Saturday, June 30, 2012

Accidental Promotion of the Global Warming Hoax

    A participant on the Neil Cavuto Fox News program this Saturday morning said the SCIENCE has proven the disastrous effects of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. There were no objections to this statement among the other participants. This bothers me horrendously, because it implied to the general viewing public that this is a correct assertion, since it was not challenged by any of the panel experts.
    However the fact is, that this is a hoax, which continues to be perpetuated by those expecting to make some kind of personal profit in its acceptance. The government is particularly anxious to have the public accept this assertion, because it brings tremendous new opportunities for taxation, with subsequent increase in government size and power.
    Most people now have a high school education, part of which was to take a course in chemistry and another course in physics. With discussions of variability on quality of the courses aside, one can be sure that anyone taking these courses received at least a smattering of scientific thought process plus some basic understandings of chemistry and physics principles. The problem is that most these graduates, do not have the confidence of questionable thinking when so-called experts come out with new concepts, such as carbon dioxide relating to global warming. One of the reasons for this is that the experts develop their own lexicon of terms which intimidate average persons.
    For a great many years all Roman Catholic masses were conducted completely in Latin. Similarly, the medical profession established use of Latin terms for various diseases and treatments. Botanists and others have done the same. While there is some practicality in using Latin designations, by and large this was done in order to preserve in the public eye a maintenance of esteem esteem for priests, medical doctors. Now big science has seized on this opportunity as well. But although, new terms are developed which can be intimidating to the public, all should be explainable to any person of reasonable intelligence who has received a high school degree. If not, the correct assumption would be that the perpetrator is hoodwinking the general public, and that is what is occurring in a matter of carbon dioxide relating to global warming.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Global Warming Fraud

    Michael Mann is the father of the theory that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration leads to climate change. He was a professor at the University of Virginia from 1999 to 2005, during which time he developed his theory.
    Kenneth Cuccinelli is a Virginia State Attorney General and a skeptic of Mann's climate-change theory.
    On the basis that the University of Virginia is a public institution supported by taxpayer funds, Cuccinelli petitioned the University for access to Mann's research records. The University denied the request and the case went to the Virginia Supreme Court.
    The Virginia Supreme Court supported the University's denial for access on the basis of a 2002 Virginia law, which disallows fraud investigations against individuals or businesses that receive state funds, including state agencies and public universities. That ended the case.
    I see a strong similarity between the Cuccinelli case and the present attempts of Congress to obtain information on "Fast and Furious"
    It is my experience that people hide things for only two reasons; either to avoid having them stolen or to perpetuate deceit.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Carbon Credits - An Outgrowth of the Hoax

    Amruthanand Nair's article entitled, "India Reaps Benefits of Carbon Program", in the June 18 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News, reviews the worldwide situation on carbon credits.
    Carbon credits are an outgrowth of the international attempt to control carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, as a method to control world climate change. I have yet to see any data justifying the theory that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has any significant effect on climate change.
    Be that as it may, in 1997 an international meeting in Japan developed what is known as the "Kyoto Protocol". The basis of the Protocol was that too much carbon dioxide was being emitted to the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning and this was having a disastrous effect on climate change. In the discussion, it was agreed that the world should be divided into two segments; industrialized and developing. Examples of industrialized nations were France, Germany, UK, and the US. An example of a developing nation was India.
    The protocol required that industrialized nations were required to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. Developing nations were not required to do so. However, if a company in a developing nation reduced its carbon dioxide emissions, it could receive a carbon credit known as a "Certified Emission Reduction" (CER). Each CER was equivalent to 1000 tons of carbon dioxide. CERs could also be obtained by reducing emissions of nitrous oxide and trifluoromethane.
    The CER's achieved monetary values, because they could be sold to companies in industrialized nations, which could then use them as an alternative to reducing their own carbon dioxide emissions. This was a particularly generous program for India, which with a few minor equipment changes could obtain CER's and sell them to companies in Western Europe. The initial trading value of a CER was $53. Price dropped to $12-$15 six months ago, and it is now less than $4. Some Indian companies reaped a gold mine, but it looks like the heyday is over.
    It is interesting to speculate on why there was such a significant drop in CER value. We know that the recession in European Union countries has decreased factory production and related carbon dioxide emissions, which automatically reduces the need to purchase CER's from developing countries. I also speculate that another reason for the price reduction is the general public awareness that there is no basic scientific data which would indicate that carbon dioxide emissions lead to harmful climate change. This decreases the legitimacy of the Kyoto protocol. In fact, efforts to update it and make the terms more legally binding have failed. Hooray for common sense!

Friday, June 15, 2012

Debunking Global Warming Theory

    Why would anyone want to debunk a theory? Simply because following a false theory to an extension of practicality may very well lead to disaster.
    Does global warming exist? I don't know, but I will guess that it probably does. There is a lot of conflicting evidence on temperature taking at various locations, discussions of ice thickness, etc., but the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate there is some slight global warming in the recent past. Why?
    My purpose here is not to discuss the pros and cons of global warming but rather to concentrate on the theory that any global warming is resulting from the man's activity. I am particularly interested in increased emission of carbon dioxide through the burning of fossil fuels, and now an increase in atmospheric methane concentration, through leakage natural gas wells.
    Global Warming Theory says that the primary increase in global warming is caused by this increase in the atmospheric concentration of these two gases. To support the theory, the term Greenhouse Gas has been developed and needs to be understood.
    The National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says in its website (
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html) that greenhouse gases allow direct sunlight to reach the Earth's surface unimpeded. As the short-wave energy heats the surface, heat is reradiated to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases absorb this energy (heat), thereby allowing less heat to escape back to space, and 'trapping' it in the lower atmosphere. Another way to say this is that sunlight heats up your car and the heat cannot escape to interstellar space, because greenhouse gases block the escape.
    I have no quarrel with this. Atmospheric gases do impede the escape of heat from a terrestrial body. For example, the moon has no gases and there are great extremes of temperature. Conversely, the greenhouse gases of the Earth equalize temperatures, so that the difference between day and night temperatures are not so great as to make the place unlivable.
    What are these greenhouse gases? Since we know that Earth's atmosphere is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, with trace amounts of many other gases, it's a fair assumption that the greenhouse gas of Earth is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen.
    However, the Global Warming Theory enthusiasts are not satisfied with the obvious. For whatever reasons they may have, they desire to complicate the issue by attributing a special effect of higher global warming to the presence of the trace gases, particularly carbon dioxide and methane.
    The special effects are further defined by a mathematical term for Global Warming Potential. The equation is attached. If you look at it, don't be intimidated. Notice that there is a term for an investigated gas in the numerator and an equivalent term for carbon dioxide in the denominator. All this says is that we calculate the Global Warming Potential of any gas in relation to carbon dioxide. The assumption is that carbon dioxide is bad. It also says nothing about Global Warming EFFECTS. In other words it says nothing about how much nitrogen or oxygen contribute to the greenhouse effect of stabilizing temperatures, nor does it consider carbon dioxide and methane for that same activity.
    A little common sense tells you that in order for anything to have an effect on something else, it has to be present. If it's not there, it cannot have an effect. A reasonable extension of this thought that the more a substance is present, the greater will be its effect. Example, a glass of whiskey at 70% alcohol contains more alcohol than a glass of wine at 20% alcohol. The glass of whiskey will go farther toward inebriation than the glass of wine.
    Therefore, it stands to reason that because of the high concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, those gases will likely have a much greater effect on temperature equalization of the earth than will any trace gases. The only way this could not be true is if the trace gases have a very special attribute compared to nitrogen and oxygen. We are already seeing that the Global Warming Potential Equation does not address this possibility.

    Advocates of global warming increase caused by man-generated increases in carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere have developed another equation. The equation for Radiative Forcing Capacity (RF) is also attached. Again, do not be intimidated by the equation. The only term of significance that it contains is the infrared absorption of the gas being considered. That is, how much heat can a gas hold? Well, good! At least we have something that starts to concern the practical aspects of the atmosphere. We can calculate the RF of nitrogen, oxygen or any gas, but no one seems to have done that.
    But we also must return to common sense. While one gas may be able to hold more heat than another gas, it is obvious that the amount of gas present is an important factor. In other words, we must consider gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Let's compare the heats that could be held in the atmosphere by nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Let's take million parts of atmospheric gas. Of that total there are 790,000 parts of nitrogen. Making up a number, let's also say that each part of nitrogen can hold 1 calorie of heat. The content then for the nitrogen is 790,000 calories. Doing the same thing with carbon dioxide, there are 350 parts in the million parts of atmospheric gas. Let's also say that a part of carbon dioxide can hold twice as much heat as nitrogen. That would be 2 calories per part. With the 350 parts of carbon dioxide at 2 calories per part, the total heat content of the carbon dioxide would be 700 calories. Notice that the content of the carbon dioxide is only 0.08% of that held by the nitrogen. Not much effect. Let's also say that perhaps the carbon dioxide can hold 100 times more heat than the nitrogen. It's heat content would then be 4%. Still only borderline with respect to effectiveness, and we haven't even yet considered that the presence of oxygen would also bring that value down. We then also have to ask ourselves whether it is even reasonable that one part of carbon dioxide could be 100 times more effective in holding heat than one part of nitrogen. But these are calculations that actually could be made using the RF equation.
    Some have said there could be huge differences in the RF's of various gases. They have likened the action of heat without light, which is a reasonable comparison. When light strikes the surface, it can be transmitted, absorbed, or reflected. Usually all three actions occur, but in different amounts depending upon the object which the light strikes. For example, when light strikes glass, a large portion of it is transmitted. If light strikes a black object, a large portion of the light is absorbed. And if light strikes a reflective surface, such as a shiny metal, a large portion will be reflected. But notice that in order to have these large differences, we had to materially change the nature of the object being struck by light. In the atmosphere, we don't have these large differences. All components are gases. True. Some have two items per molecule, such as nitrogen and oxygen. Some have three atoms per molecule, such as carbon dioxide. And, some have four atoms per molecule, such as methane.
    However, we do have some real data on heat transmission through various gases, which is exactly our case in greenhouse gas considerations. Thermal conductivity is the rate at which heat can pass through a substance. The Gas Encyclopedia by Air Liquide (http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/encyclopedia.asp) gives thermal conductivity for many pure gases. Thermal conductivities for both nitrogen and oxygen are about 24. For carbon dioxide, it is 14 and for methane 32. Since the higher the thermal conductivity, the less heat is being absorbed by a gas, it is apparent that carbon dioxide absorbs more heat than nitrogen and oxygen. Conversely, methane absorbs less heat. Another important factor is the ratio of the numbers. If we take carbon dioxide, it is 1.7 times more effective than nitrogen in absorbing heat. Notice that we said earlier that if carbon dioxide would be twice as effective as nitrogen in heat holding, the mere fact that there's so little of it would make a heat absorption difference in the atmosphere of only 0.08%.

    For strong believers that any observed global warming is caused by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration through burning fossil fuels, I hope that the above presentation has shed a little doubt on that presumption. At least, I feel that considering heat absorption of major atmospheric gases, rather than considering only trace gases, is a realistic approach to determining total heat effects related to greenhouse gases and global warming. 
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential

Carbon DioxCheryl Hogue has an article entitled, "CO2 Emissions", in the June 4 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News. In the article, she reviews a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA report indicates that last year the carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere increased 3.2% compared to the year before. It then goes on to say that China was a major contributor, while the United States actually decreased its carbon dioxide emissions. Since atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a significant contributor to global warming, there is no relevancy of this data to any discussion on global warming.ide in the Atmosphere

    Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled, "CO2 Emissions", in the June 4 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
    In the article, she reviews a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA report indicates that last year the carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere increased 3.2% compared to the year before. It then goes on to say that China was a major contributor, while the United States actually decreased its carbon dioxide emissions.
    Since atmospheric  carbon dioxide is not a significant contributor to global warming, there is no relevancy of this data to any discussion on global warming.

Saturday, June 9, 2012

Let's NotTry to Control Carbon Dioxide Emissions

    In the May 28th issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Cheryl Hogue and Melody Bomgardner report on the G-8 Summit Meeting, attended by leaders of the eight worlds largest economic countries. The G-8 agreed to establish and share best practices for energy production, including hydraulic fracturing and deep water drilling, phase out of existing subsidies for fossil fuels, universal access to clean, safe and affordable energy, advanced energy efficiency of appliances and equipment, and improved food security and nutrition in developing countries. I agree completely with all of the above.
    Separately, three private companies announced plans to participate in the food security and nutrition program. Hopefully, this will be without government subsidy.
    The subject of climate change was also addressed. It was agreed to reduce emissions of short-lived pollutants that contribute to global warming. I'm not sure what, short-term pollutants are, but methane, black carbon, and hydrofluorocarbons were mentioned. I doubt that hydrofluorocarbons are short-term pollutants.
    The G-8 pledged to continue efforts to reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases and to support international negotiations for a new climate change treaty that will apply to both industrialized and developing countries. Carbon dioxide was not specifically mentioned as a greenhouse gas, but was implied. The leaders pledged to continue efforts to reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases and to support international negotiations for a new climate change treaty that will apply to both industrialized and developing countries. While carbon dioxide was not specifically named, it may be implied to be included within the international negotiations. If so, I strongly object, although I agree with the other three. There is no proof that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas above other gases naturally present in the atmosphere and its attempted control would cause a financial disruption of trillions of dollars.

Sunday, June 3, 2012

The Magical Powert of Carbon Dioxide

     Chemical & Engineering News has more information on the magical greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. In the May 7, 2012 Issue, Jeff Johnson reviews a Worldwatch Institute report released on April 28. Worldwatch is a Washington DC-based, environmental think tank.
    The report says that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere declined 1.5% 2009 and rose 5.8% in 2010. Carbon dioxide concentrations are now 45% higher they were in 1990 it is said that among greenhouse gases, Carbon oxide resides the longest in the atmosphere and is the most abundant.. The author says the increase in carbon dioxide concentration is responsible for an increase in Earth's average surface temperature.
    I also heard on Fox News last Friday that Shell Energy has postponed oil drilling off Barrow, Alaska, because of unusual ice thickness; apparently the thickest in 10 years. This tends to refute somewhat the claim of global warming. However, we will not now engage in the argument of whether there is global warming or not.
    My major objective is to debunk the notion that increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration leads to global warming, with associated disastrous consequences.
    All gases resist the passage of heat. In other words they are mild heat insulators. I say mild, because gases are diffuse and it takes considerable thickness to have the same affect as solid heat insulators, such as fiberglass or cotton batting. A few inches of solid heat insulator can have the same effect as a mile of gas. The term "greenhouse gas" has been developed to relate the heat installation of gas to heat loss from the Earth's surface and related global surface temperatures.
    The term "greenhouse gas" has subsequently developed a negative or damaging impression. However, the fact is that greenhouse gases are absolutely necessary for the existence of life on earth. The high concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen (greenhouse gases) tend to equalize temperatures from the extremes of night and day; night being the absence of direct sunlight and day being direct sunlight. For example, our Moon is approximately the same distance as Earth from the Sun, which is the heat source. The moon has no greenhouse gases (no atmosphere) and has a nighttime temperature of minus 243°F and a daytime temperature of 225°F. These are clearly temperature extremes, under which life as we know it could not exist. Conversely, the average nighttime temperature in Lubbock is 45°F and the daytime temperature is 72°F. This is clearly a big difference from the Moon and obviously something we can live with.
    The several miles of mixed nitrogen and oxygen gas above the surface of the Earth are clearly responsible for the difference in average nighttime and daytime temperatures between the Moon and Earth. That mixed gas is essentially 100%. If that concentration is reduced slightly by an increase of 0.002% in carbon dioxide, does one really believe that the thermal insulation of the total greenhouse gas will be affected? Only if carbon dioxide has magical powers, and I haven't seen any data so far that shows such to be true.