Commentary: I go away for three days and they start the war without me. I’ve reformulated this short piece several times as I read more and more. Buried in the links below is a reference to the previous chemical attack that Obama chose not to respond to for lack of evidence of the source.
For a different perspective on Trump’s action, listen to this 24 minute interview: Larry Lindsey – What The World Is Now Witnessing Is Unprecedented. When Trump states that the action is to protect the national interest, if you are trying to figure out what those interests are, it has been long established that the primary interest is in pipelines that must cross Syria: Syria – Pipeline – How The Press Will Not Tell the Truth about Syria. Also see the discussion of pipelines under the WWII section below. The idea that the US is waging war on Syria to remove a brutal dictator is a load of crap served up for the media and the public. There is no shortage of brutal dictators, past and present, that they could remove but choose not to. Nor do they hesitate to support and even create repressive regimes that serve American “national interest”.
Commentary: It’s always been a matter of timing. We have a fairly good ability to predict where the next “big one” will hit but few ever get the timing right. The collapse of the housing bubble in the US in 2007 was forecast by many. A habdul of people actually got the timing right and were paid handsomely for their effort. Many say that we are in a stock market bubble in the US, in a bond market bubble, that we have a credit market bubble. The EU is fraught with financial fault lines.
In recent months we have read a number of cogent articles arguing why our attempts to curb CO2 emissions are destined to fail. We have decided to capture these references in what will be an open post, a technique we use for creating a chronology and reference list for topics that interest us. In the process we may comment and summarize.
Discussion is making the rounds about a paper published by SABER, an entity within NASA that collects and analyses data on the upper atmosphere (the mesosphere and the troposphere). SABER recorded a solar storm in March 2012 and reported it in a news item: Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth’s Upper Atmosphere. Unlike the bulk of SABER’s publications (freely available online) which are highly complex science and unreadable by the layman, the news report offers valuable insight into the role of greenhouse gases in cooling the upper atmosphere.
The report notes:
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
We see that CO2 plays an essential role in protecting the planet from overheating caused by solar radiation. The data cannot be used to infer global surface temperature cooling caused by CO2 because the total dynamics of the entire atmosphere are complex and SABER only deals with part of the picture.
That being said, global (surface) temperatures have been static for about the last 15 years. The site C3 Headlines has a collection of temperature graphs from a wide array of sources that demonstrates this fact. Even James Hanson, one of the most prominent anthropogenic global warming (AGW) proponents admits this in a paper titled Global Temperature Update Through 2012 (we hope to discuss Hanson’s paper in another post). The importance of this observation is that global CO2 emissions have continued to rise during this period (see: Global Temperature and CO2 Update – December 2012). One must consider the question if the CO2 in the atmosphere is forcing up the temperature, why has the rise stopped?
All the climate models used by climate scientists to predict temperature rise due to CO2 are flawed. The predictions by the models for air temperature and ocean temperature trend rises all exceed the observed temperature changes which are essentially flat over the period of accurate observation. Predictions of atmospheric hot spots have not been validated. Predictions for for outgoing radiation from the earth are opposite from observed values.
The climate theory behind the models posits a negative feedback or “amplification” factor for CO2 production that gives the predicted temperature increases. In this case, the observed measurements do not support the theory. Therefore the theory is wrong. The precise error is in the assumed value of the amplification factor which theorists have estimated to be 3. Climate scientists on the “skeptical” side of the debate argue that the amplification factor is about 0.5 due to increased cloud production and sunlight reflection. Support for their position comes from direct measurement of outgoing radiation from the earth. It increases with temperature whereas all the models have it decreasing.
All of this is explained eloquently in this 12:53 minute video.
Why then do we still have a popular mistaken picture of Co2’s role in climate temperature change? One reason is that the high profile supporters of the theory in the scientific community have held so tenaciously to their position that their professional reputations and careers are now at stake. And the government scientist are just that, individuals hired to espouse the government position. This brings us to the core issue. Climate science is being used by some interests to create vast fortunes for themselves through carbon credit trading while others such as those at the UN are using it as a mechanism to further their political objectives of wealth redistribution.
From What Is Your Carbon Foolprint?, looking at the CO2 maximal concentrations at the peak of the previous three inter-glacial periods in Figure 1, the number is estimated at an average of about 280 ppm. This is the CO2 generated by the natural temperature increase.
Looking at the current inter-glacial warm period since the last ice age, we would estimate the average CO2 maximum at about 260 ppm. With the current (as per the graph) CO2 concentration at 383 ppm, if we assume the different is anthropogenic, then the best reduction we could hope to get would be of about 180 ppm. This of course would necessitate the cessation of all human activity.
We throw out this thought as we haven’t encountered it elsewhere.
The politics of carbon is having an enormous economic impact on the developed nations. It is based on a UN-sponsored hysteria that can be summarized as: through CO2 emissions, mankind is cooking the planet. We show why there is no basis for concluding this. In fact, the data suggest that our efforts may have no major effect on temperature at all.
Our determination to fight this idiocy went up a notch a year ago when our (then) 7-year old grandson came home talking about our carbon footprint. The school system may not have taught him how to read and write but it had taught him how to recycle garbage and reduce his CO2 production. And no, the title is not a misspelling.
Modern climate science is possible only because we have the results from the Vostok ice core project. Here’s a graph of the data from the Southwest Climate Change Network with a current CO2 measurement extension (click to enlarge):
Figure 1. The Vostok ice core data.
We discuss the graph and its implications below, before arriving at some conclusions.