Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
CNN Politics reports you as questioning whether global warming is real, arguing that the "data are not supporting what the advocates are arguing." " [In] The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that – that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened."
May I respectfully suggest that you have been sucked into an irrelevant argument. Global warming and global cooling have existed in the past and will continue in the future. That is not the argument. The argument is basically whether any man-made activity has a significant effect on climate change (global warming and global cooling).
The answer is that it does not. If you read my various writings on the subject, you will understand why.
The main point is that I encourage you to stay away from spurious arguments, supposedly related to the subject.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Supreme Court Justices on EPA's CO2 Control
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,
USA Today reports that last Monday the Supreme Court appeared headed toward restricting the federal government's authority to require permits for major emitters of greenhouse gases. The article is by Richard Wolf. What it means is that the Supreme Court justices are skeptical about EPA's plan to restrict emission of carbon dioxide from electricity generating plants.
The article also has a picture of three smokestacks, two of which are belching forth black smoke. I must remind you that this is another attempt to deceive, in that carbon dioxide is actually a colorless gas. Black smoke is caused by its content of soot particles. Black smoke has been controlled for years and has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions.
However, the main point of the article is the skepticism of the Supreme Court justices concerning the EPA, which is absolutely justified. Unfortunately, while the Supreme Court Court Justices are coming up with the right answers, they are doing so from an incorrect perspective. They apparently do not understand the science involved in climate. I cannot fault them for this deficiency, because they have bombarded with false information from pseudoscientists.
I am now again trying to correct this misunderstanding, which is also prevalent in society.
Any planetary body, such as Earth, which has an atmosphere, owes its moderate temperature extremes to the presence of that atmosphere. The gases in Earth's atmosphere, such as nitrogen, oxygen and miscellaneous gases are greenhouse gases. They moderate the temperature differences between night and day, with the result that Earth has a habitable environment for humans. Therefore, greenhouse gases are good; not bad, as continually touted by pseudoscientists. Without those greenhouse gases, we would be boiling during the day and freezing during the night..
There is also the matter of quantity or concentration. An example is the effect of one penny on the $17 trillion debt. An effect? Yes, but insignificant.
Now jump to the Earth's atmosphere. The major gases of the atmosphere, which constitute the greenhouse gases are 78% nitrogen, and 21% oxygen. Because of these high concentrations, they are essentially responsible for all Earth's greenhouse effects. Of the 1% miscellaneous gases in the atmosphere, only 0.05% is carbon dioxide. Like the penny in the $17 trillion debt analogy, 0.05% is so small as to be insignificant. Does it have an effect? Yes, but an insignificant effect. That being the case, why would anybody in their right mind want to spend billions and trillions of dollars in controlling it?
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,
USA Today reports that last Monday the Supreme Court appeared headed toward restricting the federal government's authority to require permits for major emitters of greenhouse gases. The article is by Richard Wolf. What it means is that the Supreme Court justices are skeptical about EPA's plan to restrict emission of carbon dioxide from electricity generating plants.
The article also has a picture of three smokestacks, two of which are belching forth black smoke. I must remind you that this is another attempt to deceive, in that carbon dioxide is actually a colorless gas. Black smoke is caused by its content of soot particles. Black smoke has been controlled for years and has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions.
However, the main point of the article is the skepticism of the Supreme Court justices concerning the EPA, which is absolutely justified. Unfortunately, while the Supreme Court Court Justices are coming up with the right answers, they are doing so from an incorrect perspective. They apparently do not understand the science involved in climate. I cannot fault them for this deficiency, because they have bombarded with false information from pseudoscientists.
I am now again trying to correct this misunderstanding, which is also prevalent in society.
Any planetary body, such as Earth, which has an atmosphere, owes its moderate temperature extremes to the presence of that atmosphere. The gases in Earth's atmosphere, such as nitrogen, oxygen and miscellaneous gases are greenhouse gases. They moderate the temperature differences between night and day, with the result that Earth has a habitable environment for humans. Therefore, greenhouse gases are good; not bad, as continually touted by pseudoscientists. Without those greenhouse gases, we would be boiling during the day and freezing during the night..
There is also the matter of quantity or concentration. An example is the effect of one penny on the $17 trillion debt. An effect? Yes, but insignificant.
Now jump to the Earth's atmosphere. The major gases of the atmosphere, which constitute the greenhouse gases are 78% nitrogen, and 21% oxygen. Because of these high concentrations, they are essentially responsible for all Earth's greenhouse effects. Of the 1% miscellaneous gases in the atmosphere, only 0.05% is carbon dioxide. Like the penny in the $17 trillion debt analogy, 0.05% is so small as to be insignificant. Does it have an effect? Yes, but an insignificant effect. That being the case, why would anybody in their right mind want to spend billions and trillions of dollars in controlling it?
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Pseudo--scientists and Man-made Global Warming
Dear Readers,
This is a very long essay, but I think it is extremely important in the context of man-made global warming and our societal beliefs in general. I encourage you to at least scan the quotations of Dr. Schaffersman.
I had been reading about Dr. Walter McCrone's study on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. Dr. McCrone was an expert chemical microscopist. The Shroud of Turin is said to be the burial cloth of Christ.
With clear scientific data, Dr. McCrone proved that the Shroud of Turin is a fake and that the cloth and its image were prepared at least 1300 years after the death of Christ. However, a multitude of people had such a strong emotional attachment to the Shroud as the original burial cloth, that they were unable to accept the scientific proof.
Dr. McCrone made strong attempts to carry his scientific arguments to the nonbelievers, but ultimately failed. In one of his efforts to gain support for his scientific findings, he contacted Dr. Steven Schaffersman, a micropaleontologist from the Department of geology, Miami University. The basic question was whether a person named Max Frei had unwittingly or deceptively presented false information concerning pollen granules on the Shroud. However, Dr. Schaffersman also deviated somewhat to discuss pseudoscience, which is our main interest here.
Various pertinent quotations from Dr. Schaffersman's letter to McCrone are as follows:
"Since the case is an excellent example of both pseudoscience and of the typical response of scientists and intelligent lay persons to pseudoscientific claims, I shall examine the problem in detail". He then mentions how a third person, named Kubik, was willing to accept the Frei data. Schaffersman then said, "When presented with "scientific data", this would be the common response of most scientists or informed persons and for good reason: Through history, scientists have acquired a well-deserved reputation for high integrity in the gathering and presentation of basic data; the scientific method requires at least this. In my [previous] presentation about the nature of pseudoscience, I apparently did not emphasize the fact that pseudoscientists attempt to gain credibility for themselves and acceptance of their particular claims by using their affected position as scientists, since the public, voters, and consumers all [have] been conditioned by decades of scientific success to respect and believe scientists (this explains why pseudoscience is markedly a 20th-century phenomenon). Posing as good scientists, pseudoscientists have presented both bad data and bad conclusions to uninformed individuals, apparently in the hope that those who do not immediately buy the often incredible pseudoscientific conclusions will still fall prey to the misinformation in the data. Such false data may eventually cause the recipients to doubt legitimate science enough to make them, at some future date, susceptible to the false conclusions. This arcane practice of propagating misinformation and thus planting seeds of doubt has been utilized for 20 years by the "scientific" creationists. Again and again, I have found scientific distortions, misrepresentations, and falsehoods in the [literature]. Many people have been misled by such misinformation, since they read the pseudoscientific literature, accept the data as valid (since it is well-documented and presented by "scientists" or "scholars" who have PhD's or other academic credentials), and then may or may not accept the conclusions. Since they have no independent means of checking the veracity of the basic data these people tend to rely on their respect for the authority and credibility of scientists (and the written word!) and accept the data without question."
"I believe that one of the basic rules of investigating pseudoscience is to be skeptical of everything including the data, until independently examined. This is a rule I have followed in my investigation of "shroud science", including the claims of Max Frei. No one is born with such skepticism--it must be deliberately adopted as a working method. Credulity is a well-known human behavioral characteristic which needs to be restrained when doing scientific work (credulity is pervasive among humans [for several reasons of survival]. Of course, there must be a balance between skepticism and credulity. We can't doubt everything. But a healthy skepticism is surely appropriate when investigating fantastic or incredible claims involving natural materials."
""There is always another possibility to examine (if we overlook the possibility of incompetence, of course): the possibility of fraud. This possibility is frequently overlooked in science and [many] probably consider the possibility of human deception in science to be unmentionable or too insulting to contemplate; nevertheless I believe that the possibility of fraud must be considered in any investigation of any pseudoscientific topic. We have innumerable examples today of such frauds and deceptions perpetrated upon an innocent public and scientists, and such deception is no doubt occurring right now. Those who are familiar with pseudoscience will understand the frequent necessity of concluding that deliberate human fraud or deception is at the bottom of most pseudoscientific claims. This characteristic of pseudoscience cuts across such things as the scientific integrity or personal reputation of any individual. In fact, pseudoscience exists as a subset of human deceit because of two peculiar consequences of recent origin: the prestige of science in the modern world and the almost laughable readiness of individuals, especially scientists, to accept without question the veracity of data presented in a scientific context. Of course, although we should not be blind to the possibility of deception in basic scientific data, especially in a pseudoscience, we must nevertheless first examine the data objectively without bias."
"The truthfulness of neither philosophical nor scientific knowledge is predicated upon proof. Proof is used only in metaphysical discipline such as mathematics and logic, in which constraints and possibilities are defined. In the real world, anything, including a miracle is possible but in the realm of science we limit the possibility by the use of the highly collaborated working hypothesis of materialism, naturalism and actualism. We would say that all empirical evidence agrees with the hypothesis (that is, the hypothesis is always corroborated and never falsified) that the material universe exists, therefore its existence in fact is the most reasonable explanation. Invariably, the most reasonable explanations are those which agree with most or all of the data and which do not contradict (falsify) other highly corroborated hypotheses or theories. This latter qualification is important; attributing [an artifact or a phenomenon] to a miracle, is a possible explanation which will account for all of the empirical evidence; however, it is not the most reasonable explanation because it conflicts with the highly-corroborated hypothesis of naturalism."
"Attacks on pseudoscientists by other scientists are becoming increasingly common. Scientists are becoming aware that scientific truth is a fragile thing and that it does not propagate throughout society on its own accord due to its intrinsic value. Scientific truth, or any type of truth must be advocated and taught by men of reason, intelligence, and goodwill. Truth is spread by education by individuals who believe in it. Pseudoscientific misinformation and claims are the antithesis of scientific truth (facts and theories) and thus stand in the way of any scientist's best efforts. Scientists have ignored such claims and misinformation in the past, but modern communication, media assistance, and the current cultural temperament make such pseudoscience more available, more believable, and more successful than ever before, so scientists are now fighting back. In today's world of Religious New Right, anti-intellectualism and popular pseudoscience, I am motivated to speak out against them. Whatever their purposes, I feel they are a danger to our civilization and must be opposed by others in our democratic system."
I have previously proposed that there is no significant connection between carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere and global warming. This is based on the known properties of heat transfer through the various atmospheric gases, and the concentrations of each gas in the atmosphere. Up to now, no scientist has challenged this proposal with other legitimate scientific evidence.
This is a very long essay, but I think it is extremely important in the context of man-made global warming and our societal beliefs in general. I encourage you to at least scan the quotations of Dr. Schaffersman.
I had been reading about Dr. Walter McCrone's study on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. Dr. McCrone was an expert chemical microscopist. The Shroud of Turin is said to be the burial cloth of Christ.
With clear scientific data, Dr. McCrone proved that the Shroud of Turin is a fake and that the cloth and its image were prepared at least 1300 years after the death of Christ. However, a multitude of people had such a strong emotional attachment to the Shroud as the original burial cloth, that they were unable to accept the scientific proof.
Dr. McCrone made strong attempts to carry his scientific arguments to the nonbelievers, but ultimately failed. In one of his efforts to gain support for his scientific findings, he contacted Dr. Steven Schaffersman, a micropaleontologist from the Department of geology, Miami University. The basic question was whether a person named Max Frei had unwittingly or deceptively presented false information concerning pollen granules on the Shroud. However, Dr. Schaffersman also deviated somewhat to discuss pseudoscience, which is our main interest here.
Various pertinent quotations from Dr. Schaffersman's letter to McCrone are as follows:
"Since the case is an excellent example of both pseudoscience and of the typical response of scientists and intelligent lay persons to pseudoscientific claims, I shall examine the problem in detail". He then mentions how a third person, named Kubik, was willing to accept the Frei data. Schaffersman then said, "When presented with "scientific data", this would be the common response of most scientists or informed persons and for good reason: Through history, scientists have acquired a well-deserved reputation for high integrity in the gathering and presentation of basic data; the scientific method requires at least this. In my [previous] presentation about the nature of pseudoscience, I apparently did not emphasize the fact that pseudoscientists attempt to gain credibility for themselves and acceptance of their particular claims by using their affected position as scientists, since the public, voters, and consumers all [have] been conditioned by decades of scientific success to respect and believe scientists (this explains why pseudoscience is markedly a 20th-century phenomenon). Posing as good scientists, pseudoscientists have presented both bad data and bad conclusions to uninformed individuals, apparently in the hope that those who do not immediately buy the often incredible pseudoscientific conclusions will still fall prey to the misinformation in the data. Such false data may eventually cause the recipients to doubt legitimate science enough to make them, at some future date, susceptible to the false conclusions. This arcane practice of propagating misinformation and thus planting seeds of doubt has been utilized for 20 years by the "scientific" creationists. Again and again, I have found scientific distortions, misrepresentations, and falsehoods in the [literature]. Many people have been misled by such misinformation, since they read the pseudoscientific literature, accept the data as valid (since it is well-documented and presented by "scientists" or "scholars" who have PhD's or other academic credentials), and then may or may not accept the conclusions. Since they have no independent means of checking the veracity of the basic data these people tend to rely on their respect for the authority and credibility of scientists (and the written word!) and accept the data without question."
"I believe that one of the basic rules of investigating pseudoscience is to be skeptical of everything including the data, until independently examined. This is a rule I have followed in my investigation of "shroud science", including the claims of Max Frei. No one is born with such skepticism--it must be deliberately adopted as a working method. Credulity is a well-known human behavioral characteristic which needs to be restrained when doing scientific work (credulity is pervasive among humans [for several reasons of survival]. Of course, there must be a balance between skepticism and credulity. We can't doubt everything. But a healthy skepticism is surely appropriate when investigating fantastic or incredible claims involving natural materials."
""There is always another possibility to examine (if we overlook the possibility of incompetence, of course): the possibility of fraud. This possibility is frequently overlooked in science and [many] probably consider the possibility of human deception in science to be unmentionable or too insulting to contemplate; nevertheless I believe that the possibility of fraud must be considered in any investigation of any pseudoscientific topic. We have innumerable examples today of such frauds and deceptions perpetrated upon an innocent public and scientists, and such deception is no doubt occurring right now. Those who are familiar with pseudoscience will understand the frequent necessity of concluding that deliberate human fraud or deception is at the bottom of most pseudoscientific claims. This characteristic of pseudoscience cuts across such things as the scientific integrity or personal reputation of any individual. In fact, pseudoscience exists as a subset of human deceit because of two peculiar consequences of recent origin: the prestige of science in the modern world and the almost laughable readiness of individuals, especially scientists, to accept without question the veracity of data presented in a scientific context. Of course, although we should not be blind to the possibility of deception in basic scientific data, especially in a pseudoscience, we must nevertheless first examine the data objectively without bias."
"The truthfulness of neither philosophical nor scientific knowledge is predicated upon proof. Proof is used only in metaphysical discipline such as mathematics and logic, in which constraints and possibilities are defined. In the real world, anything, including a miracle is possible but in the realm of science we limit the possibility by the use of the highly collaborated working hypothesis of materialism, naturalism and actualism. We would say that all empirical evidence agrees with the hypothesis (that is, the hypothesis is always corroborated and never falsified) that the material universe exists, therefore its existence in fact is the most reasonable explanation. Invariably, the most reasonable explanations are those which agree with most or all of the data and which do not contradict (falsify) other highly corroborated hypotheses or theories. This latter qualification is important; attributing [an artifact or a phenomenon] to a miracle, is a possible explanation which will account for all of the empirical evidence; however, it is not the most reasonable explanation because it conflicts with the highly-corroborated hypothesis of naturalism."
"Attacks on pseudoscientists by other scientists are becoming increasingly common. Scientists are becoming aware that scientific truth is a fragile thing and that it does not propagate throughout society on its own accord due to its intrinsic value. Scientific truth, or any type of truth must be advocated and taught by men of reason, intelligence, and goodwill. Truth is spread by education by individuals who believe in it. Pseudoscientific misinformation and claims are the antithesis of scientific truth (facts and theories) and thus stand in the way of any scientist's best efforts. Scientists have ignored such claims and misinformation in the past, but modern communication, media assistance, and the current cultural temperament make such pseudoscience more available, more believable, and more successful than ever before, so scientists are now fighting back. In today's world of Religious New Right, anti-intellectualism and popular pseudoscience, I am motivated to speak out against them. Whatever their purposes, I feel they are a danger to our civilization and must be opposed by others in our democratic system."
I have previously proposed that there is no significant connection between carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere and global warming. This is based on the known properties of heat transfer through the various atmospheric gases, and the concentrations of each gas in the atmosphere. Up to now, no scientist has challenged this proposal with other legitimate scientific evidence.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
US Debt Limit
Open email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
There is a reference that you voted with the Democrats to increase the US debt limit. Other references say that this increased debt limit will allow Pres. Obama a blank check spending program for the next 13 months.
I would like your explanation on why you voted in this way.
If I'm not satisfied with your response, you will automatically lose my vote and presumably many others, who I copy on this email, on your next run for reelection.
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
There is a reference that you voted with the Democrats to increase the US debt limit. Other references say that this increased debt limit will allow Pres. Obama a blank check spending program for the next 13 months.
I would like your explanation on why you voted in this way.
If I'm not satisfied with your response, you will automatically lose my vote and presumably many others, who I copy on this email, on your next run for reelection.
Pres. Obama New on Climate Change
Open Email to Congress:
Dear Representatives and Senators,
According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama is pushing for a $1 billion expenditure for climate change. The fund, which would need to be approved by Congress, is intended to help communities dealing with negative weather that's the result of climate change.
Notice that this proposed request for funding is completely different than the usual touting of a relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.
In this case, Pres. Obama is on target. There is now and always has been climate change. Climate change does cause extreme weather such as droughts or floods, in certain regions.
We do need a study of this, to see whether there is any way we can avoid the extreme weather or break it when it occurs. This would be qualified research, with some practical application in mind.
However, it is ridiculous to take $1 billion of taxpayer money to help communities deal with negative weather. You well know that any funding for projects involving taxpayer money always involves a lot of waste. The only reason that Congress has approved most of these funding recommendations in the past has been as a matter of pork, in which money from the general populace is taken to serve the interests of local constituents and thus lead to votes for reelection of congressional members.
Communities suffering hardship from droughts are generally able to adapt without any national assistance. Many times some minimization of disaster can be applied with a little common sense. For example, there was no question that there was a drought in the Southwest during the Dust Bowl years, but a major portion of that was caused by over-farming. We need the Department of Agriculture to give proper advice to farmers, so that they do not accentuate already bad conditions that may be naturally developing. With respect to floods, we have done a poor job in the past 20 to 50 years in flood control. The TVA authority demonstrated how this should be properly done with the construction of dams and lakes. For some reason, we seem to tend to avoid that lesson. Since we already have unemployment problem and need jobs, this is certainly one area, which is ripe for employment with positive results to the infrastructure.
The statesmanlike thing for members of Congress to do is to be sure that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has sufficient funding to engage in research efforts to discover how to minimize or compensate for extreme weather changes rather than establish a $1 billion fix-all kitty.
Dear Representatives and Senators,
According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama is pushing for a $1 billion expenditure for climate change. The fund, which would need to be approved by Congress, is intended to help communities dealing with negative weather that's the result of climate change.
Notice that this proposed request for funding is completely different than the usual touting of a relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.
In this case, Pres. Obama is on target. There is now and always has been climate change. Climate change does cause extreme weather such as droughts or floods, in certain regions.
We do need a study of this, to see whether there is any way we can avoid the extreme weather or break it when it occurs. This would be qualified research, with some practical application in mind.
However, it is ridiculous to take $1 billion of taxpayer money to help communities deal with negative weather. You well know that any funding for projects involving taxpayer money always involves a lot of waste. The only reason that Congress has approved most of these funding recommendations in the past has been as a matter of pork, in which money from the general populace is taken to serve the interests of local constituents and thus lead to votes for reelection of congressional members.
Communities suffering hardship from droughts are generally able to adapt without any national assistance. Many times some minimization of disaster can be applied with a little common sense. For example, there was no question that there was a drought in the Southwest during the Dust Bowl years, but a major portion of that was caused by over-farming. We need the Department of Agriculture to give proper advice to farmers, so that they do not accentuate already bad conditions that may be naturally developing. With respect to floods, we have done a poor job in the past 20 to 50 years in flood control. The TVA authority demonstrated how this should be properly done with the construction of dams and lakes. For some reason, we seem to tend to avoid that lesson. Since we already have unemployment problem and need jobs, this is certainly one area, which is ripe for employment with positive results to the infrastructure.
The statesmanlike thing for members of Congress to do is to be sure that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has sufficient funding to engage in research efforts to discover how to minimize or compensate for extreme weather changes rather than establish a $1 billion fix-all kitty.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Environmental Protection Agency Regulations
Open email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
Thank you for your form letter on the Environmental Protection Agency Regulations, which I repeat below.
I agree wholeheartedly with your position that the Environmental Protection Agency has been used by Pres. Obama in ways not originally intended by Congress and in some cases actually in opposition to Congressional desires. I don't know what you can do about that but anything to slow down ridiculous regulations is obviously the goal. The only good news I have heard from the EPA recently is their removal of objection to the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Somewhat aside from the main point of the EPA, I suspect that you do not understand the effects of greenhouse gases on climate, although you have come to the correct conclusion that carbon dioxide emission should not be regulated.
Let me see if I can explain the carbon dioxide issue from its fundamentals, in order for you to continue to take proper action with a full understanding of the so-called problem.
The theory relating carbon dioxide to climate change is simply that the sun's radiation hits the earth surface and generates heat. That heat would normally radiate back to the stratosphere, except that is inhibited by greenhouse gases, which act as insulation to that passage of heat, much like fiberglass insulation is used in housing to slow down interior heat gain in the summer, and heat loss in the winter.
If we measure insulation properties of gases in the laboratory, we see that carbon dioxide is almost twice is good an insulator as the major components of the atmosphere, which are nitrogen and oxygen.
However, the amount of insulation is important. One thousandth of an inch of fiberglass insulation in a house can be expected to do little or nothing compared to the usual use of 4 to 6 inches. Similarly, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.05%, compared to 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen.
We can now answer the two previous questions.
Does an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide affect climate? Yes. An increase in carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration increases the total resistance of the atmosphere to the loss of heat from the earth surface. That would tend to increase earth surface temperature, which we call global warming.
How much? Essentially none. Remember that while carbon dioxide is a better heat insulator than the other natural gases of the atmosphere, it's concentration is only 0.05%. An analogy would be that if you reduce the federal debt of $17 trillion by a few thousand dollars, you still have made essentially no dent in the debt.
Portions of Sen. Cruz's letter:
Dear Arthur,
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in 1970 to enforce environmental protection standards pursuant to laws enacted by Congress. Yet, without the consent of Congress, the Obama Administration has sought to aggressively expand the scope of its authority, particularly regarding the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions- a purpose for which it was never intended. Congress did consider expanding federal regulation of carbon emissions during the debate over the so-called "cap and trade" bill, but the representatives of the people declined to impose such regulation.
Despite Congress' refusal to enact new EPA laws, President Obama has proposed to bypass Congress and use the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. The issue of regulating greenhouse gasses involves balancing protection of the environment and the impact on jobs and economic growth. Such controversial policies should be decided by Congress-not by the President acting alone or by the decree of unelected federal bureaucrats.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
Thank you for your form letter on the Environmental Protection Agency Regulations, which I repeat below.
I agree wholeheartedly with your position that the Environmental Protection Agency has been used by Pres. Obama in ways not originally intended by Congress and in some cases actually in opposition to Congressional desires. I don't know what you can do about that but anything to slow down ridiculous regulations is obviously the goal. The only good news I have heard from the EPA recently is their removal of objection to the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Somewhat aside from the main point of the EPA, I suspect that you do not understand the effects of greenhouse gases on climate, although you have come to the correct conclusion that carbon dioxide emission should not be regulated.
Let me see if I can explain the carbon dioxide issue from its fundamentals, in order for you to continue to take proper action with a full understanding of the so-called problem.
The theory relating carbon dioxide to climate change is simply that the sun's radiation hits the earth surface and generates heat. That heat would normally radiate back to the stratosphere, except that is inhibited by greenhouse gases, which act as insulation to that passage of heat, much like fiberglass insulation is used in housing to slow down interior heat gain in the summer, and heat loss in the winter.
If we measure insulation properties of gases in the laboratory, we see that carbon dioxide is almost twice is good an insulator as the major components of the atmosphere, which are nitrogen and oxygen.
However, the amount of insulation is important. One thousandth of an inch of fiberglass insulation in a house can be expected to do little or nothing compared to the usual use of 4 to 6 inches. Similarly, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.05%, compared to 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen.
We can now answer the two previous questions.
Does an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide affect climate? Yes. An increase in carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration increases the total resistance of the atmosphere to the loss of heat from the earth surface. That would tend to increase earth surface temperature, which we call global warming.
How much? Essentially none. Remember that while carbon dioxide is a better heat insulator than the other natural gases of the atmosphere, it's concentration is only 0.05%. An analogy would be that if you reduce the federal debt of $17 trillion by a few thousand dollars, you still have made essentially no dent in the debt.
Portions of Sen. Cruz's letter:
Dear Arthur,
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in 1970 to enforce environmental protection standards pursuant to laws enacted by Congress. Yet, without the consent of Congress, the Obama Administration has sought to aggressively expand the scope of its authority, particularly regarding the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions- a purpose for which it was never intended. Congress did consider expanding federal regulation of carbon emissions during the debate over the so-called "cap and trade" bill, but the representatives of the people declined to impose such regulation.
Despite Congress' refusal to enact new EPA laws, President Obama has proposed to bypass Congress and use the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. The issue of regulating greenhouse gasses involves balancing protection of the environment and the impact on jobs and economic growth. Such controversial policies should be decided by Congress-not by the President acting alone or by the decree of unelected federal bureaucrats.
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Prince Charles on Global Warming
Prince Charles, who is heir to the British throne, has called people who deny human-made climate change a "headless chicken brigade" who are ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence.
Prince Charles may be a good figure of royalty, but he apparently does not understand detail and logic.
The detail starts with the fact that many persons, including scientists, have espoused that the burning of carbon containing fuels, such as coal oil and natural gas, increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which causes a radical climate change.
Note that few persons deny climate change. Historical records show that this is so. Questions then boil down to the following: Does an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide affect climate? If it does, how much?
Before we answer these questions, we need to go a little deeper into the theory, which is simply that the sun's radiation hits the earth surface and generates heat. That heat would normally radiate back to the stratosphere, except that is inhibited by greenhouse gases, which act as insulation to that passage of heat, much like fiberglass insulation is used in housing to slow down interior heat gain in the summer, and heat loss in the winter.
If we measure insulation properties of gases in the laboratory, we see that carbon dioxide is almost twice is good an insulator as the major components of the atmosphere, which are nitrogen and oxygen.
However, the amount of insulation is important. One thousandth of an inch of fiberglass insulation in a house can be expected to do little or nothing compared to the usual use of 4 to 6 inches. Similarly, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.05%, compared to 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen.
We can now answer the two previous questions.
Does an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide affect climate? Yes. An increase in carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration increases the total resistance of the atmosphere to the loss of heat from the earth surface. That would tend to increase earth surface temperature, which we call global warming.
How much? Essentially none. Remember that while carbon dioxide is a better heat insulator than the other natural gases of the atmosphere, it's concentration is only 0.05%. An analogy would be that if you reduce the federal debt of $17 trillion by a few thousand dollars, you still have made essentially no dent in the debt.
Prince Charles may be a good figure of royalty, but he apparently does not understand detail and logic.
The detail starts with the fact that many persons, including scientists, have espoused that the burning of carbon containing fuels, such as coal oil and natural gas, increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which causes a radical climate change.
Note that few persons deny climate change. Historical records show that this is so. Questions then boil down to the following: Does an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide affect climate? If it does, how much?
Before we answer these questions, we need to go a little deeper into the theory, which is simply that the sun's radiation hits the earth surface and generates heat. That heat would normally radiate back to the stratosphere, except that is inhibited by greenhouse gases, which act as insulation to that passage of heat, much like fiberglass insulation is used in housing to slow down interior heat gain in the summer, and heat loss in the winter.
If we measure insulation properties of gases in the laboratory, we see that carbon dioxide is almost twice is good an insulator as the major components of the atmosphere, which are nitrogen and oxygen.
However, the amount of insulation is important. One thousandth of an inch of fiberglass insulation in a house can be expected to do little or nothing compared to the usual use of 4 to 6 inches. Similarly, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.05%, compared to 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen.
We can now answer the two previous questions.
Does an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide affect climate? Yes. An increase in carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration increases the total resistance of the atmosphere to the loss of heat from the earth surface. That would tend to increase earth surface temperature, which we call global warming.
How much? Essentially none. Remember that while carbon dioxide is a better heat insulator than the other natural gases of the atmosphere, it's concentration is only 0.05%. An analogy would be that if you reduce the federal debt of $17 trillion by a few thousand dollars, you still have made essentially no dent in the debt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
