Community Blogs
Global Humbug IV
The House of Representatives has just narrowly passed a so-called "Cap and Trade" bill that mandates carbon-reduction goals of 83% by 2050 (14% by 2020). The push is on to ram it through the Senate. The methodology of these reductions is primarily to price conventional energy sources out of the market by heavily taxing sources of carbon emissions. This is intended to increase the cost of home and industry energy consumption, including electricity, natural gas and car and truck fuel, to force a reduction. It is a 1200 page document with 300 pages of amendments, passed at 3:00 A.M. by a bare majority of Representatives very likely including no-one who had read the whole thing.
Many conflicting estimates of the cost of this thing are flying around, but what is clear is that it will cost the consumer dearly. Any tax on industry is passed on in total to the customer. The only benefactor will be the federal government which collects the taxes and dumps them into its coffers. The justification for this economic whack upside the head is to reduce global warming by decreasing carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gas emissions, oblivious to the scientific facts that CO2 in the atmosphere is of so low a concentration as to be an extremely minor contributor to the greenhouse effect, and there has been no global warming since the industrial revolution despite a many-fold increase in carbon emissions. The primary effect of atmospheric CO2 is to encourage plant growth.
Seven hundred scientists have gone on record as expressing skepticism about whether global warming is occurring and questioning the role of carbon dioxide. A group of 54 noted physicists, as opposed to environmental biologists and anthropologists, issued a letter stating that the so-called science supporting global warming theory is badly flawed and very doubtful. Two major scientific journals, including Science magazine, refused to publish the letter.
According to a report by CBS News, an EPA staff researcher, Alan Carlin, was the primary author of a 98-page report stating that global warming theory is "... based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most available data." His boss, EPA center director Al McGartland, quashed the report, stating "... the [Obama] administration has decided to move forward ... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for the decision." Carlin told CBS News that, "It was his [McGartland's] view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else. That was obviously coming from higher levels." So much for scientific objectivity.
The facts are, despite what is being published, that not only is there no global warming, there is clear evidence that we are experiencing slight global cooling. The Polar ice cap last winter was as large as it has ever been and the polar bear population is increasing. A sophisticated network of 3000 high-tech ocean buoys distributed in the worlds oceans every 3o (300 km) and designed to measure water temperature and salinity over 2000 meters depth, a system called ARGOS, has surprised and disconcerted NASA and other environmental researchers by reporting that, instead of the expected warming, a slight cooling of ocean waters is occurring. NASA is discounting this data as "insignificant".
We are being mislead into believing that "alternative energy" technology is advanced, practical and nearly cost-effective. This is false. The state of the art, despite years of government-funded research and development, is fraught with problems--including the beloved windmills--and nowhere near cost-effective despite heavy government subsidy. Two recent environmental horror stories underscore the level of practicality of the current available technology.
Raoul Surcouf and Richard Spink recently set off on a "carbon-neutral" voyage to Greenland in a 40-foot sailing yacht equipped with solar panels and a wind turbine. The trip was monitored by schoolchildren world-wide. Two weeks into the voyage, after capsizing several times in storms and losing their solar panels and wind turbine generator, they called "Mayday" and were rescued (you can't make this up) by a large oil tanker carrying nearly 700,000 barrels of crude oil.
Troy, MI, built a new Community Center designed as an example of green construction. It was completely solar-powered with no connection to outside energy sources and was intended for year-round use. The solar power system even had sufficient capacity to support an electric vehicle. Unfortunately, Mother Nature refused to cooperate and during the first winter, heating the building completely depleted the reserve power battery system. The result was frozen pipes causing the concrete floors to buckle and be destroyed. The building has never been used.
Global warming alarmism has reached the level of a religion. Blasphemy is punished and dissent suppressed. Our president is determined to ram an economy-wrecking environmental nightmare down our throats without a rational basis. Liberals who pride themselves on secular objectivity should be outraged.
When pigs fly.
The house of Representatives have finally moved toward providing a livable planet for our children and grandchildren. Greenhouse gasses, which have the same effect as the glass in a greenhouse, need to be curbed. Finally, we have effective leadership that’s capable of understanding and courageous enough to do something.
The contrarians, who at one time denied that the planet is in a warming trend (Some still do, regardless of the facts from all reputable scientists.), refuse to accept or are unable to understand that people can make a difference, so they attribute the new bill to evil motives. They foolishly make public statements to the effect that the intent of the bill is to increase costs to consumers. Note that they don’t believe this is a side-effect. They actually have delusions that the government is “out to get them.”
[continued]
Many of these people are more than happy to make scientific claims without any credentials, in an attempt to create a false contraversy. But the science behind global warming is now settled. All reputable and credible scientists, from every country on the planet, agree that greenhouse gas emissions are a major concern and that carbon dioxide is a mojor greenhouse gas. This doesn’t stop these disillusioned people from finding an extremely small number of questionable sources to back their claims. In addition, because global warming is enourmously complex, no model can be detailed enough to capture all of the dynamics. So the sceptics attempt to use that fact as leverage, stating that it’s incorrect.
Statements like, “The facts are, despite what is being published…” should make one wary of the author. Obviously the author of such statements is making claims outside of accepted fact. They’ll even use silly and foolish arguments such as stories of boating accidents to try and convince others that the science is flawed.
But the science is not flawed. The evidence is clear. Congress has finally moved in the right direction.
If we are going to go this route, the powers that be need to look at the Countries that are causing the majority of the problems. I.E. China, India, ect. Between the water pollution and air pollution from the countries that are not looking at reducing the pollution and the different opinions/research/prognosis of the scientists, corporations and government, it is quite easy to see why there are believers and non-believers. I personally believe that we do have a problem, but also don't believe the doomsday predictions. The U.S. has made great strides in the past 30 years on cutting our pollution. We don't need to have the government adding additional taxes/fees/regulations as long as all of us continue to monitor our own behaviours.
Have a great week!
for those interested, the US embassy in Beijing, China has a air pollution monitoring 'station' at their embassy. This link talks about it daily.
http://live-from-beijing.blogspot.com/
More discrepancies on how the air quality is measured since the embassy is located across the street from a 'major' construction project and there are comments on whether it is reliable or not. Needless to say, the Chinese Govt. in Beijing has their own equipment and the stats differ on both of them. If we can't even get the same readings how on earth are we supposed to get the 'true' story of what is really going on with the air that we all breathe?
Have a great week!
"Two recent environmental horror stories"?
Al, the Exxon Valdez oil spill was a horror story, a capsizing solar/wind powered boat is an anecdote.
Suppose that China and India are the worst abusers. Why would that make a difference as to whether or not CO2 emissions are harmful?
LCP - If I understand you correctly...
If we are all going to continue to work on cleaning up our environment, we need the help/cooperation of the entire planet. When you put anything into the air, it eventually spreads to other places on the planet via the jetstream/wind. CO2 emissions are harmful along with a lot of other things that we are responsible for adding to the atmosphere/land/water/air. If we all can't agree on the problem, it's going to continue to be a merry go round on how to fix it for all.
Have a great week!
Actually Al, the globe has been warming since the last ice age. Regardless of intermittent cooling periods. The last big one with the mini-Ice age in the middle ages.
LCP - Tried to answer you, but I think my post was too long since it's still not up yet.
Anyways... If I understand your question correctly - CO2 emissions are harmful. We know that. If other countries are polluting like crazy (based on the link to the Beijing blog I posted earlier), eventually that contaminated air is spread through out the planet/world via the wind currents.
To be continued
If we cannot all agree on just what exactly the 'safe' standards are for the air that we breathe then how are we supposed to address the problem. If the U.S. takes a drastic approach to trying to eliminate CO2 emissions or any other type of pollutant for that matter and there are still countries that are doing whatever they like, irregardless of the polluting factor, how are we going to eventually clean everything up?
Have a great week!
Oh great! Now I've duplicated myself... Hey Al - do you have any idea how long our comments can be before they will not be printed? Still trying to figure this darn thing out...
Hmmm... "Global warming alarmism has reached the level of a religion. Blasphemy is punished and dissent suppressed..." such a strange comment from one who thinks a talking snake, a mythical garden, and a apple is historical, scientific truth.
Tami - The title is "Global Humbug IV" not "China's doing it, so we should too."
The blogger is completely mistaken, delusional, and spreading misinformation. The fact that China and India are also problems doesn't give him a ticket to blog such nonsense without a rational response.
Either you agree that the original blog is BS or you don't. China and India have no bearing on it.
Have a wonderful day!
LCP - Just trying to answer your questions on my posts. As far as the title of the post goes, I do agree with Al in that there are a lot of issues that are being presented as both right and wrong. One expert says one thing and another one says the exact opposite. Unless you can spend hours researching all of the 'facts', you tend to believe what is being written and published in the most widely read news articles. I was just trying to interject a few more opinions as well as state that until every country agrees on how to handle this in a responsible, cost efficient manner, we will continue to go round and round and nothing will get solved. Kind of like every other issue we are currently looking at...
And thanks for the sentiment! I did have a wonderful day. Hopefully, you did too!
"One expert says one thing and another one says the exact opposite."
Well, in that case, we'll just find some experts that say that it's cheaper to pass the bill. Then we'll have experts that say one thing and others that say the exact opposite. In fact, whenever we don't want to accept factual, expert, findings, we'll just find experts that will say the opposite. Then we can all just put our heads in the sand. After all, who cares? It's just the planet.
Have a wonderful day!
"a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most available data"
This isn't "one expert saying another". This is a case where one expert is saying that the model is incomplete. Just as quantum theory is incomplete. Computers are based on quantum theory, so computers are based on "scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most available data." That doesn't stop you from complaining about the 100's of billions of dollars spent on computer technology. You've probably invested quite a bit of your own money on electronic gadgets that are based on incomplete theory.
Tami: The max. length for a comment is 2000 characters.
I'm not going to try to address all the commentary, because it's late even for me. Just a few facts that the global warmists don't mention. (See my past "Global Humbug" posts for more thorough analyses.)
1) CO2 is only 1/2500 part (.04%) of the atmosphere. Water vapor is a much more significant greenhouse gas.
2) The greenhouse effect is a good thing and is why the Earth doesn't cool to -273 deg. overnight.
3) The earth warmed after the Ice Age without man-made CO2. It hasn't warmed in the last 100 years despite lots of man-made CO2.
4) The models aren't incomplete, they don't work at all.
jmark: I agree that the Exxon Valdez incident was a disaster, although I understand nature and the sea have cleared up the oil pollution and life has returned pretty much to normal. I must observe, with all due respect, that it didn't have anything to do with Cap and Trade.
Thanks Al.
Welcome aneuhauser the science guy. Except YOU aren't an expert. If you were, you would know that:
) .04% of CO2 may not sound like much, but thats a higher concentration than the mercury levels in the water that is even safe for wildlife. So don't pretend you know anything about what concentration levels mean.
2) The greenhouse effect is the major reason why the planet Venus has a temperature of over 850 deg. F.
3) All credible scientists from every country agree that the earth has warmed due to man-made greenhouse gasses. YOU are not a credible scientist. YOU aren't even a scientist.
4) Many models are more accurate than the science behind your pace-maker.
"The models aren't incomplete, they don't work at all."
If you know so much about the models, give us a brief of overview behind the theory of any aspect of any of the models.
Any.
Any at all.
Water vapor, as a greenhouse gas, works in a negative feedback cycle. As the planet warms, more water vapor is created. As more water vapor enters the atmosphere, more of the planet gets covered by clouds. Clouds reflect the high-wavelength solar radiation (light and ultraviolet), keeping the heat generating energy away from the planet. (Everyone understands that cloudy days are cooler.) However, the clouds act as a blanket to the low-wavelength radiation (infra-red, heat), warming the planet (Cloudy nights are warmer.). As the planet gets warmer, more clouds are formed, due to increased evaporation. But more clouds mean more reflection, hence a negative feedback cycle.
Carbon dioxide is a colorless, transparent gas. It doesn’t form clouds. It’s reflects almost no high-wavelength radiation. It does, however, contain heat in the same way that cloud cover blankets the Earth. In addition, its concentration also rises with temperature. As the planet warms, one source of carbon dioxide is the vast frozen land masses near the poles that begin to thaw. Thawing releases carbon dioxide trapped in the earth into the atmosphere. Hence, carbon dioxide forms a positive feedback cycle. As the Earth warms, more carbon dioxide is released, creating more greenhouse gases.
These are very simple models of global warming gases. They are much simpler than those used by scientists studying the effect. They explain not even a tiny fraction of what is observed in our climate. But they are not wrong. They are not flawed. They are only complex enough to explain some concepts. Other models are extremely complex, take years to understand, and can make accurate predications about our climate. To pretend that the science is flawed because a model doesn’t predict everything is sheer stupidity.
Goodness, LCP, you sound like a scientist. What is your degree in? Actually, water vapor functions in both positive AND negative feedback modes. It accounts for from 66% to 85% of greenhouse warming when clouds are is included, swamping the effect of CO2. Warming results in the capacity of the air to hold more water vapor, increasing it's re-radiation of long-wave IR at night and warming the lower atmosphere. This is positive feedback which, if unchecked, could result in runaway warming. However, as the earth's surface warms, the IR radiation wavelength decreases as the 4th power of temperature, causing greater penetration and escape of heat overnight and resulting in greater cooling, a negative feedback. The interaction of these feedback loops, along with cloud effect, is critical to the overall effect of water vapor on climate. It is poorly understood and generally neglected in the computer models because the modelers don't know how to define it. This is the major defect which renders them essentially useless.
LCP: Computer Models: How does one get from effectively no temperature rise in the past 100 years to the model predictions of a 2-4° rise in the next 100 years? The predicted rise is based on the modellers’ assumption that a doubling of CO2 will produce an increase of 3.42 watts per square meter that will be radiated back at the surface of the Earth, causing an increase in temperature of 2-4°C. Presently, the CO2 measured in the atmosphere barely produces 1 watt per square meter.
The modellers assume that CO2 will increase linearly, and that the effect on temperature will also be a linear progression. The climate modellers say the increase will happen within 100 years because of man-made emissions. But they assume that CO2 is leading temperature. In reality, the temperature record for the last few million years shows that temperature leads CO2; there is a 300-600 year delay between rising temperatures and rising CO2 in the atmosphere.
Note that effect of water vapor is completely ignored. The above description applies to most of the current IPCC computer models. There are many others.
"Goodness, LCP, you sound like a scientist. What is your degree in?"
I have multiple. What about you?
"It accounts for from 66% to 85% of greenhouse warming when clouds are is included, swamping the effect of CO2"
Except that it also has a cooling effect. Carbon dioxide doesn't.
"the IR radiation wavelength decreases as the 4th power of temperature"
Wrong. Radiation increase proportional to the T^4.
"It is poorly understood and generally neglected in the computer models because the modelers don't know how to define it."
This part is total BS.
First you say the models don't work. Now you say you know how they work.
"the last few million years "
We aren't talking about millions of years. We're talking about changes over decades.
"Note that effect of water vapor is completely ignored."
Simply not true.
LCP: "T^4" is the 4th power of temperature (T). I said DECREASING wavelength, which is an increase in frequency. This increases the penetration of IR radiation through greenhouse gas, enhancing overnight cooling.
I know how the models work, which is why I also know they don't work. A little syntax problem there.
The IPCC admits they don't know how to account for water vapor and cloud effects.
CO2 also is subject to the increase in nightime radiative cooling resulting from decreased wavelength, just like water vapor. Its influence is just much less significant.
The "millions of years" statement refers to the long lag between climate warming and CO2 increase. Over the last several decades there is no global warming while CO2 is still increasing.
The effect of water vapor was specifically left out of the IPCC models I was discussing, which concentrated exclusively on CO2.
Congratulations on the degrees. I have only one, with advanced degree work, in science and engineering. If yours are in scientific fields, you obviously have forgotten most everything. Age sometimes does that.
I would like to report abuse--LCP just got abused. Al unfairly called his bluff and slapped him over the head with knowledge and facts. LCP unfairly ran out of liberal talking points and fascist smear tactics aimed to discredit dissenters.
Please Al, stop the abuse.
Since the right-wing media continues to publish false and misleading facts, and ignore every attempt to correct them, then it is time to ask them to put their money where their mouths are. So if you really think we're in a period of global cooling, here is a challenge for you:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/challenge-to-climate-change-skeptics.html
Come on, chickens! Put up or shut up! Bok Bok Bok chickens!
Excellent article, Mr. Neuhauser. If you look hard enough you'll find one of your particularly well-turned phrases on my website.
I 'm a Democrat who thinks the House overplayed its hand when it passed cap-and-trade. Support for cap-and-trade is evaporating. Daily I read editorials, comments and letters-to-the-editor from all over the nation. Whereas when the House passed the bill it was maybe 2-to-1 against cap and trade, opinion now seems to be at least 6-to-1 against. The Senate will be wise to heed the overwhelming lack of public support and stop this legislation from passing into law.
If instead of a complex and risky cap-and-trade system the United States had a national mandate to replace coal generation plants with natural gas and nuclear energy, plus if we replaced our commuter cars with battery-powered electric cars, we would drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce CO2 emissions faster and beyond the proposed cap and trade targets.
-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com
Thanks, Bob. It's refreshing to encounter a Democrat with an open and objective mind on the subject. I agree regarding nuclear energy, which much of the developed world embraces, but caution against overuse of natural gas which is in limited supply. I prefer the more practical gas-electric hybrid automobile to all-electric. I am more concerned with eliminating our dependence on Middle East oil than CO2 emissions, which I believe are at best a minor factor in the greenhouse effect.
Tags: Environment
Permalink | Email This Blog