Saturday, September 28, 2013

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.   

Thursday, September 26, 2013

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”.

    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.

Monday, September 23, 2013

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.

Monday, September 9, 2013

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.