Inconvenient Thoughts

The whole world, it seems, is in an uproar because the United States has withdrawn from the "Paris accords." Their putative purpose is stop or at least slow the progress of "global warming." The operative term seems to be "settled science" when it comes to any discussion of global warming. Let's consider....

Facts are such inconvenient impediments for our fantasies. Almost every article about climate and even weather, for those who know the difference, employs, at least once, the term, "...man-made global warming." It is almost as if there is a "talking point" cheat sheet out there and anyone who writes for media consumption has to check off a certain number of these phrases.

"Man-made global warming is responsible for the severity of hurricanes." "M-MGW is responsible for the relatively lower numbers of hurricanes." "M-MGW is responsible for the tornadoes...." "M-MGW is responsible for the droughts in the west." "M-MGW is responsible for the flooding...." And on and on it goes. I like the designation anthropomorphic global warming. (AGW)

I am waiting for M-MGW or AGW to be blamed for ISIS attacks. No wait, that is President Trump's fault. Let's get serious now. Here are the proven facts about climate change. (Huh? What's that?)

One, the "long term global warming" that is frequently referenced in many articles, regardless of the "man-made" designation, has flat-lined. Satellite temperature scans of the globe have reported a constant temperature for the past 19 years. There may be minuscule variations within the error of measurement, but the overall trend is flat. It has gone neither up nor down.

Two, historic data has correlated the "long term temperature fluctuations" with sunspot activity. Note, the term, correlated. Correlation is not causation. And in fact, the carbon dioxide data is merely correlated to the temperature changes. (Incidentally, the practice of men wearing hats has decreased from the time of WWII. Is that a cause or correlation?) Theories have proposed a causal factor, of CO2 concentration, but it has not been proven.

In fact, the increment in CO2 is far greater than the temperature change. And, just to confound things a little, the CO2 concentration is the air was greater in the past. It declined and is now increasing again. Temperatures have not mirrored those changes. Just sayin'.

Three, and this one is a killer for us chemists. In order for CO2 to elevate the temperature of the ocean, it must trap infrared radiation instead of allowing it to escape back into space. This "trapped radiation" heats the atmosphere, which in turn warms the ocean as it comes in contact with it.  (The mechanics of this will be explained in a "technical" paper to follow if you are curious. http://tellinitllikeitis.blogspot.com/2017/06/heat-capacity-technical-paper-this.html)

I read a study by a chemist who calculated the amount that the air would have to increase in temperature in order to raise the temperature of the ocean by one degree. It is staggering. Let me explain.

By way of  illustration, let's take one unit of water. We must consider the "heat capacity," or the ability to hold heat energy. Water holds much more. a cubic meter of water holds 3401 times as much heat as a cubic meter of air at the same temperature.

The calculation then, if we want to raise the temperature of the water by one degree, we would have to take 3401 times as much energy out of the air (one unit) to heat one unit of water by one degree. Our conclusion, taking into account the relative volume of atmosphere and water, is that to heat the ocean by one degree, the atmospheric temperature would have to increase by over 200 degrees higher than the water. And this is only the top 1/10th of the depth of the ocean.(3)

For global warming to be "man-made," due to CO2,  the atmosphere would have over 200  degrees (3). I guess I missed that event. At least, it didn't frizz my hair.

To be completely honest, the entire ocean would not need to be heated. The surface layer is "all" that must exhibit an increment in temperature. But that amount, along with the other "gimmie factors" still dictate that the atmosphere would require a degree of heating that would wipe out life as we know it. Conclusion: any increase in ocean temperature cannot be attributed to atmospheric heating. We would be dead before the ocean could "warm up."

 And for one final consideration, the second reference below (2) reports that studies by satellites measuring heat reflected from the atmosphere is greater when the CO2 concentration is greater. So the carbon dioxide boogie man is really a guardian, out on the edge of space to protect us from solar radiation. (Read the article for more complete understanding.)

We talked about science deniers a while back. (1) Well, that appellation is hanging more firmly around the neck of the global heating contingent. The globe may be heating slightly, but it is not manmade. To paraphrase an old comic strip, "Pogo," drawn by Walt Kelly, "We have found the enemy and he is not us." (Emphasis added. Ed.)

We will not cast aspersions or impute nefarious motives to this movement, though some have been proposed. In practical terms would seem that our concerted efforts be directed in a response to the purported heating rather than a Quixotic tilting at the CO2 windmill.

 (1)http://tellinitllikeitis.blogspot.com/2017/05/science-deniers.html

(2) http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html#

(3) http://nov79.com/gbwm/htcap.html

(4) http://tellinitllikeitis.blogspot.com/2017/05/science-deniers.html