An Exchange With a (Real) Scientist

This is an exchange between a lettered scientist from academia and the author, a lowly (but free thinking) private sector engineer, about atmospheric CO2, climate change, and whether they are related, or are harmful or beneficial. Specifically, it is in response to the Bully for Global Warming section posted earlier in this blog. The names are changed to protect the guilty.

The scientist writes:

My dear dear Howard, no one is denying that temperatures were much warmer in past eons. That is not the point. The point is the rate of change in climate, which can not reasonably be attributed to anything but an enhanced greenhouse effect due to the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (which even your favorite skeptics can’t deny) from fossil-fuel burning. Your friend the (real) scientist, Crista
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

My dear, dear Crista: You miss the point of my blog completely. All I am saying is that any increase in global temperatures from any cause whatsoever is much more beneficial to life including man than detrimental. So why should we make such a huge effort to stop something that is beneficial?

All that effort is accomplishing is to divert vast amounts of money into the hands of politicians who, by the way, dole out small parts of their spoils to academia. These politicians could care less about real dangers, even menaces, to the planet which are considerable. I even wonder if the emotional attachment of so many to the AGW phenomena is because they haven't the guts or intellect to face the real problems which are far more dangerous. Or do they just like the money?

A threat and a menace are not the same. A threat may be weak or empty and thus can be ignored. A menace on the other hand must be dealt with or catastrophe will result. Menaces come in many sizes, and AGW, even if it is real, may pose a threat, but it is an extremely tiny menace by any measure when compared with the real menaces we face. The global warming movement with its growing and soon to be massive transfer of wealth from the private sector to governments, is a real menace to the well being of most ordinary citizens of the free world, particularly America.

Lets get some definitions straight about global warming, climate change, and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and climate change. To deny the reality of global warming or climate change is ludicrous. The Earth has been in a long term warming period since the last ice age more than ten thousand years ago and has varied widely long before. Though there have been many ups and downs in the average temperature over those years, the general trend has been upward. This is nothing new! Overall climate is always in a state of flux for many reasons. What has yet to be proven to my satisfaction, is that human activity, specifically the production of atmospheric carbon dioxide, is the sole or main cause of the increase of recent years.

For all intents and purposes, when the phrases global warming or climate change are used they mean anthropogenic global warming or climate change, and no other kind. Anecdotal evidence and consensus opinions, even of scientists, definitely does not cut it with me. This is especially true when politicians and the media jump on the band wagon. They are almost always wrong, but they certainly do make money selling an unsuspecting public on their dire predictions. That global warming is happening is a fact that could easily change to global cooling at any time. That it is caused by human activity is a fallacy clearly proven by the hard science of math, physics and chemistry. Show me the hard science that proves otherwise and I’ll jump on the bandwagon. Until then, I remain a firm skeptic.

I disagree entirely with the statement that the present “rate of change in climate, which can not reasonably be attributed to anything but an enhanced greenhouse effect due to the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere from fossil-fuel burning.” That rate is still quite slow compared to past dramatic climate changes and is certainly more likely caused by known factors other than by AGW.

My only favorite skeptic is my own mind. I pay only passing attention to others of any kind. Unlike those in the closed world of academia, I am not beholden to the prejudices and agendas of grant committees, peers, or political/financial benefactors. I am free to search where I want, say what I want, and write what I see and understand without fear of damage to my prestige, my career, or my financial condition. No one has a hold on me of any kind. Any supposed factual statements, calculations, or proofs I offer are subject only to correction by better or more accurate statements. calculations or proofs. Incidentally, consensus opinion are just that, opinions. They are not hard science. My opinions? Ideally, they carry as much weight as anyone's. Realistically, they only carry as much weight as that of those who agree with them .

No, I am not a (real) scientist, but I am a (real) PE (professional engineer) who spent a great deal of time in training, study, and application of the gas laws (PV=NRT etc.) These gas laws lie at the very heart of the theory of AGW. Their factual accuracy cannot be denied. They are hard science, not consensus opinions. Their application would prove conclusively the range of temperature change increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does and would cause. Why is it that this mathematical and physical proof is never used, conducted, or mentioned? The answer is quite simple. It would counter all of your "consensus understanding of human-induced, global climate change, which is a robust hypothesis based on well-established observations and inferences." In plain English, the majority opinion. If you, Crista, or anyone else can provide me those calculations, and they are accurate, not skewed, I will immediately change my opinion and my writing.

In an older part of this same blog titled Earth Hour and under the heading, Some practical information about the processes acting on our atmosphere, there is some information about these gas laws and some calculations that are written in non technical terms. If they are in error, prove it. I have written to many organizations and even a few institutions of higher learning asking for the math and physics that proves AGW has anything but a negligible effect on atmospheric temperatures compared with the ten other factors (listed) that have well studied effects. I have applied the physics and done the math and was asking for confirmation or contradiction. While I received several references to published articles (all of which had statistical and anecdotal information, but no math or physics) and several comments suggesting I “leave such questions to the professionals,” I received not a single response with any answers to my physics or math questions or to my comment about the grossly erroneous greenhouse analogy that has become so firmly ensconced in the minds of the public. I did respond rather pointedly to those who wrote, “leave such questions to the professionals,” saying things about credentials being suspect and not seeing the forest for the trees. I also said that if they didn’t have the answers to my physics and math questions, they should admit it. Fat chance!

Crista, perhaps one of your colleagues could apply some real physics and math and refute or confirm the paragraph I mentioned.

“Show me the beef!” I don’t care about the sizzle.

Howard
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Howard, Yes, there is some potential good to come from climate change, but on balance it will not be good, based upon everything that I have read and studied. I don’t really want to debate this with you; the attached is a report from the US Climate Change Science Program that I worked on, released this summer. I think it is useful information that is based upon many years’ worth of solid research. Take it or leave it; it is what it is. Happy birthday, by the way. Crista.

NOTE: The publication is Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, A State of Knowledge Report from the US Global Change Research Program. It is an impressive 188 page (8.5" x 11") document with a lot of interesting and some disturbing information. It contains no information about any math or physics studies related to the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. I believe this is a glaring error of omission that makes all of the scientific conclusions in the book suspect.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Crista: I printed out and read the publication mentioned in your last email. It is very interesting and informative. However, I question some of the conclusions and explanations of the reasons for what is happening. I personally think that there are many other known and certainly some unknown causative factors that make for climate change, none of which seem to ever have been considered or studied and are certainly not even mentioned in that report. There is a list of some of these in a previous section of this blog.

You stated, "Yes, there is some potential good to come from climate change, but on balance it will not be good, based upon everything that I have read and studied." Have you ever read any reports from research into the positive effects of a warming planet? I doubt you have because the vast preponderance of research effort has been focused on the detrimental effects. I know of no publication of the results of any research into the positive effects. In fact, other than the comment added to my blog by level head and a few of my own comments over the years mostly described in the section, Bully for Global Warming in this blog, I know of nothing positive about global warming/climate change ever mentioned or implied by anyone. That includes academia. the media, politicians, even those passionately against the whole AGW thing.

Was your comment about potential good an abstract statement or have you read reports describing the possible benefits of Global Warming. I would sure like to read them if there are any. I am certain the media’s well established penchant for only reporting bad things is a huge factor driving all these negative reports and studies while ignoring any positive ones. Positive factors just don’t sell newspapers or TV news programs. If you would care to learn about some really drastic cases of this highly skewed junk science, check out John Stossel’s book, Give Me a Break.

Another thing that troubles me. I mentioned to you the lack of any math or physics confirmation of the grossly misnamed greenhouse effect or use of the term greenhouse gasses in virtually all anthropogenic climate change reports including the one you mentioned. That is very difficult for me to accept or understand. The gas laws are firmly established science backed by math, physics and chemistry. The use of those laws to confirm the theory of AGW are essential at least to my acceptance of the theory. I would think that kind of confirmation would be paramount in the minds of all (real) scientists. Why the concerted effort to ignore or hide such calculations or dismiss them as irrelevant?

I am not arguing with you, but I do have the right to question when I do not see things as others do, even experts like yourself, who sometimes are in error. The history of science is liberally peppered with established theories that new insights have overturned. I also realize much of my explanations and ideas are suspect to the lettered (experts) because I have few letters after my name (BS is all) to prove I know what I’m speaking of, but so what? The math and physics speak for themselves.

Why is it that none of the lettered and published experts will provide me with any kind of math or physics to prove the actual magnitude of the effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Recent searches led me to another website with a commentary by Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. The article can be read at: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html. In the article, Professor Keleman said, “It is equally essential to emphasize that alleged problems with a few scientists' behavior do not change the consensus understanding of human-induced, global climate change, which is a robust hypothesis based on well-established observations and inferences.“ Consensus understanding? Does that now replace hard science proofs of the physical sciences? Do we now use well-established observations and inferences as the defining basis for science while avoiding math and physics? Direct me to the math, physics and chemistry proofs of AGW and I will become an ardent supporter. Until such time I will remain extremely skeptical especially since the math and physics calculations I have applied define a very different reality.

And why is their no research into the beneficial effects of a warmer climate regardless of cause? There are tons of research into the negative effects. Where are all those studies balancing the negative. What about my friend’s comments about what my essay didn’t mention?

I quote: “What your very good essay doesn't much focus on is the tremendous increase in plant growth that has already been afforded by the increase in carbon dioxide. This is generally calculated to be in the range of 15% to 40%, depending on the species (and whether it's a C4 or C3 type of photosynthesis) -- which means at minimum about a 1/7th increase in plant productivity. This means in turn that something like a billion humans are being fed by the EXTRA crop growth from carbon dioxide. So the contributions of Man, through fossil fuel, land use changes and agriculture are having a very positive effect. Just think of the harm -- the starvation -- if the extra carbon dioxide could be instantly made to go away, as the catastrophists apparently wish. It is not a pretty scenario at all.”

Oh yes, that report you recommended and that I downloaded is quite a testimonial to the environmental change and damage man has and is continuing to wreak on the planet. You will get no countering claim from me about those. My concern is that all this attention to a questionable cause moves us substantially away from directing research and corrective effort to the far more obvious problems cited in that report. Actually, nowhere in the report did it mention the most obvious cause of human damage to the environment, overpopulation. Of course, that little problem is unpopular because politicians have not found a way to turn it into cash in their pockets as they have global warming/climate change. The same could be said of the positive effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and a warmer climate. Where are the studies of these? Surely there are some intelligent individuals, even scientists, who could mount well-based research into the positive effects. Why is there no such research or even suggestions?

Howard