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.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, December 16, 2013
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."
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."
Thursday, December 12, 2013
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?
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?
Sunday, December 8, 2013
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.
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.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
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.
Friday, December 6, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
