Not In My Green House

The Public Works Congressional Committee heard from Dr. Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution of Science earlier this week.  He is also a co-chair of the IPCC, and he continued the tirade against CO2, and greenhouse gases.   First off, we have to remember the IPCC is a political arm of the UN, not a scientific community like they’d have you believe.

I’ve pasted a few excerpts below…the whole testimony can be found here.

At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”  Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.

Drought-affected areas will likely increase in extent. Heavy precipitation events, which are very likely to increase in frequency, will augment flood risk.

The last one is priceless….more drought, and more rain.  As if the world has never seen this happen before.  Advanced civilizations have disappeared off the face of the earth for no known reason (possibly climate related) LONG before greenhouse gas became a household word.
My argument is this:

I find it hard to believe that limiting CO2 will have any noticeable effect on temperature around the globe. I find it much more likely that the actual engine heat, not it’s CO2 emission, is warming the earth. I’ve not seen anyone discuss this angle, but maybe I’ve just missed it.

According to wiki, there were 806 million cars around the world in 2007. 806,000,000 heaters turned on every day. This doesn’t count for all of the blacktop on which they drive, or all the parking lots created to store them, or all of the black shingles on our garages and houses - every bit of that absorbs, stores, and radiates heat. I find that a much more likely culprit of human caused warming. Not our 3% addition of a gas that only makes up .038% of the atmosphere. The Alarmist crowd talks about the complexities of the climate, but CO2 is their only smoking gun? It doesn’t add up for me.

In addition, most of our electricity is created by generating heat…HEAT with something to boil water into steam and spin a turbine. It’s either created by burning coal, natural gas, cow farts, landfill methane, plutonium / uranium. We’re BURNING these elements to create steam. That heat has to go somewhere. Methane is considered a greenhouse gas, and that it traps heat…so what do we do?  BURN IT!!?!? and CREATE HEAT!!?!   Again, the CO2 argument seems weak to me in the face of our widespread heat creation.

Here are some of the ways we create heat:  Engine heat from cars or construction equipment, Electricity generation (through creating steam), light bulbs, computers, televisions, snow blowers, lawn mowers,  all gas powered lawn equipment, ovens, stoves, microwave ovens, kitchen mixers (and anything else with an electric motor), ammunition for guns, bombs, nuke testing, bonfires, fireplaces, wood burning stoves, Gas and oil furnaces, radiators, geothermal heat systems that bring heat from inside the earth and dump it into the atmosphere.  OH, and EVERY human on the planet radiates 300 Btu/hr..every day.

Even if we limit CO2 from coal, cars etc, the heat we generate is still here.

“Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical” is a statement from a Japanese Commision studying IPCC claims that CO2 is driving temperature changes on our planet.

The Japan Society of Energy and Resources released a report last month that has been translated by The Register. In it they describe some of the many faults with the IPCC assertions.  One such issue is “the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis”   In laymans, they are saying our temperature stations across the US suck.  They are right… http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htmPoint 1.1: Global Warming has halted

I have posted some excerpts below, and encourage everyone to click the Register link above and read the entire article.

Global Warming has halted

Global mean temperature rose continuously from 1800-1850. The rate of increase was .05 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This was mostly unrelated to CO2 gas (CO2 began to increase suddenly after 1946. Until the sudden increase, the CO2 emissions rate had been almost unchanged for 100 years). However, since 2001, this increase halted. Despite this, CO2 emissions are still increasing.

…

Regardless of whether or not the IPCC has sufficiently researched natural variations, they claim that CO2 has increased particularly since 1975. Consequently, after 2000, although it should have continued to rise, atmospheric temperature stabilised completely (despite CO2 emissions continuing to increase).

…

Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical

To summarize the discussion so far, compared to accurately predicting solar eclipses by celestial mechanics theoretical models, climate models are still in the phase of reliance on trial and error experiential models. There are still no successful precedents. The significance of this is that climate change theory is still dominated by anthropogenic greenhouse gas causation; the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report’s conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to continuously, monotonously increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis; it will be necessary investigate further and to evaluate future predictions as subject to natural variability.

Global Warming, Climate Change, Eco-disaster…whatever you call it, it’s a hoax. The Global Warming Alarmists have fooled the media, but they have not fooled me. I don’t believe Human Released CO2 is a major contributor to temperature change on this planet.  However, those with big egos are convinced that we evil humans, with our electricity, and horseless carriages, and domesticated cow farts, are irreversably changing our planet forever.  I don’t have a problem with this….I have MANY problems with this.

My argument against Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is filled with common sense issues that any non-scientist should be able to understand.  I understand that it’s too much for a politician to follow, but anyone else with a 5th grade education should get it.

1. The Climate has always “changed”. Never in recorded history has the climate remained constant.  30-40 years ago, some scientists were concerned about Global Cooling, the last few decades have seen that change to Global Warming…and now that it’s been cooling againg for 10 years, it’s Climate Change.  Fancy how they keep moving the target.  They’ve finally hit it on the head.  The climate will ALWAYS change, regardless if we act or not.  Again egos….how can one believe we can put a thermostat on our atmosphere when we can’t control the smallest of mother nature’s forces. Can anyone make a thunderstorm?  How about a rainstorm for droughts, or a dry spell for flooded regions.  Can anyone change direction of a tornado, or a hurricane?  Can you make it snow (And I don’t mean the resorts’ snow machines), or make it stop snowing?  Can you create Arctic Ice or stop a volcano?  Can you explain ALL facets of our environement which you so confidently think we can control?  The answer to ALL of these questions is NO! Why on earth is it possible to control temperature through CO2 control alone.  It’s a ridiculous argument.
2. I don’t believe our temperature data is complete with all of the abnormalities in collecting the data. There are 1221 USHCN climate stations in the USA.  Anthony Watts created the project http://www.surfacestations.org to compile data on each of the weather stations throughout the US.  What he huas found is startling.  A HUGE number of these temperature devices have been placed in locations that could never give an accurate picture.  In Forest Grove, OR, you can see their weather station less than 10 ft from a building (that stores heat in it’s bricks, and releases it at night), it’s next to a window air conditioner unit that blows hot air on it all sunmmer long, and nearby parking lots that also store heat in the day and release at night.  Even more amazing are the examples when we have documented construction near a station.  Anthony DIRECTLY coorelates a new parking lot with temperature increase for that station.  BUT it’s being BLAMED on CO2!  The records are unreliable, and shouldn’t be trusted.
3. CO2 is their only enemy. Wonderful carbon dioxide gets the blame for all of it.  Without it, all animal and plant life would cease.  With it, we all flourish.  History shows CO2 levels lagging behind temperature rises (by about 800 YEARS!).  But now we’re told it’s the CO2 that drive the temperature.  That’s bass ackwards.  There must be something else at work.  I believe the Marxist, anti capitalist, environmental (anti-human) movement has found their golden goose egg.  By controlling all forms of CO2, they can control ALL industry, driving, even exhaling….and hasn’t that been their goal from the beginning?
4. Ice levels are at the same level as 30 years ago. Go back one year when the alarmists were saying the Arctic would be ice free in the summer of 2008.  Well, that didn’t happen (their scenarios never do), and instead the sea ice levels ROSE to 1979 levels when we started recording them!  Remember that the year of 2008 saw the Polar Bear put on the endangered species list due to the diminishing sea ice.  It’s back, so can we take them off the list?  OR, maybe we should put seals on the list since the bears can get to them easier now.  So, how did the alarmists get it wrong?  For one, they thought “new ice” would melt faster than old ice.  BUT, they neglected to consider the effect of snow cover on the ice.  Since the temperature dropped quickly at the end of 2008, the new ice formed much MORE new ice since it wasn’t insulated with snow.  Ice grew at the fastest rate EVER recorded. I guess NBC missed the scoop on that one.
   
5. Speaking of NBC…the media is clueless. Their main goal is to get/keep viewers.  They’ve found the formula for success is to scare the pants off of everyone.  That makes people pay attention and watch the news.  To promote the iceless summer, and the impact of global warming, NBC News highlighted the penguins at the North Pole.  There’s only one ENORMOUS problem with this.  All 17 species of penguins live at the South Pole.  OOPS.  This could be brushed off as a simple error by an over zealous editor, or it represents the TOTAL lack of knowledge and responsiblity held by the media as it relates to our climate.  I believe the latter.
6. There’s not enough man-made CO2 to make a difference! Carbon dioxide emissions worldwide each year total 3.2 billion tons. That equals about 0.0168 percent of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration of about 19 trillion tons. This results in a 0.00064 percent increase in the absorption of the sun’s radiation. This is an insignificantly small number. The yearly increase is many orders of magnitude smaller than the standard deviation errors for CO2 concentration measurement.  97% of CO2 is from natural sources. Only 3% is produced from human activity. When you take into account that all CO2 makes up only .033% of the TOTAL atmosphere, you realize that our addition is minuscule at best.
7. Computer models are not accurate. Not a single dire prediction made by James Hansen 20 years ago has come true.  The computer models have predicted it all wrong.  Remember the Hockey Stick that started it all?  It has been THOROUGHLY debunked.  We can’t predict weather more than a few days in advance, but the alarmists have some magical computer that can see 100 years into the future.  BS.
   
8. Who decides where to set the thermostat? While some in Siberia might welcome some warming, those in the Middle East might prefer some cooling.  Who gets to decide the perfect global temperature?  Al Gore?  The UN?  The Marxists?  Greenpeace?  Silly rabbit, Mother Nature does.
   

Misinformation puts investors at risk!

It’s not just Gore, IPCC and Mainstream Media scaring the pants of people.  Corporations are increasingly tying their performance, and future to the unfounded notion of man-made global warming.  To combat this, The Free Enterprise Action Fund (Ticker: FEAOX) submitted a letter to the SEC requesting they warn publicly-traded companies against making false and misleading statements related to global warming.

Here are some examples cited by the group:

• Exelon Corp. issued a media release and placed full-page advertisements in major newspapers on July 15, 2008 stating, “The science is overwhelming — climate change is happening now and human activity is the primary cause.”
• Lehman Brothers issued a report on climate change featuring the so-called “hockey stick” graph to support the notion that humans are causing global warming.
• The General Electric Company issued a “Call for Action” to “slow, stop and even reverse the damage of greenhouse gasses.”
• Toyota Motor Corp. states in a report, “When we drive a vehicle, it consumes fossil fuels and emits CO2, a major contributor to climate change.”
• Goldman Sachs states in a 2007 report, “By now, the dynamics of global warming are widely known, and we find no reason to dispute the scientific assumptions.”
• Caterpillar said in a public statement that, “We must take action now [to reduce carbon dioxide emissions] or risk serious harm to our planet.”

Recent developments that prove the science is ANYTHING but final:

• The American Physical Society, the leading professional society for American physicists announced in July 2008 on one of its websites that, “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”  More here
• In May 2008, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine released a petition signed by more than 31,000 U.S. scientists stating, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…”

India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change issued in June 2008 states, “No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.”   http://notinmygreenhouse.hypocrisy.com/2008/05/19/over-31000-scientists-reject-human-related-global-warming/

• Researchers belonging to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in the science journal Nature (May 1) that, after adjusting their climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, “global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade,” since natural climate variation will drive global climate.
• Climate scientists reported in the December issue of the International Journal of Climatology, published by Britain’s Royal Meteorological Society, that observed temperature changes measured over the last 30 years don’t match well with temperatures predicted by the mathematical climate models relied on by the IPCC.
• A British judge ruled in October 2007 that Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” contained so many factual errors that a disclaimer was required to be shown to students before they viewed the film.
• A panel of the National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2006 that the “hockey stick” graph is not proof that human activity is linked to global warming.

There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

That statement from APS is a breath of fresh air.  While they’re not changing their beliefs in AGW (anthropogenic global warming), they at least see the need for continued debate.  They at least recognize the CO2 haters might not be right.

There’s not just a presence….there’s a “CONSIDERABLE” presence within the scientific community that do not agree.  Mainstream Media, IPCC, Al Gore, NASA’s James Hansen have tried to make us believe there’s just a “fringe” of “non-believers” out there….the science is settled….ALL the reputable scientists are in our consensus….we’re all doomed….CO2 is a pollutant…

The APS newsletter contains two articles representing opposing views on AGW.  Christopher Monckton authored one of the articles, and said it best:

Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible.

Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO₂ occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming.

Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record.

Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking.

Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines.

Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue.

Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate.

Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them.

Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.