David Middleton has written a Guest posting in the WattsUpWithThat (WUWT) blog titled “Science lessons for Secretary of State John F Kerry”. Middleton opens with this: “Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s recent remarks on climate change at the Atlantic Council were so scientifically illiterate that I find it difficult to believe that he managed to barely get a D in geology at Yale University. As a US citizen and geoscientist, I feel it is my patriotic and professional duty to provide Secretary Kerry with a few complimentary science lessons.”
The Catastrophic Antropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) theory is in trouble. The leaders of the CAGW have found live debate not to be to their liking as they typically loose when up against skeptics. So they have resorted to using the media and the liberals in government in an attempt to silence the Skeptics.
Doctor Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at MIT and a distinguished senior fellow of the Cato Institute, has written a rebuttal. It was published in the Op Ed section of the Wall Street Journal. Because it is behind a pay wall, I am using Lindzen’s full rebuttal as published in “The Hockey Schtick”
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) predictions based upon the output of their climate models have a poor record for accuracy. Examples of zombies would be those that say Arctic sea ice will melt away completely by such and such date. The date came, it didn’t happen. But like a zombie, it comes back to life when another expert tells us the Arctic sea ice will melt away completely by some new date.
This posting will high light a few of the failed predictions.
Posted in AGW, Al Gore, Climate Alarmism, ClimateGate, CO2, Drought, Environment, Famine, glaciers, Global Temperatures, Ice Melt, IPCC, Sea Ice, Sea Level
Dan Kahan, Yale law professor and communications researcher, posted a paper in June, 2014, that reported on his work to try to remove bias when testing a subject’s knowledge. That paper can be reviewed by clicking here.
From reports on Fox News, Kahan submitted the paper and it will be published by Advances in Political Psychology. The paper’s intention was to determine what the general population thinks they know about anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Kahan used a quiz containing 9 questions. Something in the range of 2000 people were randomly chosen to take the quiz. The numbers of skeptic and warmers were about equal in number. He computed each testee’s answers. He then compared the skeptics and warmers answers for each of the nine questions. The results according to a report found that the skeptics answered more questions correctly than did the warmers. The difference was small, with the skeptics average scoring 4.5 correct versus the warmers that got “about 4” correct.
If you are comfortable with eliminating private property; if you are comfortable with eliminating Free Enterprise; if you are comfortable with dumping our form of government for socialism or communism; if you are comfortable with having the UN rule the world; then you are comfortable with people that want to use the man-made global warming theory as the instrument to achieve all of the above. And the kicker is they do not care if the theory of man-made global warming is wrong.
As most of you are not in accord with those objectives, it’s likely that you are not aware that the founders of the global warming movement have those things in mind.
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.
(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.