"Climate Change" is Anti-Science...and VERY Political, Part 1

Were one to apply logic to the issue of "Global Warming," then there would be no basis for Carbon taxes or cap-and-trade.

Yet the Left, the Statists, do not want you to have the benefit of access to logic, they simply want to demagogue the issue for their political gain, which is to grow the power of the state to have more power over people with whom they disagree, and so they can establish an oligarchy of elites that "know better than you."

The fallacies used by the Statists are so ridiculous as to be laughable as they promote "Global Warming" (as a Weapon of Mass Deception) and hype the fear associated with it so that people will agree to ever-larger control by the government . Unfortunately, the severity of the supposed remedy to Climate Change is so onerous as to make the entire issue a tragi-comedy. One can only weep through our laughter of ironic disbelief as we witness the heinousness of the controls that the Statists wish to place on us all.

The fallacies used by the Statists to fear-monger and demagogue are many.

First, the issue rests on the (lack of) reliability and the (lack of) validity of the science itself. The first flaw in the science is that of reliability. By cherry-picking the time-span from which they extract data, alarmists who proclaim Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) seem to find only data that supports their opinion. But where do they get their funding? From the Government, almost exclusively. And it is Big Business. Last year the National Institute of Science allocated over $4 Billion dollars for studies of the climate. Scientists who's studies do NOT support an AGW thesis received only about 10% of that total.

Another flaw in the reliability issue is that of the "data" used in the computer models. Much of the weather-station temperature data has only been around for about 120 years since stations were somewhat widely established by Western nations. Many of these stations were originally placed in rural areas, but are now surrounded by cities. City "heat islands" are a known micro-meteorological effect, yet this impact has NOT been controlled for in many of the studies that purport to show an increase in ground-level temperature.

Further, just last year data from Siberia which had been included in an aggregate set that had seemed to support the AGW thesis was shown to be in entered in the database in error. So what did NASA do when they found out that the data undermined their thesis? They eliminated it entirely! This is NOT sound science.

Taking historical data of geologic time, ice cores extracted from the polar regions have indeed shown significant correlations between increased CO2 and less ice thickness going back a few thousand years. But, the correlation is that increases in CO2 lag BEHIND temperature increases. Thus, if the ice cores tell us anything it is that temperature increases CAUSE CO2 increases, NOT the other way around!

Al Gore's use of the famous "Hockey Stick" graph, which shows the temperature increasing at a rate paired with that of CO2 in the atmosphere shows simple correlation. Correlation is not causation. A famous example used by my Statistics professor in grad school is that Ice Cream sales at the beach is highly correlated with sunburn. Yet Ice cream does not CAUSE sunburn. "X" does not cause "Y" even though they both increase in tandem.

And then there is the issue of the famed "Climate models" that scientists use to establish their theories of AGW. Were these models correct, they would have accurately predicted the net global temperature decrease since 1998. Yet they did not. The idea that something as complex as the climate can be effectively modeled is quite laughable. In fact, only certain aspects of the climate can be used, because there is (somewhat) useful data to enter into the model. If the data is not there, modelers must use "proxies" or essentially "hypothetical data" to fill in the gaps. But these proxies are merely guesses as to what real data might be.

Science has always shown us over the millennium that what we think we know is so often wrong once we understand it more.

And so the proclamation made by AGW alarmists of a "Consensus of Scientists Believe in Global Warming" is completely baseless at best, and a conspiratorial effort at suppressing opposing viewpoints at worst. First, science does not operate on "consensus;" politics does. Science, if it is real, abhors consensus and encourages skepticism and dissent. This built-in inclination to Question Authority is the very essence of that which causes scientific progress. If science merely operated on consensus, then the scientists prior to Copernicus would have settled on the common belief that the heavens orbited around the earth each day. Or that "vapors" caused disease. And so it is also this statement that scientists "believe" in AGW that should also caution the rational thinker. Belief means to hold a position regardless of the existence (or lack thereof) of factual data.

An increasing number of scientists of impeccable reputations have come forward to express their skepticism about AGW, just as more and more research undermines the AGW theory. But this does not seem to be a barrier for demagogues like Al Gore, or NASA's James Hanson. They are as sure of their beliefs as an dyed-in-the-wool Bigfoot believer.

And that is worrisome.

Having examined some of the aspects of the lack of the issues of science in the AGW argument, in Part 2 I will elaborate the spurious claims as to the effects of AGW.

So let me be sure I understand you here Q-Doc...are you saying
1) there is no global warming or
2) man has no role in contributing to the warming if indeed you affirm it exists?

While I agree that government (at least here in America) is attempting to use fear of global warming as a tool to expand the extortion of tax dollars, I cannot agree that man does not in fact contribute to some as yet undetermined degree to the acceleration of the process. Global warming is real, as your reference to the ice core samples illustrates, and I believe based on scientific evidence that we are in one of those warming cycles.

I also am convinced that regardless of how the U.S. responds to dealing with the problem, the net outcome on reduction of greenhouse gases will be negligible in the overall global scheme of things. As a global community we are woefully unskilled when it comes to working together towards a common goal, especially when financial matters play a role in developing solutions.

Either way, I think we find ourselves in total agreement on Cap and Trade. It is utter nonsense, plain and simple. It's nothing more than another phase of the redistribution of wealth plan.

That said, I look forward to part two of the story...

Quote :

So let me be sure I understand you here Q-Doc...are you saying
1) there is no global warming or
2) man has no role in contributing to the warming if indeed you affirm it exists?

Response:
I am saying neither.

I am saying that whether or not there is actual climatological "Global Warming" (as opposed to a temporary uptick in global temperature within normal variances as it relates to actual geo-climatic time-frames) is debatable by esteemed scientists.

And, I am saying that if there is indeed actual warming, that the DEGREE to which humans have contributed to that warming is also debatable by esteemed scientists.

Which leads to the conclusion that since so much is unknown (and since the science has become so politicized) that laws regulating the lifeblood of a modern economy are both irrational and ideologically-driven, not rational and science-driven.

Carbon moves in a cycle..elementary kids learn this early on.

and


A cycle repeats itself. Carbon released into the air today is recaptured by photosynthetic organisms as well as certain chemical processes. Yes, the carbon in the form of oil we are using today is 400 million years old...but that doesn't mean that there is more carbon in the air today than there was 400 million years ago. Here is the carbon dioxide relative concentration levels for the last 500 million years:


Fluctuations of pCO2 for the last 500 My, normalized by the estimate of pCO2 obtained from the most recent value of ζ. The solid line is obtained from Eq. 12 by using ɛ0 = 36‰. The lower and upper limits of the gray area surrounding the pCO2 curve result from ɛ0 = 38 and 35‰, respectively. The gray bars at the top correspond to periods when Earth's climate was relatively cool; the white spaces between them correspond to warm modes.
(see http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full)

Not only does the cycle repeat itself, but it, like every chemical reaction, is in a state of equilibrium at any given point. According to Le Chatelier's Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier%27s_principle), the state of the equilibrium is dependent on the concentrations of the reagents, the temperature and exo/endothermic properties of the reaction, and the pressure if dealing with gasses.

The chemical reaction that leads to chemical carbon sequestration is:
CO₂ + 2H₂O <=> HCO3^- +H₃O⁺

According to the principle, if CO₂ is in a higher concentration on the left side of the equation, we get more bicarbonate (eventually forms limestone in reefs and at the bottom of the ocean) on the right side. In layman's terms, this means that the more carbon in the air, the more that gets absorbed by the oceans.

We see the same things in the plant carbon cycle. Part of the reason we have record harvests in the modern era is that Carbon Dioxide is fertilizer for all photosynthetic organisms. Again, the more of it in the air, the faster, bigger, and more prolificly they grow, thereby leading to additional sequestration.

The MMGW argument addresses only one side of the equation, the reagents, not the products and therefore only looks at half of the picture...thus it is scientifically invalid (even if it sounds good).

Now as to whether we need to do something assuming the world is warming (and it has actually cooled for the last 10 years)...
The question alarmists will never answer is this: What makes our current climate the most ideal, desirable, or worth maintaining?

Climate has always changed, with and without us. There is no such thing as a "tipping point" (another hyped-up talking point), there is simply and adjustment to a new equilibrium. To act simply for the sake of acting implies that we know all of the consequences of doing so, we have weighed the benefits vs the risks, and we have determined that action is the most appropriate step. Today, we do not know the current state of the climate, let alone all of the players (reactants) in the equilibrium. We don't know what the equilibrium constant is (necessary to determine how "far" the reactions progress/how the equilibrium balances), nor have we even proposed a solution that would affect the outcome substantially at all.

What we have seen proposed is social, not scientific, actions...meaning a power grab and restrictions on freedom.

You wanted the science, there it is.

Respectfully,
CR

Mmmm... I have a few questions...

In your opinion:

Is CO2 absorption through photosynthesis increasing or decreasing and why?

Is sequestration through absorption of CO2 by sea water and the subsequent settling of the solid carbon particles bonding in the reagent unlimited, or is there a finite rate of absorption? In other words, can the CO2 build up in the atmosphere faster than the oceans can absorb it? Also, is the salinity of the water a factor in the rate of absorption? How about mean temperature at the surface where the gases and liquids interact?

How does CO2 affect atmospheric pressure as it accumulates?

Exactly how does one accurately measure the CO2 concentrations of the last 500M years? I'm pretty sure I read the word "estimate" in there somewhere. Since we are calling this "science", shouldn't we be proving something conclusively rather than using estimates?

In the cyclic flow chart you posted, I see fossil fuel listed. What exactly is that anyway? Oil? Natural gas? Coal?

What effect does elevated levels of CaCO2 have on marine life, and how does that effect translate to the rest of the food chain?

I'll do my best to answer:

As for Carbon uptake, this is accelerating for several reasons. The first is that a warmer Earth leads to a longer growing season in a broader swath of the globe. We hear about warmer temperatures causing Carbon Dioxide to be released from permafrost/tundra, but we don't hear about the plants that can now grow in that environment for the first time. We hear about northern seas free of ice, but we don't hear about the algal populations that can now see the light of day and that can flourish. Greenland being green again should be self-explanatory.

Additionally, when looked at as an equilibrium reaction, higher concentrations of reactants (in this case, Carbon Dioxide) usually lead to the more products (in this case, the sugars produced by photosynthesis). Additionally, warmer temperatures usually speed up most chemical reactions, and that is true in this case.

For a real-world example of the effect of warmer temperatures on plant growth and thereby carbon sequestration, look at the most biologically diverse and abundant environments on Earth...they're called "Jungles" or "Rain Forests", all of which are located in warmer areas of the globe than we are in now.

I will come back to the oceanic sequestration in another post.

As to the atmospheric pressure, this remains unchanged by the relative change of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Dalton's law of Partial Pressures (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_pressures) states that
The partial pressure of an ideal gas in a mixture is equal to the pressure it would exert if it occupied the same volume alone at the same temperature. This is because ideal gas molecules are so far apart that they don't interfere with each other at all. Actual real-world gases come very close to this ideal.

A consequence of this is that the total pressure of a mixture of ideal gases is equal to the sum of the partial pressures of the individual gases in the mixture as stated by Dalton's law.

To answer your question about how we estimate CO2 levels, I would refer you to the citation below the graph:

The last 500 million years of the strontium-isotope record are shown to correlate significantly with the concurrent record of isotopic fractionation between inorganic and organic carbon after the effects of recycled sediment are removed from the strontium signal. The correlation is shown to result from the common dependence of both signals on weathering and magmatic processes. Because the long-term evolution of carbon dioxide levels depends similarly on weathering and magmatism, the relative fluctuations of CO2 levels are inferred from the shared fluctuations of the isotopic records...
Ancient atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are reflected in the isotopic content of organic carbon (3) and, less directly, strontium (4) in marine sedimentary rocks; the former because photosynthetic carbon isotope fractionation is sensitive to CO2 levels, and the latter because weathering and degassing are associated with extreme values of the abundance ratio 87Sr/86Sr.

A fossil fuel is any fuel source that is a form of stored carbon, which was sequestered in some way over the millenia. Coal comes to us from ancient plant life. It is essentially organic plant deposits, that slowly were compressed and solidified in an anoxic environment under pressure deep within the Earth. Oil comes from ancient oceanic life, which lacked the complex cell wall structures, but none-the-less was originated biologically. Natural gas is created during both of these processes...

Calcium Carbonate is also known as limestone (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone). Limestone has always accumulated via this process, often assisted by oceanic organisms and is relatively neutral as far as marine life in concerned to the best of my knowledge. If nothing else, the enhanced availability of this reagent should help the growth of corals and crustaceans who rely on in to build their cells and other structures.

Hope this helps.

The EPA has now come out with the same info as this, but was suppressed by the government because they are so close to this cap and trade crap. Here's the link to the Epa report.....
http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/30/cei-files-epa%E2%80%99s-own-suppressed-report-demands-epa-global-warming-proceeding
It's kind of long(100 pages), but shows the
correlation between earth temps and outside factors.