FOLLOW THE MONEY
One week ago, on 11/14/2010, I posted some examples of financial incentives certain groups may have in corrupting the science of climate change in a manner that would encourage results desirable to the financiers and thus keep the cash cow of AGW financing alive and well (CLCC - 5). I want to explore that angle in a little more detail with this post (CLCC - 10).
I cited data from a watchdog group, the George C. Marshall Policy Outlook Institute (GCMPOI), where facts and figures regarding who is funding climate research, which, in turn tells us why, and further tells us what the funding bodies expect to gain from the research. I also cited data from a couple of other sources that I've had to revise, as there is disagreement between the GCMPOI data and the data from other sources. In this instance I consider the GCMPOI data more reliable. Here are some excerpts from their report: The study of climate change science and the policy ramifications of climate change is a multi-billion enterprise in the United States.
The report went on to say: A cursory glimpse of the list of recipients of those private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and believe that climate change requires dramatic government action.
These findings appear to validate The Weather Chanel co-founder John Coleman's opinion (CLCC - 3)
"What bothered me was, the other scientists had accepted it, and why did they possibly do that? And I think the real answer to that question is, they all have an agenda, an environmental and political agenda that said “let’s pile on here, we’re all gonna make a lot of money, we’re gonna get research grants, we’re gonna get awards, we’re all gonna become famous, and I guess that’s what happened”.
This report also validates James Spann, TV meteorologist at an ABC affiliate in Alabama (CLCC - 8), says: *Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at The Weather Channel probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab".
It's evident that pro-AGW research is well funded by private groups and the U.S. government so a favorable business and political climate can be pursued. But that just barely scratches the surface. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) issued a report in 2007 that projected per annum expenditures for mitigation alone would be $200-210 billion. They estimate more than $432 billion should be spent annually on energy research with $148 billion dedicated to renewable energy sources. Now, in a sense, this may not seem all bad - in fact, it would seem there is a very positive aspect to this kind of investment money being directed at weening off from fossil fuels, but the question begs itself - where is this investment money going to come from? Taxes? Is investment in these technologies going to get paid for on the backs of working people when it's doubtful that all this will have any meaningful effect on global temperatures? We are currently in the grip of a ten year cooling trend - not warming trend. This cooling trend beginning around the year 2000 coincides nicely with a dearth of sunspot activity over the same period (CLCC - 6), so if policy makers decide to levy steep carbon taxes on the people so they can funnel money to investors so they in turn can invest on saving the planet just in time for colder global temperatures to arrive for the next 20-35 years before resuming their on-again-off-again climb for the next 400 years, well, that wouldn't be good for anybody but the investors who are now getting rich on climate change, and it would likewise be a good thing for the AGW scientists whom the investors are putting to work making their investments pay off.
Looking at the BIG PICTURE, there is a lot more money in studying climate change as an urgent man-made problem than there is in studying it in a dispassionate manner. To be sure, some private foundations funded by big money interests such as ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and Massey Energy provide funding for sympathetic researchers, which taints these researchers every bit as much as those receiving money from foundations and other entities who stand to gain from the hysteria. The money from pro-AGW interests dwarfs the money coming in to fund research aimed at discrediting the AGW scenario. This is as good an explanation as I can think of to explain the curious fact that 95% of the noise we hear is coming from the AGW ideologues while only about 5% is coming from the other direction. Not a good balance, if you were to ask my humble opinion.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
A CLOSER LOOK AT CLIMATE CHANGE (PART 9)
CLIMATE CHANGE JIHAD
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth”
Albert Einstein – 1900
Albert Einstein was an iconoclast. So is Freeman Dyson, the brilliant physicist and mathematician who unified quantum theory and electrodynamics into the discipline of quantum electrodynamics in 1949.
Dyson has been at the Institute for Advanced Studies (IAS) at Princeton NJ, since 1953, where he shared time and space with Einstein for two years until Einstein's death in 1955. IAS, established in 1930, is a sort of elite scientific think tank staffed at different times by some of the most brilliant scientists of the modern era. Dyson is "infinitely smart", according to Bill Press, former Deputy Director at Los Alamos National Laboratory (birthplace of the atomic and hydrogen bombs). Few people who know or worked with Dyson would disagree - but there are some who don't know a lot about him who think of him as a know-nothing. They are some of the global warming radicals who push Anthropogenic Climate Change (AGW) as a holy war to be waged with every nanogram of their beings, and they don't like Dyson because he thinks the climate change issue has been blown way up out of proportion. He agrees that it's getting warmer, and that carbon dioxide may even have something to do with it, but he doesn't see it as a crisis. To the AGW people, that's heresy, and it makes Freeman Dyson a heretic.
Dyson was interviewed by Nicholas Dawidoff in early 2009 for an article that ran in New York Times Magazine on March 28, 2009, where he had the temerity to voice his opinion on the AGW issue - and likewise, Dawidoff had the temerity run Dyson's opinion in his piece.
Both took a lot of heat from the climate radicals because of this piece. Here's Dr. Joe Romm, physicist and climate blogger, attacking Dawidoff to Bob Garfield of On The Media with a blistering fusillade for "misleading the public". "The public is not scientifically expert, and the public’s ability to distinguish science and pseudoscience, which sound pretty much the same, is very small. So it is up to the filters, the media, to use its own judgment based on talking to many different sources and itself weighing the credibility of sources".
There you have it right from an apocalyptic's mouth. We, the public, are stupid (and easy targets for being duped by their propaganda in the media). Only pro-AGW scientists, in their view, have the inside track on the scientific nuances of climate change - other scientists, no matter how accomplished in their field, need not utter a peep. It's the media's job, according to Romm, to be the AGW's mouthpiece, to selectively filter out anything that calls AGW research into even a hint of a question. They are doing an admirable job of doing just that.
Even if a scientist is a practicing climatologist and knows of what he or she speaks, he or she has to know they'll get blackballed by the "mainstream" scientific community if they don't mind their Ps and Qs. These scientists and technocrats can and do arrange for funding to be pulled from apostate scientists who do not agree or agree strongly enough with the AGW dogma. Moreover, the AGW people can and have arranged for the ousting of non-compliant journal editors who have had the bad sense to allow the publishing of papers on climate that aren't sufficiently zealous enough to satisfy them.
Famed AGW apocalyptic Dr. James E. Hansen responded to the New York Times Magazine's piece with this comment: There are bigger fish to fry than Freeman Dyson, who doesn’t know what he’s talking about (Huh?). If he is going to wander into something with major consequences for humanity and other life on the planet, then he should first do his homework — which he obviously has not done on global warming.” Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Hansen needs to do his homework. Dyson worked with Alvin Weinberg at the Institute of Energy Analysis (a subdivision of the Department of Energy (DOE) in the late 1970s studying carbon dioxide's relationship with global climate, and has been pondering the issue for years. Hansen believes himself to be one of the, if not the, foremost expert on climate change in the world, that he drives the car, and everybody else please get in the back seat. But Hansen doesn't give Dyson any credit - just like Einstein's Professors at the Eidgenössische Polytechnische Schule (ETH) in Zürich didn't give him any credit for his contrarian thinking a hundred and ten years ago that ultimately led to Relatively superceding the previously unshakable Newtonian concepts of Absolute Space and Absolute Time.
Dyson is someone who can roll with the punches the AGW people throw at him. With his customary air of humility, Dyson says: " [m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have".
Dave Roberts of Grist Magazine has this suggestion: Put AGW "deniers" on trial à la Nuremberg. Roberts equates the AGW "crisis" as being equivalent to the Holocaust, and he equates "deniers" (whom he doesn't distinguish from "doubters" or "skeptics") equivalent to Nazi war criminals. And who is responsible for the "Holocaust" we're experiencing? We humans, of course. This is pretty radical stuff!
Meet Dr. Heidi Cullen, formerly of The Weather Channel, now the interim CEO of Climate Central, who believes meteorologists or other weather professionals should be decertified if they don't toe the line. Here's what she wrote: "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS (American Meteorological Society) shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns."
Wait a minute! I didn't know that AGW was an established scientific fact. I thought it was a hypothesis that is being tested, and, since by definition, climate is defined as the aggregate weather over the course of decades, centuries, and millennia, then at best, the jury's still out on whether man-made climate change is established as a "fundamental" truth. The testing of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, begun in earnest only a couple of decades ago, has in fact barely begun. On the matter of AMS's members agreeing with Cullen's statement about the AMS being on board, well, not so fast!
Here's what TV meteorologist James Spann, a meteorologist at an ABC affiliate in Alabama, had to say about it: "I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find them".
Bill Steffen, a meteorologist at the NBC affiliate in Grand Rapids, Michigan, concurs. In an email Steffen said most meteorologists accept that the earth has been warming over the last hundred years, but do not believe the warming is anthropogenic. Those that do believe in AGW do so because they're mandated to do so as per their job description. They're afraid they'll lose it if they stray from the fold. Another example of the financial interests involved in the AGW movement.
Climate science - a legitimate and highly complex discipline in the physical sciences, has been hijacked by financial, political and ideological interests, which means that the science, as practiced by the ideologues, has lost its claim to objectivity. It has become, in my words, a scientific jihad. Climate science has been hijacked in the same manner as Islam has been hijacked by the terrorist jihadis. It's been bastardized by a fringe element who have been portrayed as mainstream by the mainstream media and sympathetic politicians and, most of all, by themselves.
Dispassionate scientific inquiry is the foundation of scientific research, and likewise, journalism is supposed to be the dispassionate, objective pursuit of the truth. Yet the mainstream media, with the New York Times and the Washington Post leading the charge, is acting as a mouthpiece for only one side of the story. Dozens of columnists and op-ed writers like Tom Friedman and Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, Michael Mandelbaum and Bryan Walsh, of Time Magazine, just to name a small handful off the top of my head, tout AGW as established fact. A case in point - when Climategate happened, the media smoothed over the incriminating stuff. Specifics were mentioned very little by most media outlets. The story ran along the lines of " ..... It was just a bump in the road - It was just glitch, no harm done - It didn't change anything - It didn't alter the fact that the overwhelming evidence for man-made climate change is clear - The deniers are making a tempest in a teapot out of this - It was all taken out of context - It was deliberately misconstrued by the enemies of "real" climate science" etc. etc. Andrew Revkin of the NYT, called by some an "alarmist reporter" and a shill for the AGW jihad, was one of the most ambitious reporters running interference on behalf of the East Anglia jihadis. But Revkin was butchered by radical ClimateProgress blogger Joe Romm (remember him from earlier in this post?) in his blog for (responsibly) questioning the validity of a slide in one of Al Gore's lectures that asserted there had been "unprecedented" occurrences of wildfires, hurricanes, and other natural disasters - all due to global warming. Even the IPCC had to admit that even they didn't know enough to say for sure that all these disasters were caused by AGW (though curiously, they didn't explicitly deny it).
According to The Gospel According to Joe, any media that doesn't carry the Word with sufficient zeal must be censured or labeled with some epithet. Romm, as difficult as it is to believe, is probably even more radical than Hansen. He uses his blog to mount attacks on "enemies" of the AGW jihad, and even sometimes wages war against journalists and scientists whom he considers insufficiently passionate AGW jihadis - such as Revkin. Romm has even said Hansen, of all people, is understating the climate crisis in which we are perishing.
As revealed by the Climategate emails from East Anglia and radical bloggers like Romm, along with interviews by AGW scientists given with sympathetic reporters, op-ed columnists for radical "green" publications, Dave Roberts of Grist, and others, there is a significant degree of hatred, rancor, and derision directed at scientists and politicians who have an opposing view. AGW radicals at East Anglia, including notorious schemers Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, collaborated to get Review Editor James Saiers removed from his position at the Geophysical Review Letters because he allowed a "sceptic" (sic) paper (by climate scientist Steve McIntyre) to get published in that journal. They also lobbied for the removal of Hans Von Storch from his position as Editor in Chief at the the journal Climate Research because he allowed a "sceptic" (sic) paper (dubbed "crap science" by Wigley) to be published in his journal.
Climate jihadis who push for punitive measures against those who disagree with their viewpoint aren't limited to just the media and scientific community - here's a real doozy of a fanatic - Lord Nicholas Stern of Brentford, UK. who's hell-bent on waging economic warfare on the United States for having too big of a carbon footprint. He is the UK's leading "climate economist".
Lord Stern is threatening economic jihad on the U.S. in the event we don't cut our carbon dioxide emissions by 17% within the next ten years. And if we don't (which we won't - because we can't), he's going to get a bunch of other countries, which presumably includes the U.K., to boycott all products made here in the US. Stern is claiming that "if nothing is done", the global temperature will rise as much as 7° C by the year 2100.
What?!
This guy doesn't know science from shinola. Apparently his cronies over in nearby East Anglia are feeding him this stuff and he must think it tastes good. He thinks the AGW science is settled, which it's not. But it doesn't matter to him, because he's on the war path and his mind is made up.
The illuminating thing about Lord Stern is that he is an economist, and as such he knows for certain that the United States would cease to be a viable society if such drastic measures to cut CO2 emissions were enacted and enforced. But that would be alright with him. He apparently wants to see the U.S brought to it's knees, one way or another. This is a classic, lose-lose scenario that would have implications for not just the U.S., but globally. Maybe Stern figures China would step in and become the world's primary economic engine (they're already well along in that direction as of now).
Curiously, Stern wants to let China off the hook, even though China emits more CO2 than the United States. Stern used the "per capita" gambit to excuse China's carbon footprint. China's population outnumbers that of the United States more than 4 to 1, which would render any per capita comparison between the two countries utterly meaningless. These are just a few of the schemings and machinations Wigley, Jones, and others have orchestrated or tried to orchestrate. The emails and other spoken and printed material from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia are filled with ad hominum attacks on scientists outside their circle (and thus, outside their control) who carry out climate research the AGW jihadis consider heretical or not sufficiently supportive of their agenda.
The nature of science is often adversarial - that's its nature. Subjects of scientific study are often rife with mind boggling complexity - almost never is there any one right answer, and usually there are many, many "somewhat right" answers that are unequivocally right to true believers. Sometimes even competent scientists get it wrong, and when an honorable scientist gets it wrong they accept the correction graciously, publish an erratum, and move on. One of young Einstein's Professors at the Eidgenössische Polytechnische Schule (ETH) who was critical of him was his mathematics instructor, Professor Hermann Minkowski (who refered to Einstein as "a lazy dog").
Einstein was vindicated when, in 1908, Professor Minkowski united the three spacial dimensions with the dimension of time into a unified four dimensional "spacetime" using Einstein's Invariance Theory (better known as the Special Theory of Relativity) as its foundation.
Scientists who disagree should, but often do not, respect the differing scientific opinions of other scientists. In researching this serial story of climate change - I have seen many interviews and read many articles. I have discussed (via email) many aspects of both sides. What I've come to understand is simply this: AGW jihadis display a singularly rigid and unnatural animosity towards those credentialed scientists (and journalists) holding opposing scientific views, while opposing scientists are less rancorous on a personal level but dismiss the AGW jihadis as practitioners of quack science who are driven by greed, by the quest for fame, money, and hero status. As for the AGW jihadis, their jobs and prestige depends on their being right. It's the politicization of science for personal and political gain that has turned off many scientists. Many climate scientists respond to their critics by questioning their integrity rather than responding with reasoned arguments backed up by solid data. IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri trashes research not done by AGW jihadis as "voodoo science" even after it has been shown that some of IPCC's most quoted data came right out of unvetted activist brochures, reports from corporations with a vested interest in the AGW jihad, and newspaper articles by activist AGW journalists. UN Environment chief Achem Steiner suggests anyone who questions questionable claims and data produced by AGW jihadi scientists are guilty of conducting "witch hunts". AGW jihadis flail wildly at those who have legitimate disagreements with their conclusions, and along with their media shills, they release chaff and run interference to cover up legitimate questions on whether or not they are practicing quack science to maintain their position in the driver's seat where they can continiue to ride the gravy train only as long as they fight with all the abandon they can muster.
With AGW, we are told by the media that the "overwhelming majority" of "climate experts" and "leading scientists" support man-made global warming and believe it is a crisis of epic proportions. These are "the authorities" that Einstein would consider them to be today if he were here. If he were here, you can almost bet money he would say: "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of Truth".
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth”
Albert Einstein – 1900
Albert Einstein was an iconoclast. So is Freeman Dyson, the brilliant physicist and mathematician who unified quantum theory and electrodynamics into the discipline of quantum electrodynamics in 1949.
Dyson has been at the Institute for Advanced Studies (IAS) at Princeton NJ, since 1953, where he shared time and space with Einstein for two years until Einstein's death in 1955. IAS, established in 1930, is a sort of elite scientific think tank staffed at different times by some of the most brilliant scientists of the modern era. Dyson is "infinitely smart", according to Bill Press, former Deputy Director at Los Alamos National Laboratory (birthplace of the atomic and hydrogen bombs). Few people who know or worked with Dyson would disagree - but there are some who don't know a lot about him who think of him as a know-nothing. They are some of the global warming radicals who push Anthropogenic Climate Change (AGW) as a holy war to be waged with every nanogram of their beings, and they don't like Dyson because he thinks the climate change issue has been blown way up out of proportion. He agrees that it's getting warmer, and that carbon dioxide may even have something to do with it, but he doesn't see it as a crisis. To the AGW people, that's heresy, and it makes Freeman Dyson a heretic.
Dyson was interviewed by Nicholas Dawidoff in early 2009 for an article that ran in New York Times Magazine on March 28, 2009, where he had the temerity to voice his opinion on the AGW issue - and likewise, Dawidoff had the temerity run Dyson's opinion in his piece.
Both took a lot of heat from the climate radicals because of this piece. Here's Dr. Joe Romm, physicist and climate blogger, attacking Dawidoff to Bob Garfield of On The Media with a blistering fusillade for "misleading the public". "The public is not scientifically expert, and the public’s ability to distinguish science and pseudoscience, which sound pretty much the same, is very small. So it is up to the filters, the media, to use its own judgment based on talking to many different sources and itself weighing the credibility of sources".
There you have it right from an apocalyptic's mouth. We, the public, are stupid (and easy targets for being duped by their propaganda in the media). Only pro-AGW scientists, in their view, have the inside track on the scientific nuances of climate change - other scientists, no matter how accomplished in their field, need not utter a peep. It's the media's job, according to Romm, to be the AGW's mouthpiece, to selectively filter out anything that calls AGW research into even a hint of a question. They are doing an admirable job of doing just that.
Even if a scientist is a practicing climatologist and knows of what he or she speaks, he or she has to know they'll get blackballed by the "mainstream" scientific community if they don't mind their Ps and Qs. These scientists and technocrats can and do arrange for funding to be pulled from apostate scientists who do not agree or agree strongly enough with the AGW dogma. Moreover, the AGW people can and have arranged for the ousting of non-compliant journal editors who have had the bad sense to allow the publishing of papers on climate that aren't sufficiently zealous enough to satisfy them.
Famed AGW apocalyptic Dr. James E. Hansen responded to the New York Times Magazine's piece with this comment: There are bigger fish to fry than Freeman Dyson, who doesn’t know what he’s talking about (Huh?). If he is going to wander into something with major consequences for humanity and other life on the planet, then he should first do his homework — which he obviously has not done on global warming.” Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Hansen needs to do his homework. Dyson worked with Alvin Weinberg at the Institute of Energy Analysis (a subdivision of the Department of Energy (DOE) in the late 1970s studying carbon dioxide's relationship with global climate, and has been pondering the issue for years. Hansen believes himself to be one of the, if not the, foremost expert on climate change in the world, that he drives the car, and everybody else please get in the back seat. But Hansen doesn't give Dyson any credit - just like Einstein's Professors at the Eidgenössische Polytechnische Schule (ETH) in Zürich didn't give him any credit for his contrarian thinking a hundred and ten years ago that ultimately led to Relatively superceding the previously unshakable Newtonian concepts of Absolute Space and Absolute Time.
Dyson is someone who can roll with the punches the AGW people throw at him. With his customary air of humility, Dyson says: " [m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have".
Dave Roberts of Grist Magazine has this suggestion: Put AGW "deniers" on trial à la Nuremberg. Roberts equates the AGW "crisis" as being equivalent to the Holocaust, and he equates "deniers" (whom he doesn't distinguish from "doubters" or "skeptics") equivalent to Nazi war criminals. And who is responsible for the "Holocaust" we're experiencing? We humans, of course. This is pretty radical stuff!
Meet Dr. Heidi Cullen, formerly of The Weather Channel, now the interim CEO of Climate Central, who believes meteorologists or other weather professionals should be decertified if they don't toe the line. Here's what she wrote: "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS (American Meteorological Society) shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns."
Wait a minute! I didn't know that AGW was an established scientific fact. I thought it was a hypothesis that is being tested, and, since by definition, climate is defined as the aggregate weather over the course of decades, centuries, and millennia, then at best, the jury's still out on whether man-made climate change is established as a "fundamental" truth. The testing of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, begun in earnest only a couple of decades ago, has in fact barely begun. On the matter of AMS's members agreeing with Cullen's statement about the AMS being on board, well, not so fast!
Here's what TV meteorologist James Spann, a meteorologist at an ABC affiliate in Alabama, had to say about it: "I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find them".
Bill Steffen, a meteorologist at the NBC affiliate in Grand Rapids, Michigan, concurs. In an email Steffen said most meteorologists accept that the earth has been warming over the last hundred years, but do not believe the warming is anthropogenic. Those that do believe in AGW do so because they're mandated to do so as per their job description. They're afraid they'll lose it if they stray from the fold. Another example of the financial interests involved in the AGW movement.
Climate science - a legitimate and highly complex discipline in the physical sciences, has been hijacked by financial, political and ideological interests, which means that the science, as practiced by the ideologues, has lost its claim to objectivity. It has become, in my words, a scientific jihad. Climate science has been hijacked in the same manner as Islam has been hijacked by the terrorist jihadis. It's been bastardized by a fringe element who have been portrayed as mainstream by the mainstream media and sympathetic politicians and, most of all, by themselves.
Dispassionate scientific inquiry is the foundation of scientific research, and likewise, journalism is supposed to be the dispassionate, objective pursuit of the truth. Yet the mainstream media, with the New York Times and the Washington Post leading the charge, is acting as a mouthpiece for only one side of the story. Dozens of columnists and op-ed writers like Tom Friedman and Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, Michael Mandelbaum and Bryan Walsh, of Time Magazine, just to name a small handful off the top of my head, tout AGW as established fact. A case in point - when Climategate happened, the media smoothed over the incriminating stuff. Specifics were mentioned very little by most media outlets. The story ran along the lines of " ..... It was just a bump in the road - It was just glitch, no harm done - It didn't change anything - It didn't alter the fact that the overwhelming evidence for man-made climate change is clear - The deniers are making a tempest in a teapot out of this - It was all taken out of context - It was deliberately misconstrued by the enemies of "real" climate science" etc. etc. Andrew Revkin of the NYT, called by some an "alarmist reporter" and a shill for the AGW jihad, was one of the most ambitious reporters running interference on behalf of the East Anglia jihadis. But Revkin was butchered by radical ClimateProgress blogger Joe Romm (remember him from earlier in this post?) in his blog for (responsibly) questioning the validity of a slide in one of Al Gore's lectures that asserted there had been "unprecedented" occurrences of wildfires, hurricanes, and other natural disasters - all due to global warming. Even the IPCC had to admit that even they didn't know enough to say for sure that all these disasters were caused by AGW (though curiously, they didn't explicitly deny it).
According to The Gospel According to Joe, any media that doesn't carry the Word with sufficient zeal must be censured or labeled with some epithet. Romm, as difficult as it is to believe, is probably even more radical than Hansen. He uses his blog to mount attacks on "enemies" of the AGW jihad, and even sometimes wages war against journalists and scientists whom he considers insufficiently passionate AGW jihadis - such as Revkin. Romm has even said Hansen, of all people, is understating the climate crisis in which we are perishing.
As revealed by the Climategate emails from East Anglia and radical bloggers like Romm, along with interviews by AGW scientists given with sympathetic reporters, op-ed columnists for radical "green" publications, Dave Roberts of Grist, and others, there is a significant degree of hatred, rancor, and derision directed at scientists and politicians who have an opposing view. AGW radicals at East Anglia, including notorious schemers Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, collaborated to get Review Editor James Saiers removed from his position at the Geophysical Review Letters because he allowed a "sceptic" (sic) paper (by climate scientist Steve McIntyre) to get published in that journal. They also lobbied for the removal of Hans Von Storch from his position as Editor in Chief at the the journal Climate Research because he allowed a "sceptic" (sic) paper (dubbed "crap science" by Wigley) to be published in his journal.
Climate jihadis who push for punitive measures against those who disagree with their viewpoint aren't limited to just the media and scientific community - here's a real doozy of a fanatic - Lord Nicholas Stern of Brentford, UK. who's hell-bent on waging economic warfare on the United States for having too big of a carbon footprint. He is the UK's leading "climate economist".
Lord Stern is threatening economic jihad on the U.S. in the event we don't cut our carbon dioxide emissions by 17% within the next ten years. And if we don't (which we won't - because we can't), he's going to get a bunch of other countries, which presumably includes the U.K., to boycott all products made here in the US. Stern is claiming that "if nothing is done", the global temperature will rise as much as 7° C by the year 2100.
What?!
This guy doesn't know science from shinola. Apparently his cronies over in nearby East Anglia are feeding him this stuff and he must think it tastes good. He thinks the AGW science is settled, which it's not. But it doesn't matter to him, because he's on the war path and his mind is made up.
The illuminating thing about Lord Stern is that he is an economist, and as such he knows for certain that the United States would cease to be a viable society if such drastic measures to cut CO2 emissions were enacted and enforced. But that would be alright with him. He apparently wants to see the U.S brought to it's knees, one way or another. This is a classic, lose-lose scenario that would have implications for not just the U.S., but globally. Maybe Stern figures China would step in and become the world's primary economic engine (they're already well along in that direction as of now).
Curiously, Stern wants to let China off the hook, even though China emits more CO2 than the United States. Stern used the "per capita" gambit to excuse China's carbon footprint. China's population outnumbers that of the United States more than 4 to 1, which would render any per capita comparison between the two countries utterly meaningless. These are just a few of the schemings and machinations Wigley, Jones, and others have orchestrated or tried to orchestrate. The emails and other spoken and printed material from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia are filled with ad hominum attacks on scientists outside their circle (and thus, outside their control) who carry out climate research the AGW jihadis consider heretical or not sufficiently supportive of their agenda.
The nature of science is often adversarial - that's its nature. Subjects of scientific study are often rife with mind boggling complexity - almost never is there any one right answer, and usually there are many, many "somewhat right" answers that are unequivocally right to true believers. Sometimes even competent scientists get it wrong, and when an honorable scientist gets it wrong they accept the correction graciously, publish an erratum, and move on. One of young Einstein's Professors at the Eidgenössische Polytechnische Schule (ETH) who was critical of him was his mathematics instructor, Professor Hermann Minkowski (who refered to Einstein as "a lazy dog").
Einstein was vindicated when, in 1908, Professor Minkowski united the three spacial dimensions with the dimension of time into a unified four dimensional "spacetime" using Einstein's Invariance Theory (better known as the Special Theory of Relativity) as its foundation.
Scientists who disagree should, but often do not, respect the differing scientific opinions of other scientists. In researching this serial story of climate change - I have seen many interviews and read many articles. I have discussed (via email) many aspects of both sides. What I've come to understand is simply this: AGW jihadis display a singularly rigid and unnatural animosity towards those credentialed scientists (and journalists) holding opposing scientific views, while opposing scientists are less rancorous on a personal level but dismiss the AGW jihadis as practitioners of quack science who are driven by greed, by the quest for fame, money, and hero status. As for the AGW jihadis, their jobs and prestige depends on their being right. It's the politicization of science for personal and political gain that has turned off many scientists. Many climate scientists respond to their critics by questioning their integrity rather than responding with reasoned arguments backed up by solid data. IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri trashes research not done by AGW jihadis as "voodoo science" even after it has been shown that some of IPCC's most quoted data came right out of unvetted activist brochures, reports from corporations with a vested interest in the AGW jihad, and newspaper articles by activist AGW journalists. UN Environment chief Achem Steiner suggests anyone who questions questionable claims and data produced by AGW jihadi scientists are guilty of conducting "witch hunts". AGW jihadis flail wildly at those who have legitimate disagreements with their conclusions, and along with their media shills, they release chaff and run interference to cover up legitimate questions on whether or not they are practicing quack science to maintain their position in the driver's seat where they can continiue to ride the gravy train only as long as they fight with all the abandon they can muster.
With AGW, we are told by the media that the "overwhelming majority" of "climate experts" and "leading scientists" support man-made global warming and believe it is a crisis of epic proportions. These are "the authorities" that Einstein would consider them to be today if he were here. If he were here, you can almost bet money he would say: "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of Truth".
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
A CLOSER LOOK AT CLIMATE CHANGE (PART 8)
THE IPCC's FUZZY MATH
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a group of influential scientists under the auspices of the United Nations whose main function is to peer review and approve papers written by various climate scientists from all over the world for publication. It's a selective group whose members and associated scientists have a clear mandate to toe the line, which means they must adhere to the official, "mainstream" position that the Earth is undergoing a climate crisis of Brobdingnagian magnitude - a crisis wholly caused by us dastardly, irresponsible humans. A primary function of this panel is to direct or influence policy makers around the world so they will compel their constituents - by means of rigid enforcement, if necessary - to quell their use of fossil fuels and stop "polluting" the planet. It's a disturbing example of the politicization of science to create or influence policies that can adversely affect millions.
Every few years the IPCC sponsors a summit - their last one was in December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark - where they try to persuade heads of state and other policy makers to pass stiffer laws against carbon dioxide "polluters". Like the ones before, nothing got done except the blowing of a lot of hot air. And that's probably a very good thing.
OK, here comes the science part. I'm going to play with some of the IPCC propaganda and use their formulas and equations to try to show how they're trying to manipulate the world's governments, media, and citizens. If the technical details don't interest you, please feel free to skip over the next few paragraphs and pick back up again when I resume my commentary, where the dark-blue typeface resumes.
At the heart of the IPCC's argument in favor of human-induced global climate change is a parameter called the climate sensitivity factor l (lambda). It's a numerical value derived from computer models dealing with radiative forcing parameters associated with a hypothetical doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from its pre-industrial count of 280 ppmv. The IPCC's accepted value for l falls within a range of 0.8 - 1.2. A l value of 0.8° yields a 3° C increase while a l value of 1.2 yields a more broadly accepted 4.5° C rise in global temperature with a doubling of CO2. One chart even shows a projected temperature increase guided by a l value as high as 1.7 (described below) - which would truly be catastrophic if it were only true. Meanwhile, those in the so-called skeptic camp suggest the true value of lambda (l) is well below 0.1, which works out to a temperature increase of less that 1/2° C if the atmospheric CO2 concentration doubled to 560 ppmv from its pre-industrial count of 280 ppmv. This number, l, is a value derived from purely arbitrary assumptions based on how hot it will get if the CO2 reaches 560 ppmv.
Math is pure logic, and I've included the following paragraph to make a purely logical argument in favor of 1.) lowering the value of l to a substantially lower value than the currently accepted minimum l value of 0.8, and 2.) make an argument that even when using the IPCC's rather liberal numbers, there is alarmist propaganda out there that is ridiculously misleading.
There is formula that is used to determine the hypothetical value of lambda (l) after which lambda (l) can be plugged into another formula to see how hot it's going to get with a rising CO2 complement of the earth's atmosphere. Here they are:
DTS = l D F
where DTS is the rise in global temperature, and
D F is the increase of radiative forcing due to the increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Here's the formula for finding the radiative forcing value D F
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a group of influential scientists under the auspices of the United Nations whose main function is to peer review and approve papers written by various climate scientists from all over the world for publication. It's a selective group whose members and associated scientists have a clear mandate to toe the line, which means they must adhere to the official, "mainstream" position that the Earth is undergoing a climate crisis of Brobdingnagian magnitude - a crisis wholly caused by us dastardly, irresponsible humans. A primary function of this panel is to direct or influence policy makers around the world so they will compel their constituents - by means of rigid enforcement, if necessary - to quell their use of fossil fuels and stop "polluting" the planet. It's a disturbing example of the politicization of science to create or influence policies that can adversely affect millions.
Every few years the IPCC sponsors a summit - their last one was in December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark - where they try to persuade heads of state and other policy makers to pass stiffer laws against carbon dioxide "polluters". Like the ones before, nothing got done except the blowing of a lot of hot air. And that's probably a very good thing.
OK, here comes the science part. I'm going to play with some of the IPCC propaganda and use their formulas and equations to try to show how they're trying to manipulate the world's governments, media, and citizens. If the technical details don't interest you, please feel free to skip over the next few paragraphs and pick back up again when I resume my commentary, where the dark-blue typeface resumes.
At the heart of the IPCC's argument in favor of human-induced global climate change is a parameter called the climate sensitivity factor l (lambda). It's a numerical value derived from computer models dealing with radiative forcing parameters associated with a hypothetical doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from its pre-industrial count of 280 ppmv. The IPCC's accepted value for l falls within a range of 0.8 - 1.2. A l value of 0.8° yields a 3° C increase while a l value of 1.2 yields a more broadly accepted 4.5° C rise in global temperature with a doubling of CO2. One chart even shows a projected temperature increase guided by a l value as high as 1.7 (described below) - which would truly be catastrophic if it were only true. Meanwhile, those in the so-called skeptic camp suggest the true value of lambda (l) is well below 0.1, which works out to a temperature increase of less that 1/2° C if the atmospheric CO2 concentration doubled to 560 ppmv from its pre-industrial count of 280 ppmv. This number, l, is a value derived from purely arbitrary assumptions based on how hot it will get if the CO2 reaches 560 ppmv.
Math is pure logic, and I've included the following paragraph to make a purely logical argument in favor of 1.) lowering the value of l to a substantially lower value than the currently accepted minimum l value of 0.8, and 2.) make an argument that even when using the IPCC's rather liberal numbers, there is alarmist propaganda out there that is ridiculously misleading.
There is formula that is used to determine the hypothetical value of lambda (l) after which lambda (l) can be plugged into another formula to see how hot it's going to get with a rising CO2 complement of the earth's atmosphere. Here they are:
DTS = l D F
where DTS is the rise in global temperature, and
D F is the increase of radiative forcing due to the increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Here's the formula for finding the radiative forcing value D F
DF = 5.35 X ln C/CO W m-2
[Radiative forcing is the term used to describe a sort of back pressure caused by the trapping of outgoing infrared radiation by greenhouse gasses (GHG) much as pressure inside a balloon keeps it from deflating to a flaccid state by air pressure trapped inside it.
Just as there is a slight pressure differential inside the balloon that keeps it from going limp, the radiative forcing of a GHG translates to an equal amount of extra radiation from the sun reaching the earth if the radiative back pressure were discounted.]
The efficacy of the DF formula (above) is not currently being disputed for calculating forcings for CO2 concentrations by most scientists on either side of the AGW divide, although one paper (Myrhe, et. al. 1998) asserts the relationship breaks down below 915 ppmv because it's a logarithmic function. What is being debated is the value of lambda, the climate sensitivity parameter, which is purely hypothetical.
OK, let's have some fun. Here's an alarmist chart that spells doom for the planet:
OOPS! DAMN! This blog server is rejecting all of my attempts to post images! I can't even upload an image of my dog!? I wonder if the global-warming storm police are trying to shut down my ability (or right) to clearly communicate my reality-based views? Probably not - maybe it's just a server glitch. But.... one never knows, does one?
So I'll make my point without the chart - you'll just have to take my word that I'm not making this stuff up. If I am able to upload charts and photos in the future, I'll replace this paragraph with the visual aids I prefer to use to get my point across.
NOTE: HERE ARE LINKS TO THE CHARTS I WAS UNABLE TO UPLOAD:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/natural-vs-agw_warming.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_vs_measured_co2.png
I have a column chart here that resembles a steep bluff arising from a flood plain. The "bluff" arising steeply towards the upper right of the chart is an alarmist perspective of what the global temperatures will do if CO2 levels keep increasing - all the way up to 560 ppm, which is twice the pre-industrial level. Superimposed on this chart is the predicted increase in temperatures based on the much more conservative model of Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi (2009). These superimposed values represent the continuation of the gradual upslope and virtual leveling off of the flood plain.
According to the data based on Lindzen-Choi model, the global temperature will warm up by 0.2° C in the event the atmospheric CO2 doubles from where it was in the 1700s, which was around 280 ppm. Plugging that 0.2° C increase into the formula, we get a value for the climate sensitivity parameter, lambda (l), a value of 0.08. This is 1/10th of the most conservative "official" values of lambda - 0.8. But there's more!
Just as there is a slight pressure differential inside the balloon that keeps it from going limp, the radiative forcing of a GHG translates to an equal amount of extra radiation from the sun reaching the earth if the radiative back pressure were discounted.]
The efficacy of the DF formula (above) is not currently being disputed for calculating forcings for CO2 concentrations by most scientists on either side of the AGW divide, although one paper (Myrhe, et. al. 1998) asserts the relationship breaks down below 915 ppmv because it's a logarithmic function. What is being debated is the value of lambda, the climate sensitivity parameter, which is purely hypothetical.
OK, let's have some fun. Here's an alarmist chart that spells doom for the planet:
OOPS! DAMN! This blog server is rejecting all of my attempts to post images! I can't even upload an image of my dog!? I wonder if the global-warming storm police are trying to shut down my ability (or right) to clearly communicate my reality-based views? Probably not - maybe it's just a server glitch. But.... one never knows, does one?
So I'll make my point without the chart - you'll just have to take my word that I'm not making this stuff up. If I am able to upload charts and photos in the future, I'll replace this paragraph with the visual aids I prefer to use to get my point across.
NOTE: HERE ARE LINKS TO THE CHARTS I WAS UNABLE TO UPLOAD:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/natural-vs-agw_warming.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_vs_measured_co2.png
I have a column chart here that resembles a steep bluff arising from a flood plain. The "bluff" arising steeply towards the upper right of the chart is an alarmist perspective of what the global temperatures will do if CO2 levels keep increasing - all the way up to 560 ppm, which is twice the pre-industrial level. Superimposed on this chart is the predicted increase in temperatures based on the much more conservative model of Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi (2009). These superimposed values represent the continuation of the gradual upslope and virtual leveling off of the flood plain.
According to the data based on Lindzen-Choi model, the global temperature will warm up by 0.2° C in the event the atmospheric CO2 doubles from where it was in the 1700s, which was around 280 ppm. Plugging that 0.2° C increase into the formula, we get a value for the climate sensitivity parameter, lambda (l), a value of 0.08. This is 1/10th of the most conservative "official" values of lambda - 0.8. But there's more!
According to the chart, the temperature has already risen 2.2° C, and by the time the CO2 has doubled, the temperature will have risen 6.2° C! That's where it was back in the steamy dinosaur days! Here, the value for the climate sensitivity parameter lambda is 1.68. This would be pretty dire stuff, if it were true. But it can't be true, because the consensus is that temperatures have gone up only about 0.6° C since the Keeling CO2 measurements began 50 years ago - not 2.2° C. I have another chart that I was going to include in this post that is based on identical data and parameters, but it has a different layout, and would have been an excellent compliment to the "bluff" chart.
OK, let's see what the value l might be if we consider the consensus rise in the Earth's temperature over the last half-century and a 34.5% increase of CO2. Here we go:
C = 390 ppm (the current count)
CO = 315 ppm (the count at 1957 per Keeling)
Using the formula for CO2 forcing we get 5.35 X ln (390/315)=1.143 Wm-2
That's our value for DF
Now, to find lambda (l) using the first formula
OK, let's see what the value l might be if we consider the consensus rise in the Earth's temperature over the last half-century and a 34.5% increase of CO2. Here we go:
C = 390 ppm (the current count)
CO = 315 ppm (the count at 1957 per Keeling)
Using the formula for CO2 forcing we get 5.35 X ln (390/315)=1.143 Wm-2
That's our value for DF
Now, to find lambda (l) using the first formula
DF, the increase in radiative forcing, is
1.143 Wm-2
DTS , the temperature change is about 0.6° C
according to data compiled by Dr. Phil Jones of the CRU in East Anglia UK. Plugging 0.6° C into the formula to find l yields:
l = DTS / DF = 0.6° C / 1.143 = 0.525
Now, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles, we get a radiative forcing
DTS , the temperature change is about 0.6° C
according to data compiled by Dr. Phil Jones of the CRU in East Anglia UK. Plugging 0.6° C into the formula to find l yields:
l = DTS / DF = 0.6° C / 1.143 = 0.525
Now, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles, we get a radiative forcing
DF of 3.71 Wm-2
How do we know that? Plugging the numbers into the formula we get:
How do we know that? Plugging the numbers into the formula we get:
C / CO = 560/280 = 2. The natural logarithm (ln) of 2 is 0.693 so 0.693 X 5.35 = 3.71 Wm-2
That’s our radiative forcing value DF
Now, when you plug in our derived values for l
DTS = lDF = DTS = 0.525 X 3.71 = 1.95° C
OK, we're done with the math - you can start reading again. So, if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere were to keep rising to 560 ppm from the 390 ppm we have now, we'd (allegedly) see a temperature rise of 1.95°C - not 3° or 4.5° or even 6° C as the IPCC claims.
That’s our radiative forcing value DF
Now, when you plug in our derived values for l
DTS = lDF = DTS = 0.525 X 3.71 = 1.95° C
OK, we're done with the math - you can start reading again. So, if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere were to keep rising to 560 ppm from the 390 ppm we have now, we'd (allegedly) see a temperature rise of 1.95°C - not 3° or 4.5° or even 6° C as the IPCC claims.
Now, what are we to make of this? This result is far smaller than what the IPCC is threatening will happen. Yet it's far larger than the 0.15° to 0.2° C rise postulated by Lindzen and Choi based on the quantum mechanical behavior of CO2.
There are still plenty of questions. One, the formulas are the IPCC's formulas, and they were derived from computer models that are at best questionable and often don't agree with one another. And two, (very important here) these equations assume that the 0.6° C rise in the earth's temperature during the 53 years of David Keeling's measuring of atmospheric CO2 is due to the CO2 and not the sun, which appears to be increasingly active, on average, over the last 100 plus years. If the sun is what's warming the earth, and not CO2, then the Lindzen-Choi climate sensitivity parameter (l= .04) may be closer to the mark.
There are still plenty of questions. One, the formulas are the IPCC's formulas, and they were derived from computer models that are at best questionable and often don't agree with one another. And two, (very important here) these equations assume that the 0.6° C rise in the earth's temperature during the 53 years of David Keeling's measuring of atmospheric CO2 is due to the CO2 and not the sun, which appears to be increasingly active, on average, over the last 100 plus years. If the sun is what's warming the earth, and not CO2, then the Lindzen-Choi climate sensitivity parameter (l= .04) may be closer to the mark.
With this presentation (above) I've tried to show directly by means of alarmist charts the type of fear propaganda the IPCC and its minions are trying to bamboozle us with. If you looked at these charts and didn't know any better you would be afraid. Very afraid. That's part of the problem - some of the people who don't know any better - they wouldn't know science if it punched them in the face - they buy into this stuff hook, line, and sinker. They believe everything they hear and devote their attention to the most dire, most dramatic scenarios we're told may happen or will happen, depending on the source. The people I'm referring to are the policy makers - the politicians who are angling to write laws that will make us stop "polluting" the air with CO2. Such monstrosities as Cap'n'Trade, utility taxes over and above the taxes we already pay on utilities, and other maneuvers that are supposed to make us conserve. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for not wasting energy, whether it's gasoline or electricity. But the politicians - people like Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, who co-authored the cap'n'trade bill in the house that the Senate wisely killed - are vying to run up the costs of utilities to "encourage" conservation and "encourage" people to get rid of their old appliances and cars and buy new (and expensive) energy efficient appliances and cars. The well-to-do can certainly afford to buy this expensive new stuff and feel good about themselves for doing so. They can afford to upgrade their homes (and mansions) to make them more energy efficient as well, but what about the less fortunate? What about the people who would like to save on their utility bills but are stuck with their old, energy-inefficient beaters and leaky refrigerators and vintage electric stoves and microwaves, and live in drafty, ramshackle apartments without insulation?
Last year we had a "Cash for Clunkers" program that benefited the well-to-do but hurt the less fortunate who couldn't afford to buy sleek new cars (See my post of 8/9/2009 - Cash for Clunkers - a bad idea). Moreover, low-income people had trouble finding used cars at a price affordable to them because the CforC program depleted the used car market and made used cars more expensive. President Obama, whom I support on many issues, is allowing the IPCC to lead him by the nose. He is a prime example of a prominent world leader (one of many) who's been snared by the alarmist dogma of the IPCC and its associated apocalypse-mongers. There's a real danger here. IPCC-affiliated scientists, with a lot of help from the media (who think the global warming issue makes good copy), are propagating a dangerous and potentially devastating agenda for no good reason other than to make a lot of money for themselves. The IPCC, part of the UN, is a political organization with policy objectives that suit their own ends. They get billions in funding approved by sympathetic but ignorant government bureaucrats worldwide and are, by extension, depriving funds for scientists who practice climate science as a dispassionate search for the Truth. Not only that, they are impeding the publication of research papers by scientists who don't agree with their views on this issue. Further, they're influencing government bureaucracies to implement harmful policies that will, or are, being hurtful to ordinary people. A case in point: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently declared CO2 a pollutant, for crying out loud! I guess that means every human being on Earth is spewing pollution out of their mouths with every breath - about 1.6 billion metric tonnes worth per year. And that's just the people! Factor in the animal and plant life in the entire biosphere and you have a staggering amount of "pollution" being emitted. It makes no sense to arbitrarily call it pollution.
With the EPA now invoking CO2 as a pollutant we can look forward to even higher electric bills, which are already high, because of heavy taxation, brutally cold winters and stifling hot summers and existing restrictions.
As someone with a rich background in science, I can see what's going on through the weeds of propagandistic proclamations and dogmatic boilerplate by a cadre of people who must think I'm stupid, and must think everybody else is stupid as well. In many cases they're right about that. Unfortunately many politicians, bureaucrats, and media types are missing the boat, but fortunately..., an increasing number of people are waking up to what's going on, and they're not buying it any more. At some point this alarmist movement will finally become discredited and piddle out, like the infamous "hockey stick" chart by Mann, et.al. (see CLCC - 5 Quack Science - posted on 11/14/2010). We can only hope this movement's demise doesn't come too late. With my next post (CLCC - 9) I'll discuss one notable (and noble) scientist who thinks it's all a lot of malarkey, and what the apocalyptics are saying about him. Stay tuned.
Last year we had a "Cash for Clunkers" program that benefited the well-to-do but hurt the less fortunate who couldn't afford to buy sleek new cars (See my post of 8/9/2009 - Cash for Clunkers - a bad idea). Moreover, low-income people had trouble finding used cars at a price affordable to them because the CforC program depleted the used car market and made used cars more expensive. President Obama, whom I support on many issues, is allowing the IPCC to lead him by the nose. He is a prime example of a prominent world leader (one of many) who's been snared by the alarmist dogma of the IPCC and its associated apocalypse-mongers. There's a real danger here. IPCC-affiliated scientists, with a lot of help from the media (who think the global warming issue makes good copy), are propagating a dangerous and potentially devastating agenda for no good reason other than to make a lot of money for themselves. The IPCC, part of the UN, is a political organization with policy objectives that suit their own ends. They get billions in funding approved by sympathetic but ignorant government bureaucrats worldwide and are, by extension, depriving funds for scientists who practice climate science as a dispassionate search for the Truth. Not only that, they are impeding the publication of research papers by scientists who don't agree with their views on this issue. Further, they're influencing government bureaucracies to implement harmful policies that will, or are, being hurtful to ordinary people. A case in point: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently declared CO2 a pollutant, for crying out loud! I guess that means every human being on Earth is spewing pollution out of their mouths with every breath - about 1.6 billion metric tonnes worth per year. And that's just the people! Factor in the animal and plant life in the entire biosphere and you have a staggering amount of "pollution" being emitted. It makes no sense to arbitrarily call it pollution.
With the EPA now invoking CO2 as a pollutant we can look forward to even higher electric bills, which are already high, because of heavy taxation, brutally cold winters and stifling hot summers and existing restrictions.
As someone with a rich background in science, I can see what's going on through the weeds of propagandistic proclamations and dogmatic boilerplate by a cadre of people who must think I'm stupid, and must think everybody else is stupid as well. In many cases they're right about that. Unfortunately many politicians, bureaucrats, and media types are missing the boat, but fortunately..., an increasing number of people are waking up to what's going on, and they're not buying it any more. At some point this alarmist movement will finally become discredited and piddle out, like the infamous "hockey stick" chart by Mann, et.al. (see CLCC - 5 Quack Science - posted on 11/14/2010). We can only hope this movement's demise doesn't come too late. With my next post (CLCC - 9) I'll discuss one notable (and noble) scientist who thinks it's all a lot of malarkey, and what the apocalyptics are saying about him. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
A CLOSER LOOK AT CLIMATE CHANGE (PART 7)
HOW MUCH CARBON DIOXIDE IS TOO MUCH?
Here's a little thought experiment (I borrowed the term from Albert Einstein). Imagine you're at a huge stadium watching a football game. Take Michigan Stadium, for example. I've been there. The place holds a lot of people with a lot of air in their lungs. A lot of people - as in 110,000 people. To get a perspective, here's what the place looks like from 3,000 feet:
OK, imagine you're at the game - the place is packed with one-ninth of a million screaming fans, of which 23,100 of them are rooting for the other team - let's assume the other team is Washington State University (WSU) - they were the visiting team when I took this photo from my Cessna. That leaves most of the remaining 86,900 odd fans rooting for Michigan. The 23,100 WSU fans represent the 21% oxygen component of the atmosphere, with most of the rest representing the 78% nitrogen component. But then there are some oddballs. There are about 3,100 fans who cheer the Michigan cheerleaders - they represent the water vapor component (it's a humid day), and 1,100 fans (the argon component) cheering for the WSU's cheerleaders . But there is one element that has the play-by-play announcers' (the media's) attention, and that's the 43 Hell's Angels who've distributed themselves randomly throughout the crowd. They're just there to make noise.
So... that's our fan base in a nutshell.
OK, here we go.
Michigan scores a touchdown! The 86,900 fans cheer loudly. Hear 'em? They're loud as hell. WSU scores, and their 23,900 fans let out a prolonged whoop. Although it's not as impressive as the roar from the 86,900 Michigan fans, they hold their own as noise makers. Now, there's a time out, and the Michigan cheerleaders are prancing and dancing - you hear a smattering of cheers from their 3,100 fans. The WSU cheerleaders have their turn and their 1,100 fans loudly voice their approval. OK, you're in this big, cavernous stadium, and eleven hundred people can still make enough noise to get noticed by any blind people (the refs) that happen to be in the stadium. But what about the bikers? There's forty-three of them. How much noise do you think they can make in comparison to the 86,900 Michigan fans, or even the 1,100 WSU cheerleaders' fans screaming at the top of their lungs? OK, you get the picture? The upshot of this parable is: out of every 110,000 molecules of air, only 43 of them are carbon dioxide molecules.
Carbon dioxide currently makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere. That's thirty-nine thousandths of one percent. It's a greenhouse gas, to be sure, but as a greenhouse gas it's only about 20% as potent as water vapor. So, on a humid day, when when the air contains about 2.8% H2O, the humidity constitutes 99.7% of the greenhouse effect.
What everybody's worried about is that 1/4 to 1/3 of one percent (0.3 %) of greenhouse effect driven by carbon dioxide is heating up the planet enough that there will be more humidity and thus more greenhousing by water vapor which will warm the planet up even more and make more water vapor and heat the planet up even more... - it's called a runaway greenhouse effect. There's another concern that that 0.28% greenhouse effect by carbon dioxide will turn into 0.56% and then 1.12% and that will lead to more humidity that will in turn lead to more warming and so on and so on and so on.....! It could happen! (But probably won't). Nobody really knows for sure. But what irritates me is that the apocalyptics are playing Chicken Little - they're pushin' too hard on me and a lot of other people to warrant any credibility. It's like, whoever makes the most noise gets the attention, you know, the squeaky wheel, but it's not good attention.
Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and is widely considered at the top of the heap of atmospheric scientists. In 2009 Dr. Lindzen co-published a paper with Yong-Sang Choi, a young graduate assistant, in the journal Geophysical Research Letters known as LC 2009. In this paper Lindzen and Choi argued for a much smaller climate sensitivity parameter, called lambda (l), than the "official" IPCC-sanctioned value based on an increase of temperature falling within a range 3° C to 4.5° C if the atmospheric CO2 concentration were doubled. According to the IPCC, the value of l then, is between 0.8 and 1.2. The LC2009 paper suggested the real value for l was 0.04, which translates to a rise of global temperature of only 0.15° C with the doubling of CO2. That's only 1/20th to 1/30th of the "official" IPCC line for the doubling of CO2. As expected, their paper elicited a howl of protest from the apocalyptics. Almost immediately an army of global warming proponents rushed to publish rebuttals and try to discredit LC2009.
As physicists, Lindzen and Choi employed quantum mechanical principles as a foundation of their work - they predicated their study on the quantum mechanical behavior of the CO2 molecule when it gets hit by quanta of long wave (infrared) radiation trying to escape into space. Below is a chart based on their work.
Below is another similar chart that's quite instructive.
They look like left handed (reverse) hockey sticks, don't they?
According to these graphs, we are not heading towards a global catastrophe. Again, these charts are derived from the physical traits of the CO2 molecule (which is better depicted as OCO, or better yet, O=C=O) insofar as it's ability to trap long wave radiation in the earth's atmosphere. This is because when a CO2 molecule gets hit by a quantum of longwave radiation, wiggles and wags for a micro-second or two before emitting the quantum (or photon, if you will) at a slightly lower energy level and returning to its ground state. Its linear structure and stable double covalent bonds limit the number of frequencies that can affect it to only 3 relatively narrow bands (2.7, 4.5, & 15 microns). There's a formula with which the modes of vibration, or "degrees of freedom" of a given molecule can be affected by longwave radiation. That formula is simple: 3n-5, where n is the number of atoms in a given molecule. With CO2, there are three atoms, two oxygen and one carbon, so one could assume that 3 X 3 - 5 equals four degrees of freedom. One of those degrees of freedom are invalid with CO2, so the CO2 molecule has only three degrees of freedom to vibrate (absorb longwave radiation). That's why as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned, it's one of the weaker ones.
Another factor to consider is that as the concentration of CO2 increases, the absorbtion bandwidths DO NOT increase, only the amplitude increases (up to a point - ca. 915 ppmv). What this means is that outgoing longwave radiation is absorbed closer to the surface of the earth. Rather than being almost completely absorbed say, within the first kilometer of the lower atmosphere, the lion's share of outgoing radiation gets absorbed within say, a half-kilometer of the earth's surface. While it may yield slightly higher night-time temps within the lowest levels of the atmosphere, this effect is NOT cumilative. As soon as the sun comes up and visible radiation heats the surface of the earth, the slight increase in temperature in the lower atmosphere from overnight gets completely overwhelmed. Another thing to consider is that outgoing longwave radiation occurs only at night. Again, after the sun comes up, all the longwave radiation gets obliterated by the sunshine that is now heating the earth directly.
As stated above, once the concentration hits about 915 ppmv, OCO completely runs out of steam (Myrhe et. al. 1998). It's called saturation, or activity extinction, where additional CO2 concentrations have little to no effect. Think of a large bell. Tap it with a hammer and it will ring. Hit the bell a little harder and it will ring a little louder and keep ringing longer. Hit it harder yet and it will ring even louder and longer. But there comes a point when no matter how hard the bell is struck, it won't ring louder or longer beyond that point. The bell has reached a saturation point.
Are Lindzen, Myrhe, and other scientists correct? I guess time will tell. All scientists who study complex systems like climate can do is offer their opinions and educated guesses. That goes for both sides of the AGW issue. We run into problems when scientists, who are, after all, foibled human beings, interject their personal opinions and beliefs into what is supposed to be a dispassionate pursuit of the Truth. And where we run into BIG problems is when politics gets involved that directs scientists to misuse science in pursuing political mandates rather than pursuing and/or finding real answers to difficult questions.
OK, imagine you're at the game - the place is packed with one-ninth of a million screaming fans, of which 23,100 of them are rooting for the other team - let's assume the other team is Washington State University (WSU) - they were the visiting team when I took this photo from my Cessna. That leaves most of the remaining 86,900 odd fans rooting for Michigan. The 23,100 WSU fans represent the 21% oxygen component of the atmosphere, with most of the rest representing the 78% nitrogen component. But then there are some oddballs. There are about 3,100 fans who cheer the Michigan cheerleaders - they represent the water vapor component (it's a humid day), and 1,100 fans (the argon component) cheering for the WSU's cheerleaders . But there is one element that has the play-by-play announcers' (the media's) attention, and that's the 43 Hell's Angels who've distributed themselves randomly throughout the crowd. They're just there to make noise.
So... that's our fan base in a nutshell.
OK, here we go.
Michigan scores a touchdown! The 86,900 fans cheer loudly. Hear 'em? They're loud as hell. WSU scores, and their 23,900 fans let out a prolonged whoop. Although it's not as impressive as the roar from the 86,900 Michigan fans, they hold their own as noise makers. Now, there's a time out, and the Michigan cheerleaders are prancing and dancing - you hear a smattering of cheers from their 3,100 fans. The WSU cheerleaders have their turn and their 1,100 fans loudly voice their approval. OK, you're in this big, cavernous stadium, and eleven hundred people can still make enough noise to get noticed by any blind people (the refs) that happen to be in the stadium. But what about the bikers? There's forty-three of them. How much noise do you think they can make in comparison to the 86,900 Michigan fans, or even the 1,100 WSU cheerleaders' fans screaming at the top of their lungs? OK, you get the picture? The upshot of this parable is: out of every 110,000 molecules of air, only 43 of them are carbon dioxide molecules.
Carbon dioxide currently makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere. That's thirty-nine thousandths of one percent. It's a greenhouse gas, to be sure, but as a greenhouse gas it's only about 20% as potent as water vapor. So, on a humid day, when when the air contains about 2.8% H2O, the humidity constitutes 99.7% of the greenhouse effect.
What everybody's worried about is that 1/4 to 1/3 of one percent (0.3 %) of greenhouse effect driven by carbon dioxide is heating up the planet enough that there will be more humidity and thus more greenhousing by water vapor which will warm the planet up even more and make more water vapor and heat the planet up even more... - it's called a runaway greenhouse effect. There's another concern that that 0.28% greenhouse effect by carbon dioxide will turn into 0.56% and then 1.12% and that will lead to more humidity that will in turn lead to more warming and so on and so on and so on.....! It could happen! (But probably won't). Nobody really knows for sure. But what irritates me is that the apocalyptics are playing Chicken Little - they're pushin' too hard on me and a lot of other people to warrant any credibility. It's like, whoever makes the most noise gets the attention, you know, the squeaky wheel, but it's not good attention.
Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and is widely considered at the top of the heap of atmospheric scientists. In 2009 Dr. Lindzen co-published a paper with Yong-Sang Choi, a young graduate assistant, in the journal Geophysical Research Letters known as LC 2009. In this paper Lindzen and Choi argued for a much smaller climate sensitivity parameter, called lambda (l), than the "official" IPCC-sanctioned value based on an increase of temperature falling within a range 3° C to 4.5° C if the atmospheric CO2 concentration were doubled. According to the IPCC, the value of l then, is between 0.8 and 1.2. The LC2009 paper suggested the real value for l was 0.04, which translates to a rise of global temperature of only 0.15° C with the doubling of CO2. That's only 1/20th to 1/30th of the "official" IPCC line for the doubling of CO2. As expected, their paper elicited a howl of protest from the apocalyptics. Almost immediately an army of global warming proponents rushed to publish rebuttals and try to discredit LC2009.
As physicists, Lindzen and Choi employed quantum mechanical principles as a foundation of their work - they predicated their study on the quantum mechanical behavior of the CO2 molecule when it gets hit by quanta of long wave (infrared) radiation trying to escape into space. Below is a chart based on their work.
According to these graphs, we are not heading towards a global catastrophe. Again, these charts are derived from the physical traits of the CO2 molecule (which is better depicted as OCO, or better yet, O=C=O) insofar as it's ability to trap long wave radiation in the earth's atmosphere. This is because when a CO2 molecule gets hit by a quantum of longwave radiation, wiggles and wags for a micro-second or two before emitting the quantum (or photon, if you will) at a slightly lower energy level and returning to its ground state. Its linear structure and stable double covalent bonds limit the number of frequencies that can affect it to only 3 relatively narrow bands (2.7, 4.5, & 15 microns). There's a formula with which the modes of vibration, or "degrees of freedom" of a given molecule can be affected by longwave radiation. That formula is simple: 3n-5, where n is the number of atoms in a given molecule. With CO2, there are three atoms, two oxygen and one carbon, so one could assume that 3 X 3 - 5 equals four degrees of freedom. One of those degrees of freedom are invalid with CO2, so the CO2 molecule has only three degrees of freedom to vibrate (absorb longwave radiation). That's why as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned, it's one of the weaker ones.
Another factor to consider is that as the concentration of CO2 increases, the absorbtion bandwidths DO NOT increase, only the amplitude increases (up to a point - ca. 915 ppmv). What this means is that outgoing longwave radiation is absorbed closer to the surface of the earth. Rather than being almost completely absorbed say, within the first kilometer of the lower atmosphere, the lion's share of outgoing radiation gets absorbed within say, a half-kilometer of the earth's surface. While it may yield slightly higher night-time temps within the lowest levels of the atmosphere, this effect is NOT cumilative. As soon as the sun comes up and visible radiation heats the surface of the earth, the slight increase in temperature in the lower atmosphere from overnight gets completely overwhelmed. Another thing to consider is that outgoing longwave radiation occurs only at night. Again, after the sun comes up, all the longwave radiation gets obliterated by the sunshine that is now heating the earth directly.
As stated above, once the concentration hits about 915 ppmv, OCO completely runs out of steam (Myrhe et. al. 1998). It's called saturation, or activity extinction, where additional CO2 concentrations have little to no effect. Think of a large bell. Tap it with a hammer and it will ring. Hit the bell a little harder and it will ring a little louder and keep ringing longer. Hit it harder yet and it will ring even louder and longer. But there comes a point when no matter how hard the bell is struck, it won't ring louder or longer beyond that point. The bell has reached a saturation point.
Are Lindzen, Myrhe, and other scientists correct? I guess time will tell. All scientists who study complex systems like climate can do is offer their opinions and educated guesses. That goes for both sides of the AGW issue. We run into problems when scientists, who are, after all, foibled human beings, interject their personal opinions and beliefs into what is supposed to be a dispassionate pursuit of the Truth. And where we run into BIG problems is when politics gets involved that directs scientists to misuse science in pursuing political mandates rather than pursuing and/or finding real answers to difficult questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
