More on Global Warming Hoax

Open Email to House Representatives and Senators:

Dear House Representatives and Senators,
    I address this to you because you will undoubtedly be involved in financing any projects involving global warming. For example, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a $19 billion program to fortify New York City against any negative effects of global warming. You can be sure that Mayor Bloomberg will be coming to you for taxpayer money. You need to be kept up-to-date to avoid more squandering of taxpayer funds than you have tended to do in the past.
     James Delingpoile of the British newspaper Telegraph has a very informative article bringing us to date on the global warming hoax. Since it is a rather long article, I will only include excerpts here.
    Delingpole reports that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) will have a new report out on Friday, but there has been leakage of information. The IPPC has given a preannouncement that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change. and that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”.
    Delingpole says that as an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory [World War II]. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost.
    Computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering with predictions of runaway global warming, have been shown to be bunk. This is not surprising to a few distinguished scientists, whose voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.
    This is why the latest IPPC Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources.

    Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option – a high-risk strategy. Gone are the days when all anybody read of its Assessment Reports were the sexed-up “Summary for Policymakers”. Today, thanks to the internet, sceptical inquirers such as Donna Laframboise (who revealed that some 40 per cent of the IPCC’s papers came not from peer-reviewed journals but from Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund propaganda) will be going through every chapter with a fine toothcomb.

    Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”. Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: 'We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/

    It will be interesting to see how Pres. Obama handles this new information, since he has made climate change one of the more important considerations of his administration.

More on Climate Change

The British newspaper Express has an article on climate change. It refers to a report from the UK Energy Research Centre, which shows the number of those who resolutely do not believe in climate change has more than quadrupled since 2005. The report comes as climate change scientists working on a landmark UN report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.
The question of whether climate change is real or unreal is deceptive in the context of the real question, which is whether the activities of mankind are increasing global temperatures.
As a straight factual question of whether the climate of the earth is variable, the answer is obviously "yes". We have good historical records to show that Earth's temperature has varied from year to year, sometimes to the extent that it has affected life conditions of living species.
Another misunderstanding involves the term "greenhouse gases". Those who propose that greenhouse gases generated by mankind are responsible for climate change ignore the fact that at a more basic level, greenhouse gases are good. Without an atmosphere composed of greenhouse gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen, daytime/nighttime variations in temperature would be so great as to not allow Earth habitation.
The climate change fear mongers claim that increases in carbon dioxide concentration through mankind's burning of fossil fuels radically increases earth temperature, because it is a greenhouse gas. While carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it is not significantly different from nitrogen and oxygen, it now exists in the atmosphere at a concentration of 0.05%. At such a low concentration, it has an insignificant effect on climate compared to the major constituents of the atmosphere. If the concentration were even doubled to 0.1%, its effect would still be insignificant.
Advocates of the theory that carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere cause an increase in global temperatures must be called to task. To merely note an increase in global temperatures or an increase in violent storms, while simultaneously noting an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is irrelevant. Using that sort of argument, one could say that global temperature increase is caused by an increase in the number of home runs accomplished each year in professional baseball. An obviously ridiculous assertion!
The only way that atmospheric carbon dioxide could affect Earth temperature is for it to have extremely unusual heat insulation properties, such that during nighttime, heat cannot escape from the Earth to interstellar space. If this is actually the case, I would like to be shown laboratory data demonstrating such unusual property of carbon dioxide.

Greenhouse Gases Are Good

Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,   
    Thank you for your form letter of 9/6/13 on climate change.
    Unfortunately, we seem to be in a circle. I replied to that same letter on 6/27/13. If you want to see what I said at that time, refer to my blog at http://arthur-climatechange.blogspot.com.
    However, readdressing the matter from the context of your form letter, I have similar comments formulated with somewhat different wording.
    With all due respect, I remind you that responding to an adversary's fallacious statements only leads to futile discussion. This is particularly applicable with respect to claims involving climate change and your response thereto.
    First of all, the term "greenhouse gas" has incorrectly been given a negative connotation. All atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc. are greenhouse gases. The term means that the presence of those gases in the atmosphere inhibits the loss of heat from the earth during nighttime hours. In other words, atmospheric gases stabilize surface temperatures. If it were not for our present atmosphere, the temperature variations on earth between night and day would be so extreme as to not allow the existence of human life, even if some sort of breathable oxygen was obtained. Simply stated, greenhouse gases are good.
    The question then develops as to whether too much of a good thing can be bad. The obvious answer is yes. If the heat insulative properties of atmospheric gases were higher than they presently are, surface temperatures on earth could be so high as to not allow the existence of human life. But that is not possible, because the insulative properties of the various atmospheric gases are what they are and will not change. This is a standard property of matter, such as the freezing and boiling points of water.
    The only possible changes are that there could be an increase or decrease in the quantities of these atmospheric (greenhouse) gases. However, that is not likely based upon historical and archaeological records of the earth and a recognition of the fact that atmospheric gases are held in place by a balance of gravitational and centrifugal forces, which is another basic property of matter.
    The mass of the atmosphere is 5×10^ 18 kg. That's 5 followed by 18 zeros. If you like tons, it's 2.5 followed by 15 zeros tons. That's a big number but carbon dioxide is only 0.04% of that. The heat resistivity (insulating properties) of the individual various atmospheric gases is roughly the same. Therefore the heat resistivity contribution of carbon dioxide is insignificant compared to the other atmospheric gases, primarily because it is present in such a small quantity.
    Bottom line. I suggest you do not accept assertions that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a dangerous gas and any subsequent additions through fossil fuel burning are deleterious.

Climate Change

Open email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    Thank you for your form letter on climate change.
    You said that many proposed legislative and regulatory remedies for climate change are draconian and would undermine job creation, raise electric rates and gasoline prices, and make American manufacturing less competitive.  Ironically, they do little to reduce global production of greenhouse gases.   I am committed to responsible environmental stewardship, but I cannot support measures that undermine our individual and economic freedoms by placing more control of our economy in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
    I respectfully suggest that you are on the right track but are using some incorrect facts.

    First, greenhouse gases are not necessarily destructive. In fact, we owe most of our favorable world climatic conditions to the presence of greenhouse gases. Without them, life would be unsustainable on earth.
    All of the individual gases in the atmosphere show a greenhouse effect. None of them is more or less efficient than another as a heat reflector. Therefore, the concentration of any specific gas in the total atmosphere is the determining factor for its actual greenhouse effect. The job is being done by a combination of nitrogen and oxygen, which constitute most of the atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide's contribution is negligible, because of its low concentration (presence) at 0.04%.

Interior Dept. Employees Must Support Administration Global Warming Theory

Open email to Chairman Lamar Smith (TX)  Science, Space, and Technology Committee

Dear Rep. Smith,
    Pres. Obama has a stated policy to reduce the use of carbon containing fuels to foster development of wind and solar energy sources. Part of his program is to claim that carbon dioxide, which is emitted in burning carbon containing fuels, leads to global warming. There is no more scientific proof of the relationship between carbon dioxide and global warming than there is to baseball scores controlling the rising of the moon.
    The following is a quotation from the Washington Examiner:
    "Buried in a lengthy Washington Post article about President Obama’s environmental policy is an illuminating anecdote about just how debatable the administration views climate change — namely, not at all:
    In an agency-wide address to employees Aug. 1, (Interior Secretary Sally) Jewell took the unusual step of suggesting that no one working for her should challenge the idea that human activity is driving recent warming. “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior,” she said.
    The address does not appear to be posted on the department’s website, so the Washington Examiner can only go by the Post’s presumably third-hand version. Still, it raises some interesting questions: What would happen to somebody at the department who raised some skepticism regarding Jewell’s take on climate change? Would they be in danger of losing their job?
    For example, what if that person posted a news article pointing out that the global temperatures have been flat for the last two decades?
    Presumably somebody at the Interior Department knows the answers to these questions. Whether they’re willing to talk openly about them is another question."

Refrigerants in the Atmosphere

Open Email to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy:

Dear Administrator McCarthy,
    In the June 17 issue of C&E News, Cheryl Hogue reports that Pres. Barack Obama and Chinese Pres. Xi Jinping have agreed to cooperatively phase down production and use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC's). HFC's are used as refrigerants in air conditioning equipment. There is no indication of what would be used as a replacement, if HFC's were eliminated.

    It is also reported that HFC's have been adjudged to do no harm to stratospheric ozone. Ozone is said to be needed in the upper atmosphere in order to protect citizens from overexposure to ultraviolet at the surface. I will tentatively accept that conclusion.

    However, the main reason for the presidential agreement seems to be a matter of climate change. It is said that HFCs have a global warming potential 1300 times greater than that of CO2. I find that a very questionable assertion, since absorption of such heat by any molecule would be enough to break the bonds of atomic attraction. However, even if we take that at face value, we have to consider the extremely low concentration of such material in the atmosphere. Climate will be controlled by the majority of gases in the atmosphere, which includes nitrogen and oxygen. HFC's will have no significant effect on climate, because of their extremely low concentration.

Refrigerant Gases

Open email to Environmental Protection Agency Director Gina McCarthy:

Dear Director McCarthy,
    For those other persons who may also be reading this email, I explain that refrigerant gases are those gases which are used in mechanical heating and cooling devices, such as air conditioners, refrigerators, freezers, and heat pumps. While some naturally occurring gases, such as ammonia, can be used for this purpose, chemical companies have developed synthetic materials which are more efficient. The synthetic materials are usually methane modified with chlorine or fluorine.
    An article in the January 1 issue of Chemical & Engineering News is concerned with the the so-called threat of the synthetic refrigerant gases to the environment.
    In the manufacture of desired HFC-22, byproduct HFC-23 is also formed. Through the system of international "carbon credits", the manufacturers were paid to destroy the byproduct HFC-23, rather than release it into the environment. That profitable trading system involving destruction of HFC-23 has now ended, and it is supposed that manufacturers in China and India will now release HFC-23 to the atmosphere, rather than continue to destroy it.
    The concern is that HFC-23 is estimated to be a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
    As you know, being part of the Obama Administration,, the party line is to relate greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, to global warming. There is no satisfactory mechanism suggested by which there is a connection between these two, but that seems to be irrelevant with respect to the Administration's desire.
    Since HFC-23 is considered a powerful greenhouse gas, which will also lead to global warming, the fear mongers are wringing their hands with respect to this new development. However, since there is no clear indication that global warming is related to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, it appears to me that we should not be concerned about any increase in atmospheric concentration of HFC-23, with respect to global warming.
    There is another factor that bears some consideration. That is, the effect of synthetic gases in the atmosphere with respect to ultraviolet density at the Earth's surface. The upper atmosphere contains a high concentration of ozone. Its purpose appears to be to react with incoming ultraviolet light (UV) from the sun to reduce the concentration of UV reaching the Earth's surface. Excessive concentrations of UV at the Earth surface are a physical danger to humans.
    HFC-22 has been found to be an ozone depletor, which means that by its presence in the atmosphere, less ozone will be available in the upper atmosphere, and more dangerous UV will arrive at the year's surface. While I am not inclined to believe that there is any effect of carbon dioxide relating to global warming, I tend to believe that the ozone/UV problem is real.
    Fortunately, HFC-23 is considered NOT to be an ozone depletor.
    The net result is that I anticipate no adverse effects on global warming nor increase in UV concentration at the Earth's surface by the fact that synthetic refrigerant manufacturers will no longer be destroying HFC-23 and will release it to the atmosphere. However, I do find it objectionable from the general point of view that we don't know what other damage HFC-23 will do to the environment. We do know that is a very stable compound and will tend to accumulate in the atmosphere. The good news is that according to the C&E News article, manufacture of HFC-22 (and HFC-23 as byproduct) is being phased out in developed countries starting this year.

Sincerely,
Arthur C Sucsy PhD