More on Global Warming

Open Email to:
Rep. John Shimkus, Chairman House Subcommittee on the Environment and Economy.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, Chairwoman Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Sen. David Vitter, Member Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. 

Dear Rep. Shimkus and Senators Boxer and Vitter,

There are two main questions regarding global warming.
1. Is there global warming?
2. If there is global warming, what caused it?

Answer to #I:
Yes. There is global warming and also global cooling. Archaeological information has shown that in the Earth's history, there have been long periods of global temperatures higher than average and also lower than average.
In the present cycle, there has been no average increase in global warming over the past 17 years. http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/the-top-seven-global-warming-alarmist-setbacks-in-2013/ .
As we approach the end of the year, it also appears clear that 2013 will finish as one of the 10 coldest years in US history. Real Science shows a graph of the yearly average highs and lows. It is projected that 2013 will close as the ninth lowest average temperature since 1890.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/2013-one-of-the-ten-coldest-years-in-us-history-with-the-largest-drop-in-temperature/ .

Answer to #2:
We know that the average global temperature has varied drastically over the past millennia. This variation mostly occurred during the time of little or no human activity. Climatologists have considered that variation as caused by natural forces, such as variations in the Sun's radiation output, variable distance from Earth to Sun, variable volcanic activity, etc..
In no instance were those large global temperature variations attributed to carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. The latter supposition has been developed only in modern times and is not supported by data nor theory. The average global temperatures of the Earth have not increased over the past 17 years, despite a continuing increase in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of carbon containing fuels.
In addition, no satisfactory mechanism has been proposed, which could explain how the low concentration of 0.05% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could affect global temperatures.

Global Warming Fiasco

Open Email to:
Rep. John Shimkus, Chairman House Subcommittee on the Environment and Economy Sen. Barbara Boxer, Chairwoman Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Sen. David Vitter, Member Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Dear Rep. Shimkus and Senators Boxer and Vitter,
What happened to global warming?
The Orange County Register has a nice article by Mark Landsbaum on the subject. I won't bore you with all the details. You can look at the whole article on http://www.ocregister.com/articles/warming-593355-global-temperature.html , but here are a few excerpts:

Just 13 years ago, Dr. David Viner, senior scientist at Britain’s University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit, confidently predicted that, within a few years, winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.” “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
By the end of November, Brits were shivering, “as Britain faces snow, ice and plummeting temperatures,” reported the Mirror newspaper. “Most of Scotland has been issued severe weather warnings for ice, and temperatures are expected to remain low, causing problems with snow and ice across the country.” Winter yet lay ahead.

Recall James Hansen, global warming guru whose alarmist campaign was underwritten by his NASA paycheck. By the 2020s, Hansen predicted in 1986, the U.S. average annual temperature would rise 9 degrees Fahrenheit, or more, and up to 3 degrees by the 2010s.
A funny thing happened on the way to the 2010s and 2020s. It didn’t get so hot. In fact, depending on which data set you use, it probably has cooled down for 17 years.

There’s no shortage of inventive excuses for why things aren’t so hot, including, incredibly, China’s increased use of coal, even though “dirty” fossil fuel is supposed to increase, not decrease temperatures.

Environmentalism in Perspective

Open Email to:
Rep. John Shimkus, Chairman House Subcommittee on the Environment and Economy Sen. Barbara Boxer, Chairwoman Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Sen. David Vitter, Member Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Dear Rep. Shimkus and Senators Boxer and Vitter,
Here's a message from Walter E. Williams, Professor of Economics, at  George Mason University. It puts the matter of carbon dioxide related to global warming, whether realistic or not, into the proper perspective.

"Let's examine a few statements reflecting a vision thought to be beyond question. "The world that we live in is beautiful but fragile." "The 3rd rock from the sun is a fragile oasis." Here are a couple of Earth Day quotes: "Remember that Earth needs to be saved every single day." "Remember the importance of taking care of our planet. It's the only home we have!" Such statements, along with apocalyptic predictions, are stock in trade for environmental extremists and non-extremists alike. Worse yet is the fact that this fragile-earth indoctrination is fed to our youth from kindergarten through college. Let's examine just how fragile the earth is.

The 1883 eruption of the Krakatoa volcano, in present-day Indonesia, had the force of 200 megatons of TNT. That's the equivalent of 13,300 15-kiloton atomic bombs, the kind that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945. Preceding that eruption was the 1815 Tambora eruption, also in present-day Indonesia, which holds the record as the largest known volcanic eruption. It spewed so much debris into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight, that 1816 became known as the "Year Without a Summer" or "Summer That Never Was." It led to crop failures and livestock death in much of the Northern Hemisphere and caused the worst famine of the 19th century. The A.D. 535 Krakatoa eruption had such force that it blotted out much of the light and heat of the sun for 18 months and is said to have led to the Dark Ages. Geophysicists estimate that just three volcanic eruptions, Indonesia (1883), Alaska (1912) and Iceland (1947), spewed more carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than all of mankind's activities in our entire history.

How has our fragile earth handled floods? China is probably the world capital of gigantic floods. The 1887 Yellow River flood cost between 900,000 and 2 million lives. China's 1931 flood was worse, yielding an estimated death toll between 1 million and 4 million. But China doesn't have a monopoly on floods. Between 1219 and 1530, the Netherlands experienced floods costing about 250,000 lives.

What about the impact of earthquakes on our fragile earth? There's Chile's 1960 Valdivia earthquake, coming in at 9.5 on the Richter scale, a force equivalent to 1,000 atomic bombs going off at the same time. The deadly 1556 earthquake in China's Shaanxi province devastated an area of 520 miles. There's the more recent December 2004 magnitude 9.1 earthquake in the Indian Ocean that caused the deadly Boxing Day tsunami, and a deadly March 2011 magnitude 9.0 earthquake that struck eastern Japan.

Our fragile earth faces outer space terror. Two billion years ago, an asteroid hit earth, creating the Vredefort crater in South Africa. It has a radius of 118 miles, making it the world's largest impact crater. In Ontario, there's the Sudbury Basin, resulting from a meteor strike 1.8 billion years ago, which has an 81-mile diameter, making it the second-largest impact structure on earth. Virginia's Chesapeake Bay crater is a bit smaller, about 53 miles wide. Then there's the famous but puny Meteor Crater in Arizona, which is not even a mile wide.

I've pointed out only a tiny portion of the cataclysmic events that have struck the earth -- ignoring whole categories, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, lightning strikes, fires, blizzards, landslides and avalanches. Despite these cataclysmic events, the earth survived. My question is: Which of these powers of nature can be matched by mankind? For example, can mankind duplicate the polluting effects of the 1815 Tambora volcanic eruption or the asteroid impact that wiped out dinosaurs? It is the height of arrogance to think that mankind can make significant parametric changes in the earth or can match nature's destructive forces.

Occasionally, environmentalists spill the beans and reveal their true agenda. Barry Commoner said, "Capitalism is the earth's number one enemy." Amherst College professor Leo Marx said, "On ecological grounds, the case for world government is beyond argument." With the decline of the USSR, communism has lost considerable respectability and is now repackaged as environmentalism and progressivism."

Global Cooling?

Open Email to:
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman Senate Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Rep. Tim Murphy, Chairman House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Rep. John Shimkus, Chairman House Subcommittee on the Environment and Economy
Rep. Ed Whitfield, Chairman House Subcommittee Energy and Power
Rep. Kay Granger, House Subcommittee State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
Sen. Barbara Boxer, Chairwoman Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Sen. David Vitter, Member Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Rep. Edward Markey, House Member of Natural Resources Committee

Dear Representatives and Senators,
        It is interesting to see how many so-called scientists continue to support a belief, for which there is no rational scientific explanation.
        The case in point is global warming, wherein numerous scientists claim dire predictions of death and destruction from higher global temperatures caused by emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in the burning of carbon containing fuels, such as coal oil, and natural gas
        We now see that in spite of the fact that carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase annually, there has been no significant increase in global temperature over the past 15 years.
        My goodness! What to do? Well I guess we just come up with another hypothetical reason.
        There are two reasons covered in a paper published in National Geoscience 2013 DOI: 10. 1038/NG EO 1999. We have switched refrigerant use in our air conditioners and less methane is generated from rice production in Asia.
        Presumably the cooling effects of the refrigerant change and rice production change have overbalanced the heating effect of increased carbon dioxide. How ridiculous can we get?

Financing Climate Change

Open Email to:
Rep. David Camp, House Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sen. Edward Markey, Chairman Senate Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, International Environmental Protection.
I address this to House Chairman Camp, because it is said that his committee exercises jurisdiction over revenue and related issues such as tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements.
I also address this to Senate Chairman Markey, because it is said that his committee has general oversight responsibility for the US development policy and foreign assistance programs, including development, economic, trade, and security assistance programs carried out by the US Agency for International Development, the Millennium Challenge Corporation and other US agencies, and US voluntary contributions to international organizations providing assistance to foreign nations.

The United Nations started to get more serious during its climate change meeting in Warsaw last month. It set up an organization entitled, "Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage". It's supposed to be a money collection and distribution agency, but it doesn't say how the money will be collected nor distributed. It was proposed and passed by a preponderance of Third World countries, seeking redistribution of wealth. The US had previously been opposed to its creation, but has now agreed. This agreement likely came through pressure from Pres. Obama, who we know is a big re-distribution of wealth advocate.
We notice that during the meeting two major countries have smartened up. Japan had previously pledged to cut its carbon dioxide emissions 25%, but has now reduced that level to 3.8%. Australia had previously gone so far as to pass a carbon tax, but the Prime Minister is now attempting to repeal that tax.
I call these Committee Chairman to follow the situation closely, especially since the US now seems to be part of the money handling group.
I remind all that no one has ever shown a reasonable mechanism for relating carbon dioxide emissions to global warming. In view of that, we can only assume that it is a political maneuver with regard to money.

Climate Change

Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on climate change.
  You say you are opposed to the proposals of President Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and some in Congress to limit greenhouse gases without regard to jobs and the economy.
Congratulations on being partially correct. However, you appear to be confused on greenhouse gases and climate change.
Carbon dioxide has been called a greenhouse gas and limitations on its submission to the atmosphere from the burning of carbon containing fuels, has been promoted.
The fact is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, as are also nitrogen and oxygen, which are major components of the atmosphere. We need greenhouse gases to control Earth temperatures in a range to support life. Carbon dioxide can be considered as an addition to that desirable outcome, but it's concentration in the atmosphere of only 0.05%, which makes its contribution insignificant. For those who want to look at it from a negative aspect of carbon dioxide increasing global temperatures, it is a ridiculous proposal, but it can be answered with the same fact that at 0.05% concentration, it has no significant effect on climate.

Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming

Pieter Tans is a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory. He recently addressed the problem of "If carbon dioxide makes up only a minute portion of the atmosphere, how can global warming be traced to it? And how can such a tiny amount of change produce such large effects?" My congratulations to Mr. Tan for addressing this problem in a direct manner, and which has been ignored by so many so-called scientists.
The essence of Mr. Tan's reply is that heat coming from the sun collects at the Earth's surface and also radiates back to outer space, unimpeded by nitrogen and oxygen, which are the main components of the atmosphere. However. Carbon dioxide has the unusual property of being an excellent insulator and will not allow loss of heat from the earth to the stratosphere.
I addressed a reply to Mr. Tans through Scientific American as follows:
Mr. Tans,
    I believe you may be incorrect in your mechanism concerning greenhouse gases.
      I propose this alternative: Incoming radiation from the Sun passes through the atmosphere unimpeded. When that radiation strikes a solid surface, at least a portion of it is converted to heat. During the day, that heat accumulates, as indicated by rising Earth's surface temperatures. At night, the heat tends to leave the Earth's surface and pass into interstellar space, which is much colder than the Earth's surface. All gases of the atmosphere act as insulators to deter the loss of heat from the earth's surface. Those gases, including especially nitrogen and oxygen are greenhouse gases which make the earth much warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.
      The heat insulation properties of the gases under consideration are well-known through laboratory measurements of thermal conductivity. The lower the thermal conductivity, the better is the gas as an insulator. Measurements of thermal conductivity are in mW/m.K. The figures are nitrogen 24.0, oxygen 24.4, and carbon dioxide 14.7. This means that carbon dioxide is almost twice as good an insulator to the passage of heat from the Earth's surface than either nitrogen or oxygen; i.e. a better greenhouse gas. However the atmospheric concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen are respectively 78% and 21%, while the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is only 0.05%. This means that although carbon dioxide is a better insulator to the loss of heat from the Earth's surface, the fact that it constitutes only 0.05% of the atmosphere, makes its effect insignificant.

Summary of Man-Made Climate Change Disbelief

Richard,
     You have a friend who questions your denial of any climate change based upon carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of carbon containing fuels. He says that since so many scientists, scientific organizations and the federal government make this claim, there must be some truth to the claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide radically affect climate. You have already replied, but I would like to accentuate your reply and add a few comments of my own.
     The answer is simply MONEY! It stems from Pres. Obama's ideology of redistributing world wealth, which means taking money from US citizens and redistributing it to other peoples of the world. The United Nations is also jumped on this opportunity, because it is loaded with representatives of Third World countries, who see the opportunity of increasing .national wealth with money from the US.
    In addition, Pres. Obama is a believer in big government, and big government always requires significant revenues. Since government never makes or sells anything, it's only source of revenue is from taxes on individuals and corporations. As that transfer of money takes place from individuals and corporations, it not only increases the size of government and the power thereof, it also decreases the financial assets of individuals and corporations. In other words, this is also another form of wealth redistribution.
     One of the natural attributes of human beings is to desire a leader to which they can serve allegiance. That is the basis on which kings and emperors developed in previous times. It has carried forward in present time to presidents and prime ministers of countries. With this tendency, there are a great number of people in the US, who demonstrate their allegiance to Pres. Obama, no matter what the facts are for any particular item under discussion.
     This leads to the power of the "bully pulpit", which means that Pres. Obama can address the public on television and automatically obtain public support for anything that he wishes to present, simply because he is the President. However, there will always be people with analytical ability, who will disbelieve at least some of what the President is professing. The farther out from realism that the President professes, the larger will be the number of analytical disbelievers. However, there will always remain a very large number of emotional supporters. Rush Limbaugh calls these people "low information voters".
     In addition to the use of the bully pulpit on a non-analytical public, the federal administration also has the opportunity with its tax revenue to BUY positions on anything it wishes. In the case of carbon dioxide and climate change, it does this with the use of billions of dollars in federal grants to university scientists, and scientific organizations to support the program through the use of "research". These grants of federal taxpayer money go to individuals for specific projects, the outcome of which must be to support the theory that atmospheric carbon dioxide must be controlled. University scientists are human beings and susceptible to human fallibilities. They know where their bread is buttered, and they know that in order to obtain continued grants, they must come up with the answers desired by  the Federal Administration. They tend to rationalize this to actually become believers, in spite of any scientific facts that may be discovered or should be considered to the contrary. In other words, the emotional desire for self-preservation clouds their perspective with respect to true scientific analysis.
  This carries further into the area of propaganda. The "bought" scientists and their organizations recognize that to preserve their income with continuing grants, they must contribute to the bully pulpit of the President by use of their own propaganda techniques. Therefore, they scream and holler to discredit any scientists, who are considered disbelievers.
     Your friend then asks the question that if there are disbelievers, why don't we hear from them? The answer is simple. Once again, it's MONEY! Those persons who are on the "payroll" are much more motivated than those persons of simple scientific integrity. People who have the most to lose will holler the loudest.
     It has been said that the disbelievers of anthropogenic climate change are being paid off by coal producers. It is possible that there's some semblance of truth in this claim, but I could find nothing to support it. Conversely, there is considerable information about the billions of dollars of grant subsidies to scientists through various federal agencies.
  With all that said, there are several references involving scientists, who are not convinced that atmospheric carbon dioxide has any bearing on climate change. The first is a Wikipedia list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
There are four groups of scientists as follows:
*       1 Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections (6)
*       2 Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes   (20)
*       3 Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown   (9)
*       4 Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences   (3)
The above scientists are from various universities and geophysics and astrophysics societies.
  Forbes also has an interesting article entitled, "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority of Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis". Climate Depot says, "SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore". http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/
    Global Research says, "Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence". "There is a sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis." http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-of-fear-global-warming-alarmists-intimidate-dissenting-scientists-into-silence.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works says, "Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report)  from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore". "The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2008 and 2009, as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data, and 'inconvenient' developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the 'science is settled' and there is a 'consensus'. On a range of issues, 2008 and 2009 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears.  Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm ; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming;  a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick '; etc.". http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9'FAF4DCDB7
"In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 as the years the 'consensus' collapse.  Russian scientists 'rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming'.  An American Physical Society editor conceded that a 'considerable presence' of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: 'Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate'. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC 'be called to account and cease its deceptive practices', and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is 'settled'.   A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 'showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report'.
  And there are others.
  It is interesting that nobody addresses a simple scientific conjecture. That is, what scientific mechanism can be proposed which could possibly account for only 0.05% carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere affecting climate change?

Climate Change Summary

Open Email to Chairwoman Kay Granger (TX), House Subcommittee State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Congress,
Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
David Vitter, Member Senate environment and Public Works Committee Edward Markey, House Member of Natural Resources Committee

An Associate has sent to me a Climate Change Summary, which I pass along to you for your consideration in combating the Obama Administration's and the UN's efforts to extract money from the US.

 

1.  Climate change is an ongoing process that has been taking place since the beginning of time on Earth, without any input from humans.

2.  Our entire atmosphere can be considered a "greenhouse gas", since without it, the Earth would be uninhabitable, scorching during the day and frigid at night.

3.  Nitrogen  (78%) and oxygen (21%) are the major components of our atmosphere.

4.. Minor components are:

        Argon  0.93%

       Carbon Dioxide  0.04%

       Trace mounts of Ne, He, Kr, Xe, Rn, Co, No, and a few others

       Additionally water vapor can be present at 0.1 to 2.8%.

5.  Thermal conductivity is a term used by scientists to measure the ability of any substance, including gasses, to transfer heat from one place to another.  The higher the value, the more effectively that substance transfers  heat  The thermal  conductivities of nitrogen and oxygen are essentially similar, but in the same order of magnitude, as carbon dioxide and water vapor, which are also essentially similar, but a bit lower.

6. There are no known studies or data to show a cause and effect relationship between carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere and global warming.

7.  There are no known magical properties of carbon dioxide which could be responsible for climate change or global warming.  Given the low concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere (0.04%) such a magical property would be required for that to occur.

 

If one considers all these facts, there can be no excuse other than political or monetary objectives, for all the attention attached to carbon dioxide and climate change or global warming. 

UN Attempt to Destroy the US Economy

Open Email to Chairwoman Kay Granger (TX), House Subcommittee State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs,
 Chairman Edward Markey,  Subcommittee International Development  & Foreign Assistance, Economic  Affairs, International Environmental Protection  and  Peace Corps

Dear Chairwoman Granger  and  Chairman Markey,
        An Associate has been  following the meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Warsaw.
       The stated purpose of the UNFCCC is to organize a "complete transformation of the economic structure of the world".
       A new committee called the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage" was created and work on funding is to begin next year. The Green Climate Fund Board is to begin its initial resource mobilization process as soon as possible with rich countries, including the US, to announce how much they will "contribute" by next December when the UN meets in Lima, Peru. The U.S. agreed to prepare biennial submissions on its updated strategies and approaches for scaling up finance ("its contributions") between 2014 and 2020.
       Rep. Granger and Senator Markey, this UN program is a redistribution of wealth on a worldwide basis by a claimed reason of wealthy industrialized countries having created a climate change scenario which is detrimental to world inhabitants. I remind you that this is a hollow claim. There is no credible scientific evidence that industrialized countries have contributed to deleterious climate change through carbon dioxide emissions or any other action.
       Most US citizens are reasonably satisfied with the present economic position of the US compared to other countries of the world. We do not want government mandates to redistribute wealth and become a third world country ourselves. This is not to say that we should not have compassion on the underprivileged, whether they are members of our own US society or other country inhabitants, but it should not be forced upon us. We have a number of private organizations in the US that do good work for the underprivileged of the world. It is not up to the US government to engage in any practice involving a redistribution of wealth.
       I also wonder whether members of Congress are so weak in their belief of US supremacy and are so disinterested in their jobs that they are willing to pass along their responsibility to the United Nations.
       Let's keep the sovereignty of the US intact. While we have difficult internal problems, we resolve these ourselves, and we don't need a higher power other than God to tell us what we should be doing.

Philippine Hurricane and Global Warming

Most of us are familiar with the recent typhoon in the Philippines with resultant tremendous death and property damage. A typhoon is another name for hurricane, and both are categorized as cyclones. A typhoon/hurricane differs from a tornado only in size. A typhoon/hurricane may cover an area of several thousand square miles, while a tornado is usually limited to an area of about ten square miles. The intensity of the two types of storms is measured by maximum wind speed or minimum internal pressure.
United Nations (UN) head Ban Ki-moon says the Philippine typhoon, named Haiyan, was due to climate change. He was quoted as saying, "We have seen now what has happened in the Philippines. It is an urgent warning. An example of changed weather and how climate change is affecting all of us on Earth."
Recall that the UN position on climate change, previously called global warming, results from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, which is presently at a level of 350 ppm. It is also claimed that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration results from burning carbon containing fuels.
Many have said that Typhoon Haiyan was one of the strongest ever. However, historical records show that Haiyan is the 58th Super Typhoon since 1950 to reach a central pressure of 900 mb or lower. 
There have been 35 cyclones in the last 800 years that have killed more than 10,000 people. Thirty-three occurred with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration below 350 PPM.
Ninety four per cent of the deadliest cyclones occurred with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration below 350 ppm. The worst ones happened during the 1970 global cooling era.
We also have some long-term archaeological data concerning atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperatures during various interglacial periods. An interglacial period is 10,000 to 15,000 years long. According to ice core analysis, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during all four prior interglacial periods of the earth's history never rose above approximately 290 ppm. Today the atmospheric CO2 concentration stands at nearly 390 ppm. The present interglacial temperature is about 2°C colder than the previous interglacial temperature, even though the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration now is about 100 ppm higher. 

New Task Force on Climate Change Protection

    Earlier this month, Pres. Obama established by Executive Order a task force of local, state, and federal officials to consider strategies for protecting the nation from scorching heat, sea level rise, wildfires, droughts, floods, and storms.
    This is good, but we have to be careful of the usual problem that government does things to excess. In this case, the study is said to be related to climate change, which is not a problem to me, because we have had climate change in the past and will have it in the future, similar to changes in weather. We will not be able to control these changes, but we can be prepared for their effects. The simplest example familiar to everyone is the fact that our houses have roofs to protect against occasional rain and snow.
    Of the six items mentioned above, only two need further explanation. The inclusion of "sea level rise" is done with the implication that glaciers will be melting and ocean levels will rise. That's so much baloney. However, we do need to protect against excessive high tides caused by storm surges and tsunamis caused by undersea earthquakes. The reference also to storms should be specified as windstorms, since floods were previously listed.
    Now comes the bad part. As I mentioned previously concerning government excess, we can't even control weather and yet Pres. Obama wants to control climate. He has the EPA proposing to cut carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fire power plants. He presumably thinks, for some unfathomable reason that trace amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have some magical effect on climate.
    The task force will include governors of eight states, 16 local officials and two tribal representatives who are supposed to come up with recommendations in a year to modernize federal, state and local programs to avoid or better protect against climate-related disasters. As long as the task force stays within its bounds to protect against the weather related items mentioned above, we are on safe ground, even though Pres. Obama likes to call them man-made-climate change items.

IPCC Global Warming Fear Mongering

    Global warming fear mongers are heavily at work!
    Yesterday, Tony Barboza of the Los Angeles Times reviewed the latest preliminary report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
    The IPCC says glaciers are shrinking and plants and animals have shifted their ranges in response to rising temperatures. As global warming continues through the 21st century, many species will face greater risk of extinction, marine life will shift toward the poles and seawater will grow more acidic. By 2100, hundreds of millions of people in coastal areas will be flooded or displaced by rising sea levels. The arid subtropics will have less fresh water. The global food supply of wheat, rice, corn and other major crops will drop 2% each decade. Extreme heat waves will be especially deadly in urban areas, associated with severe storms, flooding and drought.
    The IPCC says global surface temperature has risen about 1.5 degrees since 1880, and now predict that the planet will warm between 2.7 degrees and 8.1 degrees. Barboza does not mention whether these are degrees Centigrade or degrees Fahrenheit
    For a little converse data, Roy Spencer and John Christie measure global satellite temperatures monthly using satellite data. They use a base of 1981, 32 years ago. In 1997, 26 years ago, global temperature was 0.67°C above the base. In October of this year, the global temperature was 0.23° C above the base. In fact, the chart shows that there has been no increase in global warming in the last 26 years (since 1997). These are very different numbers from the 2.7° and 8.1°, predicted by the  IPCC for the future.
    More importantly, the IPCC makes its predictions on the basis that carbon dioxide is a super greenhouse gas, which inhibits release of heat from the earth to the stratosphere at night and leads to global warming. The IPCC claims that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased significantly over the past 20 years, which is true. However, there is no indication from the data that there is any connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global warming.
    Is also interesting that all of the proponents of connecting atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to global warming cannot give any reasonable mechanism by which carbon dioxide is said to perform its claimed disastrous effects.

How Can We Control Executive Orders?

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
    Pres. Obama is continuing his program to destroy the American economy and reduce the US to a third world country. His latest program is a resurgence to climate control. His previous efforts have met with no enthusiasm on the part of Congress. So, he is now using the process of executive order.    According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming. The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build "resilience" against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the President's order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger -- and likely at a higher price tag.
    I call this a sneaky process of moving ahead with an undesirable project by looking at a minor favorable aspect. Most everyone believes that we need adequate bridges, and with floods in the news, many, including yours truly, believe in flood control. The catch comes in with the specification of larger and stronger structures. How much larger and stronger? What would be the increased cost? Are they necessary? The obvious answer is that we don't need them. Engineers and architects know what they must do to protect buildings and other structures against the undesirable effects of weather conditions and other calamities. One extreme negative example was in the collapse of the twin towers in New York at the 9/11 terrorist attack. In that case, the towers were improperly designed because of government disallowance to use asbestos to protect the steelwork from fire.
    Other than the recent executive order on structures, Pres. Obama still has a goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 17% by 2020, and the Environmental Protection Agency is working on rules that would impose tougher regulations on coal-burning power plants. The key issue here is that neither the US federal government nor any other individual or agency has ever shown an appropriate cause-and-effect relationship between carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and climate. To proceed with attempts to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and redesign buildings and other structures for more extreme climate based upon an assumption of more extreme weather variation is completely unjustified.
    I'm calling this to the attention of Congress not only from the point of view that there is no justification for action to prepare for climate change, but more importantly that some procedures or methods must be developed by Congress to control ridiculous projects of Presidents.

Comment on Global Warming Hoax

    I previously wrote on the Global Warming Hoax. One of our Political Advisers has added his comment as follows:

    "This is regard to your manuscriptic masterpiece on Global Warming, which is a sadistic form of Terrorism.  It seems that the Liberal Elite need to have some fearful Phantom Force to fight in order to save the minnows, he-goats and reindeer, so nice and the poor polar bears seen floating on ice.  The Elite seem to have a unique insight in regard to this mysterious omen that threatens our very existence according to them!  It has been two or three decades of days ago they were predicting we would soon face the threat of death by freezing and frostbite!  Since the Elite have nothing on their plate but hate, they must have an ample supply of food stamps, welfare, fright and fear to mesmerize the minds of their masses of dumb asses that don’t know squat and can’t tell truth from who knows what!"

    "It is this sub-minus mentality that elected our notorious wandering star who came from afar, Barack Hussein Obama who promised to ‘change’ our country.  It was his great Spiritual Mentor, Rev. Wright who prayed for the damning of America. The infamous Rev must have more clout than doubt with the Great I AM as He is answering his prayer as I write.   It will be remembered as the Obamanation of Desolation and is indeed the ultimate Enema of Evil!"

Cost of Global Warming Hoax

    According to EurActiv.com, all countries of the world collectively spent $359 billion last year in limiting global warming. The article actually said "invested" in limiting global warming. However, I judge the use of the term "invested" as equivalent to what has been previously used in "investing" with Bernie Madoff and his Ponzi scheme. In any case, that comes to about $1 billion per day, which is not small change. A year earlier, the total spent was $364 billion. Are we barely moving in the proper direction?
The World Economic Forum has said that $700 billion per year is needed to tackle climate change, which is twice what was actually spent last year. The International Energy Agency estimates $5 trillion is required by 2020 for clean energy projects alone, if rising temperatures are to be pegged at 2 degrees Celsius. If that was said last year, it would be $5 trillion in 8 years, or $600 billion per year, which is about the same as the amount claimed by the World Economic Forum.
Note that the International Energy Agency expects the global temperature to be 2°C higher in 2020. That is 7 years from now. For the last 7 years there has been no global warming, in spite of the fact that there have been steady increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
It seems to me that doomsday projections from global warming are grossly exaggerated and that the money previously spent to supposedly limit global warming is money down a rat hole. How long will it take for us to learn that we can't predict global temperature seven years into the future when predictions for the last seven years have been shown to be completely unjustified?
Let's quit spending on correcting things we really don't understand. Continue the studies, and if and when we see something that we can really trust as believable, we can then try to alleviate it.

How is Atmospheric CO2 Related to Global Warming

Open Email to Al Gore and Supporters:

Dear Mr. Gore and Supporters,
    The Daily Ticker quotes you as saying, “We’re paying the cost of global warming pollution, chiefly CO2, in lots of ways.”
    I have a simple question, "Why do you believe carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning carbon containing fuels is related to global warming?"

More from the IPCC on Global Warming

Open Email to House Representatives and Senators:

Dear Representatives and Congressman,
    the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released its latest report on climate change. According to Chemical and Engineering News, the latest world report rests on stronger science, researchers say. The summary goes on to say that the world is warming and humans are the dominant cause, confirming earlier assessments. The study group notes that a better fundamental understanding of climate systems has boosted the confidence underlying its predictions and projections. Such improvements arise from greater amounts of data available from continuing climate observations over time, enhanced climate models and increases in computer processing power.
    It should be separately noted that no world temperature increases of any significance have been observed in the last 10 years, in spite of measured increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Since all previous IPCC computer modeling showed significant temperature increases, it is obvious that previous computer modeling was incorrect and misleading. The current claimed improvement in modeling techniques may be at least a recognition that everything previously said was wrong.
    The report finds that the main driver of climate change [global warming] is greenhouse gas emission, principally carbon dioxide. Without checks on greenhouse gas emission, the IPCC claims exorbitantly that global service temperatures will likely rise 2 degrees centigrade by 2050.
    That's only a repeat of their old drum that they keep pounding. Never, for even an instant, do they give an explanation of why carbon dioxide would grossly affect global warming temperatures at the low concentration of 0.05%, which it exists in the atmosphere, compared to other obvious greenhouse gases in high concentration, such as oxygen and nitrogen. Several of us scientists continue to ask the scientific community for laboratory data or reasonable speculation which would indicate that carbon dioxide is a special greenhouse gas. Nothing has been forthcoming for the last two years. The IPCC is dodging that main issue by continuing to predict disaster and generate fear in the collective mind of a gullible public. The IPCC couples this with super sophisticated but mostly irrelevant information involving higher mathematical calculations, recent inclusion of the so-called effects of land-use change, and effects of aerosols.
    I call this to your attention, primarily because you handle the purse strings of the nation, and I would like you to be aware that any dime you spend, in reacting to the carbon dioxide/climate change hoax, will be an extreme disservice to the US public.

Futility of Tracking Carbon Dioxide Emissions

    The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is part of the Department of Energy. It has spent taxpayer money on conducting a survey of carbon dioxide emissions in the US. Cheryl Hogue of Chemical and Engineering News has a two-page article on the details of such omissions.
    This is a ridiculous study with a complete waste of taxpayer money!
    There is absolutely no reason to even consider, no less study, carbon dioxide emissions. It has only been done as part of the Obama Administration program to obtain additional government revenue through the taxation of CO2 emissions, coupled with the unnecessary development of sources of energy not involving the burning of carbon containing fuels. The primary motivation appears to be the taxation aspect, with the ancillary need to supply other forms of energy, such as wind and solar. This also happens to be a concession to socialistic environmental groups, who have been strong contributors to Pres. Obama's reelection.
     On the other hand, how can I be so adamant to say that the study of carbon dioxide emissions is a ridiculous undertaking? The reason is an unsupported claim that carbon dioxide emission from burning carbon fuels is connected with global warming. There has been no scientific data showing that carbon dioxide is anymore resistant to the passage of heat than any of the other more prevalent atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen. In addition, it's very low concentration of only 0.05% in the atmosphere make its effect insignificant.
    The bottom line is that carbon dioxide emissions have no significant effect on global warming, and in fact, recent data shows a considerable decrease in global warming, even though carbon dioxide concentrations have been increasing.
    The sooner we get over this hoax of relating carbon dioxide emissions to some sort of disastrous consequences in the environment, the sooner we will be able to stop frittering away money on this ridiculous project of controlling CO2 emissions.

Global Warming

    One of our Political Associates sent the following message to Fox and Friends at Fox News:
    "Congratulations to Maria Molina and Fox and Friends for briefly describing the composition of our atmosphere one day last week.  Unfortunately, it  missed a golden opportunity to stress the fact that carbon dioxide is ONLY about 0.04% of our atmosphere, that the Earth would be uninhabitable because of extremes in temperature without 'greenhouse gasses', which also include oxygen, nitrogen and water vapor, that carbon dioxide is necessary for plant growth and that carbon dioxide has no known magical properties to differentiate it from oxygen and nitrogen as a contributing factor to any global warming that might occur." 

    "Any future programs you air regarding this subject might ask the viewing audience for ANY data establishing  a cause and effect relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global warming.  I do not know of any such data and doubt that it exists".

The Carbon Dioxide/Climate Change Hoax

    A man and wife, who are part of our Political Advisor Group and also have a scientific background, have written an interesting short article. It relates to public perception of global warming and a flat Earth. This is what they have to say:
    "Hundreds of years ago most people, with no factual information to the contrary, believed the Earth was flat.  They were uninformed, superstitious and gullible.  Today, most people, even with some factual evidence to the contrary (composition of the atmosphere and the thermal conductivities of the gasses comprising it), believe that man-generated carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming and climate change.  Since there are NO cause and effect studies to link the two, it is evident that most people are still uninformed, superstitious and gullible.  What is worse, is that this hoax is being  abetted by ignorant and/or unscrupulous politicians to further their political aims."
    I am also posting this on my blog at: http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com .

Global Warming and Chicken Little

    The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a new report on climate change on 9/28. The major news media immediately picked up segments of the report and elaborated them to ridiculous claims. CBS claimed that temperatures would rise more than 200°. ABC predicted many more super storms, like Sandy. NBC predicted the same.
    The nature of man is to fear the unknown. Many children are afraid of the dark, because they can't see what's out there. Rational persons in Massachusetts believed in witches, because of suspected magical powers.
    However, the classic story about fear mongering is the story of Chicken Little. It Is a fable with a couple of morals.
    There are many references to Chicken Little on the Internet, but Wikipedia says Henny Penny, also known as Chicken Licken or Chicken Little is a folk tale with a moral in the form of a cumulative tale about a chicken who believes the world is coming to an end. The phrase "The sky is falling!" features prominently in the story, and has passed into the English language as a common idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent. Versions of the story go back more than 25 centuries.
      A chick believes the sky is falling when an acorn falls on its head. The chick decides to tell the King and on its journey meets other animals (mostly other fowl) which join it in the quest. After this point, there are many endings. In the most familiar, a fox invites them to its lair and there eats them all. Alternatively, the last one, usually Cocky Lockey, survives long enough to warn the chick, who escapes. In others all are rescued and finally speak to the King. In most retellings, the animals have rhyming names, commonly Chicken Licken or Chicken Little, Henny Penny or Hen-Len, Cocky Locky, Ducky Lucky or Ducky Daddles, Drakey Lakey, Goosey Loosey or Goosey Poosey, Gander Lander, Turkey Lurkey and Foxy Loxy or Foxy Woxy.
        The moral to be drawn changes, depending on the version. Where there is a 'happy ending', the moral is not to be a 'Chicken' but to have courage. In other versions where the birds are eaten by the fox, the fable is interpreted as a warning not to believe everything you are told.

Deception on Global Warming

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz:

Dear Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
    I address this to you, so that you will have an appreciation of global warming issues as the Obama Administration requests funding through taxation to combat global warming, which most of us already know is a hoax..
    News Busters reports that the broadcast networks have completely ignored the “lull” in warming in recent years, in all 92 stories about climate change they reported in 2013. Instead, they report worries raging infernos, surging seas, and howling winds.
        Reason for this deception: The Obama Administration wants global warming, so that it can tax carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of carbon containing fuels. The broadcast networks support the Obama Administration on anything, whether it is right or wrong.

More on the Global Warming Hoax

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz:

Dear Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
    I have previously explained why I send these notices to you. It's a matter of how you spend taxpayer money.    The British newspaper Telegraph has an additional article on the present status of global warming. Here are some excerpts:   
    A cold Arctic summer has led to a 60% record increase in the North Polar ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.
    The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.
    Some scientists now claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.
    The ice cap fact contradicts computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. Several years ago the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice free by 2013.
    The original predictions led to billions being invested [squandered] on green measures to combat the effects of climate change.

    The key point is that the large increase in the size of the North polar ice cap has occurred in spite of the fact that carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration, from the burning of carbon fuels, has increased. This leads to the obvious conclusion that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has no significant effect on global warming compared to other natural conditions.
    Obviously, any government efforts to control carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of carbon containing fuels is a wasteful squandering of taxpayer funds.   

More on Global Warming Hoax

Open Email to House Representatives and Senators:

Dear House Representatives and Senators,
    I address this to you because you will undoubtedly be involved in financing any projects involving global warming. For example, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a $19 billion program to fortify New York City against any negative effects of global warming. You can be sure that Mayor Bloomberg will be coming to you for taxpayer money. You need to be kept up-to-date to avoid more squandering of taxpayer funds than you have tended to do in the past.
     James Delingpoile of the British newspaper Telegraph has a very informative article bringing us to date on the global warming hoax. Since it is a rather long article, I will only include excerpts here.
    Delingpole reports that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) will have a new report out on Friday, but there has been leakage of information. The IPPC has given a preannouncement that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change. and that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”.
    Delingpole says that as an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory [World War II]. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost.
    Computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering with predictions of runaway global warming, have been shown to be bunk. This is not surprising to a few distinguished scientists, whose voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.
    This is why the latest IPPC Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources.

    Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option – a high-risk strategy. Gone are the days when all anybody read of its Assessment Reports were the sexed-up “Summary for Policymakers”. Today, thanks to the internet, sceptical inquirers such as Donna Laframboise (who revealed that some 40 per cent of the IPCC’s papers came not from peer-reviewed journals but from Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund propaganda) will be going through every chapter with a fine toothcomb.

    Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”. Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: 'We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/

    It will be interesting to see how Pres. Obama handles this new information, since he has made climate change one of the more important considerations of his administration.

More on Climate Change

The British newspaper Express has an article on climate change. It refers to a report from the UK Energy Research Centre, which shows the number of those who resolutely do not believe in climate change has more than quadrupled since 2005. The report comes as climate change scientists working on a landmark UN report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.
The question of whether climate change is real or unreal is deceptive in the context of the real question, which is whether the activities of mankind are increasing global temperatures.
As a straight factual question of whether the climate of the earth is variable, the answer is obviously "yes". We have good historical records to show that Earth's temperature has varied from year to year, sometimes to the extent that it has affected life conditions of living species.
Another misunderstanding involves the term "greenhouse gases". Those who propose that greenhouse gases generated by mankind are responsible for climate change ignore the fact that at a more basic level, greenhouse gases are good. Without an atmosphere composed of greenhouse gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen, daytime/nighttime variations in temperature would be so great as to not allow Earth habitation.
The climate change fear mongers claim that increases in carbon dioxide concentration through mankind's burning of fossil fuels radically increases earth temperature, because it is a greenhouse gas. While carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it is not significantly different from nitrogen and oxygen, it now exists in the atmosphere at a concentration of 0.05%. At such a low concentration, it has an insignificant effect on climate compared to the major constituents of the atmosphere. If the concentration were even doubled to 0.1%, its effect would still be insignificant.
Advocates of the theory that carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere cause an increase in global temperatures must be called to task. To merely note an increase in global temperatures or an increase in violent storms, while simultaneously noting an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is irrelevant. Using that sort of argument, one could say that global temperature increase is caused by an increase in the number of home runs accomplished each year in professional baseball. An obviously ridiculous assertion!
The only way that atmospheric carbon dioxide could affect Earth temperature is for it to have extremely unusual heat insulation properties, such that during nighttime, heat cannot escape from the Earth to interstellar space. If this is actually the case, I would like to be shown laboratory data demonstrating such unusual property of carbon dioxide.

Greenhouse Gases Are Good

Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,   
    Thank you for your form letter of 9/6/13 on climate change.
    Unfortunately, we seem to be in a circle. I replied to that same letter on 6/27/13. If you want to see what I said at that time, refer to my blog at http://arthur-climatechange.blogspot.com.
    However, readdressing the matter from the context of your form letter, I have similar comments formulated with somewhat different wording.
    With all due respect, I remind you that responding to an adversary's fallacious statements only leads to futile discussion. This is particularly applicable with respect to claims involving climate change and your response thereto.
    First of all, the term "greenhouse gas" has incorrectly been given a negative connotation. All atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc. are greenhouse gases. The term means that the presence of those gases in the atmosphere inhibits the loss of heat from the earth during nighttime hours. In other words, atmospheric gases stabilize surface temperatures. If it were not for our present atmosphere, the temperature variations on earth between night and day would be so extreme as to not allow the existence of human life, even if some sort of breathable oxygen was obtained. Simply stated, greenhouse gases are good.
    The question then develops as to whether too much of a good thing can be bad. The obvious answer is yes. If the heat insulative properties of atmospheric gases were higher than they presently are, surface temperatures on earth could be so high as to not allow the existence of human life. But that is not possible, because the insulative properties of the various atmospheric gases are what they are and will not change. This is a standard property of matter, such as the freezing and boiling points of water.
    The only possible changes are that there could be an increase or decrease in the quantities of these atmospheric (greenhouse) gases. However, that is not likely based upon historical and archaeological records of the earth and a recognition of the fact that atmospheric gases are held in place by a balance of gravitational and centrifugal forces, which is another basic property of matter.
    The mass of the atmosphere is 5×10^ 18 kg. That's 5 followed by 18 zeros. If you like tons, it's 2.5 followed by 15 zeros tons. That's a big number but carbon dioxide is only 0.04% of that. The heat resistivity (insulating properties) of the individual various atmospheric gases is roughly the same. Therefore the heat resistivity contribution of carbon dioxide is insignificant compared to the other atmospheric gases, primarily because it is present in such a small quantity.
    Bottom line. I suggest you do not accept assertions that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a dangerous gas and any subsequent additions through fossil fuel burning are deleterious.

Climate Change

Open email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    Thank you for your form letter on climate change.
    You said that many proposed legislative and regulatory remedies for climate change are draconian and would undermine job creation, raise electric rates and gasoline prices, and make American manufacturing less competitive.  Ironically, they do little to reduce global production of greenhouse gases.   I am committed to responsible environmental stewardship, but I cannot support measures that undermine our individual and economic freedoms by placing more control of our economy in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
    I respectfully suggest that you are on the right track but are using some incorrect facts.

    First, greenhouse gases are not necessarily destructive. In fact, we owe most of our favorable world climatic conditions to the presence of greenhouse gases. Without them, life would be unsustainable on earth.
    All of the individual gases in the atmosphere show a greenhouse effect. None of them is more or less efficient than another as a heat reflector. Therefore, the concentration of any specific gas in the total atmosphere is the determining factor for its actual greenhouse effect. The job is being done by a combination of nitrogen and oxygen, which constitute most of the atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide's contribution is negligible, because of its low concentration (presence) at 0.04%.

Interior Dept. Employees Must Support Administration Global Warming Theory

Open email to Chairman Lamar Smith (TX)  Science, Space, and Technology Committee

Dear Rep. Smith,
    Pres. Obama has a stated policy to reduce the use of carbon containing fuels to foster development of wind and solar energy sources. Part of his program is to claim that carbon dioxide, which is emitted in burning carbon containing fuels, leads to global warming. There is no more scientific proof of the relationship between carbon dioxide and global warming than there is to baseball scores controlling the rising of the moon.
    The following is a quotation from the Washington Examiner:
    "Buried in a lengthy Washington Post article about President Obama’s environmental policy is an illuminating anecdote about just how debatable the administration views climate change — namely, not at all:
    In an agency-wide address to employees Aug. 1, (Interior Secretary Sally) Jewell took the unusual step of suggesting that no one working for her should challenge the idea that human activity is driving recent warming. “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior,” she said.
    The address does not appear to be posted on the department’s website, so the Washington Examiner can only go by the Post’s presumably third-hand version. Still, it raises some interesting questions: What would happen to somebody at the department who raised some skepticism regarding Jewell’s take on climate change? Would they be in danger of losing their job?
    For example, what if that person posted a news article pointing out that the global temperatures have been flat for the last two decades?
    Presumably somebody at the Interior Department knows the answers to these questions. Whether they’re willing to talk openly about them is another question."

Refrigerants in the Atmosphere

Open Email to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy:

Dear Administrator McCarthy,
    In the June 17 issue of C&E News, Cheryl Hogue reports that Pres. Barack Obama and Chinese Pres. Xi Jinping have agreed to cooperatively phase down production and use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC's). HFC's are used as refrigerants in air conditioning equipment. There is no indication of what would be used as a replacement, if HFC's were eliminated.

    It is also reported that HFC's have been adjudged to do no harm to stratospheric ozone. Ozone is said to be needed in the upper atmosphere in order to protect citizens from overexposure to ultraviolet at the surface. I will tentatively accept that conclusion.

    However, the main reason for the presidential agreement seems to be a matter of climate change. It is said that HFCs have a global warming potential 1300 times greater than that of CO2. I find that a very questionable assertion, since absorption of such heat by any molecule would be enough to break the bonds of atomic attraction. However, even if we take that at face value, we have to consider the extremely low concentration of such material in the atmosphere. Climate will be controlled by the majority of gases in the atmosphere, which includes nitrogen and oxygen. HFC's will have no significant effect on climate, because of their extremely low concentration.

Refrigerant Gases

Open email to Environmental Protection Agency Director Gina McCarthy:

Dear Director McCarthy,
    For those other persons who may also be reading this email, I explain that refrigerant gases are those gases which are used in mechanical heating and cooling devices, such as air conditioners, refrigerators, freezers, and heat pumps. While some naturally occurring gases, such as ammonia, can be used for this purpose, chemical companies have developed synthetic materials which are more efficient. The synthetic materials are usually methane modified with chlorine or fluorine.
    An article in the January 1 issue of Chemical & Engineering News is concerned with the the so-called threat of the synthetic refrigerant gases to the environment.
    In the manufacture of desired HFC-22, byproduct HFC-23 is also formed. Through the system of international "carbon credits", the manufacturers were paid to destroy the byproduct HFC-23, rather than release it into the environment. That profitable trading system involving destruction of HFC-23 has now ended, and it is supposed that manufacturers in China and India will now release HFC-23 to the atmosphere, rather than continue to destroy it.
    The concern is that HFC-23 is estimated to be a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
    As you know, being part of the Obama Administration,, the party line is to relate greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, to global warming. There is no satisfactory mechanism suggested by which there is a connection between these two, but that seems to be irrelevant with respect to the Administration's desire.
    Since HFC-23 is considered a powerful greenhouse gas, which will also lead to global warming, the fear mongers are wringing their hands with respect to this new development. However, since there is no clear indication that global warming is related to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, it appears to me that we should not be concerned about any increase in atmospheric concentration of HFC-23, with respect to global warming.
    There is another factor that bears some consideration. That is, the effect of synthetic gases in the atmosphere with respect to ultraviolet density at the Earth's surface. The upper atmosphere contains a high concentration of ozone. Its purpose appears to be to react with incoming ultraviolet light (UV) from the sun to reduce the concentration of UV reaching the Earth's surface. Excessive concentrations of UV at the Earth surface are a physical danger to humans.
    HFC-22 has been found to be an ozone depletor, which means that by its presence in the atmosphere, less ozone will be available in the upper atmosphere, and more dangerous UV will arrive at the year's surface. While I am not inclined to believe that there is any effect of carbon dioxide relating to global warming, I tend to believe that the ozone/UV problem is real.
    Fortunately, HFC-23 is considered NOT to be an ozone depletor.
    The net result is that I anticipate no adverse effects on global warming nor increase in UV concentration at the Earth's surface by the fact that synthetic refrigerant manufacturers will no longer be destroying HFC-23 and will release it to the atmosphere. However, I do find it objectionable from the general point of view that we don't know what other damage HFC-23 will do to the environment. We do know that is a very stable compound and will tend to accumulate in the atmosphere. The good news is that according to the C&E News article, manufacture of HFC-22 (and HFC-23 as byproduct) is being phased out in developed countries starting this year.

Sincerely,
Arthur C Sucsy PhD

Global Warming

 

Submitted by a Political Associate:  The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable. * * * * * * * * * I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 90 years ago. **************

More Negatives on Global Warming

  Excerpts from The Global Warming Policy Foundation ( http://www.thegwpf.org/category/science-news/ ):

  Vladimir Kotlyakov, from the Russian Academy of Sciences, said: ‘There are no grounds to claim that global warming will continue till the end of this century." A period of low solar activity is predicted between 2030 and 2040, and the earth’s average temperature is expected to fall by several degrees.
The area of Antarctica sea ice is now the second largest in 34 years.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment report said in 2007 that for the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected. However, since 1998 there has been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature.
There is compelling evidence that, across the disciplines, peer review often fails to root out science fraud.
The UK’s “irrational” use of biofuels will cost motorists around £460 million over the next 12 months, and the growing reliance on sustainable liquid fuels will also increase food prices