Climate Change

I always let myself get tangled up in a discussion of whether global warming is real and man made. That is a distraction from the most important points. The most important points here are that:

1. Throughout most of the earth’s history the earth's climate was much warmer than it is now.

2. If the earth’s climate did warm up; it would not be the disaster that some people are claiming.

3. The IPCC has carefully selected a time frame to support their Global Warming agenda rather than doing rigorous science.

If you went to see a movie and they only showed you one frame out of thousands of frames in that movie; do you think you would know what the movie was about? Physics, Climatology and Paleoclimatology are distinct disciplines. The physicist and climatologist look at one frame and they think they know what the movie is about. The paleoclimatologist stays to the end of the movie. A climatologist looks at clouds and differential equations. A paleoclimatologist looks at fluid inclusions and isotope ratios. Paleoclimatology is part of Geology and there is a war brewing, geologists vs. IPCC climatologists.

To a geologist; if the direst predictions (temperature wise) of the IPCC actually happened; it would barley register. If the global climate warmed by 3 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit; North Africa would become wetter and greener. The greening of North Africa and the longer season in Siberia would be a huge co2 sink. There would be a slight lag time for the oceans to catch up with the land masses in temperature. During that lag subtropical deserts would grow; but, they would soon green up with more rain. This would be a net benefit for humanity. That is one advantage to the slow release of co2 by industry as apposed the radical one, two punch associated with the Siberian traps or the Decan traps. Catastrophic volcanic activity blackened the sky. When the sky finally cleared; the plants and phytoplankton that would have mitigated the effect of the co2, were dead. The pp. co2 was 20 times what it is today. That was climate change.

Today the pp. co2 is about .006 psi. That tiny bit of co2 is getting all the blame for heating up the earth. Unscrupulous scientists like Stephen Schneider publish exaggerated claims to whip the global warming mafia into a frenzy. (yes, I’ve read the pitiful attempts of liberal bloggers to defend him) Legitimate scientists risk their careers and reputations simply asking the kind of questions that must be asked to make the science rigorous.

What is local and what is global? Can you find a pristine place to measure in the northern hemisphere? If you found a pristine place would you have a history of measurements? Consider a small outpost in Alaska. A hundred years later the city has a hundred thousand people. How would you compare the measurements? No place demonstrates this better than Antarctica. You’ve heard one side say the ice is melting and the other say it isn’t. They are both right! On the peninsula that almost touches South America the ice is melting. The Antarctic peninsula has registered the fastest warming of any place on earth. Away from South America the other 96% of Antarctica does not seem to be warming at all. Furthermore there is no detectable warming in the troposphere; and, that is significant. This indicates that at least some of what is being measured is urban or more correctly suburban sprawl.

Particularly damning is the convenient time frame the IPCC is using. The IPCC is using a time frame custom designed to promote the global warming agenda. Right as we go from the Little Ice Age, caused by the Maunder Minimum, into a warmer period. Even NASA says the models don’t work unless you include the solar intensity. How much is sun? How much is suburban sprawl and deforestation? How much is co2? The IPCC’s computer models were never designed to do anything but push the global warming agenda. Though it is generally assumed that the solar cycles can account for a third of the warming; many scientists are beginning to reassess that assumption. Is it possible that deforestation and the ubiquitous black asphalt might have enhanced the suns effects? Have any of you ever stepped on the street on a hot summer day in bare feet? Do you remember Antarctica? Is it all beginning to make sense now? I could just as easily used the year 1050 as my start point and claimed that there has been almost no global warming in 800 years! A hundred years or 800 years is a geologically meaningless time frame. That is why neither a climatologist nor a physicist can give context to their findings. The oldest ice cores are less than a million years old and that is still geologic plank time. Nonetheless if you follow the temperature from the year 1050 till the present; you would realize it’s just the earth doing what the earth has been doing for 4 billion years. (temperatures inferred from tree rings)

The other thing that is intellectually dishonest about the IPCC is this “Climate Change”. What is climate change? The climate is always changing. The IPCC is pushing global warming and some kind of carbon control scheme. I don’t know what or who is behind it but it isn’t science at least not rigorous science.

The final straw was when the IPCC tried to infer that all responsible scientists were onboard with Anthropogenic Global Warming. The geologists never were. I remember 30 years ago reading an article in Scientific American. A frustrated physicist addressed a conference of geophysicists about “Global Warming”. The geophysicists were delighted to find out the world was warming up. The frustrated physicist didn’t think the geophysicists understood. The problem was the geophysicists had seen it all before. Even scientists that believed that man made co2 was the overwhelming cause of global warming have felt bullied by the populist global warming mafia. Many scientists were beginning to realize that this wasn’t rigorous science. The physicists and climatologists are now jumping ship.

Computer models of even the simplest of systems are not simple. I have mentioned only a couple variables. Assumptions were made about how long co2 stays in the air and in the ocean. Assumptions were made about many things they could not possibly know. A computer model is no better than the assumptions it is based on. There are too many wholes in the IPCC’s “science” to cover in one article. The IPCC was specifically created to push the global warming agenda, yet the faithful act like anyone who challenges them is a heretic. Claims of a general consensus among scientists that work on climate change simply mean that people who depend on climate change grants want them to continue. We can’t go around, like Chicken Little, crying “the sky is falling’ every time the earths climate hiccups. You have to remember we are talking about a 1.25 degree increase in global temperatures and a 25% increase in pp.co2~.006psi. if you believe the IPCC.

Some articles for those that are interested:

UN Climate Scientists speak out

Minority Report

It’s a bit technical but this guy thinks the suns role in “Climate Change” might be under rated: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm06/fm06-sessions/fm06_PP23E.html

Robert Balling thinks the subject is complicated. Ya think? http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf

Basically Glassman thinks the IPCC is an outright fraud: http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html

These guys found some curious anomalies in Greenland ice cores that don’t quite fit the “Global Warming” agenda: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/11/17/cooling-the-debate-a-longer-record-of-greenland-air-temperature/

This guy questions the scientific rigor with which temperature measurements were made: http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

Scare tactics of the past: Earth Day 1970

Housing Crash

Why did Alan Greenspan continue to raise interest rates past 4%? Back in 2005 the fed under Alan Greenspan was raising interest rates. I understand that interest rates could not stay at 1% (Fed funds rate). A long time ago in economics 101, I was told that the sweet spot in our economy was with interest rates at 4%. I’m not as smart as Alan Greenspan; but, after a 3% increase in interest rates; common sense would demand taking a breather. This isn’t hind sight. Even at the time I remember thinking, “what is he doing”. I thought maybe the need to borrow money for our war against Islam might have caused the need to raise interest more than would otherwise be necessary.

In all fairness, our government can’t completely dictate interest rates. The Fed, in theory, acts like that little lead weight they put on your tiers. The Fed must balance the governments financial needs with the market. That said, the U.S. government is a huge factor in the market and it has a disproportional influence on interest rates.

You can’t directly correlate the “Fed funds rate” with adjustable mortgages; but, any one who claims they did not see this real estate crisis coming needs to learn to count on their fingers. You can’t raise the fed funds rate 4.25% without having some effect on mortgages. Shortly after the fed funds rate reached its peak at 5.25%, Ben Bernanke succeeded Alan Greenspan as Fed chairmen. Greenspan blamed low interest rates for the housing bubble. The problem was not the bubble; but, the way they let the air out of the bubble, too fast. Ben Bernankes own Bernanke Doctrine says not to do this. In 2006 Ben Bernanke still had time to drop interest rates according to his own doctrine and administer a soft landing for an inflated housing market.

Between them, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan, have more letters after their names than the Chinese alphabet. Alan Greenspan acted like a drunk and Ben Bernanke did nothing to undo the damage as the economy crashed. And now where are interest rates. This is yet another reason to keep the state small and the individual big.

Have either of these guys ever explained why they kept interest rates artificially high, knowing it would cause a cascading economic failure?

Save NASA

Excessive Government spending on programs that are only designed to buy votes with the people’s tax money is crippling this nation. The politicians say that most of this spending is built in to the budget. Well who built it into the budget? Much of it has to do with President Johnson’s Great Society. Social security was stolen and much of the money that BP has set aside will never reach the people who need it. Roosevelt’s New Deal actually made the great depression worse. Large government programs rarely benefit we, the people. The government, any government, is a black hole which swallows the people’s hard earned wealth. Invariably these programs are put in place to make the powerful more powerful. This is what Progressivism has become. By the very nature of governance the government does not produce wealth or improve conditions for people. Government programs do not improve the economy and they are riddled with fraud. As far as I know there is only one exception to this, NASA.

Almost unique among government programs NASA has achieved an extraordinary level of success. Their Hubble telescope has exceeded what anybody could possibly have expected. Discoveries made by the Hubble telescope have shaken physics to its core. The shuttle too has exceeded reasonable expectations. The shuttle was a first attempt at a reusable space craft; 25 years later there is still no substitute for it. I feel we will regret putting them in “moth balls”. Tracking hurricanes has saved thousands of lives. NASA technology is all around us, improving our lives every day. Their technology has done far more to improve life than the Progressives ever have. Some people claim that the government’s investment in “green technology” will produce the same results. I think that unlikely.

The space program as we know it was originally conceived as a form of “one-ups-menship” during the cold war.  Exploration of space is an extraordinary challenge. The government should do the things that only the government can do. For now the risks associated with space exploration put it far beyond the tolerance of any private business. The challenge is one of the things that make NASA unique. This reaching beyond our perceived limits goes to the heart of what it means to be an American.

I said NASA was “almost” unique among government programs. Many decades ago they interviewed some of the people who worked on the Panama Canal. These people worked under conditions that were miserable beyond comprehension in the modern world. Nonetheless every person interviewed only remembered being so proud to be part of a great and meaningful project. The challenge and the fact that this kind of exploration goes to the heart of what it means to be an American is why NASA has been so successful. I doubt that any of these “green projects” will ever come near that kind of achievement.

While irresponsible politicians spend tax dollars on irresponsible projects, NASA is dieing.