Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Book on Global Warming

Michael Mann, the father of global warming theology, has written a book, entitled "The Hockey Stick And the Climate Wars"..

Based upon Michael Mann's previous writings and other reports, I already know his position and will not read the book. Rather, I will base my comments on the book report by Rudy Baum, in the December 10 issue of C&E News. Rudy recently retired as Editor-In-Chief of C&E News and is now a Chemical and Engineering News Editor-at-Large. During his previous term of office, he produced several articles on global warming. Those articles indicated that he was a clear advocate and supporter of the theory that mankind's recent activities has resulted in global warming. In spite of that predisposition to bias, I will use Rudy's book report as a basis for my comments on Michael Mann's positions.

Rudy reports that Michael Mann bemoans the details of release of his emails,by a hacker, attempts of persecution by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, and general attacks on his character. Such things are routine in emotional discussions by two sides having diverse opinions. I am not interested in those at present. Rather I prefer to discuss the science of the subject.

However, there is one consideration which questions Michael Mann's qualifications as a true scientist. That is, the use of the term "Hockey Stick" in referring to his graph on global warming data. The term is very catchy, such that it would normally be attributed to a promoter, rather than a scientist.

Rudy indicates that Michael makes five scientific points. I am listing these in detail and commenting on each.

1. Human activity has increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.

There can be no dispute about this. Measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere over a number of years has shown that there is an increase. The increase is also logical, because in the burning of organic fuels, such as coal, petroleum, gas, wood, etc., carbon dioxide is formed. In addition the world increases in human population and also requires more animals, both of which release carbon dioxide through respiration. The only question is whether the increase is significant to climate change. It should be noted that present atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is only 0.05%.

2. The increase in CO2 and other trace gases produced by humans has a warming affect on Earth's surface.

That is probably a true statement but lacks quantification, such that it can be misleading. To obtain a proper perspective, one must consider global warming. The mechanism is that the sun's radiation is of such wavelength that it passes through the atmosphere to the earth unimpeded. At the Earth's surface, much of it is converted to heat. The heat tends to pass back to the stratosphere, but the wavelength is now such that atmospheric gases impede the passage and the Earth's temperature is higher than it would be without an atmosphere. The greenhouse gas effect of the atmosphere tends to stabilize Earth's temperatures, such that there is relatively little difference between night and day temperatures as compared to celestial bodies without atmosphere, such as the moon.

Measurement of a greenhouse gas effect can be done in the laboratory. Carbon dioxide is approximately twice as effective as the normal atmosphere in resisting the passage of heat. The transmission numbers, which are the reverse of insulation numbers are 14 mW/(mK) for carbon dioxide and 24 mW/(mK) for the atmosphere in general. However, keep in mind that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.05%. To put it in perspective, a lighted match can burn your finger, but does it SIGNIFICANTLY increase the temperature of a room.

3. Thermometer measurements show that, by the mid-1990s, Earth had warmed by about 1°F since preindustrial times.

There seems to be no reason to dispute this statement. If proper measurements show that to be the case, so be it. However, let us be careful to not read into the statement that man has caused the 1°F increase. There is another potential cause for the increase, and that is the sun's activity with respect to radiation output and distance from Earth.

4. Sophisticated models have been developed to investigate the causal mechanism behind changes in Earth's climate.

This is an intimidation statement. As the word "sophisticated" is used, the message is that it is so intellectually complex, a normal person cannot understand it. Hogwash! If a normal person cannot understand it, it probably doesn't exist. In addition, most scientists will agree that models can be developed to show anything that one wants to show. The only way to prove the veracity of the model is to ferret out each of the assumptions on which the model is based. We also have a nice example of how fiction can pervade reality in videos showing Spiderman walking up the sides of buildings.

I would like to see one model showing a believable causal mechanism for low atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to significantly affect global temperatures.

5. Only when human factors are included do those models reproduce all of the observed warming.

I don't understand why this was included as a separate item. Presumably, Item 4 was a study to prove that atmospheric carbon dioxide affected the Earth's climate and that the believable mechanism must have included carbon dioxide concentration.

There is no doubt that with the burning of fossil fuels and respiration of increased humans and cattle, there is an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Proof or even plausible speculation that such carbon dioxide concentration increase has had a significant effect on global temperatures is yet to be forthcoming.

The Continued Drum Beating on Carbon Dioxide Emission Control

In the November 26 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Cheryl Hoag reports on a UN gathering intended to extend the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol involves control of carbon dioxide emissions, with the intention of reducing global warming. The new talks will occur in Doha, Qatar, which is immediately an indication that this is an ongoing operation intended to satisfy the participants in nice travel programs.

The Kyoto Accord required industrialized countries to collectively lower their emissions of carbon dioxide by 5% from 1990 levels over a five-year period. The US was not among the signers of the treaty, for which I have to add my hearty congratulations.

Japan and Russia have already said that they will not take on a second set of carbon dioxide emission reductions and the EU has already ill advisedly established legislation to control its carbon dioxide gases at the level being proposed in the new UN recommendation.

All of these meetings and discussions are intended to keep the ball rolling on the ridiculous matter of man-made global warming. Even Elliott Derringer, Executive Vice President of the nonprofit Center for Climate and Energy Solutions predicts that the Doha meeting will will be a relatively low-key affair.

I suppose we can expect this boondoggling to continue as long as the public agrees to financially support government officials and others on such vacation trips. The operators will also be encouraged to continue participation as they receive these benefits and perceive obtaining additional benefits from the public feeding trough.

Fear Mongering on Man-Made Global Warming

In the Concentrates section of the November 12 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, CH says that based on a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, businesses, governments, and communities across the world need to plan for a warming world. The report goes on to say that by 2100, the world will be 6°C warmer than present.


That may or may not be true. There is no mention of how the report authors come to this conclusion. It may be just another instance of fear mongering on the part of global warming advocates.

However, the report does clearly indicate that it's prediction is based upon increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere caused by the activities of man. Again, there is no indication of how carbon dioxide affects global warming.

We continue to hear about carbon dioxide, and now additionally other gases, being designated as greenhouse gases. Presumably a greenhouse gas is one which has a special property of inhibiting transmission of heat through the atmosphere to interstellar space, thereby increasing global temperatures. No scientific proof or even a reasonable proposed mechanism has ever been presented to justify the claims.

In fact, data from the gas encyclopedia indicates that the transmission of heat through carbon dioxide is not significantly different than it is through the other atmospheric gases, including the nitrogen and oxygen which are the major atmospheric constituents. In addition, the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would make the effect insignificant.

More on Global Warming

This is a modified form. I previously goofed up my math.

 

CJ Anonymous says:
    You may have seen a recent report that the Gulf Stream along the East Coast is beginning to unlock billions of tons of methane now frozen as methane hydrate on the ocean floor.  There is speculation as to how much of this will be converted to carbon dioxide by ocean bacteria and how much will be released as methane.  However either way, this is a major source of green house gases completely out of control by humans.  Add to that another major source of methane from anaerobic decay of plant and animal wastes that humans have no control over. It then becomes logical to ask whether or not humans can do very much about global warming.

    It seems to me that prudent conservation is good policy.  However, current measures being legislated and regulated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are extreme, and the negative economic impact far outweighs the value of those reductions.

I reply:    Not to worry about natural events. Worry about the irrational decisions of politicians.
    Let's take a look at the greenhouse gas aspect of methane.
    Thermal conductivity is a measure of the ability of a material to transfer heat. The thermal conductivity of nitrogen, which is about the same as the total atmosphere, is 24 mW/(mK). For methane, it is 33 mW/(mK). This means infrared or heat passes through methane easier than through the atmosphere, and therefore has a negative greenhouse effect of 37%.
    The total weight of the earth's atmosphere is 5.3 X10E15 tons. Let's just say we release 5.3 billion tons of methane from the seafloor. That's 5.3 X 10E9 tons and would increase the total atmosphere to 5.3 X 10E24 tons. The methane content of the atmosphere would then be 1 X 10E-13 %  ((5.3 X 10E9 / 5.3 X 10E24) X 100), which is 1 preceded by 13 zeros; an extremely low concentration. Even though the heat of transmission for methane is 37% higher than that for the atmosphere in general, the low concentration of methane in the atmosphere would make its effect insignificant.

More Fear and Costs on Climate Change

    According to the National Research Council (NRC), the Earth is warming at unprecedented rates, which will lead to floods, droughts, raging storms, and heat waves. A picture of a flooded street in Belmar New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy is included. The report goes on to say that these extreme natural events are related to US security. It doesn't say how this relationship exists, but it does recommend monitoring climate-change impacts on 12 to 15 countries because of this national security. In addition it also recommends that 50 or so other country should be watched because of potential humanitarian concerns. These items constitute the bulk of the report by Jeff Johnson in the November 19 issue of Chemical and Engineering News.

    Unfortunately, the NRC gives no reference supporting their conclusion of these impending disasters. Hurricane Sandy is used as an example, but no mention is made of a recent report on the Weather Channel that in the last several years, there was one other hurricane larger than Sandy. The report also does not mention the Hurricane of 1938, which devastated Long Island, New York, nor the drought that existed in the Southwest for several years in the 30s.

    In essence, we have the usual claptrap that extreme climate change is in progress and the implication that it is caused by carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. The government objective is to influence the public to approve a carbon tax in order to reduce such devastation. Note also that the national security issue has now been injected, which will require significant additional funding for "monitoring and careful selection of variables likely to affect climate change in some 12 to 15 countries, and the need to watch 50 or so other countries for humanitarian concerns brought about by climate change".

    I wonder how soon, if ever, we can expect some rational thinking on the part of government leaders. Climate change exists and has always existed. The basic causes are so large that the puny activities of man have little to no effect on climate. As climate change continues, it is man's obligation to adjust to the changes, not to try to influence those changes. As an example of futility, what would be man's chances of changing the relationship between night and day, which is distinctly a factor controlling climate?

Man-Made Global Warming

Open letter to the editor of Chemical and Engineering News:

Dear Dr. Rouhi,    I was extremely disappointed with your editorial in the November 12 issue.    You appear to be taking up the same drum beating previously used by your predecessor Rudy Baum. I can partially excuse Rudy. He is a political hack, but I initially gave you more credit as a scientist.    The issue is man-made global warming.    In your editorial, you dwell on the anecdotal instance of Tullo's house on Staten Island and seem to use that as a basis for stating that, "Weather events of super storm Sandy's magnitude and devastation are increasing in frequency". That seems to be a rather silly conclusion, if you relate it only to Tullo's house. However if you are relating it to more general experiences, what are they? The directors of the TV weather channel do not seem to support that view.
    If we want to talk about anecdotal instances, I can understand your inability as a young person to recall the Hurricane of 1938 or the Dustbowl in the '30s. However I lived through both those times, and although I was personally not affected, I recall many of the reported details.
    The Hurricane of 1938 missed Manhattan and Staten Island. It went a little farther East and smashed Long Island. It changed the topography, such that the Department of Interior had to redraw topographical maps of Long Island.
    The Dustbowl was of longer duration. Fortunately, PBS is now running a several-part series on TV. I don't think that you need to watch the few hours of presentation, but you might look at some patches and get a better idea of what it was about. See if you can find the sections on the dust clouds, which are very impressive.
    Notice that those two events, one of short duration and one of longer duration, occurred more than 70 years ago. I don't know what the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was at that time, but we could look it up. Why did it take 60 years to come to some conclusion, likely erroneous, that increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration are responsible for climate change? Sandy was no worse than the Hurricane of '38 and the Dustbowl of the '30s.
    As a scientist, you have an obligation to scientifically support any generalizations you may make. What data do you have which shows a connection between global warming and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration? If you can find no data which logically support your theory, you should stop beating the drum.
    One of my Associates said, "What we are facing is the adoption by political elites of policies to mitigate it [global warming].  They believe that it is "settled science" and are using the political process to promulgate laws and regulations intended to provide some control over global warming.  It is largely out of the hands of skeptical scientists to control the political process.  It will only be controlled by reducing the political power of those elites".
    Are you part of the problem?

The Hoax of Global Warming

From:   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2CK5e2bUd

 

"The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. 

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years."
    
Yesterday, Pres. Obama again waved the fear flag of global warming. Either the President is ignorant of the facts or he has a political agenda. I suspect it is the latter, which would be to establish a carbon tax on the burning of fossil fuels. This would lead to a significant increase in government revenues at the expense of the public, by which it will pay through higher electricity, heating, and gasoline prices