GLOBAL WARMING ,IS CO2 THE VILLIAN; UPDATE

 

In 1975 a PhD. in atmospheric science and climate specialist for NASA gave a guest lecture at the university where I was an undergraduate. His discussion on the subject, one analogy in particular has stayed with me all these years. He painted a mental image for us of a 10,000 seat football stadium where the seats represented the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. He said before you get too concerned about CO2, realize that only three of those seats would be CO2 by volume. If instead we consider the greenhouse gases by their effective contribution and not volume then he said the CO2 would only occupy one seat. Virtually all of the seats in that stadium would represent water vapor.

The scientific and pseudo scientific community publish articles citing empirical data from one study or another to add gravity to the argument they are making. A careful reading of the way that the data is presented in each paper is usually instructive. Take for instance the papers that state 99.4% of the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere is CO2. This statement is true if you ignore the contribution of water vapor. No less authority than the U.S. Department of Energy published a chart in October of 2000 showing that 99.438% of the greenhouse gas is CO2. Of the 368,400 parts per billion (PPB) CO2 in the atmosphere they could only credit 11.880 PPB to be manmade additions. The rest of the CO2 existed before mankind started burning fossil fuels or got there through natural activity such as volcanic eruptions. 3.2% of the total atmospheric CO2 is all they could blame on mankind through our entire history but more importantly the chart states that the figures do not include water vapor. You see this exception over and over in the literature because it helps to color the narrative showing CO2 as a bad actor. If you include water vapor in the study CO2 only contributes 3.62% to the greenhouse effect. So 3.2% (mans contribution) of 3.62% of the total greenhouse effect can fairly be blamed on mankind burning fossil fuels. One tenth of one percent (0.001) is the fault of man. Another piece of empirical data used over and over states quite accurately that throughout history the periods of highest average climate temperatures are also the times when the CO2 levels were the highest. The question of cause or effect is pertinent here. Is the climate average temperature high because of the elevated CO2 level or is the CO2 level elevated because of the high temperatures? Look up a graph for yourself that plots the earth’s temperature over time including a plot of CO2 levels. I can save you some time, the temperature rise pre-dates the increase in CO2 levels consistently by about 1000 years. It does seem that increased temperature causes the elevated CO2 levels and not the opposite, at the very least we can deduce that the CO2 could not have caused any temperature rise which proceeded it by many years.

I have been asked over and over to support my original post since I first included it in my blog. The graph below shows the 100,000 year warming cycle coinciding with orbital cycles that keep us closer to the sun. The second major point of my first post was that all of the hype about CO2 comes from studies that intentionally omit the dominant effect of water vapor as a green house gas. The charts and graphs that follow show the effects of CO2 relative to water vapor and mans portion of the CO2.

 

TABLE 1.

The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)

(all concentrations expressed in parts per billion)	Pre-industrial baseline	Natural additions	Man-made additions	Total (ppb) Concentration	Percent of Total
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	288,000	68,520	11,880 (2)	368,400	99.438%
Methane (CH4)	848	577	320	1,745	0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)	285	12	15	312	0.084%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)	25	0	2	27	0.007%
Total	289,158	69,109	12,217	370,484	100.00%

 

TABLE 2.

Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2

This table adjusts values in Table 1 to compare greenhouse gases equally with respect to CO2. ( #'s are unit-less)	Multiplier (GWP)	Pre-industrial baseline(new)	Natural additions (new)	Man-made additions (new)	Tot. Relative Contribution	Percent of Total (new)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	1	288,000	68,520	11,880	368,400	72.369%
Methane (CH4)	21 (3)	17,808	12,117	6,720	36,645	7.199%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)	310 (3)	88,350	3,599	4,771	96,720	19.000%
CFC's (and other misc. gases)	see data (4)	2,500	0	4,791	7,291	1.432%
Total		396,658	84,236	28,162	509,056	100.000%

NOTE: GWP (Global Warming Potential) is used to contrast different greenhouse gases relative to CO2.

 

3. Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.

TABLE 3.

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	Percent of Total	Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor	-----	95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	72.369%	3.618%
Methane (CH4)	7.100%	0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O)	19.000%	0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases)	1.432%	0.072%
Total	100.000%	100.000%

As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor!

Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (5). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!

TABLE 4a.

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	% of Greenhouse Effect	% Natural	% Man-made
Water vapor	95.000%	94.999%	0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	3.618%	3.502%	0.117%
Methane (CH4)	0.360%	0.294%	0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)	0.950%	0.903%	0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)	0.072%	0.025%	0.047%
Total	100.00%	99.72	0.28%

 

 

 In April of 2012 forty nine former scientists, engineers and astronauts from NASA sent a joint letter to the current NASA administrator. The letter objected to NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies extreme advocacy of the theory that CO2 is causing global warming. The scientists included these points.

1)      “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”

2)      “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”

3)      “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and web sites on this subject.”

So if the CO2 isn’t a major contributor to the heating up the planet what is? Sampling of the ice cores shows that the earth has undergone cycles of warming every 100,000 years. A study of the earth’s orbital dynamics (spending more time closer to the sun) explains the variation including the 100,000 year frequency of ice ages. The time line of 100,000 year cycles shows that we are due for a warming trend. Random variations tend to coincide with volcanic eruptions that put ash in the atmosphere or the level of solar activity.

It seems imprudent to take drastic measures aimed at reducing CO2 emissions when their impact is virtually negligible on the environment. Remember that if mankind had never burned any fossil fuel the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would only be lower by 0.1%. The financial impact on industry and the economy on the other hand is anything but negligible. It is left to us to investigate what motivates the “climate change” alarmists who slant the scientific data in their effort to foment a crisis. Could it be that the lure of nearly unlimited research grants and speaking fees are having a corrupting influence on some who are so inclined?

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.

---

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

 

The majority of the graphic information presented here comes from an article titled “Water vapor rules the greenhouse system” by Monte Heib March 2, 2007 http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

The fact that man made CO2 in the environment has little to nothing to do with global warming does not fit the progressives preferred narrative so they skew the data by leaving out the contribution of water vapor. The practice is blatant fraud and it is aimed at gaining control over the industrial production and not about saving the environment.

DON’T BELIEVE THE ROSEY STATISTICS ABOUT THE ECONOMY

 

I have run a business dependent on growth in the industrial side of America’s economy for 31 years. Those of you that read my blog regularly know that I believe the economy has not and will not recover until the government’s policies allow our industrial base to grow the economy and employ the idle workforce. The 6.3% figure for unemployment put out by our government last week is so fraudulent it should be criminal. The number cannot be taken seriously in light of these facts;

1)      20% of all families in America do not have a single member that is employed according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.

2)      86 million full time workers in the private sector pay taxes to support the government while nearly 148 million people receive government benefits each month. These numbers were compiled by Terrence P. Jeffrey from U. S. government reports.

3)      There are 1.3 million fewer full time jobs in America than when the recession began in Dec. 2007 even though the population has continued to grow.

4)      Three times as many workers officially left the workforce last month, 988,000, as found jobs. The government only admits to 9.7 million unemployed Americans while claiming that 92.07 million working age Americans are “not in the labor force.” 101.77 million Working age Americans do not have jobs up by 27 million since the year 2000.

5)      During the Obama administrations time in office the number of Americans on food stamps has gone up from 32 million to 47 million. In the 1970’s one in 50 Americans was on food stamps, now that number is one in 6.5

6)      The Center for Immigration Studies reports that 43% of immigrants in the country for over 20 years are still on welfare.

7)      One government program being used by the administration to hide the unemployment crisis is the Social Security Disability program. In 1968 there were 51 full time workers for every person on disability, today there are only 13 full time workers per disabled benefit recipient.

If the money earned by the average man holding a full time job in America today is adjusted for inflation and compared to 40 years ago his earning power has decreased. Michael Snyder compiles lists of statistics that lend insight into the problems facing our economy. On April 29 of this year he listed 17 facts to make the case that America’s economy is in trouble. I include a few here and recommend him as source for the reader;

1)      62% of all Americans make less than $20 / hour today.

2)      Nine out of the top ten occupations in the U. S. today pay less than $35,000/year.

3)      The middle class in Canada now earn more than the middle class in the United States.

4)      56% of Americans have sub-prime credit in 2014

5)      40% of Americans could not come up with $2000 in an emergency.

6)      Less than one in four Americans has enough money to cover six months expenses if they lose their job.

7)      69% of the federal budget is spent on entitlements and welfare programs

8)      First quarter GDP in 2014 grew by only 0.1% and that was only in positive territory because we increased our spending on healthcare.

9)      Since November consumer spending on durable goods has declined 3.2%

10)   Retail store closers are at their highest rate since 2009

11)   The government says that there is close to no inflation but admit that they do not count the rising cost of food and energy like they used to.

The Obama administration has proposed 442 tax increases since taking office and added over six trillion dollars to the debt. We are supposed to feel good about a soaring stock market inflated by printing money and a fictitious unemployment rate. We need to make things in America again and bring our jobs back from overseas. The only way it is going to happen is by getting the “tax and regulate” fools out of Washington D. C. and install pro-growth economic policies.

                                         WHAT RECOVERY?

 

It is an unfortunate reality that in America he who controls the messaging controls the political climate. For over five years the country has been fed the politically expedient message by the main stream media that we are in a slow but steady recovery. The administration fully understands that main street pays attention to indicator numbers like the unemployment percentage and the Dow-Jones Industrials average. Wall Street has been surging upwards because of the intravenous feeding conveniently supplied though the Feds quantitative easing, otherwise known as printing money to devalue the dollar. Every savings and retirement account in the country is losing value without much notice as we are told that there is no inflation. Inflation is another one of the economic indicators that can cause trouble for an administration that wants to push an agenda. Core inflation has become a useful term now that the administration wants us to ignore the real loss of our buying power. Food and energy prices are not considered when calculating core inflation, the cost of gasoline has tripled on President Obama’s watch and every citizen that pays for food knows what has happened to prices at the grocery store. Every administration since 1978 has altered the way inflation was calculated. If we included all of the components in the inflation calculation that were included in 1980 the number today would be a staggering 11% instead of the 1.5% we hear on the news. If we use the 1909 method of calculating inflation we would be told inflation is 5%. The cost of the average Americans water bill has risen 300% over the last five years while the cost of home heating oil has doubled. The Neo-Keynesian idiots who calculate the economic indicators for public consumption appear to actually believe that the government can spend this country into prosperity. Winston Churchill’s famous quote comes to mind; “that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” The simple truth is that once wide spread central banking came into being at the beginning of the 20^th century governments have used the deflation of their currencies to prop up deficit spending. The real purchasing power of the U. S. dollar has been reduced 95% since the creation of the Federal Reserve.

The number of unemployed and underemployed people in this country is a staggering level and new job creation is happening at 1/3 of the population growth rate yet the government tells us that the unemployment rate is dropping. They control the messaging in order to keep Americans in the dark about the disastrous effects of their economic and domestic social policies. What kind of BS investigative journalists do we have in this country when they dutifully report that unemployment is good because it allows us more quality family time? The liberal administration puts out the message and the lap dog liberal press reports it for general public consumption. Two days ago the news broke that the first quarter’s growth of GDP was only 0.1%. Looking inside the number shows that it only grew at all because we spent more on healthcare. The definition of a recession is negative GDP and yet we are told we have a slow steady recovery. Industry is not spending on Capital investments, when that happens there is no job growth from workers being employed in the non-existent new facilities. The stock market soars upward fueled by printed money and the government deficit spends and devalues our savings while telling us fairy tales about the economy. This type of politically motivated fiscal policy always ends badly and we have plenty of examples from history for proof. The Kool-Aid selling administration and press are not going to change their ways as long as we keep drinking it up.