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

US Nonparticipation in EU Cap & Trade

There is good news in that the Democratic Senate has finally come up with a reasonable approach on a topic.

In the Government Concentrates section of the October 1 issue of C&E News, CH reports that the Senate has unanimously passed a bill which would prohibit US airlines from participating in the European Union's Cap & Trade system for greenhouse gas emissions.

A similar bill has already been passed by the House and after working out minor differences in committee, we will see whether Pres. Obama will sign the legislation.

A secondary interesting aspect is how the European Union will respond. Will it prohibit US airlines from having their planes take off and land in EU country airports?

Public Funding of Global Warming Research

    On the subject of Promoting Global Warming Theory, there is a short article by CH in the Government Concentrates Section of the September 24 Issue of C&E News.
    CH reports that a Virginia trial court prohibited release of climate researcher Michael Mann's emails on the subject of global warming.
    Michael Mann was a University of Virginia researcher, who basically established the global warming theory involving carbon dioxide by use of public money grants.
    It seems to me that the Virginia trial court is way off base on this decision. Public money used to support public research should justify public ownership and release of research information to the public. Conversely, any research supported by private funding should be considered private property.

More Deception on Common Dioxide and Climate Change

    In the Government Concentrates section of Chemical and Engineering News, August 20 issue, there is a short article saying that unless we undertake capture of carbon dioxide emission from power plants, "long-term climate heating would increase by nearly 50%".
    I thought I would take a look at the reference, which is in Environmental Science & Technology. I find that particular publication is part of the American Chemical Society's retinue of magazines. Let's recall that the ACS is a big promoter of large government and particularly a promoter of government grants to universities. In turn, government grants to universities favor projects which are advantageous to government policy, which is further increase in the size of government and taxation to support it.
    The article of interest came from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which is almost a government agency. I was able to obtain only an abstract of the article. Access to the full article have cost me $35, or I could get a subscription to 250 articles for $500. I suspect this borders on limiting access to data which should be publicly available.
    Unfortunately, the abstract does not mention the "50% increase in heating", which still leaves me in the position of not knowing what it means. However, the abstract again goes on to justify whatever claim it's making because of "cumulative radiative forcing". This is a term which was invented by the environmentalists as a pseudoscientific reason to justify their attempts to establish public fear of climate change caused by carbon dioxide emissions.
    In fact, there is no reason to believe that any carbon dioxide emissions, which would increase carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, would have any effect on climate. Tests of heat transfer through carbon dioxide are not significantly different than heat transfer through oxygen and nitrogen, which are the major components of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide constitutes only about 0.025% of the atmosphere. At that low concentration, any effect would be negligible, unless carbon dioxide has some kind of magical property. The promoters of carbon dioxide capture have invented the "cumulative radiative forcing" as the magical property, with no explanation of how the magic works in the real world.
    In essence the government, with the assistance of universities and the American chemical Society, continues its unrelenting pursuit of attempts to force power plants to capture carbon dioxide from its emissions. If it is successful on this, all power plants will undergo major cost increases for new equipment, which will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher electricity prices. In addition, there will be penalties imposed by government, and we all know from the recent decision of the Supreme Court on Obama care that it is difficult to distinguish between a penalty and a tax. They are essentially the same, with government obtaining money. Penalties paid by power companies will also be a "cost of doing business" and passed on to the consumer in the form of increased electricity prices. Do you want to pay a higher price for your electricity on government's mystical claim that if you don't, climate change will really hurt you?