Guest Post by Richard F. Cronin
August 3, 2017
After 31 years working for E.I. DuPont de Nemours here is my understanding about “ozone depletion” — the warm-up act for anthropogenic CO2-induced “global warming”. Even the proponents of human-induced “ozone depletion” are starting to realize that the thinning of the ozone layer is a natural phenomenon that just waxes and wanes.
Ozone (O3) is produced in the stratosphere by the intense solar radiation causing photo-dissociation of the di-atomic oxygen molecule (O2). The oxygen singlet (- O) is a powerful oxidizing agent and readily reacts with another O2 molecule to yield ozone. Ozone is not produced during the dark polar winters and its lowest point is in the early spring. The ozone layer is renewed by the sunlit polar summers.
Molina and Rowland published in 1974 and their core premise is that heavier-than-air chloro-fluoro carbons (CFCs) convect upwards using a “one dimensional diffusion model”, where they photo-dissociate due to ultraviolet radiation in the band of 2000 Angstroms to yield ozone -destroying chlorine and bromine. Molina and Rowland also stated that CFCs do not dissolve in water, so they are not scrubbed out by rain at lower elevations. However, it is known that organo-halogens adsorb on dust particles and aerosols which are scrubbed out by rain in the troposphere. Finally, volcanoes emit CFCs as well as copious amounts of hydrofluoric acid (HF), hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrodrobromic acid (HBr) which carry up to the stratosphere. (Ian Plimer, et al). See “Heaven and Earth” by Ian Plimer, University of Adelaide. There is always some equilibrium presence of these molecules, in trace quantities.
Click here for Atmospheric aerosols in the Earth System
The website CO2 Coalition has a post titled “Climate Change: A summary of the Science”. It one of the best summaries I have come across lately. It is fairly long, so I could do my usual and summarize it, but there is virtually nothing in it that I would want to skip over. So, I will not deprive the reader. I will put it in, in its entirety. I hope that my posting yesterday will fill in any blanks you may have otherwise had.
News 26 Feb, 2017
Climate Change: A Summary of the Science
The climate change science is settled, but not how the climate alarmists want you to think.
Posted in AGW, chemistry, China, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, crop yields, Environment, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Media Bias, Ocean Acidification, photosynthesis, Sea Level, Solar Activity, Storms/hurricanes, Sun, sun and climate, The Pause
The Trump administration has formed a team charged with making recommendations for changes to the EPA. This action is needed because gone are the days when the EPA followed the legislation written by Congress. Good things were accomplished by the EPA. But now the EPA has over stepped it authority. The EPA task is to administer the law, not make it. For example, it has developed criteria to justify their own efforts, often invites “friendly lawsuits to expand their activities, and uses “secret science” to justify their regulations:
The following are some of the areas that the team need to address, in my opinion:
- Social Cost of Carbon
- Secret Science
- Peer Reviewed Studies
- Friendly Law Suits
- The Endangerment Finding
- Research Grants
- Last Minute Regulations
Social Cost of Carbon
The Federal Departments are charged with providing the benefit that results from their regulations. The EPA’s decided that their benefit would be a calculation that they call the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Their SCC calculates the economic damage per ton of CO2 emissions. They form the SCC by considering all the bad things they say are going to happen if atmospheric CO2 continues to increase. Sea level rise, terrible weather, crop failures, mass migrations. These outcomes are predictions made by their computer models. One thing we know about the computer model’s predictions is that they have consistently overstated the temperature rise and the sea level rise. These two drive the cost side of the equation. Thus, all their regulatory schemes are supposed to prevent these costs. But the EPA fails to include the benefits of additional atmospheric CO2. One thing we know for sure is the increased atmospheric CO2 has resulted in a profound greening of the globe. Food crop production has increased dramatically as CO2 is the primary food for plants. The gentle global warming that has taken place has been beneficial as well.
Another problem with the SCC is the discount rate used by the EPA is unrealistic in the view of many economists. The Federal Government’s Office of Management and Budget(OMB) believes a in different discount rate. When using OMB discount rate, the EPA cost estimates are reduced by 80% and is some cases cause the cost to be negative. And where the calculation goes negative, the increased atmospheric CO2 results in a benefit, not a cost.
Using these flawed computer predictions makes this calculation unsuitable for policy making. Further, the benefits that are actually known (not computer predicted) are not included thus making the calculation even more useless. And lastly the discount rate chosen by the EPA would not likely be used by most economist.
Social Cost of Carbon calculation currently used by the EPA should be drained from the swamp.
Unfortunately, many new regulatory rules have been enacted based upon the social cost of carbon. One survey found that between May 2008 and August 2014, some 68 major rules were sanctioned by the SCC. This is an issue the new team should address.
Posted in AGW, carbon tax, chemistry, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, crop yields, Environment, EPA, Global Temperatures, Sea Level, warmer prediction fails
How much do you depend on petroleum-based products? A few of the non-fuel uses are previewed in the following video:
Man</a> from <a href=”https://vimeo.com/user8463025″>Robert
E. Bailey</a> on <a href=”https://vimeo.com”>Vimeo</a>
Posted in AGW, carbon tax, chemistry, Climate Alarmism, CO2, fossil fuels, Government Regulations, Off Shore Resources, Oil and Gas Exploration, US Auto Manufacturers, US Manufacturing Companies
I want to respond to Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson’s video titled “Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the real problem with climate change deniers” so here goes. The problem according to Tyson is that “deniers” do not understand science. “They can not sort out what is true and what is not true,” says Tyson.
If you watch late night TV or mainstream TV news you probably know Tyson. He and Bill Nye “the science guy” are their favorites when the media want someone to talk about “deniers” and global warming. Tyson is reasonably informed about the theory of man-made global warming while Nye is an embarrassment. See Nye’s debate with Marc Morano of Climate Depot.
Back to Tyson. Climate Depot has assembled a list of 700 or so prominent scientists that are skeptics. Most of them have as much or more understanding of climate science than does Tyson. Is Tyson overwhelmingly arrogant or living in a cocoon? I suspect the answer to that is probably both. With regard to the cocoon, he probably never looks at any of these Skeptics work or their reasons for being skeptical.
In 2004, a paper by Dr Richard Feely and Dr Christopher Sabine was published that purports to show that as the atmospheric CO2 increases, the oceans become acidified (1). In 2010, Dr Feely made a presentation to the US Congress where he used this graph to illustrate the reduction of seawater pH. It is reported to be widely used as a reference.
The graph is shown below:
The question that one researcher asked, when he saw the chart was-Why the pH readings, in Feely’s chart, began in 1988?; which was surprising, as instrumental ocean pH data have been measured for more than 100 years — since the invention of the glass electrode pH (GEPH) meter.
Marrita Noon’s posting “What if Obama’s climate change is based on pHraud?” relates the story of this researcher’s observations:
Because global temperatures were not responding to increasing atmospheric CO2, the warmers began looking for new narratives to use to frighten the public into giving them more money. The oceans were thought to be a good target. To explain why global temperatures were only inching up, they jumped on the theory that the heat was being trapped in the ocean. Just like that, the “heat” decided to go into the ocean and not warm the atmosphere. The logic of that proposition was viewed as somewhat problematic, to say the least.
Another narrative was to say that the ocean was being made acidic and that would have a devastating effect on sea life. This narrative, acidification of the ocean, had been around for a number of years. But it needed some spicing up. Former head of NOAA, Jane Lubchenco, referred to ocean “acidification” as global warming’s “equally evil twin.”