I recently issued an essay concerning the position of the National Research Council (NRC) on global warming, or if it's rather cold, climate change.
The NRC says there is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that such excessive amount causes global warming or climate change. There are a couple of difficulties with that position. First of all, there is no clear connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and climate. We know that the total presence of atmospheric gases tends to equalize temperatures between night and day on the Earth surface, so that Earth is livable. However, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is only 0.05%, which does not make a significant contribution to the total.
The other question is "how much is too much"? The NRC ignores that, but touches lightly on it in mentioning photosynthesis.
The new factor is that after issuing my essay, one of our political constituents asked whether carbonated beverages have an effect.
First of all, I claim that any concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere below say 10% will have no effect on climate. Although not normally considered climate, the difference between night and day Earth surface temperatures is a very significant portion of climate and is controlled mainly by the major gasses of the atmosphere, which are nitrogen and oxygen.
But for discussion, let's say I am wrong and carbon dioxide has unusual properties in affecting climate. Starting from that basis, let's take a look at the contribution of carbonated beverages.
Annual world production of carbonated beverages is 188 billion liters. A 12-ounce (355 millititers) can of Coca-Cola contains 2.2 g of CO2. That 6.2 g of CO2 per liter of carbonated drink or 1166 billion grams of CO2 in the annual world production. That is also 2.6 x 10^6 US tons (i.e. 1.17 X 10^12 / 1 X 10^6 X 2.2) of CO2.
The mass of the Earth's atmosphere is 5.6 x 10^17 US tons. At 0.05% CO2, the atmospheric mass of CO2 is 2.8 X 10^14 US tons.
Let's assume that all CO2 content of the annual world production is lost to the atmosphere through opening the containers and belching. Therefore, the annual addition of CO2 to the atmosphere from carbonated beverages is 2.6 x10^6 / 2.8 x 10^14 x 100 = 0.000001%. After 10 years, the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere would have been 0.00001%.
For those who want to have skipped the calculations, and assume that I have made no mathematical errors, the answer to the political associate's question of whether carbon dioxide in carbonated beverages makes a significant difference to the CO2 content of the atmosphere, the answer is "no".
Monday, February 23, 2015
Sunday, February 22, 2015
National Research Council on Climate Change
In its February 16, 2015 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Steven Gibb reports that the National Research Council (NRC) is underscoring the need to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide before exploring ways to modify Earth's climate. The NRC is said to have released two reports on February 10 and has three suggestions. Before going into the detail of those suggestions, let us take a look at who the NRC is.
The NRC was organized on June 19, 1916 by the National Academy of Sciences (a private organization), at the request of President Woodrow Wilson. The purpose of the NRC was in part to foster and encourage ..."the increased use of scientific research in the development of American industries...the employment of scientific methods in strengthening the national defense ...and such other applications of science as will promote the national security and welfare." Since its inception, the NRC has done much good work, but through the years has become more politicized. It has retained its private status, with the likelihood that is now a hotbed of leftist scientists, as leftist environmentalists have infiltrated the organization.
In 2001, the NRC Committee on the Science of Climate Change published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. The report explicitly endorsed the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's findings as representing the view of the scientific community. The report has a quotation, "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rise are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue."
Basically, the NRC has held the view that for at least the past 14 years, climate change is man-induced. However, it had weasel worded its position by the use of the terms "likely", "mostly", "cannot rule out", and "are expected to continue".
On July 1, 2005 Ralph J. Cicerone became the 21st president of the National Academy of Sciences and chairman of the NRC. This was four years after the NRC had stated its position with respect to man-induced climate change, and I strongly suspect that Cicerone would not have been appointed Chairman of the NRC, if he had in any way been opposed to the National Academy's position on global warming.
Three months after Dr. Cicerone was appointed NRC Chairman, Chemical and Engineering News published an interview with him. One comment Dr. Cicerone made at the interview was, "For example, what is the most effective way to limit carbon dioxide emissions? Would it be a carbon tax?" With that statement, he obviously believes, or at least finds it politically expedient to say, that man-generated carbon dioxide through burning of fossil fuels results in global warming. Notice that he had not bothered to put in the weasel words of the NRC position four years earlier.
With that questionable background on the reliability of NRC positions, let us take a look at its recommendations.
The first is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By the term "greenhouse gases", NRC primarily means carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and possibly methane from accidental release in production of natural gas and from the intestinal activities of food animals and human beings. We have already embarked on that program of reducing CO2 emissions, even though there has not been any clearly established relationship between carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and global warming, or the recently modified term "climate change". In the Obama administration's promotion of solar and wind energy, and the EPA restrictions on use of coal as powerplant fuel, we have already spent many billions of dollars.
The second proposal is to reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through carbon dioxide removal (CDR). This would involve efforts to increase photosynthesis, and ocean iron fertilization, both of which are absorption techniques. The third CDR technique would be to process all atmospheric air through a device to remove the carbon dioxide. Let's always keep in mind that all of these proposals are made on the basis that "maybe" carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes to global warming.
The third proposal is really far out. It involves so-called Solar Radiation Management (SRM). The theory is that if you restructure the atmosphere to reduce the amount of radiation received at the Earth's surface, global warming will automatically be reduced. It's a theory and probably a good one but basically impractical. The specific proposal would be to add sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere as a radiation insulator, but there's a catch; acid rain.
Acid rain was first recognized about 30 years ago. Power plants were burning coal contaminated with sulfur, which also burned to produce sulfur dioxide. The sulfur dioxide gas was emitted to the atmosphere where it then further reacted with atmospheric oxygen to produce sulfur trioxide. The sulfur trioxide gas in the atmosphere was water-soluble, picked up by falling rain and deposited to the Earth's surface as dilute sulfuric acid. The acidification of lakes, ponds, and other inland waterways negatively affected aquatic life. The solution was to extract the sulfur from the coal before burning and thereby eliminate sulfur dioxide in the stack gases. Perhaps 30 years post experience use it is too long a term for the NRC to remember. It is obviously illogical to use intentional addition of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphereit now to try to control global warming, which would also mean a return to acid rain.
What does all this mean? To me, it means that the whole process of irrationality begins when someone has a thought, which in more scientific consideration is generally called a theory. People latch onto the theory, accepting it as fact, rather than attempting to develop whether it has any validity. They then go on to expend tremendous amounts of money on suppositions. Many of these people are scientists, who should know better based upon their training, but for some reason or other seem to take an emotional approach to the extent of irrationality. In addition, these misguided scientists form into groups which then obtain a kind of political power and lead us down the road to destruction.
What is our defense? The answer is simple but requires work. First, be skeptical of everything you hear that does not seem to make sense. Trust no one based upon so-called credentials of education and power within organizations. I don't expect the average person to become an expert on global warming. There are too many of these so-called experts doing damage to our economy, but the average person needs to use common sense. Always ask the question of whether it is real or just somebody's thought or theory. Remember that these screwballs are looking for money. Deprive them of same and let's get on with the real threats of Islamic terrorism, uncontrolled national debt, nuclear weapons proliferation, and similar obvious problems, where we can have solutions. God or nature has set up this world with automatic climate controls far beyond the capabilities of man. Let's not be so egotistical as to think that we can play God. Our job is to cooperate with nature as best we can. Use an umbrella when it rains or stay indoors.
The NRC was organized on June 19, 1916 by the National Academy of Sciences (a private organization), at the request of President Woodrow Wilson. The purpose of the NRC was in part to foster and encourage ..."the increased use of scientific research in the development of American industries...the employment of scientific methods in strengthening the national defense ...and such other applications of science as will promote the national security and welfare." Since its inception, the NRC has done much good work, but through the years has become more politicized. It has retained its private status, with the likelihood that is now a hotbed of leftist scientists, as leftist environmentalists have infiltrated the organization.
In 2001, the NRC Committee on the Science of Climate Change published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. The report explicitly endorsed the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's findings as representing the view of the scientific community. The report has a quotation, "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rise are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue."
Basically, the NRC has held the view that for at least the past 14 years, climate change is man-induced. However, it had weasel worded its position by the use of the terms "likely", "mostly", "cannot rule out", and "are expected to continue".
On July 1, 2005 Ralph J. Cicerone became the 21st president of the National Academy of Sciences and chairman of the NRC. This was four years after the NRC had stated its position with respect to man-induced climate change, and I strongly suspect that Cicerone would not have been appointed Chairman of the NRC, if he had in any way been opposed to the National Academy's position on global warming.
Three months after Dr. Cicerone was appointed NRC Chairman, Chemical and Engineering News published an interview with him. One comment Dr. Cicerone made at the interview was, "For example, what is the most effective way to limit carbon dioxide emissions? Would it be a carbon tax?" With that statement, he obviously believes, or at least finds it politically expedient to say, that man-generated carbon dioxide through burning of fossil fuels results in global warming. Notice that he had not bothered to put in the weasel words of the NRC position four years earlier.
With that questionable background on the reliability of NRC positions, let us take a look at its recommendations.
The first is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By the term "greenhouse gases", NRC primarily means carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and possibly methane from accidental release in production of natural gas and from the intestinal activities of food animals and human beings. We have already embarked on that program of reducing CO2 emissions, even though there has not been any clearly established relationship between carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and global warming, or the recently modified term "climate change". In the Obama administration's promotion of solar and wind energy, and the EPA restrictions on use of coal as powerplant fuel, we have already spent many billions of dollars.
The second proposal is to reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through carbon dioxide removal (CDR). This would involve efforts to increase photosynthesis, and ocean iron fertilization, both of which are absorption techniques. The third CDR technique would be to process all atmospheric air through a device to remove the carbon dioxide. Let's always keep in mind that all of these proposals are made on the basis that "maybe" carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes to global warming.
The third proposal is really far out. It involves so-called Solar Radiation Management (SRM). The theory is that if you restructure the atmosphere to reduce the amount of radiation received at the Earth's surface, global warming will automatically be reduced. It's a theory and probably a good one but basically impractical. The specific proposal would be to add sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere as a radiation insulator, but there's a catch; acid rain.
Acid rain was first recognized about 30 years ago. Power plants were burning coal contaminated with sulfur, which also burned to produce sulfur dioxide. The sulfur dioxide gas was emitted to the atmosphere where it then further reacted with atmospheric oxygen to produce sulfur trioxide. The sulfur trioxide gas in the atmosphere was water-soluble, picked up by falling rain and deposited to the Earth's surface as dilute sulfuric acid. The acidification of lakes, ponds, and other inland waterways negatively affected aquatic life. The solution was to extract the sulfur from the coal before burning and thereby eliminate sulfur dioxide in the stack gases. Perhaps 30 years post experience use it is too long a term for the NRC to remember. It is obviously illogical to use intentional addition of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphereit now to try to control global warming, which would also mean a return to acid rain.
What does all this mean? To me, it means that the whole process of irrationality begins when someone has a thought, which in more scientific consideration is generally called a theory. People latch onto the theory, accepting it as fact, rather than attempting to develop whether it has any validity. They then go on to expend tremendous amounts of money on suppositions. Many of these people are scientists, who should know better based upon their training, but for some reason or other seem to take an emotional approach to the extent of irrationality. In addition, these misguided scientists form into groups which then obtain a kind of political power and lead us down the road to destruction.
What is our defense? The answer is simple but requires work. First, be skeptical of everything you hear that does not seem to make sense. Trust no one based upon so-called credentials of education and power within organizations. I don't expect the average person to become an expert on global warming. There are too many of these so-called experts doing damage to our economy, but the average person needs to use common sense. Always ask the question of whether it is real or just somebody's thought or theory. Remember that these screwballs are looking for money. Deprive them of same and let's get on with the real threats of Islamic terrorism, uncontrolled national debt, nuclear weapons proliferation, and similar obvious problems, where we can have solutions. God or nature has set up this world with automatic climate controls far beyond the capabilities of man. Let's not be so egotistical as to think that we can play God. Our job is to cooperate with nature as best we can. Use an umbrella when it rains or stay indoors.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Military Adapting to Climate Change
Last October 20, C&E News had a short article on the military and climate change. This was prior to the resignation of the Secretary Hagel from the Department of Defense.
The basis of the article was the issuance of a Pentagon report entitled, "2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap".. The general conclusion was that climate change could complicate military challenges ranging from infectious disease to terrorism. More specifically, "expected" climate change could involve rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, rising sea level and more extreme weather events.
My sincere compliments to Pentagon officials for recognizing that climate change can have a significant impact on military operations. My only criticism is the implication that Pentagon officials have been slow in recognizing the effects of climate change on their operations. We've always had climate change and will continue to do so. The mere fact that it occurs over a longer period of time, as opposed to weather, is not an excuse for ignoring it up to now.
Secretary of defense Chuck Hagel was not satisfied to leave climate change in the natural category to which it belonged. He had to go one step further and relate it to man-made activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels with generation of CO2 and the myth that CO2 affects climate change. It was the Obama playbook, and it is surprising that with this position, Pres. Obama found other causes to fire him.
The basis of the article was the issuance of a Pentagon report entitled, "2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap".. The general conclusion was that climate change could complicate military challenges ranging from infectious disease to terrorism. More specifically, "expected" climate change could involve rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, rising sea level and more extreme weather events.
My sincere compliments to Pentagon officials for recognizing that climate change can have a significant impact on military operations. My only criticism is the implication that Pentagon officials have been slow in recognizing the effects of climate change on their operations. We've always had climate change and will continue to do so. The mere fact that it occurs over a longer period of time, as opposed to weather, is not an excuse for ignoring it up to now.
Secretary of defense Chuck Hagel was not satisfied to leave climate change in the natural category to which it belonged. He had to go one step further and relate it to man-made activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels with generation of CO2 and the myth that CO2 affects climate change. It was the Obama playbook, and it is surprising that with this position, Pres. Obama found other causes to fire him.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) on Global Warming
Sen. Bernie Sanders is a Democrat from Vermont. Typical of most Democrats, he believes in fairytales, partial truths as proof of the whole, and routinely enters the element of fear into his suppositions. His latest ill-developed position is on global warming.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, the new Senate Majority Leader replacing Harry Reid, has said that he will bring open discussion of the Keystone pipeline to the Senate floor. This offers to Sen. Sanders an opportunity for what he considers a "beautiful" amendment. He wants to poll each senator on whether they believe in global warming.
Sen. Sanders will ask this question as an indirect way to kill the Keystone pipeline. The pipeline will allow greater access to oil, which is used only as a source of energy by burning. In the burning process, carbon dioxide is generated, on which the Obama administration has been pouring billions of dollars into a propaganda campaign for many years to convince the public that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dangerous to the extent that it contributes to global warming. While there is actually no scientific basis to support this position, it is also true that many pseudo-scientists have signed on to the propaganda. The chances are also that Senators have been tainted by this misinformation and could be believers in carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming. If there enough falling into this category, Sen. Sanders expects that they will automatically vote against the Keystone pipeline.
Sen. Sanders has already tried to lead the group or Senators into misinformation by the wording of his statement as recorded by the Washington Times. He plans, "To ask each senator if he or she agrees with ‘the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community’ that climate change is a factually proven problem resulting in ‘devastating problems in the United States and around the world."
There are a couple of things wrong with his apparent opinion and his statement. While climate change is a fact as shown by long-term historical data, it is a natural occurrence, and there is no scientific evidence showing that climate change is significantly connected with human operations. Sen. Sanders is trying to give the impression that the only climate change is man induced. Obviously wrong!
Considering climate change as a natural occurrence, then Sen. Sanders' question to the senatorial group will be misleading. What he should be asking is a twofold question. Is there such a thing as climate change? The answer is "yes". Is man's activity significant in contributing to climate change? The answer is "no". The "no" answer comes from the fact that man's burning of fossil fuel only generates an insignificant amount of heat, compared to global heating by the sun. The supposition that common dioxide emission in burning fossil fuels increases the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is true, but any implication that it causes global warming is false. There is no acceptable theory as to why tiny amounts of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere should affect global heat, and there is no statistical data, which would show that.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, the new Senate Majority Leader replacing Harry Reid, has said that he will bring open discussion of the Keystone pipeline to the Senate floor. This offers to Sen. Sanders an opportunity for what he considers a "beautiful" amendment. He wants to poll each senator on whether they believe in global warming.
Sen. Sanders will ask this question as an indirect way to kill the Keystone pipeline. The pipeline will allow greater access to oil, which is used only as a source of energy by burning. In the burning process, carbon dioxide is generated, on which the Obama administration has been pouring billions of dollars into a propaganda campaign for many years to convince the public that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dangerous to the extent that it contributes to global warming. While there is actually no scientific basis to support this position, it is also true that many pseudo-scientists have signed on to the propaganda. The chances are also that Senators have been tainted by this misinformation and could be believers in carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming. If there enough falling into this category, Sen. Sanders expects that they will automatically vote against the Keystone pipeline.
Sen. Sanders has already tried to lead the group or Senators into misinformation by the wording of his statement as recorded by the Washington Times. He plans, "To ask each senator if he or she agrees with ‘the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community’ that climate change is a factually proven problem resulting in ‘devastating problems in the United States and around the world."
There are a couple of things wrong with his apparent opinion and his statement. While climate change is a fact as shown by long-term historical data, it is a natural occurrence, and there is no scientific evidence showing that climate change is significantly connected with human operations. Sen. Sanders is trying to give the impression that the only climate change is man induced. Obviously wrong!
Considering climate change as a natural occurrence, then Sen. Sanders' question to the senatorial group will be misleading. What he should be asking is a twofold question. Is there such a thing as climate change? The answer is "yes". Is man's activity significant in contributing to climate change? The answer is "no". The "no" answer comes from the fact that man's burning of fossil fuel only generates an insignificant amount of heat, compared to global heating by the sun. The supposition that common dioxide emission in burning fossil fuels increases the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is true, but any implication that it causes global warming is false. There is no acceptable theory as to why tiny amounts of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere should affect global heat, and there is no statistical data, which would show that.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Climate Action
The September 29 issue of Chemical Engineering News has an article entitled, "Calls to Climate Action; Global Warming: World leaders assemble at UN Summit as scientists layout data on CO2 emissions".
Silly!
They continue to ignore the fact that no one has ever shown any connection between climate change and CO2 emissions. Why not layout data on baseball scores. They are just as applicable to climate change.
But, I suppose if you holler that the sky is falling often enough, you can get a lot of people to believe it.
Silly!
They continue to ignore the fact that no one has ever shown any connection between climate change and CO2 emissions. Why not layout data on baseball scores. They are just as applicable to climate change.
But, I suppose if you holler that the sky is falling often enough, you can get a lot of people to believe it.
Monday, September 15, 2014
More on Man-made Climate Change
Tom Harrison and Bob Carter have written a new article on climate change for the New York Post. The reference is: http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/.
They start out castigating Leonard DiCaprio. Wikipedia says DiCaprio is an American actor and film producer.. He is releasing a series of films about the “climate crisis. The first is “Carbon,” which tells us the world is threatened by a “carbon monster.” He says, "Coal, oil, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are causing dangerous climate change and must be turned off as soon as possible".
From here on, I will insert some chosen paragraphs from Harrison/Carter's article in the New York Post.
DiCaprio is an actor, not a scientist; it’s no real surprise that his film is sensationalistic and error-riddled. Other climate-change fantasists, who do have a scientific background, have far less excuse.
Science is never settled, but the current state of “climate change” science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.
Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”
• According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
The climate scare, Fulks sighs, has “become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus.” He’s right — and DiCaprio’s film is just another vector for spreading the virus.
The costs of feeding the climate-change “monster” are staggering. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2001 to 2014 the US government spent $131 billion on projects meant to combat human-caused climate change, plus $176 billion for breaks for anti-CO2 energy initiatives.
Federal anti-climate-change spending is now running at $11 billion a year, plus tax breaks of $20 billion a year. That adds up to more than double the $14.4 billion worth of wheat produced in the United States in 2013.
Dr. Bjørn Lomborg is Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and for some unfathomable reason seems to support the UN's position on climate science. However, he also calculates that the European Union’s goal of a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, currently the most severe target in the world, will cost almost $100 billion a year by 2020, or more than $7 trillion over the course of this century. He also notes that this would buy imperceptible improvement: “After spending all that money, we would not even be able to tell the difference.”
Al Gore was right in one respect: Climate change is a moral issue — but that’s because there is nothing quite so immoral as well-fed, well-housed Westerners assuaging their consciences by wasting huge amounts of money on futile anti-global-warming policies, using money that could instead go to improve living standards in developing countries. That is where the moral outrage should lie. Perhaps DiCaprio would like to make a film about it?
They start out castigating Leonard DiCaprio. Wikipedia says DiCaprio is an American actor and film producer.. He is releasing a series of films about the “climate crisis. The first is “Carbon,” which tells us the world is threatened by a “carbon monster.” He says, "Coal, oil, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are causing dangerous climate change and must be turned off as soon as possible".
From here on, I will insert some chosen paragraphs from Harrison/Carter's article in the New York Post.
DiCaprio is an actor, not a scientist; it’s no real surprise that his film is sensationalistic and error-riddled. Other climate-change fantasists, who do have a scientific background, have far less excuse.
Science is never settled, but the current state of “climate change” science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.
Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”
• According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
The climate scare, Fulks sighs, has “become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus.” He’s right — and DiCaprio’s film is just another vector for spreading the virus.
The costs of feeding the climate-change “monster” are staggering. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2001 to 2014 the US government spent $131 billion on projects meant to combat human-caused climate change, plus $176 billion for breaks for anti-CO2 energy initiatives.
Federal anti-climate-change spending is now running at $11 billion a year, plus tax breaks of $20 billion a year. That adds up to more than double the $14.4 billion worth of wheat produced in the United States in 2013.
Dr. Bjørn Lomborg is Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and for some unfathomable reason seems to support the UN's position on climate science. However, he also calculates that the European Union’s goal of a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, currently the most severe target in the world, will cost almost $100 billion a year by 2020, or more than $7 trillion over the course of this century. He also notes that this would buy imperceptible improvement: “After spending all that money, we would not even be able to tell the difference.”
Al Gore was right in one respect: Climate change is a moral issue — but that’s because there is nothing quite so immoral as well-fed, well-housed Westerners assuaging their consciences by wasting huge amounts of money on futile anti-global-warming policies, using money that could instead go to improve living standards in developing countries. That is where the moral outrage should lie. Perhaps DiCaprio would like to make a film about it?
Saturday, August 9, 2014
17 Year Global Warming
Katharine Hayhoe is an Associate Professor in the Public Administration program at Texas Tech University and Director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech. She is one of the most well-known climate scientists. She is included in the 2014 Time100 as a well-known scientist, and she is a lead author for the 2014 Third U.S. National Climate Assessment.
Last month, Katherine Hayhoe sent out a tweet saying that other peoples' claim of NO global warming in the past 17 years "is a lie [that] just will not die". She then goes on to to show a graph of 17-year data with a positive slope (increase) of 0.5 to 0.6°C.
Dr. Sierra Rayne holds B.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Chemistry and a diploma in water engineering technology. He has authored over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles in chemistry and environmental science, as well as hundreds of technical reports, preprints, and articles for media outlets.
Dr. Rayne has recently taken issue with Dr.Hayhoe's claim that no global warming in the past seven years is a lie. He does this on the basis of statistical analysis of the data. His extensive explanation appears in the July 26 issue of American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/07/rigorous_climate_science_is_now_lying.html).
Dr. Rayne says scientist should start using statistical tests when discussing data in public. Otherwise, they are not illustrating rigorous science and are simply contributing to a poor understanding of science by the public audience.
To illustrate his point, Dr. Rayne plotted 17 randomly generated numbers. The trend line on the graph was down. If they had been global temperatures, it would have indicated a cooling effect. A second plot with 17 other randomly generated numbers showed a trend line increase (hypothetical global warming). A third plot of randomly generated numbers gave a shallow negative trend line; very slightly down. If three sets of randomly generated numbers can give such different trendlines when plotted, it is apparent that the trendlines from those three sets are not statistically significant. It is also obvious that Dr. Hayhoe's plot of 17 global temperatures is also not statistically significant.
Dr. Rayne goes on to explain that statistical significance is measured as a P value. In his first plot, the P value was 0.10. He says that In science the statistical P value must be 0.05, which is 95% certainty. He also says that in the case of issues such as climate change, whereby action would necessitate a near-complete alteration to our entire socio-economic and political structures and relationships, we should be demanding even higher statistical significance, such as a P value of 0.01 which is a 99% probability of the trend not being a result of chance.
I suppose we can excuse Dr. Hayhoe for her negligence in not considering the statistical significance of the trend line on her graph. I am also a scientist and would not have thought of it, but I have an excuse. I was initially trained in science 70 years ago and never took a course in statistical analysis. However, Dr. Hahoe's more recent training would likely have included statistics. If it did, she decided not to use it. Her error is especially egregious when one considers that she has called the global warming dissenters "liars".
Last month, Katherine Hayhoe sent out a tweet saying that other peoples' claim of NO global warming in the past 17 years "is a lie [that] just will not die". She then goes on to to show a graph of 17-year data with a positive slope (increase) of 0.5 to 0.6°C.
Dr. Sierra Rayne holds B.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Chemistry and a diploma in water engineering technology. He has authored over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles in chemistry and environmental science, as well as hundreds of technical reports, preprints, and articles for media outlets.
Dr. Rayne has recently taken issue with Dr.Hayhoe's claim that no global warming in the past seven years is a lie. He does this on the basis of statistical analysis of the data. His extensive explanation appears in the July 26 issue of American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/07/rigorous_climate_science_is_now_lying.html).
Dr. Rayne says scientist should start using statistical tests when discussing data in public. Otherwise, they are not illustrating rigorous science and are simply contributing to a poor understanding of science by the public audience.
To illustrate his point, Dr. Rayne plotted 17 randomly generated numbers. The trend line on the graph was down. If they had been global temperatures, it would have indicated a cooling effect. A second plot with 17 other randomly generated numbers showed a trend line increase (hypothetical global warming). A third plot of randomly generated numbers gave a shallow negative trend line; very slightly down. If three sets of randomly generated numbers can give such different trendlines when plotted, it is apparent that the trendlines from those three sets are not statistically significant. It is also obvious that Dr. Hayhoe's plot of 17 global temperatures is also not statistically significant.
Dr. Rayne goes on to explain that statistical significance is measured as a P value. In his first plot, the P value was 0.10. He says that In science the statistical P value must be 0.05, which is 95% certainty. He also says that in the case of issues such as climate change, whereby action would necessitate a near-complete alteration to our entire socio-economic and political structures and relationships, we should be demanding even higher statistical significance, such as a P value of 0.01 which is a 99% probability of the trend not being a result of chance.
I suppose we can excuse Dr. Hayhoe for her negligence in not considering the statistical significance of the trend line on her graph. I am also a scientist and would not have thought of it, but I have an excuse. I was initially trained in science 70 years ago and never took a course in statistical analysis. However, Dr. Hahoe's more recent training would likely have included statistics. If it did, she decided not to use it. Her error is especially egregious when one considers that she has called the global warming dissenters "liars".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
