Archives for posts with tag: CO2


Willis’ article is well presented and insightful. The comments, particularly those of RGB, are quite valuable. Some of the comments are good examples of what not to do. Some are educational and valuable.

Willis and RGB contribute greatly to WUWT, and they are among the greatest minds of our time. If you research the site, with the built-in search or your favorite search engine, you will find a wealth of knowledge and insight.

You will understand the global climate better if you read this article and the comments. The time spent reading will prove worthwhile.

While RGB points out that CO2 physically acts to increase global average surface temperature, Willis shows (in this and prior articles) that CO2 is not the only factor, and as RGB points out, more heat doesn’t necessarily mean hotter; it can instead mean faster, or slightly larger dissipative emergent phenomena.

Carbon dioxide is an essential ingredient in life. We must have it, and it has been deficient in the environment throughout human existence. It is likely still deficient. CO2 is no more a pollutant than O2 and H2O. Oxygen is a killer. Water, even more so. We humans suffer more expense and direct tragedy already, directly due to these other two essential ingredients of life than any plausible scenario associated with CO2.

We will burn all of the fossil fuels unless a genius breakthrough occurs. We will run out of all of it before CO2 even begins to become a true concern to the well being of humans and the biosphere.

Mostly, I agree with RGB (and Willis routinely expresses full solidarity with this sentiment) when he says that climate related policies, and even the vast sums spent on climate research are harmful to the least among us. The Pope wants us to respect the poor. That starts not with only small kindnesses, but with cheap energy by every means available.

RGB is correct when he says:
“At heart, all poverty is energy poverty. The units of energy are the units of work, and work, one way or another, is wealth.”

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/

Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I got to thinking about how I could gain more understanding of the daily air temperature cycles in the tropics. I decided to look at what happens when the early morning (midnight to 5:00 AM) of a given day is cooler than usual, versus what happens when the early morning is warmer than usual. So what was I expecting to find?

Well, my hypothesis is that due to the emergence of clouds and thunderstorms, when the morning is cooler than usual, there will be less clouds and thunderstorms. As a result the day will tend to warm up, and by the following midnight it will end up warmer than where it started. And when the morning is warmer than usual, increased clouds and thunderstorms will cool the day down, and by the following midnight it will end up cooler than when it started. In other…

View original post 1,665 more words

I agree with Dr. Shughart, but he misses the point.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=5027

The alternative to coil, oil, natural gas, and nuclear is not wind and solar. Heaven knows it is not wind! Despite the assurances of prominent science communicators, solar cannot and never will provide significant amounts of the power we need to survive.

See, the alternative to coil, oil, natural gas, and nuclear is slavery and death.

Before the energy era, primarily based on fossil fuel, life was hard, brutish, and short. Those who lived in a poor semblance of affluence did so at the direct expense of others: slaves, serfs, vassals, subjects, whatever the name, culture, and time. Note, we pretend that is still the case, but that is a lie. Everyman in the developed world is free to own his own stuff and work for his own benefit, not his lord’s. The liberals and progressives are working diligently to make us a feudal system again, but most of the time I don’t believe they are succeeding.

Regardless, energy for machines and technology have freed us from the misery that was life for most of human history.

The only alternative to coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear is misery. There will always be powerful people. Our current system of politics and readily available, reasonably inexpensive energy is the only attainable way to keep the powerful from enslaving and killing the rest of us.

Our collective history skews us to fear the powerful. Our recent history of the success (to a poor extent, but the illusion is powerful) of the masses, the labor movement, and some of the popular uprisings make us think we can collectively control the powerful. We cannot.

Our only defense against the powerful is readily, reliably available energy (fuel, power, electricity) at affordable prices for the people. Then the individual is empowered to defend himself. (Ladies, you are included. Don’t get political over grammar rules.)

Dr. Shughart suggests that CO2 is problematic. It is not.

Carbon dioxide is plant food. Anyone against feeding plants is also against feeding people. More plant food means more plants. More plants means more to eat and fewer people starving. The other factor in ending starvation is readily available fuel and electricity to get the food to the starving and refrigerate it until they get to eat it.

Again, being against coal especially, but coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear collectively, is to be for slavery, starvation, and death. This goes for oil infrastructure too, like the Keystone Pipeline.

Got it? If you act against coal, you are acting in favor of enslaving and starving people, your brothers, your fellow-man.

Power to the people means coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear.

I’ve refrained from saying much about the new Cosmos. I’ve written a bit here https://gottadobetterthanthis.wordpress.com/2014/05/04/cosmos-good-grief/

I really am not pleased with it overall. They had such an opportunity.

I record my exasperation. I really think it ought to be possible to sue Neil and company for such gross negligence. Of course, who am I, a lowly engineer, to question such a preeminent physicist? Well, I’m the same guy that is willing to question the Pope (though I usually find myself agreeing with him), the President (and it has been decades since I’ve agreed with one of them), and even the local pastor. I question all authority. I try to question myself and my own biases.

The global warming episode is utterly emotional and fact-free. A stereotypical Jewish mother has nothing on Neil when it comes to guilt trips. I guess he wants everyone, especially the children, to feel guilt and shame that they are not doing their part and suffering now so that the future generations can have something in the distant future.

It borders child abuse in my opinion.

Solar power and wind power are pipe dreams! Read the rest of this entry »

How many episodes of Cosmos so far? I don’t care. Only one good episode, last week. This week sucked bad.

Overall, I love what they are doing, but they are such bullies and so arbitrary!

Alarmism is alarmism whether delivered by a fire-and-brimstone preacher, or a snake-oil salesman, or by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Yes, I’m comparing the three together, equating them. Neil is simply acting to scare people when he ridicules religion or tries to scare us into killing each other in order to stop burning fuel. Yes, the greens, the climate alarmists, the “Agent Smiths” of the world are calling for mass murder when they call for the ending of the fossil fuel era. Neil is simply lying when he pretends solar power can run our industrial, technological world. Part of why we were able to end the heinous crime, the sin, of slavery, is because of the inexpensive availability of fossil fuel and our innovation abilities to turn chemical energy into mechanical energy and production.

The alarmists and greens claim they are calling for the greater good but what will result, if they get what they want, is tyranny, murder, and slavery.

Learn. Study. Seek truth. ALWAYS question authority.

When it comes to Cosmos, be as smart as an old cow; eat the hay, and spit out the sticks. Many aspects of each show are good, but some of it is rotten. Throw it out.

Documenting this for reference. Dr. Singer is exceptionally well qualified to write about this subject.

Climate Consensus Con Game.

For any doubting my title, Dr. Edward R. Long, writing for American Thinker here,  http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/dispelling_some_popular_myths_on_co2_emissions.html provides data. Not models, not projections nor forecasts, not even conjecture or supposition. He provides data to show that despite recent, significant reductions in US carbon dioxide emissions, world emissions proceed apace.

Carbon dioxide is what you get when you burn something. It doesn’t matter if it is a controlled, efficient coal burner/boiler, nor if it is an accidental conflagration of a forest or even a home, nor does it matter if it is your lunch. It burns. CO2 results.

Dr. Long pulled his data from here: http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/statistical-review-of-world-energy-2013.html

Good source.  Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve added James Delingpole’s book to my “to-read” list. SPPI’s John Brignell reviews here:

How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children’s future. | The SPPI Blog.

We live in a better world because a few people have the fortitude to stand up and shout that the emperor has no clothes, or in this case, that global warming alarmism is a hoax. I thank my Senator, the honorable Mr. Inhofe, most of all. Alarmism has always been bad. This time it somehow slipped into the mainstream. I wonder if submission to despotism is in our genes?

I suppose what gets me most is how hard it is for the alarmists to see that their proposed cure is far worse now, and adversely affecting our children and especially poor children around the world today, than what their supposed disease is supposed to be in the distant future. Besides, cold kills. Warmer is better.

It also gets me that it has been far warmer in the distant past. There has also been far higher CO2 concentration in our atmosphere. Also, these two circumstances have generally NOT coincided.

We all know the ideal gas law, and we all know that it is very sound and well established physics. We should all know that it doesn’t work in your automobile engine. We have to modify the ideal to the reality of the combustion chamber. Doesn’t it strike us common folk as odd that the experts can’t realize that the ideal radiative physics needs to be modified when we are talking about our real world and its complex, interrelated living systems? For heaven’s sake, we live on a water planet. Perhaps it takes living in the great plains of the USA to truly internalize how important the oceans are. Here in the middle of nowhere, we are daily reminded of the extremes that can develop when there is no moderating ocean nearby. Good thing we have that honkin huge Pacific out west. It seems to work great overall, but things here in tornado alley get dicey on a regular basis.

 

Norman Rogers points out that global warming alarmism is about the same as Soviet socialist realism.

Articles: Climate Realism and Socialist Realism.

June 24, 2009 Originally in American Thinker  (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/the_regulation_of_essential_el.html)

The regulation of essential elements of life

By Lonnie E. Schubert

The EPA is now considering designating CO2 a dangerous pollutant. The regulation of essential elements of life by our government scares me. It should scare us all. I am devastated by the notion that our own government founded on freedom would regulate and control the most fundamental aspects of life on earth. Regulation on life’s important things is certainly tyranny and certainly will destroy the world, at least the nation and supposed freedom, we leave to our children.
Please, do not regulate the essential elements of life. Freedom is too precious to take it away in such pointless ways.
Carbon dioxide is one of the three essential elements of life on our planet. Despite being arguably THE essential requirement for life, water, sometimes called dihydrogen monoxide, is extremely dangerous, killing even children every year. How much is destroyed every year by floods and rot?
Water is by far the most important energy absorbing gas in our atmosphere. Without gaseous water in our air, our earth would be far too cold to support us. The other gasses that absorb energy contribute less than one-fifth of the total effect we refer to as the greenhouse effect. In short, we generally have too much water where we don’t need it and too little where we do. Are you planning to regulate water also? The potential gains are obvious. If we can reduce water waste and control it in the environment, we can eliminate most of the dangers associated with water.
Likewise, oxygen. This life-essential element is extremely dangerous. Not only can it kill directly, becoming toxic as the partial pressure exceeds 0.3, it kills and destroys by chemically combining with metal and organic material, that is, by oxidation, referred to as corrosion and burning respectively. How many people die each year in fires? How many in structural failures caused by corrosion? Already considering the deaths, dollars hardly seem noteworthy, but the costs of damage caused by oxygen is staggering. Read the rest of this entry »
Update:
I received a nice note back. I am mildly impressed. So far so good. They said they would forward my concerns to the fact-checker and the expert. No names nor qualifications, but oh well. Apparently if my concerns prove out, they will edit future printings. Hmm…
—————–
Dear Editor:
Regarding your issue on extreme weather, I must point out how exaggerated and even wrong nearly every statement in the issue appears to be.
Can you provide me references to back up your assertions? More importantly, can you provide me context wherein I can assuage the fears your magazine engendered in my children?
Perhaps you can visit this reference page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/
and explain to me why each item is wrong, and provide at least two references to counter each.
Also, please don’t refer to the hypocrite-of-hypocrites Al Gore. He has recently proven his money-grubbing motives for all to see. Please refrain from referencing activists and radical environmental organizations. I’m looking for real science, where I can go check. No models that are proven more unreliable by the day, please.
Also, please reference this very old (for the internet) reference, http://scotese.com/climate.htm
Please explain to me Dr. Scotese assertion: “During the last 2 billion years the Earth’s climate has alternated between a frigid “Ice House”, like today’s world, and a steaming “Hot House”, like the world of the dinosaurs.”
Please refer to, consider and understand, his figure. Please note that the current commonly referenced temperature that the earth has risen to since the Little Ice Age is 14°C. Please note that Dr. Scotese indicates a slightly lower temperature, of 12 or 13°C. Alarmists predict a 1, 2, 3, even 5 or 6°C increase over the next several decades. These projections are proving daily to be grossly exaggerated. Still, please explain how a temperature that has obtained for nearly the entire prehistory of life on earth can be so catastrophic. Please.
Before I make a point about the paleotemperature record, please let me point out a simple truth for perspective:
The global temperature as estimated from paleological proxies varied between 10 and 25°C, with two very brief (geologically speaking) excursions to approximately 27°C. Note: 10°C = 283.15K and 27°C = 300.15K. From that, we see that throughout the history of life on earth, the temperature has been remarkably stable. That is, 17K is less than 6% of 300K, thus earth’s global mean temperature is 290K ± 3% or less. Remarkably, stable. AND, currently we are well within the natural bounds.
Now, my final point regarding the Scotese graph. Note that the hottest excursion EVER according to the paleological record was just before the Early Eocene. That temperature excursion was 13 to 15°C greater than current earth temperature, more than double the wildest claims by the alarmists. What happened then? Was it a great extinction? Well, it seems some microorganisms in the ocean had a bad time of it, but quite the contrary, the main mammals emerge in the record then and primates about then too. Hmm… We seem to like it hot just as much as the dinosaurs did!
Further, with so much evidence that warm periods in the history of civilization were times of advancement in all aspects of good and civil society (the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period {we used to call these climate optimums until global warming became a cause for panic}), and cool periods like the Little Ice Age resulted in famine, disease, civil unrest, and war, why try to scare kids to death with computer model outputs that are proving more wrong every day? (We are well over 16 years now with no warming. Even the radical activist James Hanson has recently admitted to it. Not long ago the meme was it would take a full 15 years without increase to invalidate the models. Well?)
For a well reasoned hypothosis regarding why earth doesn’t overheat please see here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/ (published here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/willis-publishes-his-thermostat-hypothesis-paper/; http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/nm45w65nvnj3/?p=593f3e397da34c23b3806982df0b915e&pi=0)
Note: it is also why carbon dioxide, one of the three truly essential ingredients of life, will not significantly raise our temperature while we burn up all the available fossil fuel. (Note the three essential ingredients to life are dihydrogen monoxide, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. The first two are also responsible for a great deal of death, pain, destruction, and devastation throughout our world both now and throughout all of history. Not only do we live on a water planet, so there is no getting away from the dihydrogen monoxide, but it is the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for at least 75% of the effect, probably more than 90%, maybe a full 95%. On a water planet–go figure.)
Weather is not getting more extreme. If the storm of September 1938 happened today, no one would consider Sandy significant. (http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/hurricane/hurricane1938.shtml)
Every generation throughout the centuries has claimed the worst was upon them, or was just about to happen, if society did not repent and turn from its evil ways. What is different this time? The only difference is the source of prosperity, food, and shelter for all who enjoy abundant fossil-fuel energy versus “sin” or idolatry.
Please, I ask these questions in earnest. I truly would appreciate a full, detailed, point-by-point response. One lesson I live by and try diligently to teach my children is that it is always better to be corrected than to remain wrong. My sometimes-rebellious redheaded 19-year-old daughter still has not come to grips with the notion that some people would rather remain wrong than admit to it.
I have been accused of caring nothing for the future. But that is utterly false. I am raising five of the best children the world has ever known, and I want them to have a better place to live than I have. EPA statistics show we are doing better in pollution. Technological advances keep food and energy ahead of demand most of the time. Only short-sighted politics seems a real threat, and ideological demagogues masquerading as objective scientists. We need to remember Feynman. We ourselves are the easiest to fool. We must take pains do find out our mistakes and blind spots.
One final question: Will not the proposed cure certainly cause more harm in the very real present than the supposed disease will cause in the very distant future?
Sincerely,
Lonnie E. Schubert

Justin Pulliam wrote a description of a recent Lord Monckton presentation for Anthony at WUWT. Long, but well worth the time. Here is his closing statement:

Lord Monckton’s reply was moving. Gently, and sadly, he said, “We shall lose the West unless we can restore the use of reason to pre-eminence in our institutions of what was once learning. It was the age of reason that built the West and made it prosperous and free. The age of reason gave you your great Constitution of liberty. It is the power of reason, the second of the three great powers of the soul in Christian theology, that marks our species out from the rest of the visible creation, and makes us closest to the image and likeness of our Creator. I cannot stand by and let the forces of darkness drive us unprotesting into a new Dark Age.”

via Monckton’s Schenectady showdown | Watts Up With That?.

Farther down the page in Comments, Lord Monckton provides this response to a critical comment:

Another commenter has asked why I insist on the use of reason in science and then admit that I believe in a Creator. Many leading scientists, including Professor Antonino Zichichi (president of the World Federation of Scientists) and Lord Kelvin (for whom the scale of absolute temperature is named) have been believers in Christianity. Thanks to Max Planck, it is now demonstrated that the laws of physics did not come into being until a fraction of a nanosecond after the Big Bang, from which it follows that no amount of ingenuity on our part can reveal to us what (or Who) said “Let there be light” and blazed the Universe into glorious existence.

In short, it is scientifically and rigorously proven that the assertion of Christianity that there is a Creator cannot be disproved (and, by the same token, that it cannot be proved either). Therefore, it is permissible for me to say I believe in the truths of the Christian faith, though it would be impermissible for me to say I could prove them to be true. On the other hand, many of the beliefs of the climate extremists can be demonstrated to be false. Their belief system, therefore, is appropriately classified not as a religion (which can neither be proved nor disproved) but as a superstition (which can be and has been disproved).

————————————

Many of the comments are worthwhile as well.

Since Willis wrote it, it is obviously worth reading. Also, it goes with my recent comments on perspective. 33 years is a long time in our world, in our lives. It is amazing to think how far computers have advanced in my life time. It is discouraging that software stays ahead of the computing power. (My poor eight year old machine can hardly load typical web pages anymore.) So, I post a bit of perspective with regard to human understanding of the atmosphere of our planet. The bottom line is we may not even have started thinking about it properly yet. I do think we under estimate the effects associated with living organisms. Yet our pride makes us over estimate the effects we humans have, and we tend to grossly over estimate how much effect we can determine to have.

Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Under the radar, and un-noticed by many climate scientists, there was a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), commissioned by the US Government, regarding climate change. Here is the remit under which they were supposed to operate:

Specifically, our charge was

1. To identify the principal premises on which our current understanding of the question [of the climate effects of CO2] is based,

2. To assess quantitatively the adequacy and uncertainty of our knowledge of these factors and processes, and

3. To summarize in concise and objective terms our best present understanding of the carbon dioxide/climate issue for the benefit of policymakers.

Now, that all sounds quite reasonable. In fact, if we knew the answers to those questions, we’d be a long ways ahead of where we are now.

Figure 1. The new Cray supercomputer called “Gaea”, which was recently installed at…

View original post 2,122 more words

%d bloggers like this: