skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Open Email to Editor in Chief Lubbock Avalanche Journal:
Dear Editor,
Your Friday, April 25 issue featured headline, "Tech scientist on Times 100 list". This was followed by a collaborative story by Blake Uirsch, with the sub headline, "People/Climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe named among magazines top influential people". The story describes the Times 100 list as that of people who are using their ideas, visions, and actions to transform the world and have an effect on a multitude of people. In short, they are people who are effective communicators. The subjects of their communications need not be necessarily advantageous for world progress.
It is on that last basis, that I challenge the position of climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe, as she effectively touts that significant disastrous global warming is caused by the activities of mankind.
In the article, she is quoted as saying that 97% of climate change scientists agree that climate change is happening due to the choices people make every day. She goes on to say that, "The simple truth is that the scientific debate is over and now it's time for all of us to take action".
I don't doubt that Katherine Hayhoe is a very intelligent person, but many intelligent persons have been known to be wrong. In this particular case, Dr. Hayhoe has apparently not properly looked at the history of naturally induced climate change, nor considered a true scientific analysis of the Earth's heat balance.
If she had looked at the historical data on climate, she would have found great variations over centuries even prior to any possible effect from mankind.
If she looked at the heat balance of the earth, she would have found that the infinitesimal increase in available heat from the burning of fossil fuels is insignificant with respect to Earth's heat input from the sun.
The only possible position for argumentation is the claimed, by some scientists, absorbance of heat by the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels. That position is only theoretical and could be resolved as factual or not by some simple laboratory work, which somehow seems to escape the 75% of said scientists who are convinced of significant climate change from fossil fuel burning.
In summary, Catherine Hayhoe appears to be a great communicator but her scientific capability can be sorely questioned. In my judgment, she now falls into the category of pseudo-scientists, which are those who have had good scientific training, but their emotions and subsequent rationalization, usually based on money, have reduced their scientific integrity to approximately zero.
Open Email to Editor in Chief Lubbock Avalanche Journal:
Dear Editor,
Your Friday, April 25 issue featured headline, "Tech scientist on Times 100 list". This was followed by a collaborative story by Blake Uirsch, with the sub headline, "People/Climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe named among magazines top influential people". The story describes the Times 100 list as that of people who are using their ideas, visions, and actions to transform the world and have an effect on a multitude of people. In short, they are people who are effective communicators. The subjects of their communications need not be necessarily advantageous for world progress.
It is on that last basis, that I challenge the position of climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe, as she effectively touts that significant disastrous global warming is caused by the activities of mankind.
In the article, she is quoted as saying that 97% of climate change scientists agree that climate change is happening due to the choices people make every day. She goes on to say that, "The simple truth is that the scientific debate is over and now it's time for all of us to take action".
I don't doubt that Katherine Hayhoe is a very intelligent person, but many intelligent persons have been known to be wrong. In this particular case, Dr. Hayhoe has apparently not properly looked at the history of naturally induced climate change, nor considered a true scientific analysis of the Earth's heat balance.
If she had looked at the historical data on climate, she would have found great variations over centuries even prior to any possible effect from mankind.
If she looked at the heat balance of the earth, she would have found that the infinitesimal increase in available heat from the burning of fossil fuels is insignificant with respect to Earth's heat input from the sun.
The only possible position for argumentation is the claimed, by some scientists, absorbance of heat by the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels. That position is only theoretical and could be resolved as factual or not by some simple laboratory work, which somehow seems to escape the 75% of said scientists who are convinced of significant climate change from fossil fuel burning.
In summary, Catherine Hayhoe appears to be a great communicator but her scientific capability can be sorely questioned. In my judgment, she now falls into the category of pseudo-scientists, which are those who have had good scientific training, but their emotions and subsequent rationalization, usually based on money, have reduced their scientific integrity to approximately zero.
The White House and the EPA are on another control kick. This time, it's controlling methane emissions.
According to Jeff Johnson in the April 7 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, methane is responsible for 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The other 85% is presumably carbon dioxide.
Again we have a lack of scientific data. The White House and the EPA are presumably guessing that a methane molecule can absorb a very large quantity of heat, as opposed to the major gases of the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen), which presumably are unable to absorb heat. Do we have data on this? I haven't seen anything.
The other aspect is that the methane concentration in the atmosphere is only 0.002%. How about a little quantitative analysis of these data? How much heat can a methane molecule hold? How many molecules of methane are there at an atmospheric concentration of 0.002%? Without that information, we are spinning our wheels.
Assuming that we like spinning our wheels, we can go on to the other claims. Of the total methane in the atmosphere, 35% comes from agriculture and 28% from oil and gas operations.. 36% comes from natural sources, such as wetlands, termites and the oceans.
The agricultural sources are animals, animal waste, rice production, agricultural waste burning (nonenergy, on-site), and savannah burning. Not much can be done about the passing of intestinal gas (flatulence) from animals and humans. It would also be difficult to control methane emission from animal waste on a multitude of farms and the inherent culture of rice production.
Similarly, methane release from natural sources is equally uncontrollable.
This leaves control of methane release from oil and gas operations. Ideal! The White House and the EPA want to inhibit production of oil and natural gas wherever possible, in order to favor green energy. What better way to inhibit oil and gas production than to say operators must control their release of methane beyond reasonable economic limits?
I recently commented on the latest IPCC climate change report, as reported in Chemical and Engineering News by Cheryl Hogue.
In the last part of my essay I suggested that since federal agencies are already doling out billions of dollars to university professors for research and development, how about doing some R&D work on confirming two theories, which continue to be used by the IPCC in global warming promotions. The first theory is that the capacity for absorption of heat by carbon dioxide molecules is so great that it overcomes the negative aspect of being only 0.05% in the atmosphere. The second theory is that the molecules of the major constituents in the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen) are unable to absorb heat.
I did not intend to imply that I would apply for a federal grant, but one of our Political Advisers carried it a step further by making the following tongue-in-cheek comment, "You cannot get funding for your ideas because your thesis is all wrong. Your research has to be aimed at proving global warming and the supporting politics behind that. Knowledge is not what their after, just propaganda."
We're back to the old saw on climate change (previously called global warming)! Cheryl Hogue has another article "Affirming Impacts of Climate Change" in the April 7 issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
It starts out by quoting a new United Nations report as follows: "Around the globe human-caused climate change has affected farming, water supplies and echo systems on land and in water."
Climate is only a long-term manifestation of weather. We all know that weather changes on a regular basis. For example, it may be sunny the next two days and then it may rain, or we might have a tornado thrown in. Similarly, long-term weather (climate) also changes. We may have 50 years of a cold snap or 100 years of a heat spell. These climate changes have been going on for millennia, even before man burned any fossil fuel other than a little wood for his cooking fire. Therefore, how can the UN or anyone say there such a thing as "human induced climate change"? There's no obvious connection. Why not "cattle induced climate change", or "fish induced climate change"? Cattle and fish are living organisms. They move around. Have digestive capacities, which liberate gases, solid and liquid waste, and generate heat.
Christopher Field, who cochaired the IPC working group that prepared UN report, said, "with high levels of warming that result from continued growth in greenhouse gas emissions, risks will be challenging to manage." Sen. Barbara Boxer says the IPCC report "adds a tremendous sense of urgency for Congress to wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution".
Where do they get this idea that carbon dioxide is a bugaboo? The best that I can find in the scientific literature is articles which assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will absorb heat from the earth, thereby not allowing it to pass through the stratosphere, and thus contributing to global warming.
There is never any mention about the heat capacity of a carbon dioxide molecule, or how many molecules it would take to have any real effect. Let's also remember that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is only 0.05%. The idea also is that the major atmospheric gas constituents (nitrogen and oxygen) do not absorb heat in the same way that carbon dioxide does. May I have some laboratory proof confirming these theories? Federal agencies dole out billions of dollars to university professors for research and development. How about a little research and development on the questions I'm asking?
I have been writing periodically about the political fiasco of global warming.
When anything is politicized, it injects emotions and opinions, which detract from objectivity and looking at the real problem. The question on global warming is whether it is a scientific fact and if so, it's probable causes. Politicization of the situation has not only destroyed real possibilities of obtaining true information, it also has tended to destroy objectivity, which has been the bulwark of science since time immemorial.
One of our Political Advisers has recently commented as follows, "I went into science because it was based on facts and honesty. I'm not sure I would do the same today. So many educated people are ignorant of the facts and cannot see a scam either. Since populations are increasing at such a fast rate the CO2 they expel with each exhalation is what they will go after next."
One of our Political Advisers has suggested that we need more cause-and-effect data for global warming consideration.
He says, "Support for "Congress to wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution" (C&EN, Apr. 7, page 8) might be greater if someone could present data showing that changes in carbon dioxide concentration between 0.03% and 0.05% in a mixture of gasses identical to those comprising our atmosphere cause any significant change in the transfer of heat. Cause and effect studies, data or examples are sorely lacking in discussions concerning carbon dioxide/global warming, yet meaningless correlations are prevalent and the basis for political actions impacting our economy. Climate change is occurring, has occurred since Earth was formed and will continue to occur, with or without any input from humans."
JJ, in the Government Concentrate section of the March 24 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, brings to our attention that both the White House and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have new programs on climate change. Both programs are intended to raise public awareness of climate change and to avoid, mitigate or at least prepare for the most harmful impacts.
Well said! Similar to our normal preparedness for unusual weather, naturally occurring climate change will have similar effects on weather, and we should prepare for it.
All that makes a lot of sense until we get to the end of the article, which says that 97% of scientists believe in human induced climate change driven by human greenhouse gas emissions. They mean carbon dioxide emissions from burning carbon containing fossil fuels.
That's all baloney! I'm what I call a normal scientist, and don't believe I am in a minority of 3%. If you want to consider pseudoscientists, whose scientific integrity have been compromised by federal money, that might be right.
However, let me again repeat my often stated position that carbon dioxide is emitted from the burning of fossil fuels, but that carbon dioxide addition to the atmosphere has only an insignificant effect on climate compared to natural forces, such as the Sun's output.
The pseudoscientists of government and presumably the AAAS like the idea of pressing the thought of disastrous results from climate change caused by CO2, because they make more money in doing so. The fact is that they never bother to investigate the real science involving heat transfer through atmospheric gases, because it would be disadvantageous to their snake oil program.
In the March 10 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Cherie Turner reviews a new book, entitled, "The Burning Question". In her review, Sherry modifies the title to, "The Challenge of Climate Change" with the subtitle saying that the "Authors confront choice between unencumbered economic growth and the health of Earth's environment". So much for the baloney!
Cherie mentions that in the Copenhagen protocol of 2009, negotiators agreed that humans should aim to limit the increase in global temperature to no more than 2°C over preindustrial levels. This is a ridiculous goal! It presumes that man can control the activity of the Sun, which is our only significant source of life-giving heat.
Cherie then goes on to discuss the assertions of the book. The authors are Mike Berners-Lee and Duncan Clark. They say, "We can't burn half the world's oil, coal and gas, so how do we quit?" This seems like a strange statement to me. Why can't we burn half the world's oil, coal and gas, or even more? Presumably, they make the statement because they don't want it burned, which is evident in the second half of the sentence, when they talk about quitting.
The authors say that it is quite clear that CO2 emissions are a major contributor to global warming. I wonder how they obtain this great insight? It's not clear to me and my vision seems to be as good as anybody else's. Could it be "clear" to the authors only because they want it so?
The authors complain that compared with the level of risk [global warming], public concern has been conspicuous by its absence. They say that one reason for lack of public concern is that the problem is complex and the average person may not understand climate change or why it is important, especially considering that the worst of the effect will take place far in the future. More baloney! The public is pretty sharp. It generally sees that with all claims of global warming increase caused by carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, it sees no real connection. This puts it in a category of the Chicken Little story about how the sky is falling.
The authors also complain that because burning fossil fuels is cheap energy, developing countries will go that route with increasing emissions of carbon dioxide. For that reason, the authors want global restrictions. However, the developing countries can rightly claim that there is no justification for an international body to interfere with their sovereignty, especially since there is no established connection between the supposed disastrous effects of global warming and carbon dioxide emissions.
The authors discuss various solutions, other than limiting the burning of fossil fuels. Among them is carbon capture and storage, which is only usable at great expense. Then again, why bother with that if carbon dioxide emissions are not significant to global warming? May we have some scientific proof that they are related, as opposed to the presently often repeated hollow claim that they are?
Reviewer Cherie seems to have been converted, because she says that, "Solving climate change won't be easy, and we probably won't like the solutions, but we must find a way to change our path or face some possible apocalyptic consequences". More baloney of fear mongering! Is apparently a believer of the "sky is falling" hypothesis.
Before we finished this review of the review, let's go back to the subtitle saying, "Authors confront choice between unencumbered economic growth and the health of Earth's environment". The implication is that Earth's environment will be severely compromised by the continued burning of fossil fuels. However as mentioned above, no proof or even logical reasons have been given to make that statement. Many others claim that the Earth environment can go merrily on its way with continued burning of carbon containing fossil fuels. Increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration will have no significant effect on global warming, increased storms, or other disasters. In fact, higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration will promote plant growth and help feed the world.
In the March 17 issue of Chemical Engineering News, there is a dual editorial on climate change. The editorialists are Jerry a Bell and Bassm Shakhashiri. Bell is an emeritus professor of Simmons College. Shakhashiri was ACS president in 2012. Neither one seems to have given much thought to the science of climate and are shooting from the hip.
They start out with the usual claim of "well-known" greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide, methane and others. The implication is that the "others" may be man-made materials, such as halocarbons. They ignore two facts: other gases of the atmosphere, such as nitrogen and oxygen, have a greenhouse effect on Earth's temperature, and the concentration of those gases is much greater than carbon dioxide and methane and thus have a more considerable greenhouse effect.
They go on with the usual fear mongering of melting ice, rising sea levels, and lowering only ocean pH, all of which is man's fault for continuing to burn carbon containing fossil fuels. There's no mention that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 400 ppm. This low concentration can have little effect and is easily reduced by plant absorption in its normal growth pattern.
They say that action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is needed "now". I would agree, if all they said previously were true, but it is not. We don't need any action now.
They call on the American Chemical Society and other similar organizations to promote more efficient use of lighting and appliances, make greater use of public transportation, drive low emission vehicles, teleconference more, travel less, and support the efforts to mitigate undesirable consequences of climate change. I agree with most of these purely on the basis of efficiency of operation, until we get to low emission vehicles and the mitigation of undesirable consequences of climate change. Since the original assertion of carbon dioxide as a bogeyman is incorrect, there is no need for low CO2 emission vehicles or mitigation of climate change from that source. We will always have climate change and can do nothing to control it, but we can prepare ourselves to reduce damage from this natural event, in the same way that we can protect ourselves from hurricanes and tornadoes.
The editorialists say that the ACS has implemented approaches such as these with construction of its new headquarters building having been awarded a platinum certification by the LEED program of the US Green building Council. This is the usual spin to make one believe something which is not true. I have been personally involved in obtaining for Lubbock Christian University a platinum certification for its new Welcome Center. It was done completely on the basis of efficiency. It had nothing to do with climate change.
They want collective action to impose a carbon tax. This is where the rubber meets the road. A carbon tax would be a brand-new source of revenue for the federal government, which is already being overfunded by taxpayers. The only reason for the promotion of the carbon tax by pseudoscientists is so they can have their share of newly available government money through grants to those same pseudoscientists in universities.
They want the American Chemical Society to promote climate change to its members by communicating the science and affects of climate change. The ACS has been doing this for years. I don't see what more it can do. The interesting thing is that I can't be the result of consideration of science. It is obviously more a political matter involving efforts to obtain control of, or at least involvement with much larger amounts of money. This is the desired measure of power.
Lastly, they want to advocate local, national, and international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change for the benefit of Earth and its people. Well said and noble, but on the wrong track. Forget the carbon dioxide and concentrate on actions necessary to mitigate the negative effects of weather, such as seaside erosion from hurricanes and floods from excessive rainfall.
Both sides of the global warming argument agree that there is such a thing as global warming. One side contends that man's activities have a significant effect on increasing global warming. The other side contends that man's activities have an insignificant effect. The contentions of both sides are theoretical and speculative, rather than provable.
Let's call the group which contends that man's activities are significant "Man Induced". Let's call the group which contends that man's activities are insignificant "Nature Induced".
Both sides also agree that global warming is an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth and that the temperature increase is caused by the Earth's atmosphere inhibiting loss of heat from the Earth surface to the stratosphere. From there, the two sides differ significantly in their speculation as follows:
The Nature Induced Group asserts that all gaseous components of the atmosphere have resistance to the passage of heat. That is, all gaseous components slow down the loss of heat from the Earth's surface to the stratosphere. The Earth is also on a daily schedule of daytime/nighttime. During the daytime, there is net heat gain from the sun. During nighttime, there is net loss of heat from the Earth surface to the stratosphere. With the presence of the heat insulation atmosphere, the heat loss from the Earth surface is reduced during the nighttime, leading to a higher Earth surface temperature. All atmospheric gases participate in this heat insulation effect. The effect of each gas is dependent on its thermal resistivity and it's concentration (amount) in the atmosphere. The thermal resistivities of the various atmospheric gases are not greatly different, but their concentrations in the atmosphere are. The total Greenhouse effect of inhibiting heat loss from the earth surface is primarily due to nitrogen and oxygen, which exist in high concentrations. The Nature Induced theorists assert that the Greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is insignificant because of its very low concentration (amount). In the atmosphere.
The Man Induced Group asserts that heat loss from the Earth surface is inhibited by heat absorption of only complex molecules in the atmosphere. Nitrogen and oxygen are said to be noncomplex, because they are diatomic molecules, it is claimed that they have no capacity for heat absorption. Conversely, a triatomic molecule, such as carbon dioxide, is said to be a complex molecule, which has the ability to absorb heat. Thus, it has a profound effect for heat absorption, even though it exists in a very minor concentration in the atmosphere. Because of this profound effect of heat absorption by carbon dioxide, it is asserted that all efforts should be made to control any increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, by reducing the burning of carbon containing fossil fuels.
From here, I present my own partiality to the two theories.
I will not try to punch any holes in the Nature/Thermal Resistivity theory. I will leave that to the Man Induced/Absorption advocates.
We have somewhat of an analogy, when we consider the atmosphere of Mars. The mass of Mar's atmosphere is 25 teratonnes, compared to Earth's 5148 teratonnes. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the respective atmospheres is 96% for Mars versus 0.04% for Earth. Therefore, the mass of carbon dioxide on Mars is 24 teratonnes versus Earth's 2 teratonnes. In spite of the fact that Mars contains 10 times as much carbon dioxide as a Earth, it's nighttime temperature falls to -100°F. Mars is also somewhat farther from the Sun then Earth, but the mass carbon dioxide comparison implies that carbon dioxide has no special properties and further implies that the high masses of nitrogen and oxygen on earth do have a greenhouse effect. This is, In spite of claims to the contrary by Man Induced/Absorption advocates.
I also have some problems with the mechanistic theory of absorption advocated by Man Induced/Absorption advocates. These advocates hold that carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere will absorb heat and thus disallow it to be lost to the stratosphere. The logical consequence of this is that there would tend to be a cooler Earth and a warmer atmosphere, although the atmospheric heat could dissipate back to the Earth to average out the temperature. But if carbon dioxide molecules have this high propensity to absorb heat, why would it then release it to dissipate back to Earth?
Even though a carbon dioxide molecule may have a high propensity to absorb heat, there must be some maximum heat load it can hold. That maximum could be easily determined in a physics laboratory, but I have seen nothing on this. Assuming there is a maximum, which the molecule can hold, any subsequent heat to which it is exposed would be unaffected and could pass-through as a loss to the stratosphere. Considering now the multitude of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere, the total amount of heat absorbed would be a function of the number of molecules times the maximum heat content. In addition, any increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would lead to an increased absorption of heat. I believe this is consistent with the Absorption theorists' position. However, we are still faced with the supposition that if carbon dioxide is a great absorber of heat, why would it then release its heat back to Earth? It is even more likely that any heat absorbed by carbon dioxide molecule would be converted to a transitional form of energy, which we know leads to decomposition. However, there is no indication of free carbon and oxygen formation in the atmosphere.
We always have to come back to the claim that carbon dioxide can absorb heat, as measured by an increase in temperature, while diatomic molecules, such as nitrogen and oxygen cannot. This is obviously not true, since pure oxygen and nitrogen can be heated, as measured by an increase in temperature, no less than can carbon dioxide.
An article in USA Today quotes a UN report as saying that climate change is affecting all parts of the globe, and the gap between the latest science on climatic change and government action to cut greenhouse emissions remains large.
The first part of the claim is entirely correct. Climate change does affect all parts of the globe. It is a natural event, somewhat similar to the change of seasons, but less periodic and less predictable.
However, the second part of the statement implying that greenhouse emissions have a significant effect on climate change is a far outreach. No connection has been shown to exist between climate change and carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel.
A little review on greenhouse gases will make this readily apparent.
The Earth's atmosphere is composed of a gaseous mixture, of which each component has an insulating property to the passage of heat. That fortunately leads to a stabilization of Earth's temperatures. For example, without the greenhouse gases nighttime temperatures on Earth would likely be 100°F below zero, similar to that on Mars.
Each of the greenhouse gases has a different capacity to resist the passage of heat. That is some gases are better heat insulators than others.
The greenhouse effect of any gas can be calculated using a modification of Beer's Law. The greenhouse effect is a linear function of the heat resistance coefficient (1 / Thermal conductivity) times the length of the path through which the heat will travel times the concentration of the gas in the mixture. Thermal conductivities of various gases are available from the Air Liquide Gas Encyclopedia (http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/encyclopedia.asp). The length of path will be the thickness of the atmosphere, which will be the same for any gas considered. The concentration of the gas will be that percentage relating to the whole atmosphere.
Although this is not significant in our calculations, the units of measurement for gas thermal conductivities are mW/ m.K, which is milliwatts divided by meters divided by degrees Kelvin.
The Greenhouse gas formula is then: G = 1/Thermal Conductivity x 1 x Gas Concentration.
For nitrogen: G = 1/24.01 x 0.78; G = 0.042 x 0.78; G = 0.033
For oxygen: G = 1/24.35 x 0.21; G= 0.041 x 0.21; G = 0.0086
For argon: G = 1/16.48 x 0.01; G = 0.061 x 0.01; G = 0.0006
For carbon Dioxide: G = 1/14.67 X 0.0004; G = 0.068 x 0.0004; G = 0.00003.
If we divide the various Gs by that for carbon dioxide, we obtain a better perspective of the numbers as follows:
nitrogen - 1100
oxygen - 287
argon - 20
carbon dioxide - 1
in other words, the global warming affect of nitrogen is 1100 times greater than for carbon dioxide.
If we add them all up to obtain total global warming, the global warming contribution for other gases is 1407 times that for carbon dioxide.
Does it make any sense to try to limit carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, when we already have a a built-in global warming of other gases more than 1400 times what we could do with carbon dioxide?
