No Need to Panic About Global Warming

The following article was sent to me by a nephew:

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

www.djreprints.com

Info for the Uninformed Environmentalist

The following is from one of my nephews:

"I was the presiding person at a community legislative forum. I read questions from cards the audience submitted.  One question had to do with CO2,  and the legislator spoke about the rain forest and alluded that the US urban sprawl had cleared many trees. At the end of his answer, I said that from my many years in the lumber business, I knew that there were more trees in the US now than in George Washington's day."

Reduce Expenditures for Climate Change Research

Congress passed the Global Change Research Act of 1992 to collect information on man's contribution to global climate change. Thirteen departments and agencies were specified for the program. Consistent with all budgetary matters, Congress continues to fund the program annually. The last announced funding a few years ago was $2 billion.

The current political accent is on the economy, including size of government and its cost. Such discussion has been going on for many months with apparently little progress. But we have to start somewhere. Some may say that $2 billion is a pittance. However there are thousands of these pittances in our federal government operations and these involve trillions of dollars.

Why not start cutting this one? Why does the US have responsibility for the determining any possibility of man's contribution to global climate change? If this work seems desirable, would it not be more appropriate to relegate it to the United Nations, to which we already pay substantial sums?

The UN Climate Change Program Is Dying

We now have a report on the latest UN meeting at Durban concerning climate change. Cheryl Hogue reports in the December 19 issue of Chemical and Engineering News.

The so-called "big change" is that greenhouse gas emissions, say carbon dioxide, will no longer be limited to industrialized countries as required by the original Kyoto Accord. It will now include all major CO2 emitters.

I don't see the difference. The concentration seems to be on China, which is a major emitter, because of its size, but it is also an industrialized country. If you don't believe that, check various retail stores for goods made in China.

Democratic Sen. Kerry says the US will lose now lose its long-held position that it will not abide by the Kyoto Accord, because China does not. Kerry seems to have the presumption that China will now be in agreement, which is not necessarily fact.

The original Kyoto Accord involved two stages of CO2 emission reductions. Canada, Japan, and Russia were part of the Kyoto Protocol, but they have now announced that they will not sign up for the second round of CO2 emission reductions. In addition, Canada announced that it is withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol completely. It is said that Canada has done little to cut its CO2 emissions and may be susceptible to a fine. I say "hooray" for Canada. They should not be cutting CO2 emissions, but rather using all forms of energy in order to aid in developing an improved way of life for its citizens. It would be silly of Canada to actually pay any fine that might be placed on it.

Frank Maisano, an energy specialist representing utilities and refineries has said that path to a treaty established in Durban will be meaningless and nobody will follow through on it. I strongly hope this prediction will come true.

Let us remember that CO2 does no harm in the atmosphere with respect to any climate change. The whole idea of CO2 emission control is a political maneuver to equalize worldwide financial assets, through a tax program called Cap & Trade.

Improved Sea Transportation Route

Jyllian Kemsley has an article entitled, "Connecting Ice and Air" in the December 5 issue of Chemical and Engineering News. It is about a scientific probe concerning the role of sea ice in atmospheric chemistry as the Arctic warms. This seems to me to be a reasonable study, providing it doesn't cost "too much". I should also point out that I am not disputing warming of the Arctic and the reduction in ice coverage, nor am I disputing that there is such a thing as climate change. However, I do dispute any implication that the activities of man has had any significant effect on this climate change.

With that aside and unrelated to the basic study,, I am impressed with the shrinkage of ice coverage, leading to opportunities in sea transport.

According to Wikipedia, Roald Amundsen found a connection between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans north of Canada in the early 1900s.. However until 2009, Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year. Climate change has now reduced the Arctic pack ice making this waterway more navigable.

It should be noted that, other than this Northwest Passage, the only connections between the Atlantic and Pacific are through the Panama Canal and around the southern end of South America. The Panama route has its limitation in the size of ships if can handle, although the capacity has recently been somewhat expanded. The southern route has the disadvantage of increased distance, which extends the time of delivery.

We hear many predictions of doom from the effects of climate change. Here is one effect that could be significantly economically helpful.

The Climate Change Fear Mongers Are Still At It

The November 28 issue of Chemical and Engineering News reported that new talks would begin on that date in South Africa concerning the curbing of greenhouse gas emissions. They really mean reducing CO2. They also plan to brace the world for the worsening impacts of climate change, which are detailed in a recently released UN report.

I have not seen the UN report, but the C&E News article includes a picture with a caption that says "A new report says storms like Hurricane Irene are likely to become more intense but not more frequent". It would be interesting to see how they could make this prediction. I also note that in the subsequent issue of C&E News on December 5, there is no mention of the results of the meeting. Hopefully, it was a bust.

"Negotiators", and I use the term loosely as reported by C&E News, are trying to get China to reduce its CO2 emissions, but China has wisely not agreed. The US continues to sit on the fence by saying that if China doesn't agree, it will also not agree. While I don't like the rationale, at least it is progress in going nowhere on limiting CO2 emissions.

For those who may not have been following the aspects of CO2 emissions, the claim is that CO2 leads to global warming, with disastrous effects. However, the fact is that there are no data to support this theory. The basis is not so much an environmental concern but rather a government interest in obtaining additional tax revenues through a carbon tax. Another negative for even considering it is that it would cost trillions of dollars to control CO2 emissions unnecessarily from power plants and other major sources, at a time when the US is very strongly in deficit, with a completely unbalanced budget.

Refrigerant Gases and Global Warming

In the early use of refrigeration, the process used ammonia and sulfur dioxide, for compression and decompression to obtain cooling. These gases were somewhat obnoxious and were subsequently replaced by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). However, someone later developed the theory that CFCs were reacting with ozone in the upper stratosphere and it was necessary to preserve the ozone as a protective barrier to damaging radiation from the sun at the Earth's surface. We will not now discuss the merits of this theory, but it led to modification of the CFCs, with the intention of using gases less reactive to ozone. These modified gases are now being criticized as contributing to global warming. See Cheryl Hogue's article in the December 5 issue of C&E News.

As is usual with most problems, a mathematical analysis usually brings the problem into perspective, with respect to its significance. Let's do this with refrigerants to determine whether their contribution to global warming is significant.

The weight of the Earth's atmosphere, which is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, is estimated to be 5.5x10 E 21 grams. The "E 21" means there are 21 zeros following the 5.5. The molecular weight of air is approximately 30 g per mole. Therefore, the number of moles of air in the atmosphere is 5.5x10 E 21 divided by 30, or about 2x10 E 20.

A mole of any substance is made up of 6x10 E 23 molecules. Therefore, the number of molecules of air in the atmosphere is 2x10 E 30 times 6x10 E 23, or about 1x10 E 44.

In 1991, usage of CFCs for refrigeration and blowing agents was 6.8x10 E 11 grams. Assume the worst-case for the atmosphere, which is that all the CFCs entered the atmosphere. The molecular weight of the most common CFC (dichlorodifluoromethane) is 120. Therefore, the number of moles of CFC entering the atmosphere was 6.8x10 E 11 divided by 120, or about 6x10 E 9. Again converting to numbers of molecules, 6x10 E9 times 6x10 E 23 gives 36x10 E 32, or 3.6x10 E 33.

We now divide the number of air molecules in the atmosphere by the number of CFC molecules entering the atmosphere in 1991. 1x10 E 44 divided by 3.6x10 E. 33 gives about 1x10 E 11. In other words, there were 100 trillion times more air molecules then CFC molecules in the atmosphere in 1991.

The theory of global warming is that some molecules are greater reflectors of heat than others. The global warming effect is said to occur by those molecules not allowing heat to escape from the Earth's surface.

Assume the worst-case scenario. That is, molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere allow complete passage of heat from the earth's surface to interstellar space, while molecules of CFC completely block this passage of heat.

Let us now also make an analogy that we have a net containing 100 trillion holes (pretty big net!). One of the holes is completely blocked. Is that enough to have any significant effect on what passes through all the remaining holes?