement until spring would be a realization on the part of the Democratic members of the Senate that the public is starting to understand the financial sleight of hand, which is the whole basis of a climate bill involving carbon dioxide.

Birth and Climate Control

EIN News says, "Birth Control: the Most Effective Way of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, UN Report Suggests. Investing in birth control to reduce population growth could be more effective in cutting greenhouse gas emissions than building wind turbines or nuclear power stations, according to a United Nations report. Taking action to prevent one billion births by 2050 would save as much carbon dioxide as constructing 2 million giant wind turbines. (timesonline.co.uk)".

A very innovative thought and probably on target.

The only bothersome aspect is who wants to control carbon dioxide? It's a silly idea when one considers carbon dioxide has no effect on global warming and is only a financial hoax.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Copenhagen Climate Treaty

E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Poor Nations Insist on Climate Treaty Next Month. Poor nations insisted on Monday that a legally binding climate treaty is still possible in Copenhagen next month even though U.S. President Barack Obama and many other leaders reckon it has slipped out of reach. Hosts Denmark, which says time is too short for a full deal at the December 7-18 summit, suggested at a meeting of about 40 environment ministers in Copenhagen setting a deadline of perhaps another year to work out a legally binding deal. (reuters.com)".

We are clearly seeing what is happening here. "Poor" nations were originally holding out for big dollar grants from the US using climate control as an excuse. Now that they see that this is slipping from their grasp, they are willing to negotiate for lesser amounts. All of this has nothing to do with any basic need for climate control, which most of us know is an unjustified pie-in-the-sky.

Someone, either EIN News or the "poor nations", doe not seem to realize that a legally binding climate agreement in Copenhagen is not possible, because of US government procedures. The US Administration may sign the agreement, but it is not legally binding until the Senate ratifies it. We need to continue working on the Senate to convince various members that any climate control is ridiculous in scientific concept, and acceptance of any climate control treaty would compound the folly.

Friday, November 13, 2009

International Climate Agreement

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "U.S. Considers Backing Interim International Climate Agreement. Less than a month before negotiators will meet in Copenhagen with the lofty goal of crafting a deal to curb global greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is considering endorsing a limited short-term climate pact and deferring more ambitious action until next year. The scaled-back strategy is driven largely by the realities of domestic politics: The administration is hampered in making an international deal because Congress has not passed climate legislation. So any global pact would be postponed until next year when it would be constrained by whatever domestic climate legislation Congress enacts. (washingtonpost.com)".

This is real good news! I may be deceiving myself, but it also may be that I, and many others like me, are starting to make some impact with respect to enlightening the public and Congress that increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere does not LEED to global warming. Government has no business attempting to control climate at this stage of technological reality. Finally, a little bit of that reality may be leaking into the Obama Administration. At least, the Obama administration may be accepting the political fact that Congress seems to be less certain about greenhouse gases than they have been previously.

Keep pounding the drum. Kill any proposed bills with respect to climate control. They are ridiculous in concept and would do considerable damage to the financial stability of the US. As you assure other countries that you will not be endorsing payment of billions of dollars to them, we will be pleasantly surprised to note that their own endorsements will be eliminated and the whole system will collapse.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Climate Control by Senate

E-mail to Senate:

EIN News says, "Senate Climate Battle Shifts Onto New Turf. The Senate climate debate shifts into a higher gear this week as advocates look beyond the partisan gridlock that engulfed the Environment and Public Works Committee and onto the broader quest of finding 60 votes for floor passage. Tomorrow, the Finance and Energy and Natural Resources committees dive into the issue with a pair of simultaneous hearings on climate policy. (nytimes.com)".

Climate control would be about the last coffin nail needed to guarantee our destruction of lifestyle benefits and bring misery to all US citizens.

As you continue to consider various proposals for climate control, I suggest you ask the following questions:
1.) Is increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere our major concern at this time?
2.) If so, why do we think so?
3.) Is it related to the IPPC proposal of greenhouse gases leading to global warming?
4.) Are we aware that all gases in the atmosphere impede radiation of the Earth's heat to outer space?
5.) Are we aware that the greenhouse effect of any gas is related to its concentration in the atmosphere?
6.) Are we aware that the present concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.038%?
7.) Are we aware that at the present carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, its effect on global warming is only 0.015% and that this effect is negligible?
8.) Are we aware that are superior standard of living is based on consumption of fossil fuels with production of carbon dioxide and that elimination or reduction of carbon dioxide will significantly deteriorate our lifestyle?
9.) Are we aware that attempts to control carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is likely a mechanism for other political aspiration, such as world redistribution of wealth?
10.) Are we sufficiently skeptical concerning motivations for climate control to seriously investigate whether there is a sound scientific basis for such?

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Democratic Push on Climate Control

Open letter to U.S. Senate:

EIN News says, "Democrats Push Climate Bill Through Panel Without GOP Debate. In a step that reflected deep partisan divisions in the Senate over the issue of global warming, Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee pushed through a climate bill on Thursday without any debate or participation by Republicans. The measure passed by an 11-to-1 vote with the support of all the Democratic committee members except Senator Max Baucus of Montana. The seven Republicans boycotted the committee meetings this week, saying they had not had sufficient time to study the bill and demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency conduct a thorough study of its economic costs and benefits. (nytimes.com)".

The Republicans are on the right track here. A climate control bill involving carbon dioxide Cap and Trade would be a serious blow to our economy. A combination of the Obama/Pelosi Healthcare legislation and Climate Control would be a devastating financial body blow to the US, from which I doubt recovery would be possible. Establishing law on either one of these legislation would place the US in serious financial jeopardy, but recovery would be theoretically possible.

I have mentioned time and again, with technical data, that control of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is completely unjustified. This Democratic attempt is a perversion of science to achieve some other goal. That goal is likely to be a redistribution of US assets to other countries
on the premise that a world government would be ideal.

It is almost inconceivable to me that a large number of Democrats would believe in advantages of world government. I suspect that they "know not what they do". Since Republicans seem to be on the right track, it behooves them to take the responsibility to educate their fellow Democratic Senators concerning a proper position of the United States as a world neighbor.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Global Warming Fear Mongering

Open Letter to Senators Graham and Lieberman:

EIN News says, "Senate Trio to Pursue Separate Climate Talks; Group Aims for Bill That Could Secure 60 Votes. Even before a Senate committee could begin marking up the "Kerry-Boxer" climate bill, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) announced Wednesday a separate track of negotiations over climate policy that makes his original bill look somewhat irrelevant. Kerry said he, Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) would work with business groups and the White House and seek a compromise that could get 60 votes in the Senate. (washingtonpost.com)

I have the utmost respect for the integrity of both of you Senators. Unfortunately, I believe you have been caught up in the fear mongering of global warming and have not given adequate consideration to whether there is any sound scientific basis to whether carbon dioxide has a significant effect on global warming.

I have gone into considerable detail on many posts to my blog on Climate Control and in individual communications, which I have generally made public. This information has likely escaped your attention, but can be seen at http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com.

Knowing that you are quite busy with various Senate bills, I now give you the bottom line on Climate Control.

All gases in the atmosphere are greenhouse gases. Some have more and some have less greenhouse effect. However, the greenhouse effect is a combination of its heat transmission and its concentration in the atmosphere. Pure carbon dioxide is a more effective greenhouse gas than are pure nitrogen and oxygen, which are the main components of the atmosphere. However, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.038%. Calculation shows that it's contribution to the total greenhouse effect is 0.015%. If we double the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it's greenhouse effect would still be only 0.03% of the total.

Do you want to spend billions of dollars controlling something that's not worth controlling? Consider also that the greater the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the better the availability of raw material for plant growth.

I respectfully recommend that you folks give up this self-destructive program.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

The Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Gases

E-mail to Congress:
My son-in-law, who has a PhD in Food Technology, and I have been having some discussions on climate control. The latest has been a question-and-answer session, in which I thought you might be interested as follows:

Dr.: No one will argue that CO2 contributes significantly to the insulating effect of the atmosphere. That is obvious from the thermal conductivity data.

ACS: I absolutely disagree. I claim that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes no significant contribution to the insulating effect, and that is based on the fact that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.038%. I also claim that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will still have an insignificant insulating effect.

Dr.: Here are a couple of questions: 1) What is the temperature of space? 2) What is the thermal conductivity of space?

ACS: 1.) 4 degrees K. (Wikipedia). 2.) I don't believe there is a measured thermal conductivity of outer space. Thermal conductivity is a measure of heat transmission through a substance. Outer space is considered devoid of substance.

Dr.: So when the other guys talk about greenhouse gas they are definitely not talking about the property of thermal conductivity, nor of heat capacity, but rather of a molecule's ability to absorb long wavelength IR (which itself is not heat) and then transform it into heat.

ACS No. They're going around Red Robin's Barn. We previously covered that. A black body (molecules) is absorbing long wavelength radiation directly from the Sun. The black body transforms (converts) it into heat. We don't really care about that mechanism. We are concerned only with the result, which is heat, and which is the major aspect of the discussion on global warming. Once you have heat generated, from whatever source, you then have to consider its transmission from one location to another. I have previously discussed it as radiation from the Earth to outer space, including its passage through the mixed gases of the atmosphere, which impede its transmission and can be changed by compositional gas changes in the atmosphere.

Dr.: Thermal conductivity is the ability of a substance to transmit heat from one point to another simply powered by the thermal gradient.

ACS: Absolutely correct.

Dr.: Obviously the blanket effect or insulation effect is part of the thermal equilibrium of the earth as you described, but it does not seem to be "the greenhouse effect".

ACS: It is the "greenhouse effect". Consider a greenhouse. The sun's radiation passes through the glass or plastic roof, strikes the internal surface of the greenhouse, where it is converted to heat. The heat transmission out of the greenhouse is then impeded by the glass or plastic roof. The glass or plastic roof is serving as a blanket or insulation to retain heat within the greenhouse. In the case of the Earth, the atmosphere is serving as a blanket or insulation to retain heat on the Earth's surface.

Dr.: I don't know if you saw my second email which looked much like the first but there is a section if you hit the advanced button at the top where they discuss why they think N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases. How do greenhouse gases "work"?

ACS: I read it. It's a lot of gobbledygook. All gases are greenhouse gases. Some are more and some less efficient as insulators to the passage of heat. One example involves the manufacture of low-heat transfer windows. They are double pane with a layer of argon between the two panes. Why not use air? It is less expensive than argon. The answer is that argon has a thermal conductivity of only 16.36 mW/(m.K), while the thermal conductivity of air is about 24.
I haven't seen any mechanism for how greenhouse gases work, but I'll take a stab at it. The molecules or atoms of substance have a certain affinity for heat. The heat may be particles or plasma or whatever, but in any case, heat is real. The affinity of the substance to capture and retain heat is different from one material substance to another. Time basis must also be included in that analysis. Two substances may capture the same amount of heat, but one substance may release it more quickly than the other. The longer retention time would be a measure of the substance's insulating capacity. In the case of gases, that would be at least partially equivalent to a "greenhouse effect".

Dr.: Thanks for taking the time for the long and logical answer. I only hate to think the large disagreement between the proposed problem and your well thought out answers is a problem of definitions or, as you have pointed out, as a problem of sophistry and doublespeak. Thus my attempt is to get the clearest ideas from the web and try to size them up in light of your objections.

ACS: It is my pleasure to try to clarify truth, where I believe falsehood is prevalent for reasons of personal gain. I am a stickler for honesty. When I suspect dishonesty through hiding information in 1200-page congressional bills or scientific papers with tremendous amounts of unrelated data tending to confuse issues, it tends to get my back up. The scientific world has a high degree of complexity. Many dishonest persons capitalize on that complexity and exaggerate it further for their own specific ends. My routine approach is to try to simplify these things to the lowest common denominator. Warren Buffett has said that if one doesn't understand the basis of a financial investment, one shouldn't be in it. The same goes for science. God gave us the ability to understand. If we don't understand it, it's probably not real.

Dr.: I hope you are not finding me dense or thick-headed.

ACS: Not at all. I tell my fifth graders, "Don't believe everything you hear or read. Always analyze it with respect to what you already know. Sometimes you will not know what the right answer is. Hold it in your mind, perhaps days or even years, and eventually it will likely be resolved."