Carbon cap and trade is NOT about global warming
The science of global warming is not settled. This is the reason by the subtle change in terminology taking place in the media. It is now called “climate change” because the Earth has stopped warming and it is getting harder and harder to maintain the facade of runaway warming.
In fact, for the last 7 years, the Earth has been cooling at a rate of 3.5 F/century. There are many reasons why this is occurring. I am not a scientist, but I am a well informed observer who has spent a great deal of time reading through the material available on the internet. Read on for a summary of some of the science at issue.
The Earth’s climate is naturally variable and there are many factors that influence global temperature. A very short list includes:
- The energy output of the Sun
- The composition of the atmosphere - % of CO2, % of water vapor
- The planet’s albedo (light colors reflect more sunlight, darker colors absorb)
- Natural variations in ocean currents – i.e. El Nino/La Nina, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.
- Dust in the atmosphere generated by volcanoes
There are many other factors that go into the climate models, but these are some of the major factors. So why is the Earth cooling? Two major reasons. First, the high temperatures reached in 1998 were acheived when three positive factors came into play. We were at the peak of a sunspot cycle which means the Sun was actually giving off more energy. We had a very strong El Nino which means that the waters of the Equatorial Pacific were much warmer than normal. We were also in the warm phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation where the Northern Pacific Ocean is warmer than usual. All of this combined to bring global temperatures well above long term averages.
Since then, we have reached the minimum of the sunspot cycle, the PDO has shifted into its cold phase, and we are just recovering from a fairly strong La Nina. In fact, this sunspot cycle is odd in that the minimum has extended beyond what is considered normal. A normal cycle lasts about 11 years and the length of the current minimum means that this cycle will be at least 12.5 years. The exact mechanism by which changes in solar output affect the Earth is still being explored, but a less active Sun means a cooler Earth. In fact, within recorded history of sunspots, there have been two great minimums called the Dalton Minimum and the Maunder Minimum. Both of these had extended periods of spotless days which corresponded to a period of cooler temperatures.
Conversely, solar maximums have led to warmer temperatures on Earth. The late 90’s were one of these maximums, and a grand maximum lines up very well with the Medieval Climate Optimum, a period in the early 1000s where temperatures were 1-3 degress above today. You may recall from history books that the Vikings were actually the first to discover North America and that they found luscious surroundings they called Greenland. Today, the vast majority of Greenland sits under a massive ice sheet.
So why is everyone so worked up about global warming? Computer models. They predict that increased carbon dioxide will raise global temperatures enough to create more water vapor. You see, carbon dioxide isn’t much of a greenhouse gas. A little bit of CO2 helps a lot, but it gets much less effective as you add more. The belief of the climate modelers is that more CO2 means more water vapor and that’s where it gets out of control. They postulate a positive feedback cycle where higher temperatures lead to more water vapor which leads to higher temperatures.
The problem here is that this doesn’t pass the smell test. The Earth has been warmer than today and it has had greater amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past. So why do the climate models predict ever higher temperatures? Because the main computer model relied on by the UN Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) always predicts a “hockey stick.” To see the graph, visit here. The problem is that others have tried to reproduce the same results as the original research, Michael Mann. This has been rather easy to do because his model always produces a hockey stick. In fact, random noise will produce the same results as the actual climate data that he used. Much paper has been used on both sides to attempt to explain this result.
So, if you’ve made it this far, you’re about to get the answer for what cap and trade is really about. It’s about power. In order to justify carbon cap and trade, you need to answer yes to the following questions.
- Is the Earth warming?
- Are humans responsible for the warming?
- Is warming a net bad thing?
- Does the outcome of cap and trade justify the costs the economy?
The answer to 1 is no for the time being. The answer to 2 depends on CO2 and the answer is probably not. The answer to 3 is also maybe. Why automatically assume that today’s climate is perfect? Global cooling is likely a greater risk than warming. The answer to 4 is a resounding NO.
Carbon cap and trade is a way to reduce the power of business and increase the power of government. It allows government to make decisions about what business produce and it will make all of us poorer. I think that some really do believe that the science is settled, but they are only useful idiots in service of those who are using this issue as a way to aggregate power.
For a more detailed look at the controversy and actual science please visit http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf. Some of the facts in this post are taken from this analysis, but the rest is an aggregation of many years of reading about the issue on my part.
Other great resources on both sides of the debate include http://www.icecap.us, http://www.realclimate.org, http://www.spaceweather.com, and http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html.
April 26th, 2009 at 5:36 am
Here is the rest of the story. Climate is changing and always will. The climate celebrities, however, are linking climate and the economy. Yes, there has been warming to end the Pleistocene. Climate is a multiple input, multiple loop, multiple output, complex system. The facts and the hypotheses, however, do not support CO2 as a serious ‘pollutant’. In fact, it is plant fertilizer and seriously important to all life on the planet. It is the red herring used to unwind our economy. That issue makes the science relevant.
Sulphate from volcanoes can have a catastrophic effect, but water vapour is far more important. Water vapour (0.4% overall by volume in air, but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house blanket followed by methane (0.0001745%). The third ranking gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves rapidly in cold water and bubbles rapidly out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great ’sink’; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
CO2 has been rising and Earth and her oceans have been warming. However, the correlation trails. Correlation, moreover, is not causation. The causation is under experimental review, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome.
“Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy – the cosmic rays – liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”
As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
Quiet sun → reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind → geomagnetic shield drops → galactic cosmic ray flux → more low-level clouds and more snow → more albedo effect (more heat reflected) → colder climate
Active sun → enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind → geomagnetic shield response → less low-level clouds → less albedo (less heat reflected) → warmer climate
That is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
The ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that.
Although the post 60s warming period appears to be over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. Ancient sedimentary rocks and paleontological evidence indicate the planet has had abundant liquid water over the entire span. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.
Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of believing and contributing to the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.
April 26th, 2009 at 5:47 am
Does it matter to you that all of those emissions are dirty and toxic?
April 28th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Um, I do have a problem with dirty and toxic emissions. I just don’t think carbon dioxide is dirty and toxic which is what we’re discussing here.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:42 am
I guess I was unclear. CO2 by itself isn’t necessarily “bad” (though it is toxic to people), as a naturally regulated earth would absorb it into the growth of more foliage. It’s true that CO2 is a key component of our atmosphere, but if (or when) that balance gets too far out of whack, it can begin to become detrimental to animal (including human) life on the planet.
I would disagree that we’re on the “cusp” of that. However, the growth of industry, especially in cheap, unregulated, third-world markets, has led to an increase in the production of CO2 coupled with the elimination of natural CO2 processors (plants, for instance). These CO2 processors are vital O2 producers that help to naturally regulate (i.e. “for free”) the atmospheric balance. Due to their density, rain-forests across the world are responsible for the production of over a quarter of the world’s O2 supply. Their area is becoming rapidly depleted.
The fact that we can acknowledge this system and how our consumption can affect the loop justifies to me that we have the responsibility to act in order to preserve the existing system right now. Otherwise, we’re going to become increasingly reliant upon the processes that we employ with a detrimental effect. So it may not be urgent yet with the world at a population of 6.7 Bn. What about when I am fifty and the world population gets to be 10 Bn? The time to pay the price and correct this problem is now, before it actually becomes a problem.
The points I would make are:
1) The processes that generate the CO2 that is proposed to be regulated almost always produce other contaminants. For fossil fuels, these include Ozone (O3), Soot (airborne macro-particles), SO2, NO, NO2, other nitrates, and heavy metals like thorium and uranium (which were safely many layers underground are now released onto the surface layer, where they concentrate). 2) Note that we already regulate SO2 emissions through a similar cap-and-trade-like system, and this effort has been widely credited with directing industry toward developing technologies (esp. coal tech) that reduced SO2 emissions, and subsequently acid rain fall.
3) The continuation of the destruction of green-space in the world means that we are continuously decreasing the rate of CO2 processing that the world can do as time goes forward. In spite of re-greening efforts in the US and EU, the amount of deforestation in the rest of the world easily outpaces our efforts. Without this key component of the system, the amount of stagnant CO2 in the earth will reach a point where it cannot be absorbed further. Mann’s point above about the oceans is an interesting one, but the oceans are not an infinite CO2 repository. At some point, they would be filled to capacity and the amount of surface CO2 would no longer be regulated. Consider the ocean a “reserve tank”, in that case. Incidentally, the amount of CO2 flushed into the ocean would likely begin to kill off life in the oceans (one of our food supplies, as well as fertilizers of plants, which need more than just CO2 and sunlight to grow).
May 24th, 2009 at 5:29 am
There is no global warming or cooling, period. The concept of a global, or average Earth temperature, is meaningless in science. The Earth does not have a temperature. Something that does not exist cannot rise or fall. See http://www.rogerthoney.com for details.
The “greenhouse effect” is totally wrong. Energy is not “trapped” in the atmosphere. When a “greenhouse” gas molecule absorbs energy, it moves faster with random motion (Kinetic-Molecular Theory of Gases). These energized molecules collide with other molecules in the atmosphere (O2, N2, other “greenhouse” gases, etc.). Upon collision, energy is transferred from the higher energy molecule to the lower energy molecule by conduction. Simultaneously, heat is radiated by the molecule at a rate that is directly proportional to temperature raised to the fourth power. These are basic principles of thermodynamics. Energy is transferred throughout the atmosphere by conduction and radiated out to space. The delay caused by the energy transfer among molecules provides warmth. See http://www.rogerthoney.com for details.
Global warming research is not consistent with basic principles of science so claims that result from that research do not apply to the world in which we live.
May 24th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Sign the Global Warming Petition at http://www.petitionproject.org. From their Web site, “Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.” See http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php to see if you qualify.