The warmers know that CO2 by its self is insufficient to get the predicted temperature rises that they need to scare you with future weather of catastrophic proportions. So they decided that there is a positive feedback that occurs. The theory goes like this— For every little temperature increase resulting from CO2 interrupting thermal IR headed back into space, that interruption will cause some small amount of temperature increase which in turn will force more water vapor into the atmosphere. So this increase in water vapor, the big green house gas, absorbs more thermal IR and the temperature goes up.
The following illustration (by Dr. David Evans) begins with the increase in global temperature from a doubling (say 400ppm to 800 ppm) from “established science—1.1C. Then the warmer’s inferred amplification, will increase the temperature by 3 fold resulting in a final temperature increase of 3.3C. That is what the climate models produce and that is where the warmers get their scary scenarios.
Figure 1 Amplification:
The Sun generates the energy that warms the Earth. The Sun’s extreme surface temperature (In the range of 9900 F (5500 C) results in the emission of electromagnetic radiation. (ER) The ER most obvious to us is sunlight. But in addition, gamma rays, X-rays, and Ultraviolet are emitted and reach the Earth. This ER is called short wave because the wave length (crest to crest) is in meters 0.0000007 or shorter.
The above illustration shows the range of ER. All the way from Gamma rays to Radio waves. The most energetic are those from the Sun. In one second, light can travel 299,792kms (186,000 miles). All ER travel that same distance in a second. The difference between x-rays and radio waves is the amount of energy each contains. The shorter the wave length, the more energetic it is.
The theory of catastrophic anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (CAGW) as interpreted by a certain group (the warmers) is predicated on the idea that carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has the potential to do serious harm to the Earth. Their theory goes like this: Nature releases and then recaptures CO2, thus the atmospheric CO2 content is stable. They then add, largely, through the CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels , man has upset that balance and CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. The chart below by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a representation of the “Carbon Cycle”.
The numbers on the chart are Giga tons of carbon on an annual basis. A giga ton is one billion tons, that is to say 1,000,000,000 tons.
According to this chart, every year the “gross global primary production and respiration” releases 119 giga tons and then takes in 120 giga for growing vegetation. The ocean’s emit 88 giga tons and absorb 90 giga tons. Fossil fuel combustion and other industrial processes emit 6.3 giga tons and have no returns. Land use changes are small at 1.7 emited and 1.9 returned. It also tells us that 730 giga tons of carbon are in the atmosphere. In our last posting we related that the atmospheric CO2 is at 400ppm. That gives you some idea of how vast the Earth’s atmosphere is.
There are many drawings of the carbon cycle and they often have different numbers than the one shown above. But the idea is the same in all cases. The chart makers really are guessing at the numbers anyway. The fossil fuels number is the only one where data are largely available. So it is likely the best one. Another thing to know about this chart is that it is in tons of carbon. There are other sources of carbon such as methane, CH4. But because CO2 is the major carbon source you can read the chart as essentially a gross measure of CO2 for our purposes.
The net exchange by this chart results in an annual carbon accumulation of 4.1 giga tons into the atmosphere. The total from the chart of the emissions to the atmosphere are about 205 giga tons of which 8 giga tons are man-made or 4% of the total CO2 emissions. This raises the obvious question: if the big natural numbers (in blue) are no more than broad estimates, do we really know what is going on?
The next posting will examine a version of the Greenhouse Effect.
When a discussion of “greenhouse gases” takes place, one sometimes wonders if the reader is aware of the make up of the Earth’s atmosphere. Many of you, especially the engineers and scientists that read this blog, know about the elements that make up the atmosphere and what the carbon cycle is. But for those that don’t have this background, this may help.
The measured atmospheric CO2 is about 400 parts per million (ppm) at present. That means that for every 1,000,000 gas molecules in our atmosphere, about 400 of the gas molecules are carbon dioxide.
The most recent posting on this site was a discussion of why the year 2014 has been misrepresented as the “hottest year ever”. A broader examination of this claim is made in Dr Roy Spencer’s blog titled: “2014 as the Mildest Year: Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures. OR: Why I Should Have Been an Engineer Rather than a Climate Scientist.” Here is an excerpt from his posting:
“Reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record feed the insatiable appetite the public has for definitive, alarming headlines. It doesn’t matter that even in the thermometer record, 2014 wasn’t the warmest within the margin of error. Who wants to bother with “margin of error”? Journalists went into journalism so they wouldn’t have to deal with such technical mumbo-jumbo. I said this six weeks ago, as did others, but no one cares unless a mainstream news source stumbles upon it and is objective enough to report it.”
Dr Spencer, a climatologist, is the Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Spencer’s posting in its entirety: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/2014-as-the-mildest-year-why-you-are-being-misled-on-global-temperatures/
It is truly amazing that no major US media outlet managed to challenge the recent NASA/GISS statement that 2014 was the warmest year ever. There was no equivocation in the US media about that being the truth. And they quoted “scientists” that said this proved that man-made global warming was an unarguable fact.
A UK media organization took the time to read the presser and concluded that the leader of NASA’s GISS organization needed to be challenged. The upshot is that GISS’s Director Gavin Schmidt, according to the DailyMail.com “ has now admitted NASA thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent.”
Wow, perhaps it could be said that it is 62% unlikely to be the warmest year ever.
Not really a posting about Climate Change, but having worked in the chemical industry for almost 40 years, this youtube caught my interest.
I though we has some products that required extreme care and caution when handling, but these are really novel (in a negative way of course):
President Obama has made it nearly impossible to access off-shore and Federal Lands for oil and natural gas development. See here and here. He campaigned in 2012 (He always is campaigning— he is much better at that than governing) saying that “Drill Baby Drill” was an empty slogan which would have no effect on crude oil prices. See the following Fox News report:
Back when gas topped $4 a gallon, Republicans chanted “drill, baby, drill” at rallies across the country — arguing more domestic drilling would increase supplies, reduce dependence on foreign oil and boost the U.S. economy.
Wired has a posting titled “A Two-Day Battle to Charge My Car Convinced Me We’re Not Ready for EVs” by Alex Davies. Davies relates that he borrowed a Nisan Leaf for a test run. He planed to make a trip from San Francisco to Mountain Valley, California for a meeting. The distance from his apartment to the meeting is 35 miles. The mileage available meter on the Leaf indicates its range at the current charge was 50 miles. The trip to the meeting was uneventful. The problems begin when he knows that the battery charge is not sufficient to get him back to his apartment. What follows was several hours getting the Leaf charged.
(This 11/03/2013 posting is being updated to include more comprehensive information regarding non-governmental organizations environmental contributions. The updates will be obvious as they will be in color.)
It is misinformation, largely based upon purposeful lies, that a giant conspiracy funded by Big Oil is making people skeptical of the theory of man-made global warming. Accordingly, this supposed campaign has been so good that the majority of people do not think that global warming is a significant issue. Surely that must be the explanation, they say. How else could such an insignificant number of people (skeptics) be so persuasive?
Lets assume that the premise that enough money can buy opinion is factual. If so, who is getting the money? The skeptics or the warmers?
This posting looked at Federal Government funding of the Warmers. It also looked at funding by non-governmental groups. But a new book”Cracking Big Green” by Ron Arnold and Paul Driessen has more comprehensive information about non-government funding and I think the reader will understand how vast the funding for the Warmers is. The amounts of moneys that the Green Organizations have is breathtaking. One small section is lifted from the book to supplement my original information. It follows:
Cracking Big Green: to save the world from the save-the-earth money machine “This is where we open our inquiry in detail. More than 26,500 American environmental groups collected total revenues of over $81billion from 2000 to 2012 according to Giving USA Institute, with only a small part of that coming from membership dues and individual contributions.