Open Email to:
Rep. Fred Upton, Chairman House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Sen. Ron Wyden, Chairman Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Dear Rep. Upton and Sen. Wyden,
Der Spiegel is a German weekly news magazine published in Hamburg. It is one of Europe's largest publications of its kind, with a weekly circulation of more than one million. The International Edition recently had an article by Gregor Schmitz entitled, "Green Fade-Out: Europe to Ditch Climate Protection Goals". http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html.
As one reads the article, it is apparent that the headline is a slight exaggeration. More correctly, there is consternation in the European Community on whether to continue to concentrate on renewable energy, such as wind, solar, and nuclear, as opposed to the traditional burning of carbon fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.
Up to now, the European Union and its member countries have had a one-sided approach toward energy, which was concentration on renewables to the detriment of carbon containing fuels. This has also served as a model for the US government's position.
But the European position is changing. They are starting to concentrate on money, with more accent on carbon containing fuels which are cheaper sources of energy than renewables. European officials have apparently not given up embracing the unconfirmed theory that carbon dioxide from carbon containing fuels is responsible for global warming, but the present accent seems to be on cost savings.
One of the first moves toward increasing energy production from carbon containing fuels is likely to be consideration of fracking to enhance production of natural gas and oil. Natural gas and oil have been up to now in minor to nonexistent supply from traditional production methods. The new franking technology changes that picture significantly, providing it can be used in spite of continuing opposition from communistic environmental groups.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Baby It's Cold outside
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 brothers; Paul and Bob. Paul is a strong believer in anthropogenic global warming.
For others who may be reading this essay, "anthropogenic" is a term used by so-called "scientists" promoting a government theory. It actually means "man-made". Rather than use the simple, understandable form, the "scientists" attempt to intimidate the public to their side of a questionable belief. Global warming advocates also believe that of the various activities of man, the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from the burning of carbon containing fuels, is the primary reason for global warming.
Bob, who is a disbeliever in the presently constituted theory of man-made global warming, has written to his brother Paul, who is a believer in that theory. This is what Bob has said to Paul in part:
"Paul: Every time you hear the knowing democrats talk about global warming they talk about carbon and CO2 as the culprit. The next thing out of their mouth is "let's tax those using energy" unless they can not afford it and then "lets tax the rich and give it to the poor individuals". If you can show me any mathematical proof that CO2 is responsible for global warming I will concede that we are all dumb ass Republicans. I have followed this with some intensity and believe you will not prevail in the argument.
That being said, the climate is changing. I believe that the shear number of people on the planet is a problem. Climate change is not a point source problem, it is very complex. We will only mitigate it by reducing the quality of life of the general population or a reduction of the population, or both. Taxation is not the answer. Who will the knowing Democrats eliminate first? If it is the Republicans it would be convenient as they could re-distribute their assets without dissent.
I do find it comical that the individuals that went to Antarctica to prove their point were froze out by the cold weather that does not exist. In these days and times with a 17+ T deficit I must find humor where I can. You have said in the past that Bush was irresponsible because of his deficit spending. I do not hear you saying it now about the "great leader" in Washington. It is probably all Bush's fault anyway."
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 brothers; Paul and Bob. Paul is a strong believer in anthropogenic global warming.
For others who may be reading this essay, "anthropogenic" is a term used by so-called "scientists" promoting a government theory. It actually means "man-made". Rather than use the simple, understandable form, the "scientists" attempt to intimidate the public to their side of a questionable belief. Global warming advocates also believe that of the various activities of man, the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from the burning of carbon containing fuels, is the primary reason for global warming.
Bob, who is a disbeliever in the presently constituted theory of man-made global warming, has written to his brother Paul, who is a believer in that theory. This is what Bob has said to Paul in part:
"Paul: Every time you hear the knowing democrats talk about global warming they talk about carbon and CO2 as the culprit. The next thing out of their mouth is "let's tax those using energy" unless they can not afford it and then "lets tax the rich and give it to the poor individuals". If you can show me any mathematical proof that CO2 is responsible for global warming I will concede that we are all dumb ass Republicans. I have followed this with some intensity and believe you will not prevail in the argument.
That being said, the climate is changing. I believe that the shear number of people on the planet is a problem. Climate change is not a point source problem, it is very complex. We will only mitigate it by reducing the quality of life of the general population or a reduction of the population, or both. Taxation is not the answer. Who will the knowing Democrats eliminate first? If it is the Republicans it would be convenient as they could re-distribute their assets without dissent.
I do find it comical that the individuals that went to Antarctica to prove their point were froze out by the cold weather that does not exist. In these days and times with a 17+ T deficit I must find humor where I can. You have said in the past that Bush was irresponsible because of his deficit spending. I do not hear you saying it now about the "great leader" in Washington. It is probably all Bush's fault anyway."
Thursday, January 16, 2014
No Catastrophe in 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,
CBS Boston reports on the proposed Massachusetts plan to minimize the supposed ravages of climate change (global warming).
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and others painted a dire picture of what global warming might do to its citizens. He has developed a plan to use $40 million to help cities and towns in Massachusetts shore up the power supply and $10 million to protect the coast from rising sea levels.
,MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, who is a leading international expert on climate change, was interviewed by WBZ-TV. Lindzen endorses sensible preparedness and environmental protection, but sees what he terms “catastrophism” in the climate change horror stories.
He said, “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see eyes bulge”
“Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm, back off from catastrophism,” Lindzen said. “It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe.”
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,
CBS Boston reports on the proposed Massachusetts plan to minimize the supposed ravages of climate change (global warming).
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and others painted a dire picture of what global warming might do to its citizens. He has developed a plan to use $40 million to help cities and towns in Massachusetts shore up the power supply and $10 million to protect the coast from rising sea levels.
,MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, who is a leading international expert on climate change, was interviewed by WBZ-TV. Lindzen endorses sensible preparedness and environmental protection, but sees what he terms “catastrophism” in the climate change horror stories.
He said, “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see eyes bulge”
“Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm, back off from catastrophism,” Lindzen said. “It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe.”
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Global Warming
Open Email to Professor Richard Lindzen, Sloan Prof. of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
Dear Prof. Lindzen,
I have read about your position on global warming as covered by reporter Ethan Epstein in the magazine Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html).
Congratulations for bringing some lucidity into this continuing controversy concerning man-made global warming and particularly the dangers thereof.
Quoting from the Epstein article, you said, "The question at issue is how sensitive the planet is to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (this is called climate sensitivity), and how much the planet will heat up as a result of our pumping into the sky ever more CO2, which remains in the atmosphere for upwards of 1,000 years. (Carbon dioxide, it may be needless to point out, is not a poison. On the contrary, it is necessary for plant life.)". May I say your consideration of "Climate Sensitivity" strikes to the heart of the controversy.
You also said, " We all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All other things kept equal, [there has been] some warming. As a result, there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role. And in many ways, those have never been the questions. The questions have always been, as they ought to be in science, how much?”. Here again, may I humbly say that you are right on.
You additionally said, " Moreover, over the past 15 years, as man has emitted record levels of carbon dioxide year after year, the warming trend of previous decades has stopped". You say this is all consistent with what you hold responsible for climate change: a small bit of man-made impact and a whole lot of natural variability. Again, right on!
While I wholeheartedly agree with your observations and conclusions and particularly the quantification aspect, I believe we need to go on to develop some theory with respect to the causes of the observable facts. I believe you touched on this when you said, "The burning of oil, gas, and especially coal pumps carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere, where they allow the sun’s heat to penetrate to the Earth’s surface but impede its escape, thus causing the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface to warm".
I believe one could say that the sun's radiation passes through the atmosphere to the Earth's surface unimpeded, and where it strikes solid surfaces is converted to heat. Subsequently, that heat is impeded from escape from the Earth's surface to the stratosphere by the presence of greenhouse gases. In effect that means a greenhouse gas is an insulator to the passage of heat. NASA has previously stated that the greenhouse gases of the earth are responsible for temperature stabilization between night and day, so as to allow life to exist on earth. The implication here is that the major components of the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, are also greenhouse gases.
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.
I believe the previous paragraph is a possible explanation for why any global warming from man's activity is insignificant, as you so eloquently stated in the Epstein article. In the true scientific method of a theory postulation, with other scientists attacking the theory, I would appreciate any negative comments as well as positive comments.
Respectfully,
Dr. Arthur Sucsy
4203 96th St.
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
Dear Prof. Lindzen,
I have read about your position on global warming as covered by reporter Ethan Epstein in the magazine Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html).
Congratulations for bringing some lucidity into this continuing controversy concerning man-made global warming and particularly the dangers thereof.
Quoting from the Epstein article, you said, "The question at issue is how sensitive the planet is to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (this is called climate sensitivity), and how much the planet will heat up as a result of our pumping into the sky ever more CO2, which remains in the atmosphere for upwards of 1,000 years. (Carbon dioxide, it may be needless to point out, is not a poison. On the contrary, it is necessary for plant life.)". May I say your consideration of "Climate Sensitivity" strikes to the heart of the controversy.
You also said, " We all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All other things kept equal, [there has been] some warming. As a result, there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role. And in many ways, those have never been the questions. The questions have always been, as they ought to be in science, how much?”. Here again, may I humbly say that you are right on.
You additionally said, " Moreover, over the past 15 years, as man has emitted record levels of carbon dioxide year after year, the warming trend of previous decades has stopped". You say this is all consistent with what you hold responsible for climate change: a small bit of man-made impact and a whole lot of natural variability. Again, right on!
While I wholeheartedly agree with your observations and conclusions and particularly the quantification aspect, I believe we need to go on to develop some theory with respect to the causes of the observable facts. I believe you touched on this when you said, "The burning of oil, gas, and especially coal pumps carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere, where they allow the sun’s heat to penetrate to the Earth’s surface but impede its escape, thus causing the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface to warm".
I believe one could say that the sun's radiation passes through the atmosphere to the Earth's surface unimpeded, and where it strikes solid surfaces is converted to heat. Subsequently, that heat is impeded from escape from the Earth's surface to the stratosphere by the presence of greenhouse gases. In effect that means a greenhouse gas is an insulator to the passage of heat. NASA has previously stated that the greenhouse gases of the earth are responsible for temperature stabilization between night and day, so as to allow life to exist on earth. The implication here is that the major components of the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, are also greenhouse gases.
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.
I believe the previous paragraph is a possible explanation for why any global warming from man's activity is insignificant, as you so eloquently stated in the Epstein article. In the true scientific method of a theory postulation, with other scientists attacking the theory, I would appreciate any negative comments as well as positive comments.
Respectfully,
Dr. Arthur Sucsy
4203 96th St.
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
Friday, January 3, 2014
The Antarctica Global Warming Mission
Most everybody is familiar with the Russian ship being frozen in the ice in Antarctica. However, few people know that the reason it is there is because the passengers are a group of global warming "scientists", with a mission of proving the existence of, up to now, theoretical global warming. Global warming advocates also support the associated theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming.
A Political Advisor has suggested that if the members of the mission group will breathe on the ice locking in the ship, the CO2 in their breath will melt the ice and free the ship.
A Political Advisor has suggested that if the members of the mission group will breathe on the ice locking in the ship, the CO2 in their breath will melt the ice and free the ship.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Horse Laugh for Global Warming Studies
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,
The TV news has much reported the situation of a Russian ship being frozen in the ice at the South Pole, with both Chinese and Australian icebreakers thwarted in their attempts to release it.
News Busters reports that the Russian ship, Akademic Shokalskiy, was stranded in the ice while on a climate change research expedition, yet nearly 98 percent of network news reports about the stranded researchers failed to mention their mission at all. Forty out of 41 stories (97.5 percent) on the network morning and evening news shows since Dec. 25 failed to mention climate change had anything to do with the expedition.
I guess it would look a little stupid to admit that a research mission intended to prove the existence of global warming got frozen in the ice.
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,
The TV news has much reported the situation of a Russian ship being frozen in the ice at the South Pole, with both Chinese and Australian icebreakers thwarted in their attempts to release it.
News Busters reports that the Russian ship, Akademic Shokalskiy, was stranded in the ice while on a climate change research expedition, yet nearly 98 percent of network news reports about the stranded researchers failed to mention their mission at all. Forty out of 41 stories (97.5 percent) on the network morning and evening news shows since Dec. 25 failed to mention climate change had anything to do with the expedition.
I guess it would look a little stupid to admit that a research mission intended to prove the existence of global warming got frozen in the ice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
