I was asked to clarify the role of Carbon Dioxide in the process of global climate change.

It appears, uncontrovertably, that the overwhelming majority of energy focused on the Earth comes from the Sun.

Carbon Dioxide, to a minor extent, blocks and absorbs some of this energy, which it then re-emited.

The re-emission is an extremely minor component of the process and serves to delay the cooling of the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide, in and of itself, does not ADD heat to the process.

 I remain surprised that many climate-related researchers will accept payment for their research and defend their limited methodology and apparent findings in papers -- but refuse to be debated by other knowledable scientists in public. As for Al Gore, he controls his media carefully and almost never responds to legitimate inquiry by people like Christopher Lord Monckton of Brenchley who makes a mockery out of his arguments.

It should remembers that virtually none of the  current climate models approximate what we are seeing today and appear to be deeply flawed.  -- steve

Original Post ...

As I walked on my lawn, dampened with evening dew,  smelling the night-blooming Jasmine and looking at the stars, I couldn’t help but think of global warming and if there was a simple way to make this extremely complex, chaotic system understandable to those who will eventually vote for those who are perverting the science to push their own political agenda and public policies.

Starting with the basics …

Without our atmosphere, the Earth would behave like our moon, hot in the day where the Sun’s rays warmed the surface and cold at night where the heat would simply radiate back to space.

But we don’t live in such a simple world; but a world in which the oceans which comprise approximately 73% of the surface of the Earth and the land areas absorb heat and radiate it back to space at different rates.

So we encounter our first essential truth: no matter how much heat is absorbed or re-radiated; the temperature can never be greater than the peak temperature produced by the primary source of the heat – namely, the Sun.

From scientific studies – observations, measurements and a theoretical understanding – the greatest greenhouse gas appears to be water vapor. And we encounter another essential truth: the cloak of water vapor slows down the re-radiation of heat, thus prolonging the time that it takes for the surface to cool down. Pretty much why moist “topical” areas that receive more of the Sun’s energy and have a greater amount of moisture stay warmer (and more uncomfortable) longer. Again, referring to our first essential truth, the temperature can never be greater than the peak temperature produced by the primary source of the heat, the Sun. The same thing happens in extremely dry areas which get less heat due to the angle of the Sun, so the polar regions are also colder. The higher the altitude, the less heat that is retained and the colder it becomes relative to the surface.

Now, let us consider the possibility that some greenhouse gas, Carbon Dioxide, absorbs heat and then is capable of re-radiating this energy. So again, let’s consider our first essential truth: no matter how much energy is re-radiated by Carbon Dioxide, the temperature can never be greater than the original peak temperature. IF, somehow, reflected heat could be additive, then you would have the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine – heat being reflected between two sources and constantly reinforcing and amplifying the energy so that no additional energy would be required and you would have the perfect power source that would continue indefinitely with little or no additional energy input required.

So why is the Earth warming?

Observation, measurement, theoretical examination – as well as commonsense – would tell you that when the Earth emerges from the Little Ice Age, some degree of warming would be expected and would not be unusual or alarming.

What are the drivers of global warming?

The hypothesis that man is driving a portion of climate change is theoretically true. But the real issue is how much when compared with the other drivers of global climate.

For the record, the main drivers of global climate change are: the Sun’s energy output; the Earth’s position relative to the Sun; the Earth’s rotational dynamics; the Earth’s volcanic activity; the action of deep ocean currents and, as we have seen, the greatest of the greenhouse gas – water vapor. And now we are seeing suggestions that cosmic rays aid in the formation of clouds that interact in our ecosphere. All gross drivers of global climate and well beyond man’s ability to influence.

Assuming Carbon Dioxide did play a major part in global climate change, it would be ONLY to delay the re-radiation of heat into the atmosphere, prolonging the effects of higher local temperatures, but not to increase, one iota, the global temperature.

So what the hell are we actually measuring?

There is observational evidence that we are measuring the natural warming of the Earth as we emerge from the Little Ice Age and the degree of increasing urbanization where temperature stations located in formerly undeveloped areas are being overrun with urban activity; thus making a mockery of the consistency and reliability of historic temperature measurements. And as for those climate proxies which allow us to “estimate” temperatures before modern instrumentation, these measurements are imprecise, prone to error and depend on the locality. Considering that these “proxy”observations are far and few between, it is unlikely that we can extrapolate these finding into definitive public policies.

Carbon Dioxide as the cause of global warming …

Believe it or not there is a simple explanation for observations which purport to claim that carbon dioxide is one of the proximate causes of global warming. Let’s go beyond the physical science of molecular re-radiation for a moment and consider the following:

One, it appears that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide lags the rise in global temperatures by 600 – 1000 years, so carbon dioxide cannot be a causal agent.

Two, it appears that there is a scientific explanation for the observation. Since the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans is somewhat constant; using Henry’s Law one can expect that rising ocean temperatures would cause dissolved carbon dioxide to outgas and enter the atmosphere – increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Opening a cold beer on a warm day illustrates the same effect as carbon dioxide is outgassed from the cold beer and enters the atmosphere.

And three, it appears that the reason that the political policy makers chose carbon dioxide is that it would give them control over the creation, storage, transmission and  usage of carbon-based energy. And thus allow control over a nation’s energy policy and economy – and to provide a rationale for wealth redistribution using the bogus process of carbon credit trading.

The big lie of carbon credit trading …

Carbon credit trading is nothing more than a hoax perpetrated on the American public. It seeks to enrich those, primarily the Wall Street Wizards, who create or produce nothing but paper. It also allows gross polluters to continue polluting their immediate environment by purchasing government-approved carbon credits on the theory that mitigation efforts applied in one area can actually affect the global climate. Ridiculous beyond belief. And, these credits facilitate socialist wealth redistribution as third-world nations must do little more than throw some seeds into the ground to create very valuable carbon credits.

Think of planting trees to neutralize the effects of carbon dioxide from a jet plane trip. First, the actual pollution would disperse quickly and present no local threat. The totality of such emissions would have an unmeasurable effect on the composition of the atmosphere and the trees that were planted would need to be numerous and exist for years before an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide would be absorbed. While there are benefits: increased amounts of carbon dioxide are beneficial to plant life and to the generation of local oxygen – they do little or nothing for mitigating global temperature fluctuations.

Those pesky decimal points …

We must remember that scientists and others are reporting on a phenomenon using numbers that are reported to a tenth of a degree – lending a false sense of accuracy and preciseness. In fact, the values are simply an artifact of the computation process.

Rising above the noise …

A case could be made that the background of normal temperature fluctuations makes the measurement of man’s contribution to the phenomenon of global warming cannot even be measured with any degree of certainty or accuracy. Remember we are speaking of a temperature band of approximately three degrees Centigrade; an inconsequential value when the case can be made that warmer global temperatures and an increased amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide can be beneficial to man.

Silicon silliness …

It should also be remembers that all of these global warming hypotheses exist only in the silicon memories of computers – computer programs which are incomplete, can use flawed assumptions and highly manipulated data. Computer models which, in a number of cases, does not reflect the reality today’s temperature observations. Computer model output which is aggregated for presentation as a driver of public policy.

Why would the scientists agree to back problematical science?

Pursuing the hypothesis of global warming demand a multi-disciplinary approach that combines, physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology and biology. Most scientists do not comment and remain silent --  fearing to venture out of their own disciplines and areas of expertise; and some fearing the consequences of bucking a political situation.

In a world where money, power, prestige and ego often trumps science – the billions of dollars provided by governments and foundations influence prestigious institutions, the scientists and the projects that are funded. One subtle level of influence is that scientists and institutions are more likely to propose projects which are likely to be funded and attract attention in the science journals than they are to sponsor projects which contravene prevailing wisdom.

Complicit in the silencing of scientific dissent, we find a powerful group of climate scientists with much to lose should their findings, conclusions and activists support be openly and credibly challenged. We saw this level of collusion in the leaked e-mails of ClimateGate; which also revealed attempts to subvert the peer review process. Also complicit in the suppression of an honest discussion is the mainstream media which appears to be invested in the political policies that are being proposed as solutions to global warming.

Bottom line …

It appears that science is being subverted by those who are pursing public policies which are not supported by science.

I ask you – are you willing to pay more tax, higher prices for goods and services, have more of your income diverted to pampered unionized government employees who are guaranteed lifetime employment and are immune from the financial consequences of economic downturns; and worst of all, cede a portion of your personal freedoms to achieve some theoretical and unmeasurable improvement in global temperature.

A mockery of science and public policy because our global temperature appears to be in decline for the past ten years –- well within the natural climate fluctuations as climate continues to regress towards some unknown mean.

I’m not. So let’s start to kill this internationally-inspired hoax by electing honest brokers to serve “We the People” in 2012.

-- steve

Prove me wrong!