E-mail:
Company Name:

The Soapbox

Scientific Facts and ClimateGate

Share:

E-mail:

Print:

Bookmark:

RSS:

[-] Text [+]

Featured In: Newsletters | The Soapbox

By Ken Johnson | Monday, January 11, 2010

Double-click any word to search

Highlight any phrase & click HotSearch

Loading...

Ken Johnson

For those readers who do not know of the term ‘Climategate’,

several weeks ago Internet surfers became aware of a couple of websites:

http://eastangliaemails.com/index.php

and:

http://climategate.be/

 

The appearance of these sites was probably the fruit of either a diligent hacker or the guilt easing effort of an honest, science dedicated, whistle blower who became disgusted with the dishonest actions of their employer at the East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), in Britain, who supplies global temperature data to the UN.  The material contained on the sites verified what many climatologists and meteorologists have been claiming for many years, i.e., there is no legitimate scientific data which indicates any unusual long term increase in the global temperature (‘Global Warming’).  Further, although carbon dioxide (CO2) ‘greenhouse gas’ in the atmosphere could have a small effect on global temperatures, it is kept in check by the massive amounts of CO2 loving vegetation on land and in the oceans (like kelp), which convert the CO2 into our life sustaining oxygen and food.   

 

The e-mails revealed there has been an organized “cabal” of politicians and others calling themselves “Climate Scientists” who for years have been supplying falsified global temperature data to the UN to promote their efforts at worldwide wealth redistribution through CO2 emission rationing and taxing schemes, such as the US’s upcoming ‘Cap and Trade’ (industrial CO2 generation allotments), with a tax on all CO2 releases.  Following the first announcement that their scheme had been uncovered by the e-mails, the major players were on the Internet commanding file deletions, hard drive erasures, and demanding prosecution of those responsible for the releases.  This whole episode was dubbed by some journalist as “Climategate”.  It has been an example of the radical environmentalists demanding the ‘foot’ must be made to fit the ‘shoe’.

 

In the world of science, it is a universally accepted premise that a ‘Scientific Fact’ is something which can be proven at any time, in any place, and by anyone with sufficient scientific knowledge.  At the turn of the millennium, we started to hear about Global Warming Greenhouse Gases (GWGG).  They were identified in our atmosphere as gases which convert some of the solar radiation frequency spectrum into thermal energy (“heat”), warming those molecules and the entire atmosphere.  Other spectrum components pass on thru the atmosphere unimpeded and strike the Earth.  Depending on conditions (mostly the color of the Earth they strike), part of them are absorbed and warm the ground or foliage.  As the Earth’s surface is warmed, it radiates thermal energy, usually at lower frequencies, back toward outer space, only to encounter GWGG that now absorb them and further warm the atmosphere.  Since this is much like the action done by the glass in greenhouses, they were dubbed Global Warming ‘Greenhouse’ Gases. 

 

Of the GWGG in our atmosphere, the most significant ones and their approximate relative quantities are: water (H2O) at 90%, carbon dioxide (CO2) at 5%, methane (CH4) at 3%, and others at 2% [Elements of Meteorology, a textbook by Albert Miller and Jack Thomson].  As far as effectiveness of one molecule, water is the least of these but since there are so many, as a gas it is the most effective GWGG and responsible for about 75% of any global warming effects of GWGG.  The EPA should consider declaring it hazardous to our health and call for controls on its generation, as they have done with CO2. 

 

The carbon dioxide molecule is a more effective GWGG than water, but is in much smaller quantity in the atmosphere than water, so the end result is atmospheric CO2 has an almost negligible effect on the global temperatures.  This is contrary to the argument presented by the radical environmentalist ‘cabal’ that has formed over the last 10 years (perpetrators in ‘Climategate’), who would have the world believe they have scientific proof that use of fossil fuels is causing ‘global’ warming, which itself is not even a proven ‘scientific fact’, only a lot of rhetoric, smoke, and mirrors by a crowd of environmental terrorists who get their power (and tax money) by scaring the populace.  They can’t prove it with verified scientific facts, but by manipulation and help from celebrities like Al Gore (who has been reported to have made $200,000,000 by buying and selling carbon ‘credits’), they have made the ‘Lie’ that went around the world before ‘Truth’ ever got its shoes on.

 

The most compelling ‘Truth’ is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says fossil fuel combustion accounts for only about 10% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The oceans contribute about 60%, in the process of maintaining about 50 times more CO2 in itself than is in the atmosphere (based on solubility’s).  If we accept those numbers as scientific facts, then multiplying that 10% times the previous 5% (percentage of GWGG that is CO2), we get 0.5% as the amount of GWGG caused by CO2 from fossil fuel combustion . . . a scientific fact.

 

The preceding is the opinion of the author and not that of ECN.

Ken Johnson is a Registered Professional Engineer, retired Aerospace Engineer, and retired Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, and Metrology.  He resides in the East Mountain area of Albuquerque, NM.

 

Join the Discussion
Rate Article:  Average 4 out of 5
register or log in to comment on this article!

17 Comments

  • To cdkeli: I am personally a realist and faithfully believe in 'Scientific Facts' i.e. something that can be proven anytime, any where, by anyone with sufficient scientific knowledge. With regard to Al Gore and his fanatic AGWers, they are woefully lacking in this proof and violate almost every rule of Statistics and Data Analysis in existence, hence I cannot accept their claims. Prof. Ken Johnson, Ret.

  • Ken basically has got it right. When you do careful research outside of the mainstream hype then you begin to get the real science. CO2 has an upper forcing limit of 350ppm. It's actually at 250ppm and beyond that it tapers off in a logarithmic curve. Most of the CO2 has been coming from the oceans outgassing due to recent warming from an active Sun. (research solar cycles on climate change)
    The forcing is also dependent on the amount of solar radiation the Earth receives and that varies, but scientists don't exactly know why it seems. Water vapor is by far the predominate GHG and the whole thing is complicated by cloud formation which the climate scientists can't really fit into their models. And there are other systems at work such as the ocean heat capacity which has a very strong effect on climate.
    The Arctic ice was melting due to warm water currents: The association between the AO (or the North Atlantic Oscillation NAO) and arctic sea ice is increasingly used to explain variations in arctic sea ice over the past several decades. The Arctic had a minimum back in the 1930s due to this cyclic circulation so the Arctic goes into these melt cycles about every 70 years. Try warming your bath water with a hair dryer, you'll be there while cobwebs form off your nose.
    The ice on Antarctica and Greenland is relatively stable due to it's on land. If you notice It's the ice self parts over water particular off the Western Peninsula where warm water current surface and there are active volcanoes along the coastal edge. they has also been some ice melt due to particulates from the dirty burning of coal and gas mostly with India and China. It's also affecting some nearby glaciers by changing the ice albedo.
    For further research go to icecap.us, they publish articles that are of very high quality from all over the world and you can research their archives. For more info on climate gate and Mikes Nature trick:
    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/1

  • And if those global warming scientists emails are untrue, why are the authors of those emails clamoring to delete, obliterate, and deny them now? Back in the nineteen-seventies, if you are old enough to remember, many like-minded scientists were screaming global cooling and that the planet was headed into an early ice-age. I live in south Florida and in the mid seventies it actually snow flurried one morning. Proof of global cooling! See what I mean? More recently it was global warming. Now they want to refer to it as climate change. Can't they make up their minds already? How many times does one claim the sky is falling and get away with it. The plain and simple truth is the planet undergoes changes in climate for reasons largely unknown to man. It's called nature.
    To further the argument that these loose-lipped, whistle blowers are wrong, why aren't they calling for a ban on recyclable stuff that is thrown out to trash instead of sent for recycling daily? In my experience, just about every person I've talked to who claim they care so much about the environment, and who usually vote in favor of more controls on the rest of us, usually don't even bother to recycle most of the time. That's no different than President Obama and the other world leaders flying to Coppenhaggan for their all-important climate summit burning untold amounts of jet fuel and spewing tons and tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere just to get there. When the rest of the morons who scream the sky is falling and we all need to do this and that rediculous thing to prevent what the rest of us know cannot be true start following their own advice, perhaps the rest of us might consider accepting what they have to say. But until they can actually prove that the sky is falling, they can all take a hike and leave the rest of us alone.
    By the way, I recycle, do you?

  • To all those who wish to believe in the "argument" for "global warming", now referred to as "climate change", get your heads out of your backsides and think about this for a minute.
    More specifically to John, who talks about the bottom line "money" and says both sides stand to make money over this issue, you, sir, are incorrect. Those of us non-believers in this whole scam do not stand to make a dime of profit form this. Yes, industry will save dollars by not having to convert their belching smoke stacks to clean output and/or worse, we industrialized countries will suffer in this unnecessary effort to stop what is not having enough of an effect on the planet by forcing all of us into stupid little autos and doing away with some of our conveniences in the name of saving the planet. But think about the other side of the argument and it is obvious the believers will benefit monetarily from this hoax. They, including hot-shot Al Gore himself, are not conforming to his own claims by living the way he wants us all to live. He simply buys carbon credits. What a joke. And how much money has he made since he started flying around the world in carbon-belching jets making his false claims for years now? Ahuh. And he wants us to ride bicycles to and from our places of work!
    As proved by the recent release of the global warming scientist's emails, the cat's out of the bag. They have lied all along. How much money do you think they have gotten to continue studying the climate? Millions in grants. That's called job security.

  • one of things that keeps coming back to me on all of this is the motive for each side. It's clear to me why there is an argument agsint Global Warming, it's the bottom line, money. It will cost them billions if the facts are what people calim they are. The other side of the arguments motive is not that clear to me. I know cap and trade and such may produce some money for certain people but that doesn;'t make much sense as I scan the breadth of the argument for and against.
    Another big reason why anti Global Warming people have an issue is that they are represeneted by the same big businesses that caused enviromental issues like Love Canal, 3 mile Island and created (ruined) lakes like Onondaga in upstae NY that has been unsusable for decades. These same companies have used every tatict to avaoid cleaning up the messes they cause in the anme of thier bottom line. Exxon Valdez is another prime example of this. Why would I have any faith in asnyone that parrot for this with this type of history?
    Still I do want the truth and it is disturbing of data is being manipulated by any of the sides involved. Just put it out there and let it be what it is. I have some history in statistics and i know that some of the most disturbing graphs out there are made to look that way through manipulation and really wouldn't show the same level of concern if it wasn't.
    No matter, the enviroment is one of our greatest resources. It needs to be preserved at whatever cost for generatiosn to come. I suspect that niether sides predictions are as dire as they seem, but as usual the answer is somehwere in the middle, if we could ever get there from the extremes.

  • cdkeli reverts the discussion back to a chicken little "the sky is falling" scenario. I wonder why cdkeli fails to review the facts that have been presented by the skeptics and realizes that the AGW proponents are trying to foist off a scam. With the release of the e-mails from the CRU – suddenly it becomes apparent that “the emperor has no clothes.”
    The skeptics are willing to present their data, and why they believe what they believe.
    Contrast that to the AGW proponents, who have hidden their data, refuse to debate the issue, twist and distort the data, etc.
    Again – what global warming model can show the Medieval Warm period of 900 – 1300 AD, and the mini-Ice age of the 160’s? Why try to hide the Medieval Warm period when it was warmer than it has ever been in the 20th or 21st century? Why hide the data that shows that when temperature warms up, the CO2 levels increase – the latter lags the former by hundreds of years. The lag suggests that warming releases CO2, and not CO2 causes warming. (These same AGW proponents would believe that the sun rose because a rooster crowed!)
    Those are the facts that cdkeli and other AGW proponents try to use to justify a socialist take-over of the economy, as they try to push us into living in a 19th century economy, powered by windmills and solar power plants that can only provide 5% to 10% of the power we need to maintain our present economy!

  • How is it this guy can miss the forest for the trees? The fact is, however you wanna account for it, that CO2 has been rising, the glaciers are melting, the corals are dying, and the earth is experiencing climate change. Period. This dope is too busy counting the deck chairs to see the ship is sinking IMHO.

  • We need one of them 10 Million dollar prizes (X prize) put up so that a few dedicated and honest scientists can get together and provide the real facts and put the money into their own pockets and not the conglomerates that expect to make it big with Cap and Tax. Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, where are you? How about helping the people and the planet with some reward for the truth?

  • Lord Monckton was interviewed at length on Canadian television and he demolished the APGW dogma! There is so much money and power connected to Climategate that the only real threat is from gullible politicians, some environmentalists under a powerful delusion, and those who see a chance to make a lot of money making nothing, selling nothing, and providing nothing. I would say more but I have to go back to "work".

  • Ok, let’s look at the Authors credentials: Ken Johnson is a Registered Professional Engineer, retired Aerospace Engineer, and retired Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, and Metrology.
    Ken has a great background in critical engineering analysis. The way engineering works is you have to use limited data, and finite time, to build things that work. If the device you built doesn’t work, which is often the case; you debug it and modify your theories and analysis to perfect a better model. Eventually you get a model and a design that works pretty well.
    I personally think this whole debate and power struggle and battle for the hearts and minds of the world is the way it should be. Let the data speak for itself. Studying the earth and worrying about its future is very worthwhile science. Many unexpected things get invented when you question the established powers, for example higher efficiency wind turbines, high efficiency solar cells, smart grids, … these are good things.
    We should be looking at monitoring and protecting when necessary our space ship earth:
    Continue to study the climate, continue to monitor space for Near Earth Objects, and continue to control nuclear proliferation. This is precisely what Man is doing right now.
    I am very happy with the direction we are heading in the world now. We must always question the status Quo: oil companies, car companies, utilities all have different perspectives. Let the debate and research continue! Let the best theories win!

Add Comment

Text Only 2000 character limit

Page 1 of 2

[First] [Previous] [Next] [Last]
How Low Can You Go with “Low-Power Wireless”?
How Low Can You Go with “Low-Power Wireless”?

2 hours ago

One thing I’ve learned over the years in the semiconductor industry is that I really don’t know anything. Or rather, what I think I know is always changing or isn’t quite what I thought it was.

Darnell Power Forum Provides a New Look at Alternative Energy Applications
Darnell Power Forum Provides a New Look at Alternative Energy Applications

Sep 1

Wind power and photovoltaics get plenty of publicity, but how are the implementations taking place? Darnell’s Power Forum will feature several papers that look at some innovative applications in the alternative energy space.

TopicStarterLast Post
HolidaysJason LombergMar 3
iPhone OwnerJason LombergNov 17
Video Game ViolenceJason LombergJan 6
Global Warming/Climate ChangeJason LombergAug 11
3D TechJason LombergNov 17
Medical ElectronicsJason LombergNov 17
The Incandescent BanJason LombergNov 17
 E-mail 

 Company Name 


Video of the Day