Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Global Warming for Dummies (Part II)

Evaluation of the data from yesterday’s post reveals that CO2 is continuously going up annually, and it never declines. This makes sense, and I usually relate carbon emissions generated since the inception of the industrial revolution to entropy. Entropy is a measure of the disorder of system or the inefficiency of a system. Thermodynamics second law states the entropy in the universe is constantly going up. Well, CO2 is a byproduct (exhaust due to inefficiencies of a system) of any product built since the industrial revolution. Most powered operated items emit CO2 because they are not efficient systems (cars, boats, trucks, planes, lawnmowers, etc. – i.e. all emit exhaust). Let’s evaluate another example – what if we wanted to build a plate? Heat and power are needed to make a plate and subsequently CO2 exhaust is released into our atmosphere. Thus, it is easy to see how CO2 is constantly going up just – analogous to entropy - since energy is needed to build every product we use. However, if we look at the Temp data column, global temperatures may be higher than those averages posted in 1980, but each subsequent year is not necessarily hotter than the previous one. For instance, 1999 was 0.27 degrees cooler than 1998. If CO2 and Temp were directly related, Temp would have to go up each year by an equivalent percentage of CO2 increases. But this is not happening! What gimmick can a scientist use to try to make the data correlate with the hypothesis that global warming is manmade? Yearly averaging! This is why the NOAA created the Temp5 variable. By taking a running average of 5 consecutive years, it makes the trend or correlation between Temp5 and CO2 stronger. In other words, CO2 and Temp5 correlate closer than CO2 and Temp. But even still, the Temp5 variable does decrease some years (most recently between 2007 and 2008, but only by .03 degrees). If CO2 is related to global temperatures then why don’t they track? If CO2 goes up each year than one would suspect that Temp and Temp5 would go up by an equal percentage or more, but this is not happening. There is no question that the NOAA data illustrates there is a trend that global temperatures are going up and there is global warming, but the data does not prove it is manmade due to carbon emissions. In order to show there is some relationship between CO2 and Temp or Temp5 scientists would have to generate other variables in a model to prove this trend. But what are these variables and their corresponding data? This is a mystery and is anyone’s guess. We even do not know where, when, and the accuracy of the temperature readings used to produce the data in the above table. One area that is often scrutinized by global warming alarmists are both the North and South poles – they point out that the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate and this trend is endangering species. But anyone with a basic knowledge of gravity and who has ever tried to climb Mount McKinley, in Alaska, would understand that the Earth cannot be treated as one entity for global warming. It begs to reason that regions that are industrialized or areas that are near the Equator should be more susceptible to global warming. Unlike (Ohms Law) voltage, current, and resistance; global warming results would be different in different areas. Why? Barometric pressures at the Earth’s poles are significantly lower than at the Equator. Thus, there is much less oxygen at the poles and this explains why the summit of Mount McKinley may feel as if it is at 23,000 feet instead of 20,000 feet. This is because the Earth’s gravitational pull is stronger at the Equator and subsequently attracts more oxygen molecules. Hence, it begs to reason that since the Earth’s poles are less industrialized and there is less CO2 because of the Earth’s gravitational pull that polar regions would be affected less by global warming. Then why are the effects of global warming more apparent at the poles then say in Colorado? Remember, CO2 measurements taken in Hawaii are from the southernmost portion of the U.S., further south than the Florida Keys (closer to the Equator). Also, remember when the Obama’s Department of Energy Chief wanted to cool the earth by painting roofs white to reflect heat? Yes, this can work, especially in large industrialized cities. Cities have gotten proportionally warmer as they have been built up with heat conducting asphalt and steel (building, cars, etc.). But, how can this work, if CO2 and pollution is the blame for global warming? We can lower the temperature of the earth without reducing the effects of CO2? Yes, because temperature and CO2 are not directly related. In other words, trying to show there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature is a hard problem to prove. Last year the NOAA said it was the warmest year on the planet, but it was the coldest year on record for the small little town I live in. If annual CO2 measurements are higher everywhere on the planet, then why are some areas hotter while other regions are colder? The bottom line is I severely doubt that any global warming model has been tested in various regions around the globe. Will the global warming model yield credible results in Reno, Nevada; Nice, France; Cairo, Egypt; Nagasaki, Japan; Auckland, New Zealand; and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil? The answer to this is no because climates and even CO2 concentration levels in the atmosphere are vastly different than what is in the global model. Thus, the CO2 and temperature relationship is nothing like Ohms Law because it so much more complex – to show correlation exists scientists must be using numerous undefined variables and data and they are ignoring different climate temperatures and CO2 concentrations at specific locations around the globe (they are merely taking global averages). My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

No comments:

Post a Comment