COMPUTERS AND GLOBAL WARMING

Gerry Van der Plas is a frequent reader and an occasional contributor to our blog.  He is not one that follows popular belief, but will take the time to assemble facts to form his own opinions, and has done so here.  His sources are clearly identified and he encourages all readers to research his data further. 

“Garbage in – Gospel out”

Don’t rush to reduce CO2 levels

I borrowed the above phrase ”Garbage in–Gospel out” from James P. Hogan, author of  “Kicking the Sacred Cow” James P. Hogan is the Super Star of Science Fiction, and can really separate the Fiction and facts. His opinions are based on hard core science and historical facts. 

This article also draws heavily on the knowledge of an authority on climate change: “Sallie Baliunas, an Astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Center and deputy director of mount Wilson Observatory, received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in astrophysics from Harvard University. She is the co-host of TechCentralStation.com, a senior scientist and chair of the Advisory Board at the George C. Marshal Institute, and past contributing editor to The World Climate Report. Her awards include the Newton-Lacy-Pierce Prize of the American Astronomical Society, the Petr Beckman award for Scientific Freedom, and the Bok Prize from Harvard University. The author of 200 scientific articles, Dr. Baliunas served as Technical Consultant for a science-fiction television series, Gene Roddenbery’s “Earth Final Conflict”. Her research interests include solar variability, magnetohydrodynamics of the sun and sun like stars, expoplanets, and the use of laser electro-optics for the correction of turbulence due to the earth’s atmosphere in astronomical images. 

The third reference is Arthur Robinson, president and research professor of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, also the publisher of the newsletter Access to Energy. In February 1998 he conducted a survey of the professional field by circulating a petition calling for the government to reject the Kyoto agreement of Dec. 1997, on the basis that it would harm the environment, hinder science and damage human heath and welfare. He maintained that there was no scientific evidence that CO2 is, or is likely, to cause disruption of the climate; and on the contrary there was substantial evidence that such release would in fact be beneficial. After 6 months the petition collected over 17,000 signatures. 

Now, let’s examine the facts.  Note that I have written this article in bullet” form to minimize reading “in between lines”: 

Computers and Greenhouse Gases 

  • It is truly amazing that in our world of computers, the world population, in general, tends to believe the computer model result as Gospel, even though the input is based on assumptions, which may not be true.

  • In the case of climate change forecasts, the inaccuracy of computer models is not surprising. Per Sallie Baliunas, computer simulations of climate must track over 5 million parameters relevant to the climate system. To simulate climate change over a period of several decades is a computational task that requires Ten Million Billion (10,000,000,000,000,000,000) degrees of freedom. To repeat such simulations require accurate information on THE two major green house gases-Water Vapor and Clouds-whose effect we DO NOT understand. Nevertheless, the out put from programs that do exist—which can only be extrapolations of the assumptions built into them—are treated as authentic predictions.

  • Water Vapors and Clouds, make up ~ 98% of the Greenhouse Gases that have a huge effect on the climate. Now, we are asking if we do not understand 98% of the Greenhouse Gases, how can we predict climate changes in the future. The only reliable information is historic data. Any attempt to predict future climate changes is futile. One thing is for sure, whatever the future climate changes are, they will be 98% caused by nature, and not by humans.

The Culprit “CO2” 

  • The earth atmosphere is made up as follows 78% Nitrogen, 20% Oxygen, and 2% other gases, including Argon, Neon, Carbon Dioxide (CO2), methane and other gases.

  • Out of the Greenhouse Gases, CO2 has risen in the twentieth century from 280 Part Per Million (PPM) to 380 PPM—a 36%increase. Even tough it sounds like a healthy increase, as expressed in percentage of the total Greenhouse Gases it is very little. Even at 380 PPM, it is only 0.038%, which is less than 4/10 of 1%. This shows that 36% increase of nothing is still nothing and that 36% increase of a very little is still a very little. Now, tell me, does 0.038% of the total Greenhouse gases have a drastic effect on Climate and of course Global Warming?  I don’t think so.

  • Did you know that 80% of the Global Warming in the twentieth century took place before 1940, and that 80% of the CO2 increase was after 1940. Now is not strange that the global temperature actually went down between 1940 and 1970, while the CO2 went up.

  • The Global Warming alarmists are right in that CO2 is linked to Global Temperature, except they have the sequence backward. They claim that when the CO2 content goes up the temperature goes up. Actual historic measurements reveal just the opposite—first the temperature goes up (before1940) and then the CO2 content goes up (after 1940).

  • Also, did you know that a U.N. report by the Food and Agricultural Organization, entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” concluded that and I quote: Cow “Emissions” are more damaging to our planet than the CO2 from our cars! What do you think, should we kill 1.5 billion Cows?

The Temperatures

  • The computer models predicted a temperature rise of ~2 degrees C in the twentieth century, of that ~.5 degree C was to have been in the last 20 years (1980-2000).

  • The most precise measurements available for comparison are from the Tiros-N satellites, which yielded a figure of  .08 degree C for the same period—a six fold discrepancy.

  • There are many methods of measuring world temperatures. There are Global, Arctic, Troposphere, Water, Marine Air, Satellite, Balloon, and of course Land Measurements. There can be different from one another. See the following bullets.

  • Tiros-N satellite measured 0.08 degree C increase.

  • Other Satellite and Balloon measurement show no increase at all.

  • A joint study of thousands of ship logs by MIT and the British Meteorological Office indicate no change in Ocean temperature in the last 130 years.

  • According to a study by Dr Arthur Robinson, president and research professor of  the Oregon Institute of Science, measurements of the lower troposphere temperature indicate a 0.02 degree C drop between 1979 and 1997. Also, according to Robinson, Global and Arctic measurements were down for the same period.

  • Land-based measurements do show some increase. These stations tend to be located at airports and other urban areas. These areas are centers for hot spots. When allowance is made for these “heat islands” effects, the figure that emerges as a genuine temperature rise through the twentieth century is around 0.5 degree C.  Even if off from the predictions by 400%, this 0.05 degree C is seized upon by the global warming lobby, as being due to the CO2 increase. And as is inevitable the case, when the aim is to advance an agenda in the eyes of the public, anything that appears to fit is embellished with visability and publicity, while equally important counter examples are ignored.

  • Finally our Climate is in Perspective with data from Science magazine 1996.  The climate between ~900 AD and 1300 AD was much warmer than current temperatures. This period was known as the Medieval Climate Optimum. The average temperature in that time peaked at 75 degrees F. Greenland was Green with lush vegetation.  This warm period was followed by a cooling period which reached bottom around ~1600 AD at 71 Degrees F. This period is also called the “Little Ice Age” So this information demonstrates that global warming and cooling was in existence long before increasing the CO2 content.

  • The following events fit the global warming theory: The hot summer of 1988, when the Mississippi was unusually low, was blamed on global warming, as was the record Mississippi high in 1993. The mild 1998 winter in the Eastern U.S. was singled out as the global warming “fingerprint” Following are counter examples that were totally ignored: The cold winter in 1996 when New York froze under an all time record of  75 inches of snow, and the subzero conditions in Alaska, Scandinavia and Moscow in the eighties. Nor were the worlds “highs”, which were before industrialization started to put CO2 into the air in any considerable amounts ever mentioned. These were; the North American high reached on July 10, 1913, when Death Valley hit 134 degree F, Africa in 1922, Asia in 1942, Australia in 1889, and South America in 1905.

  • The above examples speak for them selves, and we have not even started to talk about the influence the sun has on global warming and cooling. Per Sallie Baliunas the Sun is more active when there are a higher number of Sun spots and visa versa. When the Sun is more active, the temperatures on Earth rise and again vice versa. This phenomena has been totally ignored by the global warming lobby. This is a subject in it self is too much for this article.

The Kyoto Protocol

  • The Kyoto Protocol as attempt to control risk of global warming, while improving the human conditions is flawed. Projections of future energy use, applied to the most advanced computer simulations of climate, have yielded a wide range of forecasts of future warming from a continued increase of CO2 concentration in the air. The middle range being an increase of 1 degree C over the next 50 years or two degrees G over the twenty-first century. We already have seen from above that the 2 degrees C is a 400% discrepancy. The Kyoto Protocol calls for a world wide 5% cut of CO2 emissions by 2012. Implementing this requirement would reduce the warming to .94 degree C. This reduction amounts to a insignificant 0.06 degree C averted temperature increase.

  • Should the US subscribe to this requirement? Absolutely not. In order to achieve this would mean for the US to cut the use of Fossil Fuels 25% by 2012. Why so high if the reduction in CO2 is only 5%? This is because countries like China Mexico and India are exempt under the Kyoto Protocol. But that is not all. It would drive the US economy into chaos at an annual cost of somewhere between 100 and 400 billion dollars. Even if the projections were true, all this for a meager 0.06 degree C.

Conclusion

  • No catastrophic human made global warming effects can be found in the best measurements of climate that we presently have.

  • The longevity, health, welfare and productivity have improved with the use of Fossil Fuels for energy and the resulting human wealth has helped produce environmental improvements.

  • Per James P. Hogan, mankind is moving hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) from below the ground and turning them in into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy a world with twice as much plant and animal live. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: