Global Warming: Myth or Reality?

This is the first in a series of essays on global warming.

I have long maintained that there is not enough scientific data available yet to make a determination about whether carbon dioxide (CO2) is a significant greenhouse gas, and whether anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming actually exists. No one doubts that climate change is an ongoing natural cycle - warming and cooling trends come and go. The question is whether man-generated CO2 has had a significant effect on the natural cycle of climate change.

My major issues with the ongoing hype about global warming are:

• Much of the hoopla about global warming is based on the series of reports by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which thousands of notable engineers and scientists have allegedly endorsed. In fact, the first IPCC report was written by good engineers and scientists, but the Executive Summary was written by advocates - activists who drew incorrect, misleading, and occasionally opposite conclusions from those of the actual authors of the report. The situation was so egregious that some of the original authors resigned in protest and insisted that their names be removed from the report. The IPCC refused to remove their names. Then, a survey of the "thousands" of engineers and scientists who endorsed the report indicated that all but a hand-full had read only the Executive Summary. Their "endorsements" were based on the reasonable, but inaccurate, assumption that the Executive Summary accurately reflected the conclusions drawn in the body of the report. Those who “endorsed” the report had confidence in the competence of the original authors, and they were never made aware of the recantations of many of those authors.

• The “greenhouse effect” is a theory that certain gases in the atmosphere prevent excess energy (mostly light and heat) from being reflected back into space. That heat is therefore trapped and causes the earth's temperature to rise. Global warming advocates maintain that CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas. But, CO2 is a tiny fraction of atmospheric gas – about 0.04 %, or 4 parts in 10,000. The two most abundant atmospheric gases are nitrogen and oxygen, which comprise about 95% - 99% of the atmosphere, depending on local humidity – neither of them are greenhouse gases. The next most abundant gas is water, in the form of water vapor (humidity), clouds, and fog – up to 4%, depending on the climate (desert, temperate, etc.), and water vapor reflects energy, so it would definitely be considered a greenhouse gas. If the greenhouse effect theory is correct, then it logically follows that water vapor, which is 100 times more prevalent than CO2, is a much more important greenhouse gas than CO2. In fact, CO2 would appear to be a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas.

• The most common evidence given for the correlation between CO2 and climate change is the much touted chart in Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” movie that tracks both atmospheric CO2 and the earth’s temperature over time. The time scale is huge, usually about 600,000 years, so it is difficult to distinguish the CO2 curve from the temperature curve; but, Al Gore makes it clear in his movie that the two curves roughly parallel each other. His conclusion is that, since temperature changes track CO2 increases or decreases, then CO2 causes temperature change. The fallacy of this conclusion is easily shown by expanding the time scale at any point such that it becomes possible to clearly distinguish the two curves. When the two separate curves can be seen, it becomes evident that the temperature changes precede the CO2 changes, i.e., increases in CO2 happen years (usually hundreds) after the associated increases in temperature. Since cause obviously precedes effect, the CO2 cannot possibly be the cause of the temperature change, and in fact appears to be the effect. Therefore, the graph actually shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

This information begs several questions.

• Assuming the greenhouse theory is correct, isn’t it more likely that, compared to water vapor, CO2 is a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas?
• Don’t the data show that rises in atmospheric CO2 levels are the effect, rather than the cause, of rises in earth’s temperature?
• Is man-caused global warming really happening?
• Why is everyone so excited about CO2?

I reiterate that, to my knowledge, there is as yet insufficient data available to draw firm conclusions about man-caused global warming. Climate change happens over decades, centuries and millennia. Absent some phenomenal breakthrough in climatology, we probably will not know for certain in our lifetimes.

The answer to the underlying issue: “How did the possibility of global warming morph into a full-blown crisis?” is much more complex. Some of the primary considerations are politics in general, the politics of research, and media hype.

Research is all about money. It is very expensive, and someone must fund it. Follow the process:

1. The career success of scientific and engineering researchers depends on getting funding to do their research.
2. Nearly all of the available money comes from the government.
3. Politicians control government budgets.
4. Politicians react strongly to the sensational issues of the moment.
5. Researchers are quick to jump on the issues of the moment because that’s where the money is.

Here’s the subtle part. The money follows the crisis, not the science. If the research concludes there is no crisis, the money dries up. If it concludes either that there is a crisis or that there may be a crisis but more study is needed, then the money flows. Since researchers are rarely absolutely positive about their findings, they continually conclude that more research is needed, which fuels the crisis. Conversely, researchers that fail to add fuel will receive less research money and may be out of a job. Finally, political correctness has run so amuck in our Universities, that a significant number of professors who have questioned global warming have been denied or even lost tenure, and some have been censured, shunned, and even fired.

Politicians have jumped on the global warming issue and have helped to position it as a “crisis”, because nothing is more politically advantageous than a crisis. Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to President Obama, has often been quoted as saying, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” Politicians are even invading the purview of science and engineering. Al Gore is fond of saying, “The debate is over, and the issue is settled – global warming exists.” Yet no reputable scientist or engineer would ever make such a claim about a phenomenon that happens over millennia and about which we have relatively little data. This political hysteria is apparently bi-partisan, by the way. George Bush and John McCain, neither of whom knows an exponential from an erg, have both signed on.

Oh, let us not forget the media. Crises are of course manna to the press and the media. Blood sells. A sensational crisis attracts many readers/viewers, so the press/media never pass on an opportunity to deliver bad news.

But, why would academics be so enamored with global warming? Why has it become an issue of political correctness? The answer is unpalatable, to say the least. There is a very vocal element of our society, including much of liberal academia, that revels in American failure. Many of these folks fall in the “Blame America First” crowd. Among their favorite targets are capitalism, nationalism, and individualism, the foundations of American success. They believe that the answer is always in a larger, more powerful government, and that the ideal is a one world government. Task number one for them is to diminish America in favor of a “world view”. Their logic, therefore, is: America produces much CO2 , and, since CO2 causes global warming, America is bad, proof of the corruption of capitalism, nationalism, and individualism. Never mind whether CO2 actually causes global warming. Anyone who disagrees with them is politically incorrect. The Blame America First folks comprise a relatively small minority is the U.S., but they are very loud, and they seize on any crisis, real or perceived. Global warming is a perfect foil to generate the hysteria they thrive on.

The vast majority of Americans certainly do not fall into this definition of politically correct. Most Americans are good, hard working, loyal, and patriotic folks. Unfortunately, these good folks are often too busy earning a living and raising families to spend much time critically examining issues like global warming. Consequently, when the press and media are filled with global warming hype and then someone famous or powerful says “Global warming is no longer debatable – the question is settled”, they tend to fall in line (I suspect that Bush and McCain both succumbed to this process). The silent majority is typically too busy to find its voice – until recently, that is. The “Tea Party” crowd is the grass roots silent majority at its best, and, despite the best efforts of some politicians to trivialize them, the silent majority is finally being heard.

So, as an honest scientist and engineer, I don’t know whether anthropogenic climate change really exists, and I certainly don’t know whether our “carbon footprint” really is a significant issue. Both look doubtful to me at this time, but the jury will be out for generations.

Here’s what I do know. In the name of global warming: we are failing to drill for our own plentiful oil and gas; we are not building refineries to produce gasoline from crude oil; we are bankrupting ourselves by paying abusive oil prices to people who hate us and use our money to fund the terrorists who attack us; and, the government now requires us to burn food (ethanol) in our cars.

I agree with those who campaign for alternative energy sources – always a good idea, but not at the expense of everything else. Here’s a thought. How about simply collecting climate change data, a relatively inexpensive effort, and spending most of the enormous global warming research budget on developing practical alternative energy, starting with hydrogen fuel cells?

At this point, there is growing doubt in the scientific and engineering communities that global warming even exists, but there is little doubt that global warming hysteria is destroying us and our economy.

Bankrupting Our Grandchildren

Think about this.

Say you were offered enough money to provide work, heath care, and retirement funds for you and your family. Say there was also enough money to bail out many of your friends so they wouldn’t have to go bankrupt. And say this money was a long term loan collateralized by the future income of your children and grandchildren – you personally would not have to pay any of it back. And say this money was available to everyone else also. All of your lives would be more comfortable and secure. Oh, yeah, one more thing. The debt incurred would be so great that the economy would probably never recover, thereby guaranteeing that yours was the last generation ever to enjoy the American dream.

Would you take the money?

Well, you are taking the money, right now. And so am I. And we are both bankrupting our progeny, and changing America forever. How’s that for hope and change?