The Global Warming Debate Continues…

Rather than let my grandfather’s (hereafter referred to as Papa Don) GW debate sit in comments, I am going to post them as posts, and then comment on them as I get a chance. Today, here is Papa Don’s first installment with more to come:

Papa Don Wrote:

In almost everything we read on global warming, it is said that the CO2 levels went from 276 ppm at the beginning of the 19th century to 380 ppm in the year 2000. I tried to think of something familiar to show how these numbers compare. I came up with the following way to illustrate that ratio. You know those oil storage tanks that you see at refineries? Take one of those tanks 80 feet in diameter and 30 feet high. That is about 1,127,000 gallons. Now beside that big tank place five 55-gallon oil drums that everyone uses for burn barrels. That comes to 275 gallons. So far, we have just a little over 1 million parts in the big tank, and 275 parts in the five drums. That ratio is just about the same as the CO2 ratio at the beginning of the 20th century. Now place two more 55-gallon drums next to the first five. Do you really think those two additional drums could have that large of an effect compared to the million gallons in the big tank?
Here’s another way; A one dollar bill is .0043 inches thick. One million dollars will make a stack of bills 358 feet high. 276 bills will make a stack 1.19 inches high. 376 bills will make a stack 1.61 inches high. In comparison to one 358 feet, a difference of .42 inches isn’t going to make a hill of beans.

Numerically, all of the greenhouse gasses together make up only .1% of the total atmosphere. That is one tenth of one percent!! And even more startling is the fact that CO2 is just a little over a third of that!! One third of one tenth of one percent!!(.0038% to be exact)

At this point you are probably saying to yourself that it isn’t the effect CO2 has on the million gallons that we are comparing it to, but the effect it has on the climate. And you are right, but no matter how you figure it, just that small additional amount cannot have the impact that they are trying to attribute to it.

I will cover the succeeding argument in the next installment.

Especially when it is the moisture in the air that is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect.  Local conditions aside, moisture makes up about 75% of the greenhouse affect world wide.  (The makeup of the local area’s atmosphere at any given time depends on heat and barometric pressure at that locality.)

Is the climate warming?  Yes it is.  It has been steadily warming since the nadir of the “Little Ice Age” in about 1730.  Since that time, it has been warming about .6 degrees Celsius per century, and that includes till the end of the 20th century, according to  Dr. Akasofu, the founder of the International Arctic Research Center. There is an interesting article about his thoughts on this subject that can be found at:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=94b7d021-c5da-4e82-b37f-53d338709fb1&p=1  ). 

The 1730 time frame was about 40 or 50  years before the start of the industrial revolution, (Usually thought to be around 1780), so it must not have been CO2 that started the warm up.  And that is something else that should be brought up.  When the industrial revolution started, it wasn’t a case that all of a sudden we had thousands and thousands of factories spewing out CO2.  It was the START, which means it must have taken some time for there to be enough factories to produce enough CO2 to cause any measurable increase in the percentage of CO2 in the global atmosphere.

The climate is continually changing, and has done so since day one.  What caused the previous warm periods?  Probably the sun.  But it sure wasn’t anthropogenic CO2.  It is a fact that the world’s oceans are a large CO2 “sink”, and that the colder the water, the more CO2 it will hold.  So it follows that if the oceans start warming, they will necessarily have to release some of the CO2.  And it then follows that a rise in temperature should lead the rise in CO2, and not the CO2 rise leading the temperature rise as the CO2 mongers are trying to tell us.

Although CO2 alone will not cause an initial temperature increase, it can amplify or increase the results of a rise that has already started, which may be what we are seeing at the present time.  But!! There is no indication that even that is true.  If we look at a temperature chart of the 20th century, around 1940 the temperature starts dropping , and continues to drop until about 1975.  Isn’t it strange that this is just about the same time that all the factories in the world started working at full capacity for World War II?  That more ships plied the seas than ever before in history.  (They built over 2,700 cargo ships (Liberty Ships) in addition to the build up of regular naval warships).  All of these ships burned coal or oil.  More planes were flying than ever before.  (Over 789,671 military aircraft were produced between 1939 and 1946!)  Although they stopped building automobiles, they were building tanks, personnel carriers, jeeps, howitzers and other large fuel b!
 urning
vehicles, which more than made up for the loss of anthropogenic CO2 caused by automobiles.  And then, when the war was over, the , the factories kept going, producing modern appliances and cars.  If all this CO2 was being produced at a level that had never been seen before, why did the temperature drop for 35 years?

Al Gore, in IT, stressed that 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded.  Well, yes, remember the average temperature is going up by about .6 degrees C per century, and so it follows that sooner or later we are going to have new recorded highs periodically.  It will continue this way until the average temperature starts dropping again.

And it was pointed out more than once that the “hockey stick” chart is in error, because, among other things, it omits the medieval warm period, and the little ice age.    In fact, that chart does not match any chart that was made before or after concerning temperature and CO2.

It was brought out that the Arctic ice cap was receding.  What they didn’t mention was that the ice cap had been receding since at least 1790, well before there was enough anthropogenic CO2 around to cause any trouble.

The proponents for anthropogenic CO2 causing all this temperature rise just seem to toss numbers around.  They don’t come up with reasonable answers to the challenges to their ideas.  They skew their charts to fit their needs.  They make their charts in a way that exaggerates to their advantage.  They use models that can never seem to duplicate reality.  And when it does duplicate correctly, they had to massage the numbers to get there.

And last, but not least – Let’s remember, we’re only talking about a  .6 C degree rise in a hundred years, which is well within the normal variability. 

I know that I already said, “And last, but not least”, but are you aware that Pluto, Neptune, Mars, and earth all started warming up at about the same time? 

Okay, when you have some time (chuckle, chuckle),  I’ll listen to your side.

I will comment later, unfortunately with the Thesis still trumping most everything else, I have all but neglected (but not forgotten) my blog. Be patient, but the masses will hear my story again! 😉

Peace for now,

Frank

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s