Wednesday, January 07, 2009

CO2 and Global Warming

Here is some more science on CO2:

The magic penny theory of global warming

Given that we know that AGW is real, and has a well understood physical basis, I think we need to react accordingly.”

Well, since the temperature is falling, there is no GW, much less AGW.

The amount of human-contributed CO2 in the atmosphere is one part in ten thousand.

This is the same ratio as one penny out of one hundred dollars. AGW is the magic penny theory. The idea that one-one-hundredth of one-one-hundredth of the atmosphere is controlling the temperature of the planet is fantasy, not science.

The latest global warming denier

“Oh yeah one last thing… on BraveNewClimate I asked how long the current “flat” temp would need to continue before it was statistically significant, and I can;t remember the answer I got and can;t find it on the blog, but it was a straightforward answer as in “X years” so it seems to me that when an honest question is asked of climate scientists an honest answer cometh.”

Why, when CO2 levels are going higher and higher, is the temperature back down to where it was in 1980 (based on the only accurate global measurement, by satellite)?

“El Nino”! El Nino doesn’t last ten years of course, and in any case the notion is nonsense.

If you take ice out of your refrigerator and put it in a glass on your kitchen table, you have not changed the total thermal energy of your house one erg (except for the heat energy developed in your muscles from moving them to perform the action).

El Nino causes more cloud cover in some places, and less in others. It’s been operating for thousands, perhaps millions, of years. Why is it suddenly the climate “decider” now?

No, no, wait. I meant it’s the Tooth Fairy. The Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny are conspiring to mask the otherwise overwhelming effects of man-made CO2 increases. They will probably get tired soon, and then watch out Venice and New Orleans!

The question is not why the global warming “deniers” persist in their delusions, but why anyone takes the “asserters” of man made global warming theory seriously. Their theory does not withstand basic scientific scrutiny, and their predictions do not match the data.

I once took a car of mine to the same mechanic over and over again to fix a series of small problems. He was sincere, energetic, intelligent, engaging, and enthusiastic. He would explain what was wrong and tell me how he was going to fix it. Each time I got the car back, the problem would be worse. Reluctantly, I finally had to stop going to that mechanic when my car woldn’t run any more. I needed to be able to get to work, you see.

In this time of global economic uncertanty, we need to get the whole world back to work.

There was talk some time past of sanctioning global warming “deniers”.

When even the thermometer becomes a global warming “denier” it is time to take a look at our critical thinking process with respect to climate change.

The Science Behind Global Warming

This is a post I wrote on AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) on the Jnonva site.

Right now the major justification of AGW as a scientific theory has been the reliance on a computer model that has never correctly predicted temperature changes.

A scientific theory of global warming has to conform to what we already know about chemistry and physics. AGW doesn’t.

One part in ten thousand of the atmosphere is just not enough to affect the overall atmosphere in the significant way that AGW says it must. CO2 would have to be magic fairy dust to have the effect they want it to have.

The correlation of CO2 levels with annual global temperature is weak. Even if it were much stronger, correlation is not causation.

Basically what we are being asked to do is to bet the world’s future on a simulation with the technical sophistication of Donkey Kong. It would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. Already political and economic decisions are being made on the basis of this superstitious fad, that reduce the economic prospects for the world’s poor.

Historians of the future will perhaps consider this period one of mass hysteria, where people driven to distraction by the apparently intractable collision of Islamic terrorism with liberal dogma, reacted by creating a fantasy threat that seems measureable and controllable.

AGW is real only in the sense that those who promote this piffle into government policies are causing real harm to the world’s poor, increasing the likelihood of more hunger, more disease, more isolation, and less education for those who suffer from these wants the most. The “benefits” of CO2 reduction schemes are hypothetical and entirely unproven, but the harm from them is foreseeable and as certain as tomorrow’s sunrise.

We might as well collect pine cones as trade carbon credits, for all the difference it will make to the world’s climate. And it would be better to starve a few squirrels than the poor children of the world, which is what CO2 restrictions will tend to do.

Man made global warming doesn’t need to be disproven, because it has never been proven. It has only been asserted.

“Deniers” indeed. It is the “Asserters” who need to prove their case.

The bullies behind the AGW movement need to be called on their tactics and their crummy science.

Or at least they need to have enough respect for the rest of us, or enough shame, to stop pretending that AGW is science. So far all I have seen is a faith-based political movement, a Children’s Crusade with a bevy of simpering sycophants in politics and the press.

The only degrees that count in global warming theory are Fahrenheit and Celsius. Show me a mechanism for man-made global warming that conforms to scientific principles, and calculations that explain at least the present set of observations, and I will modify my opinion of this theory. Right now, AGW seems to be a lot of hot air stirred up by 60 scientists, most of them lab partners, who hijacked the IPCC process and are now hijacking the political process.

AGW is the Technorati Tulip Frenzy. What a sad, sad footnote this will be in the history of science.

What scientists should be giving us is cheaper energy, cleaner water, better education, improved crops, and everything that will help lead to longer, healthier, more satisfying lives. Instead what we get is billions of dollars spent on a digitally-derived Armageddon fantasy and the prospect of laws that will tie our hands in taming the problems of the future.

It’s time to bring the AGW bandwagon to a screeching halt.
Brad Jensen