Laboratory Work on CO2/Global Warming Needed

Open email to explorers and producers of crude oil and associated products:

Pres. Obama told scientists at Argonne National Laboratories on March 15 that he wants to shift our cars and trucks entirely off oil. In effect, he wants to put you out of the oil business.
To do this, he will collect from you royalties paid for your drilling in federal waters. He expects to collect from you $2 billion over 10 years and use this money to develop advanced electric vehicles. Notice that he will be asking you to pay for your own demise

It seems to me that you have two choices. Either go into the electric car business or fight Obama's proposal with technological information.

For some years, we imported considerable quantities of crude oil and still do. Because of that, there have been continued minor attempts to release our economy from dependence on imported oil. That has recently changed. Large quantities of shale gas are now available through improved fracking technology. Similarly, advanced drilling technology has also made available increased quantities of crude oil. In several years, we can be basically energy independent. This obviates one of the reasons for Pres. Obama's push for electric vehicles.

The other reason for Pres. Obama's program to eliminate use of oil in motor vehicles is the fact that one of the products of use is emission of carbon dioxide. He has related carbon dioxide emissions to increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the simultaneous include increase in global warming. Since global warming supposedly will have dire effects on the world economy, he takes the attitude that we obviously have to control global warming and eliminating carbon dioxide emissions will do that.

However, he has no basis for that conclusion other than the two facts. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been increasing simultaneously with increasing global temperature. He has taken no consideration that these two facts may be coincidental and unrelated. For some reason, he wants to place the blame for global temperature increase on carbon dioxide. You are responsible, because you produce oil and sell it to people who use it unwisely, such as transportation.

As a scientist, I see the weakness in this correlation, especially having checked some fundamental data available on the Internet. The term "greenhouse gas" has been invented and subsequently relegated as a bad term, even though greenhouse gases are responsible for our ability to live on this planet. The Obama theory is that the sun's radiation comes through the atmosphere unimpeded, strikes the earth surface to generate heat, which cannot pass out to the stratosphere, because of the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 350 ppm. However, when one checks the insulation capabilities of various atmospheric gases, as reported in the Air Encyclopedia, carbon dioxide heat insulation is not significantly different from the other natural gases, such as oxygen and nitrogen.

I strongly recommend that you engage in a significant research effort, starting in the laboratory and following through to real-life speculation concerning whether carbon dioxide is a culprit as designated by Obama or a figment of his imagination. Once you have become convinced one way or another, you can then either contradict Obama's claim or support it to your own demise.

Weakening Global Warming Data

The government of Australia has been a strong promoter of the nonexistent relationship, up to now, between global warming and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
The Australian is a broadsheet newspaper published in Australia from Monday to Saturday each week since 14 July 1964. It is the biggest-selling national newspaper in the country, although local newspapers in Sydney and Melbourne have substantially higher circulation.
The Australian recently ran an extensive article on global warming.  http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980.
The Australian article quotes from various sources as follows:
"DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the skeptical fringe to the mainstream.
In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity - the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels - would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.
Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.
The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says."

Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    Thank you for your two responses to my emails on carbon dioxide and global warming. I recognize that the burden of responding to all of your correspondence requires the use of various "form" paragraphs. Those paragraphs indicate to me your general thought processes on any specific subject.
    With all due respect, Senator, you have been hoodwinked into the global warming scheme, as have many other relatively educated Americans. You seem to accept a relationship between carbon dioxide concentration emissions, from burning fossil fuels, and any apparent increase in earth average temperatures. Nothing could be father from the truth.    In effect, you say carbon dioxide heats the earth. What should we do about it? An analogy could be: witches are bad. What should we do to control them. In both cases, one would be making an assumption on the reality of the situation, which really does not exist. If something is not real, why would one want to control it?
    If I may be so bold as to improve your education on the subject, you should not talk about carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, with the implication that it is essentially responsible for all of the projected devastation of global warming. In fact, our total atmosphere is composed of global warming gases. They are not only advantageous but absolutely necessary for the existence of life on earth, since they average out the temperatures between the light and dark side reception of radiation from the sun. NASA's writeups on global warming cover that point in the first step of its various essays.
    Since the natural atmospheric gases, most of which are nitrogen and oxygen, are responsible for the positive greenhouse effect that we have, a more logical question to pose is whether there is something unusual about carbon dioxide, which exacerbates the greenhouse effect to a dangerous level, even though it's concentration in the atmosphere is at the extremely low level of about 350 ppm. Before we move on to the subject of how to control carbon dioxide and the various costs associated, plus relationships with China and India, would it not be reasonable to first determine whether there is a problem?

Secretary of State Kerry - Global Warming

    In a recent speech, new Secretary of State Kerry gave strong emphasis to a need for controlling global warming. I don't believe he specified how he intends to do this, but the party line has been to control carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
    I would like to know from Secretary Kerry what justification he has to relate carbon dioxide to global warming. If we have global warming, and there is some conjecture about that, what does carbon dioxide emissions have to do with it? Granted, carbon dioxide emissions are up. So is inflation, the national debt, Chicago murders, etc. Are any of these responsible for global warming?

More Climate Change Snake Oil

In his inauguration address, Pres. Obama declared a renewed effort to address climate change. What he meant was a continued effort to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels, and the passage of Cap & Trade legislation.

He actually has those in reverse order. What he wants is a Cap & Trade program, which will allow his government to reap heavy benefits through taxes. The carbon dioxide emission program is only a basis for that tax program.

The White House Press Secretary later said that Pres. Obama would give specific actions in his State of Union Address to Congress. I later heard the State of the Union Address and heard no specific actions. However, the Press Secretary also said that the President would basically bypass Congress and use the EPA in order to limit CO2 emissions. That is likely to happen. He has already used the EPA to bypass Congress on other matters.

If one concedes that carbon dioxide emission poses a threat of impending disaster to the world, then obviously, we must reduce it. The way we accomplish that is to completely eliminate the burning of fossil fuels. But, think of the job; a tremendous rebuilding of our public utility power system and replacement of the whole national automotive fleet with electric vehicles. It would be akin to the national effort we applied in fighting and winning World War II.

But is it necessary or is it a "make work" program on a massive scale??

In his Inaugural Address, Pres. Obama said that some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms. The overwhelming judgment of science? Does he mean the statements sent through pseudoscientific papers issued by University professors, who are in the grant-paid employ of his administration?

The fact is that most scientists will agree that the equalization of temperatures between night and day on earth, which allows human life, is based upon the earth's atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen. This equalization of the earth's temperature between night and day is the greenhouse effect, and the gases of the earth's atmosphere are responsible. Carbon dioxide is a part of that gas system.

But is this something special about carbon dioxide? No! When one measures the resistance to the passage of heat through individual gases, the data show that there is not a major difference. But, the key point is that we must also consider individual gas concentrations. The greenhouse effect is attributed essentially to the nitrogen and oxygen, because they constitute most of the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide concentration is less than 0.1%, and therefore, can have only a 0.1% contribution. Even if one doubles the concentration of carbon dioxide, it's contribution is then only 0.2%. Is this the source of all tremendous devastation of "raging fires, crippling drought and more powerful storms" and more yet to come?

One might question whether the climate is really changing or whether it only appears to be doing so because of a significant increase in our reporting techniques through radio and television. One can find data showing that there has been a slight increase of a degree or so in the last 10 years. Other data show that there is a decrease, and it is difficult to know what to believe. But, if we want to believe that there is a slight increase, the question is what is the reason and can we control it? The obvious answer is the Sun's output. Most of our energy, in the form of heat comes from the Sun, which is known to have variable output is shown by previous ice ages in the Earth's history.

If the sun is the cause of any global warming which might exist, and if carbon dioxide is not a significant factor, does Pres. Obama intend to make some effort to control the suns output? But that thought is no more ridiculous than the idea that an insignificant concentration of carbon dioxide could lead to devastation of our climate.

Global Warming on Permafrost

The United Nations Environment Program has a new fear for us. It reports that human-caused climate change will lead to thawing of the permafrost with generation of "greenhouse gases" carbon dioxide and methane. That in turn will lead to more thawing and more generation of carbon dioxide and methane. The report couples this with the assertion that carbon dioxide and methane are the basic cause of global warming.

Let's look at this from a practical scientific point of view. First of all, temperature recordings show that the average Global temperature has increased over the past few decades, and this has been designated as Global Warming. There is also no doubt that in the combustion of fossil fuels, man has generated more heat. However, there has been no study of quantification, and the likelihood that increased heat from fossil fuel burning is insignificant compared to variations in heat supplied by the sun.

Methane and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. That is, they inhibit the passage of heat from the year's surface to outer space. However, the other major gases of the atmosphere do the same thing, which is why we have relatively small differences between nighttime and daytime temperatures on Earth, as compared to non-atmospheric bodies, such as the Moon. The heat transmission through the various gases are respectively, 15 mW/(m.K) for carbon dioxide, 33 for methane, and 24 each for oxygen and nitrogen. Note that methane actually allows more heat to be lost from the Earth's surface than the other three. However, the actual effects of Earth's heat loss or gain by the presence of carbon dioxide and methane is insignificant, because of the very low concentrations in the atmosphere. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is only 0.05%. The methane concentration is only 0.0002%.

The bottom line is we have more hogwash from global warming enthusiasts. They have a slight basic position with Earth's temperatures, but lose sight of practicality when they attribute any measurable temperature rise to man-made activity of either direct heat generation or increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane.

Open Letter to Rep. Smith - Climate Control

Open letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). A copy has been mailed to the Representative.

Dear Rep. Smith,
    Congratulations on your recent ascension to Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology! With your having served in the House for 26 years and being an advocate for Science, Technology, and Space Exploration, as well as a supporter of increased oil and gas production, I am confident that you are well positioned to fulfill this role.
    You are reported to be a supporter of federal aid to increased oil and gas production, to which I take exception. I am confident that the oil and gas industry can well fulfill its role to supply the American public, without the use of taxpayer funds from government. However, that is not the main point of my writing.
    You are also reported to be a climate-change skeptic. The purpose of my letter is to better define the terms and reduce the matter of skepticism to that of conviction.
    Climate change is a fact. There are good data showing that over the millennia, global climate has varied greatly. In the past several years, Earth temperature has apparently increased about 1°F. We have no reason to believe that these measurements are incorrect, and therefore accept that we are in the process of global warming, which is a climate change.
    However, the significant difference among proponents, opponents, and skeptics involves whether human activities have caused and will continue to cause climate change. This is an extremely significant point.
    If global warming has been caused by factors other than human involvement, it is less likely that any human corrective action will be effective, and the best course is to adapt.
    Conversely, if global warming has been caused by human activity in increasing the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere, an obvious control on global warming is to control carbon dioxide emissions. There has been a limited acceptance of CO2 theory on the part of the public, private industry, and more so on the part of government officials. However, the theorists have been unable to prove connectivity between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration. The reason that the theory continues to exist appears to be opportunities for individual power and profit combined with a larger bloated government through CO2 emission tax revenues.
    My objective with this letter is for you to consider the details of connectivity between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In this way, I hope you will become convinced, as am I, that there is none and that no consideration should be given at any time to the spending of billions of dollars to control CO2 atmospheric emissions.
    I am attaching a recent essay on my reaction to Michael Mann's recent book, "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" [already in the blog]. In addition, I also refer you to other similar essays, which I have written over the past few years, and are contained in my blog http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com.



Respectfully yours,

Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
asucsy@suddenlink.net