AGW: Short on science, long on religion Posted by: McQ
on Monday, July 14, 2008
His name is James A. Peden, he's the Editor of the Middlebury Community Network. He also spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere.
About CO2 and AGW? He's not particularly impressed with the arguments put forward by the AGW crowd:
As a dissenting physicist, I simply can no longer buy the notion that CO2 produces any significant warming of the atmosphere at any rate. I’ve studied the atomic absorption physics to death, from John Nicol’s extensive development to the much longer winded dissertation by Gerlich & Tscheuschner and everything in between, it simply doesn’t add up. Even if every single IR photon absorbed by a CO2 molecule were magically transformed into purely thermal translational modes , the pitifully small quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t add up to much additional heat. And if the aforementioned magical 100% transformation from radiation into “heat” were true, then all arguments concerning re-emission ( source of all the wonderful “greenhouse effect” cartoons with their arrows flying in all directions ) are out the window.
More and more, I am becoming convinced that atmospheric heating is primarily by thermal conduction from the surface, whose temperature is determined primarily by solar absorption. I get a lot of email from laymen seeking simple answers. My simple reply goes like this:
1. The sun heats the earth. 2. The earth heats the atmosphere 3. After the sun sets, the atmosphere cools back down
With a parting comment: “If we were to have 96 continuous hours without sunlight, temperatures would likely be below freezing over all the world’s land masses. The warmest place you could find would be to take a swim in the nearest ocean. There is no physical process in the atmosphere which “traps” heat. The so-called “greenhouse effect “ is a myth.
His is one of the more extensive and readable critiques (hit the link) I've found. It goes to the heart of the AGW argument and pretty much demolishes it.
Near the end he summarizes with a pretty complete (and compelling) list:
1. The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.
2. Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.
3. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.
4. Man's contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn't cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.
5. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.
6. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.
7. CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey, and the future cannot influence the past.
8. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.
9. The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.
10. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat... particularly the North Slope oil fields.
11. There is no demonstrated causal relationship between hurricanes and/or tornadoes and global warming. This is sheer conjecture totally unsupported by any material science.
12. Observed glacial retreats in certain select areas have been going on for hundreds of years, and show no serious correlation to short-term swings in global temperatures.
13. Greenland is shown to be an island completely surrounded by water, not ice, in maps dating to the 14th century. There is active geothermal activity in the currently "melting" sections of Greenland.
14. The Antarctic Ice cover is currently the largest ever observed by satellite, and periodic ice shelf breakups are normal and correlate well with localized tectonic and geothermal activity along the Antarctic Peninsula.
15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.
16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.
17. The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of pending global cooling.
18. Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production consume more energy than the fuels produce.
19. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.
20. In short, there is no "climate crisis" of any kind at work on our planet.
When you read and consider what Peden has persuasively argued it's hard not to be very skeptical of the "science" in the argument the AGW crowd continues to stand by. And you wonder why they remain so dismissively adamant about that position in the face of this convincing dissent?
That is until you realize, as Freeman Dyson (a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton) has, that it has become a religion for many of those involved. It has to do with shifting allegiance from one dogma to another. Interestingly, Dyson discovered this while writing 2 book reviews for the New York Times Review of Books.
Upon finishing his reviews he says:
All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.
Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.
And real scientists would certainly want to hear them, wouldn't they. But the AGW crowd has adopted the secular version of the bumper sticker by which they love to deride Christians as unthinking automotons: "God wrote it, I believe it and that ends it".
Dyson, who is a fellow of the Royal Society of London, which is like our National Academy of Science (of which he is also a member), chides the Royal Society for adopting precisely that attitude - a secular version of the very same bumper sticker.
The last five chapters of the Zedillo book are by writers from five of the countries most concerned with the politics of global warming: Russia, Britain, Canada, India, and China. Each of the five authors has been responsible for giving technical advice to a government, and each of them gives us a statement of that government's policy. Howard Dalton, spokesman for the British government, is the most dogmatic. His final paragraph begins:
It is the firm view of the United Kingdom that climate change constitutes a major threat to the environment and human society, that urgent action is needed now across the world to avert that threat, and that the developed world needs to show leadership in tackling climate change.
The United Kingdom has made up its mind and takes the view that any individuals who disagree with government policy should be ignored. This dogmatic tone is also adopted by the Royal Society, the British equivalent of the US National Academy of Sciences. The Royal Society recently published a pamphlet addressed to the general public with the title "Climate Change Controversies: A Simple Guide." The pamphlet says:
This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming.
In other words, if you disagree with the majority opinion about global warming, you are an enemy of science. The authors of the pamphlet appear to have forgotten the ancient motto of the Royal Society, Nullius in Verba, which means, "Nobody's word is final."
Love the 96 hour point...and cannot count the number of times out overnight where we looked and said - cloud cover is going...it’s going to get cold tonight....even on days where the day time temp has been in the mid 80’s.
But then a lot of people way more in tune with the environment than I am don’t actually go out in it...they sit in their a/c apartment, reading Sierra and worrying about carbon footprinting bastards like me and my wood campfire.
The true believers will dismiss this guy in a minute .. you see I’ve been to Blawnox .. it’s north of Pittsburg .. but more importantly it was (at least until they got bought up ?) the world headquarters of Gulf Oil.
Oh come on Neo ... we’ve been assured that being associated with someone doesn’t mean anything. Surely you’re not claiming the same people would argue that being located in the same town would?
The real culprit in the AGW myth, to my mind, is the use of either the Celsius or Fahrenheit temperature scales. they both give the false impression that temperatures start around 0, but any good scientist knows better.
To put it all in context, you should use the Kelvin scale, which is roughly "Celsius + 273." The general misconception is that if the sun were to dissappear for those 96 hours, it would head for 0 degrees Celsius, but in reality it would head for -273 degrees Celsius or 0 degrees Kelvin (Note: the step size of Celsius is the same as Kelvin). This puts an average room temperature at about 22 Celsius or 295 Kevin.
Since it is generally agreed that the sun’s output varies by about 0.7%, Celsius variation of 0.7% of 22 degress is 0.15 degress .. not enough to account for the variations you might say, but when applied to the Kelvin scale, 0.7% of 295 degress is 2.06 degrees, which is right in the range of the climate change we are seeing.
we’ve been assured that being associated with someone doesn’t mean anything. Surely you’re not claiming the same people would argue that being located in the same town would?
Short answer, when it comes to religion .. YES, they are joined.
"1. The sun heats the earth. 2. The earth heats the atmosphere"
Gee. Perhaps that explains atmosheric convection. If all those nasty IR rays were absorbed directly by the atmosphere, the warm air would already be at the top (approx.) of the atmoshere.
The simplest explanation of all (with a rhetorical question): If CO2 causes warming, how can CO2 increases trail warming increases? Any answers? I hear crickets.
I agree with every point except #11. If, as the AGW advocates assume, the temperate zone will warm to tropical levels, there would be fewer severe storms occurring much farther from the equator. In other words, the effect would be beneficial rather than detrimental.
While I am honored you would devote so much space to my humble opinion on the Global Warming Hoax, I am compelled to provide just a touch more information here.
Extranuclear Laboratories was started by two eminent professors from the physics department of the University of Pittsburgh. They chose Blawnox because of the more affordable real estate there, while still being within a reasonable distance of the university. Our research funding was either internal, or from assorted grants from the Department of Defense. Some of it was classified, in as much as nuclear weapons have the ability to excite the atmosphere and we knew how to detect minute disturbances to the upper atmosphere from very long distances from the actual event long before the advent of effective satellite monitoring.
Not one penny of funding ever came from any oil company. In fact, I learned for the first time from "Neo" that Gulf Oil World Headquarters was located in Blawnox. I had always assumed it was Pittsburgh-based.. although I confess I paid the company little or no mind.
But "Neo"’s comment brings to light something I have seen time after time in climate science blogs: when you can’t refute the empirical science, always attack the messenger. This has become a commonplace occurrence in the climate debate. The statement also reveals to me that "Neo" is likely not a research scientist in his own right, for it is well known that falsification of results to satisfy the presumed needs outcome of a granting agency is usually the death knell for the individual’s science career, as the greater body of scientists will usually always discover the fraud in time.
Which brings us to the real core of the Great Hoax: All of the doom-and-gloom scenarios of today are being produced by climate models, not climate science. Climate modeling is not climate science, it is computerized Tinker-Toys with which one can construct any outcome he choses. In the case of the current batch of climate modelers, they simply ignore factors in their models which would imply cooling forces also at work in the algorithms. Thus, they always arrive at excessive warming predictions which unfortunately never come to pass in time. But they are insulated from criticism, for on the day a particular model prediction is made, it cannot be refuted until a considerable amount of time has passed and the model has been proven to be a poor one. At that point, they respond with a simple "Our models are now much better" - and proceed with a new prediction which invariably turns out to be wrong... and so it goes, ad infinitum.
The cold hard fact is, there is not one shred of empirical science today that supports the hysterical predictions of the climate modelers, but they are trapped in a web of their own making. To confess that "our models are decades of time and many terraflops of computer power away from being able to predict anything about the climate" would end their own funding in a heartbeat - for no agency is going to pour funding into a process which can’t actually give any reliable results.
The Hoax has become the Golden Fleece of the 21st century, with the end goal to tax conventional industry into destruction and replace it with "green" industry which at the present time is neither technically capable of replacing our energy needs nor financially feasible at current technology cost levels. I firmly believe in alternative energy - as a supplement it is capable of easing a small amount of our pain. But I’ll state it firmly and without hesitation: If you think solar, wind, and geothermal can supply the energy needs of 6 billion people, then you need to go back and finish high school.
I don’t doubt that environmentalism is a religion. It is one that I have no desire to join. I would be a heretic in any event, because I tend not to work well with mind control.
I was raised in the older tradition of "conservationism." It is much looser fitting, and suggests that we should endeaver to be good stewarts of the earth.
I spend a much time on public lands as anyone, and seldom do I come across enviromentalist. Are they all couch potatoes? Ah, maybe they are kneeling at their alters, giving alms to the Sierra Club, that multimillion dollar K street group with fancy photos of mountains and bears in their web pages... not interested in their propaganda.
Amen to this article and others like it! I hope Americans wake up and realize that global warming is the biggest con job on the planet, and is directed almost exclusively at the U.S. and our way of life.
I’m delighted to have discovered this blog via a link provided on American Thinker. You folks are probably well ahead of me, but I thought I’d provide a pointer to the KUSI-TV (San Diego) blog of noted weatherman, John Coleman (original founder of the Weather Channel). He has produced some insightful commentary on the AGW Hoax. See: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner
In line with the above discussion about using Kelvin scale temps, the AGW pundits have ignored (imagine!) an irrefutable artifact of solar effect: For decades, we’ve had to calculate the effect of the solar cycle on low earth orbit satellites. To wit, high solar activity heats and swells the atmosphere increasing drag on the satellites. Accommodation has to be made to account for the resulting orbital decay by providing for additional station keeping fuel. I’m not sure how to even calculate the heat energy required to swell the atmosphere.
"Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet." I completely agree with your comments except the one quoted above. I don’t think the environmental extremists really care if GW is true or not because it represents the single greatest opportunity for them to achieve their wildest dreams.The end of logging, the end of fossil fuel use, the forced use of mass transit, the elevation of environmentalism to Cabinet level,etc. They will never in this lifetime have another opportunity to attain so many of their goals by using just one vehicle like they have with GW.
I have read a ton on global warming, and unfortunately its starting, (no 2 degrees don’t make much diff to you when you are laying out by the pool) but the fresh water glaciers are melting... when they do... and as they are doing, fresh water to salt water ratios that keep our ocean currents flowing, keep changing...the amount of fresh water adding to our oceans changing our balance and can actually change our ocean currents, changing our weather patterns significantly. Read people.. beware your source.
The first quote, above, beginning with the words "As a dissenting physicist," does not appear on the link you provided. I read the whole article, I used Firefox’s search mechanism, and I "googled" the Internet over the past month for the opening line, and cannot find it anywhere — except in articles reproducing your quote.
It’s a great quote, and I’d like to use it on my blog, but I can’t — not without proper attribution.
Plumb Bob - I just went and looked and understand your concern. The link has obviously been edited and that exact quote doesn’t seem to be there now.
I can assure you, however, that when I put it up there it was a simple cut-and-paste from the site.
You’ll also notice that 9 comments above you, the author of the site I quoted leaves a comment without an apparent problem with the quotes I used.
You may want to drop him a line and see if in fact he edited it out. I’d also note that the word "dissent" and "dissenting" are used quite frequently on that site.
