Global warming fundamentals available


Earlier this week Wichita Geophysicist Dennis Hedke delivered a lecture on the science underlying global warming. He also covered the severe economic impact that the ill-considered war on carbon dioxide emissions will have.

You can read my coverage and notes by clicking on Wichita Geophysicist explains climate science data.

Now Dennis has made some of his charts and notes available, and with his permission, I’m publishing the document below.

(This is a Scribd document. Click on the rectangle at the right of the document’s title bar to get a full-screen view.)

Some Fundamentals of Global Warming and Economics

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Science Research climate change global warming
SOME FUNDAMENTALS OF GLOBAL WARMING & ECONOMICS The age in which we are living is fraught with significant misconceptions, however, in my opinion, none are more egregious than the subject of this discussion. Improper handling of matters related to these issues has the potential to bring the United States of America to its “business knees,” and I suggest to you that is exactly where we are headed, IF we allow the current “settled science” to dominate. I have every intention, along with thousands of other scientists, to make sure that the real science is allowed to come loudly and clearly to the forefront. You have been taught by certain entities that “carbon” and “fossil-fuel” are bad components that must be eliminated from our energy mix. You have been told that if we don’t take immediate action to divert those energy sources related to those “bad” materials, the earth will suffer catastrophic climate change. I have two main points I feel compelled to leave with you. Point one: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant. I offer as evidence this listing of actual pollutants per the website of the EPA: Aerosols, Asbestos, Carbon Monoxide, Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Criteria Air Pollutants, Ground Level Ozone, Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), Lead, Mercury, Methane, Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Particulate Matter (PM), Propellants, Radon, Refrigerants, Substitutes, Sulfur Oxides (SO2), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Notice that CO2 is nowhere to be found in that list. Yet, we have a decision from the United States Supreme Court (MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL.) dated April 2, 2007, which charged the EPA with the responsibility to determine whether or not “Greenhouse Gases” cause pollution, with particular focus on automobile tailpipe emissions. Since the Supreme Court ruling, (which was 5-4, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito strongly dissenting), the new administration’s EPA has taken it upon itself to find that the group of greenhouse gases, unless strenuously controlled, will cause “endangerment” to mankind. I strongly disagree. Greenhouse gas “pollutants” include water vapor, by far the dominant contributor, at about 95% of the greenhouse mix, CO2 at about 3.5%, others less than 1%, and methane about 0.5%. Methane and some of the “others” do show up in the EPA’s list of actual pollutants. Point two: Global temperature, melting of the glaciers, and rising sea level are all related to perfectly natural phenomena, and I am including data below to support this fact. This is not theoretical, modeled expectation. These facts are tied to data from around the globe, and cannot be ignored or passed of as propaganda. The global temperature has been measured since around 1740, but we can use “proxies” to further extrapolate aspects of the climate record. The figure below describes, with very strong support from the earth historical record, temperatures dating back to around 1200 BCE. Figure 1: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (3). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value. One of the fundamental points to be drawn from this figure is the FACT that earth’s temperature has been gradually increasing since the end of the “Little Ice age. We are now at about the place where we match the 3000-year average, about 4 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than conditions at about 1000 BCE. The next figure below speaks to the misconception that “human-induced global warming” is responsible for the melting of the glaciers. Again, bear in mind that global temperatures began a marked increase around 1700 CE. The introduction of fossil fuels into man’s energy mix is not responsible for the advance / retreat of glaciers. This natural process will continue to fluctuate with routine global cycles. One other major point that is continually emphasized is that human-induced CO2 is the primary driver of the natural temperature increase we are experiencing. That contention is simply not supported by the data. There is also the belief that the uptrend of CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, currently around 385 parts per million (ppm), or about 0.04%, is also mostly, if not exclusively, due to humaninduced activity. I would agree that human activity, including agriculture, transportation and power generation from a variety of sources contributes somewhat to the overall mix, but to suggest that human activity dominates the concentration is ludicrous. Here’s a calculation: The CO2 fraction of the greenhouse is about 3.5%. Man’s contribution to that number is estimated at 5% of the 3.5%, or less than 0.2%. That translates to between 6-7 ppm due to human activity. Figure 2: Average length of 169 glaciers from 1700 to 2000 (4). The principal source of melt energy is solar radiation. Variations in glacier mass and length are primarily due to temperature and precipitation (5,6). This melting trend lags the temperature in crease by about 20 years, so it pre dates the 6-fold in crease in hydrocarbon use (7) even more than shown in the figure. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused this shortening trend. Further support of sea-ice conditions is presented below, actual data from 1978 – 2009. During this period, global sea-level is believed to have risen perhaps 6 inches, but the uncertainty in measurements precludes a definitive statement on this issue. Below, I present actual temperature data from just the Arctic region to show the obvious correlation between temperature and solar irradiance. Now, compare the same temperature record with an overlay of CO2 concentration during the same period. I submit the correlation is non-existent. The figure presented below shows actual satellite temperature data for the period 1979-2009. Note that the absolute maximum globally averaged temperature occurred during 1998. The smoothed curve indicates a continuing downward trend in globally averaged temperature. Source: University of Alabama-Huntsville, (Christy, Spencer). It is also very interesting to note the significant impact on global temperatures that occurred as a result of a single volcanic eruption, that of Mt. Pinatubo on June 15, 1991. The maximum net temperature drop was about 0.6 degrees C, or about 1.2 degrees F. Climate Prediction Accuracy? Given the substantial amount of effort directed toward climate research, it is interesting to test just how good predictions of today’s climate happen to be. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is the UN group that has been largely responsible for attempting to lead the world in a better understanding of its complex climate. While the common perception is that the IPCC statements are substantiated by high credibility science, the reality is that in many cases, the science gets lost in translation by political policy makers. In some cases, scientists have had to sue the IPCC to have their names removed as “reviewers” due to the fact that they strenuously disagreed with statements that ultimately made their way to the public. To be sure, there are some reviewers engaged at IPCC who have very high credibility. Unfortunately, many of their findings and opinions do not survive the “vetting” process of IPCC review committees. The figure below, available in a report from the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), demonstrates the painful reality of inaccurate models, and the net result of very poor predictability. Bear in mind that this model attempts to predict a 6 year trend. The IPCC’s longterm predictions associated with temperature, CO2 concentration, greenhouse buildups, etc., reach to the end of this century. In my opinion, this figure speaks volumes with respect to the need to considerably broaden the scope of analysis of the complexities of earth’s atmosphere. It also speaks loudly and clearly to the lack of accuracy which prevails in modeling these complex, interconnected systems. The truth of the matter is that many, many researchers engaged in this complex and challenging undertaking fully understand the uncertainties associated with these model predictions. However, it is far more important to their funding goals and project longevities to neglect the emphasis of uncertainty, replacing it with, in many cases, incredible hype. I suggest to you that we are on to them, and that “we” will be placing them under increasing scrutiny, scrutiny that has been materially increasing each and every year since some of the early fraudulent indications started to become known. One of the most egregious examples of blatant fraud and misrepresentation is presented below. The upper portion of the graph is the representation of global temperature history which was very prominently displayed in Gore’s academy award winning film. The “scientist” who produced the graph is Michael Mann, then at the University of Virginia, now at Penn State University. That graph appeared in the IPCC’s report in 1997. Researchers Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre sought the data used in Mann’s “construction job,” and found that it contained very significant processing errors. Their research resulted in a revised temperature history resembling that reproduced in the lower portion of the graph. Mann’s model completely ignored vast historical data and viable proxies that corroborated the Medieval Warm period which maxed at about 1200 AD, as well as the also well-known Little Ice Age that is corroborated in virtually any encyclopedia. Al Gore knew about the misconstruction before his 2005 movie hit the screens of America and the world. Today, it is illegal to show that movie in Great Britain without a significant list of disclaimers related to inaccuracies on a number of issues. Finally, I conclude with a diagram you may already be familiar with, that of relative costs of energy delivery, based on data from Great Britain, which is comparable to the basis in the United States. It is very clear to see that energy delivered from wind and solar based sources is at the most expensive end of the scale. Added Cost – Redundancy The cost basis for wind power is actually understated, insofar as redundancy must be constructed from alternate sources, such as nuclear, coal or gas, to offset downtime for wind generation. • Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. The Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (39 cents/Kwh). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen, the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament calls it a “terribly expensive disaster.” • • References related to these charts and figures are included below. In this time of significant economic stress, the last thing we need to be doing in this country is dismantling the most efficient energy system the world has ever known. Yet, that is exactly where we are headed under current Obama administration / EPA policy recommendations. Dennis Hedke May 16, 2009 Wichita, KS References Soon, W., Baliunas, S. L., Robinson, A. B., and Robinson, Z. W. (1999) Climate Res. 13, 149164. Robinson, A., Robinson N., Soon, W., Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 79-90. National Petroleum Council, Facing the Hard Truths about Energy, July 18, 2007. University of Alabama-Huntsville, Earth Systems Science Center, Dr. John Christy, 2009. Would CO2 Emissions Cuts Save Arctic Ice and Reduce Sea-Level Rise?, Science and Public Policy Institute, Christopher Monckton, April 20, 2009.


3 responses to “Global warming fundamentals available”

  1. Showalter

    Now lets make some power, so we can keep the lights on and keep our kids warm.

  2. Wichitator

    For the next six months, we’ll need air conditioning more than heat. The wind subsidized energy runs into an unpleasant reality: the wind doesn’t always blow at an adequate speed when it is needed. There will be a sizable charge for extra power generating equipment to meet those hot August days, when it is 105 degrees plus in the shade, and the wind is NOT blowing.

  3. Showalter

    Sorry about that, it still gets cold at night here in the mountains. We too have hot summer nights also.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.