Archive for the ‘Carbon Dioxide’ Category

Why fear of catastrophic, manmade global warming is mistakenJune 3rd, 2009 by The WeGetIt.org Team
  Dr. Roy Spencer
 

 

Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist in climatology at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, explains the case against global warming alarmism in laymen’s terms in a new article. The gist of it is that the computer climate models get the role of clouds backward.The models assume that clouds decrease as surface temperature increases, allowing more solar energy to reach Earth surface and warm it. If that is so, then clouds are a positive feedback.

But Spencer explains that research he and others have published in the Journal of Climate and Geophysical Research Letters  shows that cloud cover increases as surface temperature rises, reflecting more solar energy back into space and thus cooling the surface. In other words, clouds are a negative feedback–exactly the opposite of what all the computer climate models assume. 

The consequence, Spencer says, is that instead of about 5.4 degrees F of warming in response to doubled CO2, we should expect only about 1 degree–an amount that would not have serious harmful effects but would likely instead be beneficial.

Cap and trade: Huge costs for insignificant benefitsMay 21st, 2009 by The WeGetIt.org Team
The bill would destroy 1.1 million jobs per year, on average, through 2035.
It would reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion.

A new study released by the Heritage Foundation finds that a bill co-authored by Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) working its way through the House Energy and Commerce Committee to fight global warming by a “cap-and-trade” system–issuing industries permits to emit carbon dioxide and then allowing them to trade the permits–would raise

  • the average family’s monthly energy bill by $125 ($1,500 per year);
  • electricity rates by 90% after adjusting for inflation;
  • gasoline prices by 74% (e.g., from a national average $2.30/gal. for regular to $4.00/gal.); and
  • residential natural gas prices by 55%.

The bill would also reduce gross domestic product by an average of $380 billion per year, or $9.6 trillion cumulatively through 2035; raise unemployment by about 1.1 million in an average year, and peak-year (2035) unemployment by about 2.5 million; and raise inflation-adjusted federal debt 25%, or $29,150 added debt per American, or $116,600 per family of four.

The projected payoff? About 0.09 degree F reduction in global average temperature in the year 2050, or slowing allegedly manmade global warming by about 2 years. That works out to GDP loss from now to 2035 (i.e., not including continuing costs from 2035 to 2050) of about $1.1 billion for every 1/100th of a degree reduction in temperature.

And that assumes that global warming is caused primarily by manmade increases in atmospheric CO2, which is probably not true. Reduce human contribution to global warming to about 10% of what was assumed, and the temperature reduction from Waxman-Markey would be only about 0.009 degree F, at a rate of $1.1 billion for every 1,1000th of a degree reduction in temperature.

Rising atmospheric CO2 mostly natural?May 15th, 2009 by The WeGetIt.org Team

Fears of manmade global warming all rest on belief that manmade emissions of CO2 are forcing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere upward, and the higher CO2 concentration is absorbing more infrared radiation (heat) that would otherwise bounce back out into space.

Long-term measurements make it pretty certain that atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising. But the fact of its rise doesn’t tell why it’s rising. The assumption has been that, before we began burning lots of fossil fuels, it remained stable, or at least that natural patterns aren’t sufficient to explain the rise in recent decades.

But Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, has posted an exercise that challenges the assumption that CO2 drives warming. Spencer finds that the best fit of CO2 emissions and concentrations and global temperature occurs on the assumption that “only 10% of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to human emissions (b=0.1), while the other 90% is simpl[y] due to changes in sea surface temperature”–i.e., that warming drives CO2.

If that is true, then, even assuming (wrongly) that all the recent warming was driven by increased CO2, only 10% of the warming might be attributed to manmade increases in CO2. And if the actual increase in temperature from 1980 to 2002 was only about half what the alarmists claim, i.e., about 0.25 instead of 0.5 degree C, as this study concludes (PDF) , then total warming from manmade emissions would be only about 0.025 degree C.