Why Carbon Dioxide isn't the Source of Global Warming

   

 

A bit of background, I graduated from Mississippi State with a M.S. Geoscience, and briefly worked for the Environmental Protection Agency.  This background information is given solely to lay the predicate to the analysis below. 

 

 The idea that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming has it's support in the “greenhouse effect.” Mechanically the greenhouse effect works as follows: greenhouse gasses trap heat in the troposphere and prevent it from radiating out to space. Energy from the sun is shortwave radiation.  This shortwave radiation is absorbed by the surface of the Earth (or objects thereupon) and transformed into longwave radiation.  The longwave radiation is in turn radiated out to space.  The greenhouse gasses absorb longwave radiation on the way back to space and reradiate the energy back down to the surface which then transforms it back into long wave radiation which warms the atmosphere from the bottom up. If you measure temperature with height you see temperature drop with height.  The greenhouse effect theory states that the air temperature will increase until the greenhouse gasses layer and then temperatures will decrease above the greenhouse layer. In more simple terms the troposphere will warm and the  stratosphere will cool under the greenhouse theory.

 

In order for Carbon Dioxide to be causing global warming as explained by the greenhouse effect, four elements must be met:

1) The surface temperature must be above normal
2) The surface temperature must be continuing to warm
3) Stratospheric temperature must be below normal
4) Stratospheric temperature must be continuing to cool

I.  The surface temperature must be above normal

This is an area that is not in serious dispute.  Although over long periods the surface temperature has been both higher and lower, in general surface temperatures are higher than they were 50 and 100 years ago.  Using the 1961-1990 mean temperature as “normal”, the mean global temperature became above normal in 1977 and has been above normal for all but three years since then.  (source: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html)

II. The surface temperature must be continuing to warm

 

If the greenhouse effect is to blame for the current global warming, then the temperature at the surface should continue to rise as greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere continue to accumulate.  Although greenhouse gas emissions have declined since 1990, they have been increasing since approximately 1999. (Sources: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=from-bad-to-worse-with-greenhouse-gas-emissions , http://unfccc.int/files/inc/graphics/image/gif/trends_excluding_2008.gif )What we see is global temperature reached its maximum anomaly in 1998, and has been unsteadily dropping since then.  (source: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html)

 

If the greenhouse effect theory was the source of the global temperature change, there would have been temperature decreases in the late 1990s when the emissions dropped and they would be rising now as emissions are increasing.  In the alternative, if the change in global temperature was caused by accumulated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then we would continue to see temperature increasing as increased greenhouse gas emissions cause a continuing rise in greenhouse gas accumulations in the atmosphere.  Under either scenario, we would not be seeing a temperature drop that we are now seeing.

 

IIII and IV Stratospheric Temperature Must be Below Normal and Continuing to Cool

 

If the greenhouse effect theory is correct, the greenhouse gases that are warming the surface are causing the stratosphere to cool.  The atmosphere is heated from below via longwave radiation.  The greenhouse gasses in theory absorb longwave radiation and reradiate it out in all directions.  This reduces the amount of longwave radiation reaching the stratosphere, and the stratosphere cools.  In general, this is not happening (source: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/sh_08/Fig_15.gif ) 

 

A good way to determine if the stratosphere is warming or cooling is to look at the amount of ozone destruction occurring.  Ozone is an unstable form of oxygen. Breathable oxygen is diatomic, while ozone is triatomic. Triatomic oxygen is unstable and readily breaks down. Ozone forms when ultraviolet radiation is absorbed by oxygen. Ozone is formed in the tropics, above the rainforests, and gradually rises and spreads pole ward via Brewer-Dobson circulation. At its most basic level this circulation is isentropic upglide and isentropic downglide.

 

In general, an isentrope is a line of equal entropy, in meteorology an isentrope is a line of equal equivalent potential temperature. Although isentropes are found at altitude, if you were to mathematically follow one to its end it would eventually run into the ground. As a result isentropic movement can be upward or downward depending on the direction of the prevailing wind. So ozone forms above the rainforests and then is pushed upward and pole ward by the prevailing winds in the Brewer-Dobson circulation. The circulation works well to transport ozone until winter comes. In the winter the polar jet increases speed and seals off the polar air form the rest of the atmosphere. This means that new ozone cannot replace any ozone destroyed.

 

Ozone is destroyed when another chemical comes in and bonds with the oxygen. The reaction surface for this chemical reaction is a Polar Stratospheric Cloud (PSC.) These  clouds don't look like a cloud like we are used to seeing. These clouds are colorful because they are not made out of liquid water.

 

Sometimes clouds are made out of ice crystals, for example a cirrus cloud, and will give different coloration such as a cirrus cloud crystals making a fire rainbow.   Other times the clouds are made out of liquids that are not water. When the temperature drops to -78 degrees gasses in the atmosphere can condense and become liquid. These liquids then become clouds just like water vapor condensing into liquid water to form a cloud like we see. These liquid droplets then refract the sun’s rays leading to coloration like a water droplet does to lead to white clouds.

 

Because of the long atmospheric life of ozone destroying chemicals (ODCs) in the air the amount of ozone destruction is controlled by the amount of PSCs that form rather than the amount of ODCs in the air. The amount of PSCs that form is controlled by the amount of time the temperature is at or below -78 degrees. In short stratospheric temperature is what controls ozone destruction. The colder it gets, and the longer it stays cold, the more ozone destruction will occur. Once the polar jet slows in the spring the Brewer-Dobson circulation brings in fresh ozone and ozone  levels return to normal. As a result we get finite amounts of ozone destruction every year. Rather than seeing ever increasing amounts of ozone destruction, the amount of ozone destruction is declining.  (Sources: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/sh_08/Fig_7.gif , http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/nh_05-06/figure_03.gif )

 

In short, because of the disconnect between surface temperatures and ozone destruction and greenhouse gas accumulations it seems that the greenhouse effect theory is not the mechanism that is causing global warming.  Something is causing the warming, but to focus our time and resources on carbon dioxide reduction only lets the problem progress without heading towards solution.

 

The Misadventures of Country Bumpkin in the Big City Episode 1

On the lighter side, occasionally I'll write some flash fiction.  Serious, juvenile, mocking sophistication.  Without further ado...

The Misadventures of Country Bumpkin in the Big City

 

Episode 1 - The High Flatulent Beer

Scene 1

Winston and Sophie are getting ready to go out for date night when there's a knock on the door.
Winston: Who could that be?
Winston walks to the door.  In the background
Sophie: Remember it's date night.
Winston looks out the peephole to see Bubba eating a large bag of Cheetos.  Winston opens the door. Bubba walks in uninvited.
Bubba: Heya buddy, I was in the neighborhood so dropped by.  You got any of that high flatulent beer around?
Bubba wipes the orange Cheeto residue from his hands on his shirt.
Sophie: That's disgusting.
Winston: Why don't you use a napkin for that?  There's one in the kitchen by the wine.  We have time for one drink then Sophie and I have plans.
Sophie glares at Bubba and Winston and walks out onto the balcony.
Winston: You get the wine and I'll go talk with her.
Winston walks out to the balcony and Bubba goes to the kitchen.

Scene two

Bubba grabs a rag left out and wipes this hands and mouth leaving orange residue visible on the rag.  He then grabs a bottle of moderately expensive wine and pulls the cork out.  He takes a shot straight from the bottle and frowns.
Bubba: This tastes rotten.
Bubba then pours wine into a carafe and pours some brown sugar into the wine.  He grabs a spatula out of the sink and starts stirring the mixture and exclaims
Bubba (in a Kool Aid Man voice): Oh yeah!
(Background) Winston: You coming Bubba?
Bubba: Yeah, just a second.
Bubba places the orange stained rag over the carafe and walks out to the balcony.

Scene three

Bubba brings the carafe out to the balcony.  Sophie sees the rag.
Sophie: Bubba, that's disgusting!
Bubba: What is?
Winston: Never mind.  We only have time for one drink.
Bubba tosses the rag on the ground and starts to pour glasses of wine, knocking one over.
Bubba: I'm sorry, I'm a klutz.
Winston: No worries.
Winston takes the carafe and pours the remaining glass.
Winston: What should we drink to?
Sophie: To date night.
All: To date night.
Sophie takes a sip.
Sophie: This doesn't taste right.
Winston takes a sip.
Winston: No it doesn't.  What did you do Bubba?
Bubba: Added some brown sugar to the high flatulent beer.
Sophie: No! It has glutens now! I can't have any glutens!
Bubba leans over and looks at girlfriend's buttocks.
Bubba: Yeah, that's not a good idea, your glutes are getting big.
Sophie throws her glass of wine on Bubba.
Bubba sucks some wine from his shirt.
Bubba: Tastes good now.
End.

Labor Force Participation Rate and Social Security

Social Security is in trouble.  We've been hearing that for years and the data suggests that the problem is no where close to being solved.  This is a problem that can be resolved, but the question is how can it be fixed without a major overhaul to the program?

The problem is simple, the projected income in to the program is expected to become insufficient to cover the expected obligations because the number of individuals collecting is going to exceed the capacity of workers paying into the system.  This is also a problem that is finite; as the baby boom generation dies off (yes this is blunt) the number of collectors will drop off and the system will return to solvency because the capacity of payers will once again exceed the number of collecting.

So in the long run, this is a problem where we can kick the can down the road if the management of the system is done smartly.  The issue is how to increase collections before the system becomes insolvent.  The core of the problem is the drop in labor force participation.

The current labor force participation rate is 62.7%.  This is on a downward trajectory.  What's scary is the downward trend isn't because of more retirees.  The number of people 62 and over (and therefore eligible for early retirement from Social Security) participating in the workforce is increasing.  This means the participation rate for the normal working age population is decreasing.  Reversing this trend is necessary to the future solvency of Social Security.

However, this doesn't excuse Congress and the President from taking steps now that will help to extend the solvency of the system.  Remember, the problem is finite and will end up resolving itself with time.

While the majority of people who pay into the system receive benefits, sadly there's a significant number of people who never receive or receive less than they paid into the system because of early death.  This number will only rise as the retirement age increases.  Right now the retirement age is in a phased in increase from 65 to 67.  One simple way to help extend the solvency of the program is to allow individuals who are not able to retire at 65 because of the increased retirement age to pay in extra in order to be able to retire at 65 with full benefits.  For that matter, the system could be to where workers are allowed to pay extra in order to have full retirement at 62 rather than have early retirement with the penalty. 

As long as the increased payments were sufficient to fully fund the extra 2 (or in the case of early retirement 5) years worth outlays the system is not running any extra deficit.  This increases the solvency of the system because not only is there an immediate cash inflow which pushes back the insolvency date but the system ends up ahead as contributors have early demises and the system pays out no benefits.

The collection system is already in place, all that's needed is for the government to allow this to be a possibility.  Once a worker makes the election for extra contributions they would automatically be collected out of paychecks along with the current collections for benefits.

Charity and Food Aid

With the recent picture of the horribly malnourished child being fed from a canister floating around the internet this seems like a good time to talk about charity and food aide.  These two topics at first blush would seem only slightly related, the more charitable the country the more likely they are to give, but the connection is much deeper.  The difference in charitable philosophy has shaped different philosophies on food aid, and the difference is having stark consequence on eradicating hunger.

Charity is split into two camps, government provided and private activity (whether a person or a business.)  Not too long ago, activist were chastising the US for not giving 1% of GDP in charitable donations.  This was only looking at the government contributions.  When looking at both private and government charitable donations; however, the US was by far the most chartable as a percent of GDP.  This is important because the end result is what matters, not the method by which it was given.

The example above of the split in viewpoint in the method of viewing charity is carried out in food aid philosophy.  Europe has a give cash and let the local government purchase the food from local producers and redistribute the food as appropriate.  This is fine in theory, it will lead to a greater local market which will spur greater production.  In application the process is different.  The root cause of hunger in third world countries isn't the ability to purchase food; it's the inability to produce the food.  The philosophy of let's throw money at the problem to create a larger market is essentially a soft form of racism (or at least superiority complex) as it suggests the lack of food is a lack of drive/desire on the part of the local inhabitants.

In reality, the problem is largely a soil issue.  Most first world countries have good soils and are capable of producing sufficient food for their populations.  Most third (or 4th or 5th) world countries do not have rich enough soils to produce sufficient food for their populations.  It has nothing to do with the drive or desire of the local population.  Simply throwing money at the problem doesn't remedy the underlying problem.  The US, on the other hand, gives actual food.  While this too doesn't remedy the underlying issues causing the hunger it does effectively do one thing - remedy the hunger.

Which brings me to ethanol.  The US gives both the plurality of food aid in terms of actual food aid and a majority of food in emergency food aid.  (This comes from data a few years old.)  Being environmentally conscious is important.  I live in a 1150 square foot home and only used 5100 kilowatt hours of electricity last year and drive a vehicle that gets 28ish mpg.  So, yeah, I'm in on conservation and efficient use of resources.  However, ethanol has a significant side effect of reducing the amount of food available to be used as food aid.  Be very cautious when supporting ethanol.  We have other ways to reduce our dependence of foreign oil, but we don't have other ways of having available food to send in crisis situations to starving countries.

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html