Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Global Warming on Permafrost

The United Nations Environment Program has a new fear for us. It reports that human-caused climate change will lead to thawing of the permafrost with generation of "greenhouse gases" carbon dioxide and methane. That in turn will lead to more thawing and more generation of carbon dioxide and methane. The report couples this with the assertion that carbon dioxide and methane are the basic cause of global warming.

Let's look at this from a practical scientific point of view. First of all, temperature recordings show that the average Global temperature has increased over the past few decades, and this has been designated as Global Warming. There is also no doubt that in the combustion of fossil fuels, man has generated more heat. However, there has been no study of quantification, and the likelihood that increased heat from fossil fuel burning is insignificant compared to variations in heat supplied by the sun.

Methane and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. That is, they inhibit the passage of heat from the year's surface to outer space. However, the other major gases of the atmosphere do the same thing, which is why we have relatively small differences between nighttime and daytime temperatures on Earth, as compared to non-atmospheric bodies, such as the Moon. The heat transmission through the various gases are respectively, 15 mW/(m.K) for carbon dioxide, 33 for methane, and 24 each for oxygen and nitrogen. Note that methane actually allows more heat to be lost from the Earth's surface than the other three. However, the actual effects of Earth's heat loss or gain by the presence of carbon dioxide and methane is insignificant, because of the very low concentrations in the atmosphere. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is only 0.05%. The methane concentration is only 0.0002%.

The bottom line is we have more hogwash from global warming enthusiasts. They have a slight basic position with Earth's temperatures, but lose sight of practicality when they attribute any measurable temperature rise to man-made activity of either direct heat generation or increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Open Letter to Rep. Smith - Climate Control

Open letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). A copy has been mailed to the Representative.

Dear Rep. Smith,
    Congratulations on your recent ascension to Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology! With your having served in the House for 26 years and being an advocate for Science, Technology, and Space Exploration, as well as a supporter of increased oil and gas production, I am confident that you are well positioned to fulfill this role.
    You are reported to be a supporter of federal aid to increased oil and gas production, to which I take exception. I am confident that the oil and gas industry can well fulfill its role to supply the American public, without the use of taxpayer funds from government. However, that is not the main point of my writing.
    You are also reported to be a climate-change skeptic. The purpose of my letter is to better define the terms and reduce the matter of skepticism to that of conviction.
    Climate change is a fact. There are good data showing that over the millennia, global climate has varied greatly. In the past several years, Earth temperature has apparently increased about 1°F. We have no reason to believe that these measurements are incorrect, and therefore accept that we are in the process of global warming, which is a climate change.
    However, the significant difference among proponents, opponents, and skeptics involves whether human activities have caused and will continue to cause climate change. This is an extremely significant point.
    If global warming has been caused by factors other than human involvement, it is less likely that any human corrective action will be effective, and the best course is to adapt.
    Conversely, if global warming has been caused by human activity in increasing the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere, an obvious control on global warming is to control carbon dioxide emissions. There has been a limited acceptance of CO2 theory on the part of the public, private industry, and more so on the part of government officials. However, the theorists have been unable to prove connectivity between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration. The reason that the theory continues to exist appears to be opportunities for individual power and profit combined with a larger bloated government through CO2 emission tax revenues.
    My objective with this letter is for you to consider the details of connectivity between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In this way, I hope you will become convinced, as am I, that there is none and that no consideration should be given at any time to the spending of billions of dollars to control CO2 atmospheric emissions.
    I am attaching a recent essay on my reaction to Michael Mann's recent book, "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" [already in the blog]. In addition, I also refer you to other similar essays, which I have written over the past few years, and are contained in my blog http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com.



Respectfully yours,

Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
asucsy@suddenlink.net



Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Book on Global Warming

Michael Mann, the father of global warming theology, has written a book, entitled "The Hockey Stick And the Climate Wars"..

Based upon Michael Mann's previous writings and other reports, I already know his position and will not read the book. Rather, I will base my comments on the book report by Rudy Baum, in the December 10 issue of C&E News. Rudy recently retired as Editor-In-Chief of C&E News and is now a Chemical and Engineering News Editor-at-Large. During his previous term of office, he produced several articles on global warming. Those articles indicated that he was a clear advocate and supporter of the theory that mankind's recent activities has resulted in global warming. In spite of that predisposition to bias, I will use Rudy's book report as a basis for my comments on Michael Mann's positions.

Rudy reports that Michael Mann bemoans the details of release of his emails,by a hacker, attempts of persecution by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, and general attacks on his character. Such things are routine in emotional discussions by two sides having diverse opinions. I am not interested in those at present. Rather I prefer to discuss the science of the subject.

However, there is one consideration which questions Michael Mann's qualifications as a true scientist. That is, the use of the term "Hockey Stick" in referring to his graph on global warming data. The term is very catchy, such that it would normally be attributed to a promoter, rather than a scientist.

Rudy indicates that Michael makes five scientific points. I am listing these in detail and commenting on each.

1. Human activity has increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.

There can be no dispute about this. Measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere over a number of years has shown that there is an increase. The increase is also logical, because in the burning of organic fuels, such as coal, petroleum, gas, wood, etc., carbon dioxide is formed. In addition the world increases in human population and also requires more animals, both of which release carbon dioxide through respiration. The only question is whether the increase is significant to climate change. It should be noted that present atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is only 0.05%.

2. The increase in CO2 and other trace gases produced by humans has a warming affect on Earth's surface.

That is probably a true statement but lacks quantification, such that it can be misleading. To obtain a proper perspective, one must consider global warming. The mechanism is that the sun's radiation is of such wavelength that it passes through the atmosphere to the earth unimpeded. At the Earth's surface, much of it is converted to heat. The heat tends to pass back to the stratosphere, but the wavelength is now such that atmospheric gases impede the passage and the Earth's temperature is higher than it would be without an atmosphere. The greenhouse gas effect of the atmosphere tends to stabilize Earth's temperatures, such that there is relatively little difference between night and day temperatures as compared to celestial bodies without atmosphere, such as the moon.

Measurement of a greenhouse gas effect can be done in the laboratory. Carbon dioxide is approximately twice as effective as the normal atmosphere in resisting the passage of heat. The transmission numbers, which are the reverse of insulation numbers are 14 mW/(mK) for carbon dioxide and 24 mW/(mK) for the atmosphere in general. However, keep in mind that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.05%. To put it in perspective, a lighted match can burn your finger, but does it SIGNIFICANTLY increase the temperature of a room.

3. Thermometer measurements show that, by the mid-1990s, Earth had warmed by about 1°F since preindustrial times.

There seems to be no reason to dispute this statement. If proper measurements show that to be the case, so be it. However, let us be careful to not read into the statement that man has caused the 1°F increase. There is another potential cause for the increase, and that is the sun's activity with respect to radiation output and distance from Earth.

4. Sophisticated models have been developed to investigate the causal mechanism behind changes in Earth's climate.

This is an intimidation statement. As the word "sophisticated" is used, the message is that it is so intellectually complex, a normal person cannot understand it. Hogwash! If a normal person cannot understand it, it probably doesn't exist. In addition, most scientists will agree that models can be developed to show anything that one wants to show. The only way to prove the veracity of the model is to ferret out each of the assumptions on which the model is based. We also have a nice example of how fiction can pervade reality in videos showing Spiderman walking up the sides of buildings.

I would like to see one model showing a believable causal mechanism for low atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to significantly affect global temperatures.

5. Only when human factors are included do those models reproduce all of the observed warming.

I don't understand why this was included as a separate item. Presumably, Item 4 was a study to prove that atmospheric carbon dioxide affected the Earth's climate and that the believable mechanism must have included carbon dioxide concentration.

There is no doubt that with the burning of fossil fuels and respiration of increased humans and cattle, there is an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Proof or even plausible speculation that such carbon dioxide concentration increase has had a significant effect on global temperatures is yet to be forthcoming.

Friday, December 21, 2012

The Continued Drum Beating on Carbon Dioxide Emission Control


In the November 26 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Cheryl Hoag reports on a UN gathering intended to extend the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol involves control of carbon dioxide emissions, with the intention of reducing global warming. The new talks will occur in Doha, Qatar, which is immediately an indication that this is an ongoing operation intended to satisfy the participants in nice travel programs.

The Kyoto Accord required industrialized countries to collectively lower their emissions of carbon dioxide by 5% from 1990 levels over a five-year period. The US was not among the signers of the treaty, for which I have to add my hearty congratulations.

Japan and Russia have already said that they will not take on a second set of carbon dioxide emission reductions and the EU has already ill advisedly established legislation to control its carbon dioxide gases at the level being proposed in the new UN recommendation.

All of these meetings and discussions are intended to keep the ball rolling on the ridiculous matter of man-made global warming. Even Elliott Derringer, Executive Vice President of the nonprofit Center for Climate and Energy Solutions predicts that the Doha meeting will will be a relatively low-key affair.

I suppose we can expect this boondoggling to continue as long as the public agrees to financially support government officials and others on such vacation trips. The operators will also be encouraged to continue participation as they receive these benefits and perceive obtaining additional benefits from the public feeding trough.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Fear Mongering on Man-Made Global Warming

In the Concentrates section of the November 12 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, CH says that based on a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, businesses, governments, and communities across the world need to plan for a warming world. The report goes on to say that by 2100, the world will be 6°C warmer than present.


That may or may not be true. There is no mention of how the report authors come to this conclusion. It may be just another instance of fear mongering on the part of global warming advocates.

However, the report does clearly indicate that it's prediction is based upon increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere caused by the activities of man. Again, there is no indication of how carbon dioxide affects global warming.

We continue to hear about carbon dioxide, and now additionally other gases, being designated as greenhouse gases. Presumably a greenhouse gas is one which has a special property of inhibiting transmission of heat through the atmosphere to interstellar space, thereby increasing global temperatures. No scientific proof or even a reasonable proposed mechanism has ever been presented to justify the claims.

In fact, data from the gas encyclopedia indicates that the transmission of heat through carbon dioxide is not significantly different than it is through the other atmospheric gases, including the nitrogen and oxygen which are the major atmospheric constituents. In addition, the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would make the effect insignificant.

Monday, December 10, 2012

More on Global Warming



This is a modified form. I previously goofed up my math.
 
CJ Anonymous says:
    You may have seen a recent report that the Gulf Stream along the East Coast is beginning to unlock billions of tons of methane now frozen as methane hydrate on the ocean floor.  There is speculation as to how much of this will be converted to carbon dioxide by ocean bacteria and how much will be released as methane.  However either way, this is a major source of green house gases completely out of control by humans.  Add to that another major source of methane from anaerobic decay of plant and animal wastes that humans have no control over. It then becomes logical to ask whether or not humans can do very much about global warming.
    It seems to me that prudent conservation is good policy.  However, current measures being legislated and regulated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are extreme, and the negative economic impact far outweighs the value of those reductions.

I reply:
    Not to worry about natural events. Worry about the irrational decisions of politicians.
    Let's take a look at the greenhouse gas aspect of methane.
    Thermal
conductivity is a measure of the ability of a material to transfer heat. The thermal conductivity of nitrogen, which is about the same as the total atmosphere, is 24 mW/(mK). For methane, it is 33 mW/(mK). This means infrared or heat passes through methane easier than through the atmosphere, and therefore has a negative greenhouse effect of 37%.
    The total weight of the earth's atmosphere is 5.3 X10E15 tons. Let's just say we release 5.3 billion tons of methane from the seafloor. That's 5.3 X 10E9 tons and would increase the total atmosphere to 5.310E24 tons. The methane content of the atmosphere would then be 1 X 10E-13 %  ((5.3 X 10E9 / 5.3 X 10E24) X 100), which is 1 preceded by 13 zeros; an extremely low concentration. Even though the heat of transmission for methane is 37% higher than that for the atmosphere in general, the low concentration of methane in the atmosphere would make its effect insignificant.