Carbon Dioxide: Part 17

Kill the beetles. Plant a tree—no, many trees.

The forests of British Columbia are being attacked by the mountain pine beetle. This catastrophe creates a double whammy. The trees that die can no longer extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the decaying trees release CO₂. The release over a 21 year period is so large, the Canadian Forest Service estimates it is equivalent to 5 years of emissions from all forms of Canadian transportation.

The annual production of CO₂ by the beetles is almost as much as that caused by Canadian forest fires each year.

So now we have something more to worry about. The kids in school back in the ’50s and ’60s had only a nuclear attack to fret about. Now they have the BEETLES that affect CO₂. That puts things in perspective!

Expect some massive government program to help, all in the name of CO₂. Assuredly, this and similar problems have been attacking the forests since time began and we have somehow survived. Even Gaia survived! Amazing! Back then, no one cared about the impact of carbon dioxide, but now it is cast in terms of CO₂ and sounds so much worse.

Previously, such devastation would have been measured in terms of lost lumber and logs and its effect on construction costs. The new fad is carbon dioxide and nothing is said about the lost lumber and logs. Under this new rubric, government will intervene to stop this non-human cause of CO₂, the production of which is probably inconsequential.

One gets the impression these global warming adherents are like kindergartners making new discoveries and letting their minds run wild. True science demands much more sober observation and much less alarmist speculation.

Carbon Dioxide: Part 16, Olympic Torch Emissions

In a previous post, we observed a fact of burning propane. When a molecule of propane is burned, the hydrogen atoms are replaced with oxygen atoms which are 16 times heavier than a hydrogen atom. When the C₃H₈ propane molecule is burned, it becomes 3 molecules of CO₂. The new product weight jumps from 44 units to 132 units, an increase of 3 times because oxygen is 16 times heavier than hydrogen. The extra weight comes from the oxygen.

The ABC and Slate articles cited before are preoccupied with the large weight of carbon dioxide that is produced from burning jet fuel and propane in the torch. On the other hand, they totally ignore another byproduct of that combustion.

Burning propane produces water as well as CO₂. What is the weight of water produced? Besides the 3 atoms of carbon being combined with oxygen, the 8 atoms of hydrogen also are combined with oxygen. These 8 atoms of hydrogen are combined with 4 atoms of oxygen to produce 4 molecules of water (H₂O). Here is the math:

3x12 + 8x1 = 44 units of weight for C₃H₈ source

3x12 + 6x16 = 132 units of weight for CO₂ byproduct

8x1 + 4x16 = 72 units of weight for H₂O byproduct

132 + 72 = 204 units of total weight of the byproducts

So the 44 units of weight of propane become 204 units of weight when burned, forming carbon dioxide and water. All hydrocarbons, when burned, produce CO₂ and H₂O. Al Gore and Company are hollering about the carbon dioxide and its greenhouse effect that increases global warming. The two articles cited above are typical. They do not say anything about the water that is produced when hydrocarbons are burned.

It’s hard to condemn water. How can anyone classify it as a poison which they do for CO₂? It just wouldn’t fly, would it? So they ignore it, but water vapor has a greenhouse effect just as carbon dioxide does. Both molecules trap heat, restricting its flow into space. An equal amount of CO₂ is more effective in trapping heat than H₂O is.

When propane (C₃H₈) is burned, there are 4 molecules of H₂O that are produced and 3 molecules of CO₂. However, this situation immediately after burning propane does not stay that way for very long. The balance in the atmosphere comes to an average ratio of 60 times more water than carbon dioxide. So water has far more influence on trapping heat around the globe than carbon dioxide does. In fact, water vapor accounts for at least 90% of the earth’s greenhouse effect.

Yet we do not read much in global warming articles about the much larger greenhouse effect of water. But it’s coming. Here is a headline: EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant. There will be a tax on water produced by combustion.

We are doomed. Every tree that we plant to aid carbon credits and lock up CO₂ for a few decades through photosynthesis will eventually rot naturally. As the wood decays, it slowly gives off CO₂ and H₂O. So we will need to plant more. And then there will be more to rot!

It’s rotten to be on the Goracle’s treadmill. I can’t wait for that to be verboten.

Carbon Dioxide: Part 15, Olympic Torch Emissions

Slate reports that a gallon of Olympic torch fuel, propane, produces 12.669 pounds of CO₂. National Geographic News confirms the fuel is propane.

If you are an intelligent and inquisitive reader, you probably realize propane is lighter than water which weighs 8.3 pounds per gallon. How then can a gallon of liquified propane, which weighs 4.2 pounds, produce 12.669 pounds of CO₂? You can find the explanation in chemistry term here, but I will explain it in more layman terms.

Look at the two dimensional and three dimensional structure of a propane molecule here. Each molecule of propane (C₃H₈) has 3 atoms of carbon and 8 atoms of hydrogen. A carbon atom is 12 times heavier than a hydrogen atom, which has a weight of 1. The carbon in a molecule of propane has the weight of 36 units and the hydrogen has the weight of 8 units for a total of 44 units for the entire molecule.

When this molecule of propane is burned, the hydrogen atoms are replaced with oxygen atoms which are 16 times heavier than a hydrogen atom. When the C₃H₈ propane molecule is burned, it becomes 3 molecules of CO₂. The new product weight jumps from 44 units to 132 units, an increase of 3 times because oxygen is 16 times heavier than hydrogen. The extra weight comes from the oxygen. Here is the math:

3x12 + 8x1 = 44 units of weight for C₃H₈

3x12 + 6x16 = 132 units of weight for CO₂

So a 4.2 pound gallon of propane becomes 12.6 pounds of CO₂ when it is burned. The 12.669 pounds mentioned above in the article is correct. So yes the reports are accurate. That is how much CO₂ is produced when a gallon of propane is burned.

The same thing happens when you burn gasoline on your drive to work. The carbon dioxide produced weighs more than the gasoline. Your jet ride on vacation does the same thing. Heating your home with propane, natural gas, fuel oil, coal, wood, or corn does it. Burning a candle does it. Any hydrocarbon used as a source of heat will produce more weight of carbon dioxide than the weight of the hydrocarbon that is burned. It is a law of the physical world that cannot be changed. Without this production of the heavier amount of CO₂, we will not have heat. The global warming nuts might not like it, but it’s a fact of life that cannot be changed.

Carbon Dioxide: Part 14, Olympic Torch Emissions

True to form, the global warming activists are aghast over the enormous amount of CO₂ that is produced by the Olympic torch and the plane that transports it around the world. ABC news reports:

"So when the torch isn't being marched through city streets and/or extinguished by protesters, how is it getting around? You guessed it, by plane -- an Air China A330 custom painted with the Olympic logo and color scheme. The A330 burns 5.4 gallons of fuel per mile. That translates into 462,400 gallons for the entire trip. With Earthlab estimating that every gallon of jet fuel burned produces 23.88 pounds of CO2, the Olympic Torch Relay is adding about 11 million pounds of carbon to the atmosphere. That's 5,500 tons."

Oh those are big numbers! The headline of the article "Olympic Torch Emits 5,500 Tons of CO2" leads one to believe this amount is emitted by the torch. But that is not the case. The article never quantifies the carbon dioxide emission of the torch, but just of the jet that transports it around the world.

The headline is misleading, but the author clarifies in the body of the article that ". . . the Olympic Torch Relay is adding about 11 million pounds of carbon to the atmosphere."

According to Slate, the amount of propane burned in the torch has not been revealed.

The 11 million pounds of CO₂ produced to transport the torch will be very small compared to that created by all the world's athletes, coaches, broadcasters, sports writers and observers who fly to Beijing. The amount of CO₂ produced by all those traveling people will be huge. In comparison, the jet flight to transport the Olympic torch is insignificant even though it is a large number.

Carbon dioxide: Part 13

Here is an interview and article worth reading. I will tantalize you with just a couple of paragraphs.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth still warming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

And:

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

Read the whole article here. Contrary to Marohasy, it will take the politicians a long time to catch up with the scientists. By that time the world will be saddled with energy policies that the next generation will need to shake off.

From the Goracle to Rep. Kalin, as politicians, they need to do something, that is, create law to "help." It will take longer to change manufactured law than for a natural weather cycle to complete its course. Global warming/climate change politicians will make sure their legacies stay alive in law. For politicians, energy policies have little to do with climatology. Rather it is for control of the masses.

Carbon dioxide: Part 12

The Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in Manhattan has just been completed. You can poke around at that web site for information, but I want to call your attention to one presentation at the conference. Václav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, is an outspoken critic of those who promote climate change for political ends.

Shawn Macomber of the American Spectator quoted Václav Klaus saying, "It is not about climatology . . . It is about freedom." Please read the full text of his speech for your own benefit (and these comments) because he warns about the use of climate change to usurp our freedoms.

"I am also afraid that the same people, imprisoned in the Malthusian tenets and in their own megalomaniac ambitions, want to regulate and constrain the demographic development, which is something only the totalitarian regimes have until now dared to think about or experiment with. Without resisting it we would find ourselves on the slippery "road to serfdom." The freedom to have children without regulation and control is one of the undisputable human rights and we have to say very loudly that we do respect it and will do so in the future as well."

He closed his speech, saying:

"We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. Now it concerns the whole mankind, not just the citizens of one particular country. To discuss this means to look at the canonically structured theoretical discussion about socialism (or communism) and to learn the uncompromising lesson from the inevitable collapse of communism 18 years ago. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom. This should be the main message of our conference."

This man knows personally the loss of freedom imposed on the Czech people by the former Soviet Union. He is capable of looking beyond the alleged climate change to the dark politics that would be imposed worldwide to counter it. The climate change movement is not just some anti-smoking kick to get rid of some annoyance by robbing our freedom. It is a life and death struggle to take away freedom around the entire globe to use energy, the blood of life.

The western world, culminating in Ronald Reagan’s "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," brought freedom to the Czechs. But that same western world is now threatening the freedom of all peoples in the world. It is incumbent on all freedom loving people to heed Václav Klaus. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom.

Carbon dioxide: Part 11

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

While carbon dioxide has been pilloried as the cause of global warming which has caused the melting of the ice mass in the Arctic, that can hardly be the case as we saw in Carbon dioxide: Part 10.

Now two climatologists have concluded the wind has driven the ocean currents northward which in turn have melted the ice pack. The wind currents have a forty year cycle. Thus when the wind changes, the ocean currents change and the Arctic ice increases or decreases.

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

So the experts did not know it all. They discovered something they did not know. Carbon dioxide is not increasing the earth’s temperature to melt Arctic ice. Rather the wind, in its long forty year cycle, has warmed the Arctic.

It’s nice to know some scientists can follow the evidence to the truth, rather than steer the evidence to the desired conclusion. Let’s see what The-earth-has-a-fever-Gore will say about this.

Carbon dioxide: Part 10

How can this be?

Al Gore—the earth-has-a-fever-Al-Gore—has been panicking over the fact that the earth’s average temperature rose 0.6º Centigrade over the last century. And of course, the 22.3% increase of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere since 1958 has been blamed for that fever.

Of course, the soothsayers have been prophesying a continued rise in the earth’s average temperature due to the ever-increasing CO₂ concentration.

Well Al Gore is now the one who has a fever. The earth did not cooperate with the alarmists. The climate change changed direction. The earth’s average temperature dropped 0.6º Centigrade over the last year. All the heat gains over one entire long century were suddenly wiped out in one year, this last year. Read all about it and look at the temperature graph in this article.

How can this be? How can the temperature of the earth’s surface atmosphere lose in one year what it took a century to gain? How can this happen when the population of the earth has increased dramatically? How can this happen when we are using much more energy now than in the early 1900s? How can this happen when the CO₂ concentration has been increasing? And how can this be happening when all those beef cattle have been filling the air with methane?

Al "the Fever" Gore, I want to know. Enquiring minds want to know.

Carbon dioxide: Part 9

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
Elisabeth Rosenthal

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green" fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

Read the rest of the article.

___________________________________________

If the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a major cause of global warming, then biofuels are exacerbating the problem rather than being a solution as intended. In the rush to fix a perceived problem, do-gooders run to the government to get legislation mandating biodiesel use, for example. The cure-all ends up being worse than the supposed problem.

The law of unintended consequences is always at work, yet do-gooders think they are exempt from its inexorable effects. Last year, Rep. Jeremy Kalin (D-17B) and the Minnesota legislature passed an energy bill that will ultimately fall under this debilitating law. Gov. Pawlenty is leading the green charge which this article shows is not so green.

Irrespective of the carbon dioxide issue, something was seriously wrong in the thinking of those who thought it wise to destroy a food source and turn it into fuel. That thought should have given the "experts" pause to consider the fork in the road that they were taking. My own eighth-grade-educated-farming-aunts could have told them that. But people who are driven to solve problems that may not even exist do not think about the consequences of their actions. All of us end up paying dearly for their insistence on "helping" us by mucking it up.

Carbon dioxide: Part 8

Carbon dioxide gets a bad rap. It is demonized and all too frequently identified as a pollutant and poison by global warming/climate change advocates.

But this chemical compound is essential to life. Flora and fauna depend on CO₂ for their very life. Vegetation thrives through the process of photosynthesis. Chorophyll in plants utilize CO₂, water and sunlight to make sugars which feed the plants. Carbon dioxide is dissolved in the waters of the world to support marine plant photosynthesis. Through photosynthesis, light energy is converted into chemical energy in the form of sugar which plants can consume.

In the process of photosynthesis, plants create sugars for their own use and give off oxygen for animate life. Animals, fish and people thrive on that oxygen which burns sugars for energy and in the process give off CO₂ for vegetative life. Burning of sugar by animate life is called metabolism.

Given this cycle, carbon dioxide cannot be a pollutant or a poison under normal atmospheric conditions. Plants must have it available to sustain life. And CO₂ is beneficial to humans. For example, carbon dioxide keeps the pH (slight akalinity) of the blood in proper balance.

Can CO₂ kill a person? Yes, but breathing CO₂ will not kill by itself. Lack of oxygen kills. Carbon dioxide in solid form is dry ice, which is used in the movies to create a foggy scene. The actors can breathe the evaporating dry ice without ill affects. The evaporating CO₂ is odorless and colorless. The foggy appearance is created by water vapor that is condensed from the air by the evaporating dry ice. To evaporate, the dry ice must absorb heat from the air which is cooled. As the air cools, the water vapor in the air condenses into tiny water droplets. So we see water vapor (fog) and not the CO₂.

If a person were in an enclosed room with enough evaporating dry ice, one could die. Since carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it could displace oxygen to the point that there is not enough oxygen to sustain life. This web site shows the effects on a person as the concentration of oxygen drops from the normal 20.9% to zero and the carbon dioxide concentration increases from the current normal 0.038% upward.

The chart shows a slight, but unnoticeable increase in the breathing rate at 1% concentration of CO₂. To arrive at that concentration in the atmosphere, the amount of CO₂ would have to increase more than 26 times.

A significant increase of carbon dioxide concentration has this effect on humans, but some plants grow very well in an environment of concentrated CO₂.

Do not confuse CO₂ with CO (carbon monoxide), which is a poison.

Clinton says Global Warming is Real

"Everybody knows that global warming is real," Bill Clinton said today. And he identified the cause of that global warming when he said, ". . . we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.'"

Read the whole article....

This is pathetic advice coming from an ex-president. He is gullible enough to swallow global warming and that it is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Or if he doesn’t believe it, he is using it to achieve his goals for all of us. Apparently our economy, which the liberals are trying to make into a near recession, is not slow enough for Bubba. The economy must be slowed to save Mother Earth.

This is lousy advice from the Bill part of the team when the Hill part of the team will undoubtedly vote for the ridiculous stimulus package that is designed to stoke up the economy. This pair of drivers will get the whole country in trouble. Hill has her foot on the accelerator while Bill is stomping on the brake. The revved engine sounds like the car is moving, but it’s sitting at a stop sign—one more thing on which they disagree.

Prophet Al

Make a note on your calendar for January 24, 2013 to see if the Goracle’s prediction turns out to be accurate. Gore announced: "Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than ..." imagined. "There are now forecasts that the North Pole ice caps may disappear entirely during summer months within five years," he peeped and muttered.

Any hype will do nowadays. The more grandiose it is, the better. And to think, Gore, the soothsayer, laughs at the good old fashioned doomsday prophets. My only concern: Where will Santa live in the summer?

Carbon dioxide: Part 7

Caution
Now that we have established some of the basic facts regarding CO₂, we should pause to ask a few questions. Do we know all there is to know about CO₂? Are we certain what is causing the increase in carbon dioxide concentration? Do we really know what an increase or decrease in carbon dioxide does to the climate?

It was not until the 1600s that it was shown that air is a mixture of gases. Jan Baptist van Helmont identified the compound we know as carbon dioxide. For the first time, CO₂ was isolated by Joseph Black in 1757.

• Oxygen was discovered in 1771.
• Nitrogen was discovered in 1772.
• Hydrogen was discovered in 1776.
• Helium was discovered in 1868.
• Argon was discovered in 1894.
• Neon, Krypton and Xenon were discovered in 1898.

The length of time that we have known the composition of the air is very short compared to human existence. Prior to the 1950s, testing equipment was not available to make the precise measurements recorded in the Mauna Loa Observatory chart. Repeatable, accurate measurement of the components of air is absolutely essential to a good comprehension of our atmosphere. For the first time in history, in our own lifetime, we are now able to collect accurate data regarding the air we breathe and attempt to interpret it. Many of us were born before this testing equipment was invented.

The data represented in the Mauna Loa chart is what it is. There is not any reason to disbelieve it. However, we may still be in grade school with respect to understanding the data. Joseph Black never knew what he had started. Even though we can accurately measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we still do not understand adequately how CO₂ affects the climate and vice versa. We must be cautious about dogmatizing, which is precisely what Al Gore is doing with great gusto and pomp.

Enormous effort has been expended to study the cause and effect of various foods and compounds on human health. It was concluded eggs were bad for us. Then they were OK. Coffee–bad, no good. Vitamin E–a cure-all, no not true. Anti-oxidants are great, well not as successful as we thought. It has gotten to the point where we expect new studies to negate former studies on a regular basis. If we can’t get the cause and effect of substances in the human body correct, how will we ever be confident we understand the complexities of the cause and effect of carbon dioxide in a whole world? It is quite arrogant to be dogmatic, for the scientific world is littered with rejected theories.

A few decades from now, the next generations may very well laugh at the naivete of the Goracle. For all we know, he might be rejected as a member of the Flat Earth Society. It is easy to be a know-it-all. The truly educated person must admit that extensive study always yields the proper conclusion that the more I learn, the more I discover I do not know.

Carbon dioxide: Part 6

From the last post on this subject, we learned that out of the analogous 3,600 inch long football field, carbon dioxide covers 1 1/8 inch of the stretch. It’s 0.0314% of the total length of the football field or the volume of air. That’s a very small amount.

So why is Al Gore panic struck over this small amount of CO₂? It is because this small amount has increased. Check out this chart. This chart is a record of the increase of CO₂ from 314 parts per million in 1958 (0.0314%) to 384 ppm presently (0.0384%).

In the last 50 years, the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere has increased by 70 ppm, which is a 22.3% increase. Such an increase is significant number wise, so it is worth investigating. If the trend continues, the Goracle will panic even more because Gaia already has a fever!

It is important to note that the location where the air test is done is significant. Any air sample in a city will yield higher concentrations of CO₂ than in the chart. An air sample from Gary, Indiana will have much more CO₂ than in Big Sky Country. Winter air has more carbon dioxide than summer air because of dormant vegetation. A sample of a person’s breath also has more than the surrounding air because exhaled air has about 4% CO₂, or 40,000 ppm, which is vastly higher than the average mixture of air (384 ppm).

Higher CO₂ concentration air is mixed by the wind with lower concentration air throughout the world while CO₂ is also being taken out of the air through the several carbon cycles. So it is important to take measurements where there will be a good representative air sample. Atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements are taken at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.

The jagged line in the chart referenced above is significant. The CO₂ concentration increases during the winter in the northern hemisphere and decreases in the summer because the vegetation is consuming it. Meanwhile, the CO₂ concentration is decreasing in the southern hemisphere during the northern winter. Thus the concentration rises and falls annually at opposite times in the two hemispheres. The line drawn through the jagged line is the average between the annual highs and lows.

On our analogous football field, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased from 1 1/8 inch (0.0314% of 3,600 inches) to 1 3/8 inch (0.0384% of 3,600 inches). So the amount of CO₂ in the air is now 1/4 inch more than in 1958. And this increase is supposed to cause global warming? Something sounds fishy.

That is 0.007% (0.0384%-0.0314%) more carbon dioxide in the total air. That is not much, but it is more than the combined volume of the 6 gases remaining before we hit the end zone for a TD (that measly last tenth of an inch).

For every 1,000,000 molecules of air in 1958 there were 314 molecules of CO₂. Now for every 1,000,000 molecules of air there are 384 molecules of CO₂. That is 70 more molecules among the million or 7 more molecules per 100,000. That is not much. Seven pennies among 100,000 pennies are just not worth counting because they are so insignificant in comparison.

So what is all the fuss about? Al Gore is in panic mode over this?!

Comment Interaction

My last post received a comment to which I would like to respond here rather than in the comment section. This blog welcomes comments from and interaction with its readers because that is part of learning and/or teaching. This blog would be just so much breath in the wind if it lacked readers. Commenting readers make it that much better.

Dan asserted, "Your percentages are irrelevant." On the contrary, I will always contend that facts are always relevant. The numbers I posted are facts which have been determined to conform to reality by repeated and repeatable tests. These verifiable numbers were then adopted as standards in 1976 by the US government.

These numbers are relevant because they are the benchmark, the starting point of any serious discussion about the atmosphere and its components. It makes a significant difference if CO₂ is 50% of the earth’s atmosphere or 0.0314%, because there would be a drastically different atmosphere. Human life would not exist. Earth has what it has.

If we do not know or value the correct percentage of CO₂ in the atmosphere, we could not intelligently discuss the issues involved any more than our ancestors could in 1600 prior to the discovery of carbon dioxide. Facts are absolutely essential in life. Knowledge is advantageous.

Please note the commentator made two mutually exclusive statements:

"Nobody claims the air is overwhelmed by CO2 . . . There is no longer any serious dispute that we are well past the point at which CO2 causes damage and we're dumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere every day."

The use of ricin to illustrate the potency of CO₂ is overkill. It is true that the quantity of a compound may be small but very powerful because of its quality. That is true of ricin and is true of CO₂, but on vastly different levels. One is a poison, the other is essential to life. For some evidence, read this, for example.

Dan is correct to say, "The important point is how much CO2 in the atmosphere does it take to cause serious harm to the climate and earth." I had already planned to post more later about the quantity of carbon dioxide and then its quality, so I will not do so here.

To evaluate Dan’s "important point," I am not the least bit interested in politicizing it. Nor am I interested in removing it from the realm of science. I am not desirous of making it a religious issue, adopting a doomsday mentality. Politicians, religionists and the media often do this. Basic facts are left in the dust of the stampede to get on Al Gore’s bandwagon. Don’t ever follow a doomsday prophet who does not walk the talk, but expects you to. Something is seriously wrong with that prophet.

___________________________________________

Update: 01-06-08

Check out the comment below concerning an article today by Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe. Our friend, Anonymous, lifts out a paragraph from Jacoby that says 1998 was the hottest year on record. That record was touted here by NASA.

Jacoby may not be aware that 1998 was removed from first place by NASA as a result of the stellar work of Steve McIntyre. You should read about McIntyre’s work, but briefly, he looked at the data and figured out the data and methods used by NASA were in error. NASA was convinced and published a revised data set which you can find here, which is probably meaningless to most of us, but not to McIntyre.

The year 1934 is once again in first place as the hottest year on record. Facts mattered to McIntyre, as well as the methods utilizing those facts. If it were not for him, NASA may very well still be using skewed data and methods. So a small correction in data and methods makes a large difference.

We should note that NASA was not attempting to trick anyone. NASA simply made errors, which by the way, even scientists make.

Media Trickery: Part 5

Omission of Truth
From the news articles about the tons and tons of CO₂ being spewed into the air, readers can conclude the air must be overwhelmed with carbon dioxide. The news media is not interested in telling their readers the amount of carbon dioxide in the air because that does not serve their purpose.

How much CO₂ is in the atmosphere? The figures below give the percentage of each gas that is found in the earth’s atmosphere. These are United States standards for 1976.

Gas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Volume by percentage
Nitrogen------------------ 78.084%
Oxygen------------------- 20.9476%

Argon---------------------- 0.934%

Carbon dioxide----------- 0.0314%

Neon----------------------- 0.001818%
Helium--------------------- 0.000524%
Methane------------------- 0.0002%
Krypton-------------------- 0.000114%
Hydrogen------------------ 0.00005%
Xenon---------------------- 0.0000087%

A quick glance at these numbers reveals the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere is extremely small. But let’s consider an illustration to understand how small the amount of carbon dioxide in the air actually is. Consider a 100 yard long football field. The game starts with a kick off which is returned 78 yards to the 22 yard line. Those 78 yards represent how much nitrogen is in the atmosphere.

On the next play, the wide receiver catches a 21 yard pass and takes the ball to the 1 yard line. That 21 yard pass represents how much oxygen is in the air. These two gases comprise 99.03% of all the air we breathe.

The next play is a run over right tackle just short of a yard. That 0.9 yard run represents all the argon in the air. The team is now on the 99.9656 yard line, an inch and a quarter away from scoring a touchdown.

Let’s go for it on fourth down ’cuz we’re so close. Another run gets us 1.13 inches, but short of the goal. 1.13 inches of that 1.25 inches we needed represents carbon dioxide.

We didn’t make it into the end zone. We’re 0.1 inch away, a measly tenth of an inch. In that 0.1 inch there are 6 gases left to fit in before we make it into the end zone.

But let’s focus on CO₂. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is represented by 1 1/8 inch on the football field. Oxygen covers 20.9 yards of the field and nitrogen a huge 78 yards. Out of the 3,600 inch long football field, carbon dioxide covers 1 1/8 inch of the stretch. It’s 0.0314% of the total length of the football field. That’s not much you say. Yup, it’s not much, but the media doesn’t want you to know how little CO₂ is in the atmosphere. It just might throw a wet blanket over their religious campaign to require a carbon tax on us.

When articles after articles tell us of all the tons and tons of CO₂ being dumped into the atmosphere, one would think the atmosphere is full of it. It’s not. The amount is just a very small fraction of the total air.

By withholding this information, the media tricks its readers into thinking of the enormous amount of carbon dioxide. It is much easier to write and speak of tons and tons or billions of pounds of CO₂ to make you think big than to take the time to explain how such a small amount of CO₂ can cause global warming. That is much harder to do to convince readers.

Media Trickery: Part 4

Lack of Comparison
When news writers hype, for example, the enormous figure of 580 billion pounds of CO₂, they want to impress us with the unimaginable amount of what they regard as poison being kicked into the atmosphere. While they write extravagantly about the enormity of the amount of carbon dioxide that is vented into the air as in the above example, they make sure they do not write about the enormity of the whole atmosphere of the earth.

Think about the size of the atmosphere that surrounds the earth. A thirty-one mile deep layer, that contains 99% of all existing air, surrounds the earth’s surface that is a ball 24,900 miles around. That is a lot of air.

What is the weight of that air? It is about 5.5 quadrillion tons. That number is 55 with 14 zeros after it: 5,500,000,000,000,000 tons. So that is 11,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds of air—11 with 18 zeros after it.

The 580,000,000,000 pounds of carbon dioxide mentioned above is just a very small part of the total air. 580 billion pounds of CO₂ divided by 5.5 quadrillion tons of air is a very small number. Carbon dioxide is 0.0000053% of the total air in the atmosphere. Now that is small. For every molecule of CO₂ in this example, there are 18,965,517 molecules of air.

So the above news writer threw around the large number of 580 billion pounds to impress us with enormity, but that amount is just a very small drop in a very large bucket. Now that puts things in perspective.

Well kids, that’s your science lesson for today. Al Gore and his climate change buddies didn’t want you to learn it because the mole hill is truly shown to be a mole hill when compared to the mountain.

Media Trickery: Part 3

Helplessness
The Christmas dinner article considered before states that 51,000 tons of CO₂ are involved in Christmas dinner for 20,333,000 Britons.

51,000 tons is a huge amount of CO₂. We don’t know the size of a pile that would make, but we know it is significant. You begin to feel guilty that your eating creates so much carbon dioxide. But you have to eat, so what can you do? You begin to feel helpless in the face of such enormity. In fact, you really can’t do much to solve this problem. It’s such a gigantic problem government must take care of it. That’s the conclusion the Goracle wants you to draw.

This type of article is designed to give you helplessness and guilt, but assuage that somewhat with the explicit or implicit assurance that specialists and government will solve it for you. It is calculated to soften you up for more government manipulation to pay a carbon tax, pay more tax subsidies for alternative energy and the like.

The article attempts to make the 51,000 tons of CO₂ understandable on a large family level. It calculates a Christmas dinner for eight people creates 44 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. 44 pounds still sounds like a lot.

How much CO₂ per person is this article talking about? That’s what I want to know. 51,000 tons of CO₂ divided by 20 million people is 5.02 pounds of carbon dioxide per person. But that is for the feast of Christmas dinner. You had to eat anyway, so let’s assume you splurged twice as much as for a regular meal. Your carbon footprint is 2.5 pounds extra for Christmas dinner.

Now that puts it on the shelf where I can reach it. Two and a half pounds doesn’t sound all that bad. And it isn’t.

The writer of the article instills guilt by using the figure for eight people rather than the weight per person. And then the writer did not factor in the necessity of eating anyway which cuts your guilt load in half.

Your personal carbon footprint is small. In order for the news media to impress you with enormity, they must aggregate individual carbon footprints for large blocks of people. Then the numbers are impressive. That’s the way they want it. They don’t want you to know your extra carbon footprint for Christmas dinner is just 2.5 pounds! Most people do not feast in this manner continually, but resume a normal daily diet which does not yield an occasion to beat us over the heads with the above trickery.

Don't let Al Gore make you feel guilty. Your carbon footprint will always be a fraction of his.

Media Trickery: Part 2

Lack of comparison

Picking up with the aforementioned billions and billions of pounds of CO₂, I will continue this series. 580 billion pounds of CO₂ is so large it is hard to compare it to anything that is comprehensible. How much is it? Most people have a very difficult time guessing the weight of familiar things like their car, their TV or a sack of groceries. In fact, an extremely high percentage of the populous could not identify the weight of a gallon of water.

The Christmas dinner article (mentioned previously) attempts to make a comparison of the 51,000 tons of CO₂ involved in a British Christmas to auto emissions. It alleges that amount of carbon dioxide equals "A carbon footprint equivalent to 6,000 car journeys around the world . . . "

The problem with this comparison is that it is meaningless to the average individual. The article’s comparison is not meant to make it understandable. It obfuscates true understanding; they just want you to think about a mammoth amount. In an article such as the Christmas dinner, the author knows no one wants to have a thorough math explanation. Just get to the point. Hit ’em with the enormity of their sin against Mother Earth and get on with it!

But let’s consider the math because it will be beneficial. A trip around the world at the equator is 24,900 miles. 6,000 of those trips is 149,400,000 miles. No one understands that distance. We have a difficult enough time imagining 24,900 miles of travel.

I propose a more understandable comparison. The average person drives about 10,000 miles per year. It would take all the people in 15 towns of a thousand people each to drive a combined 149,400,000 miles. That is how large the total carbon footprint is that is created by the British Christmas dinners. That's impressive!

But this still does not tell a Brit his own personal carbon footprint for Christmas dinner. The Christmas dinner under consideration in the article is for one-third of all 61 million Britons. Take the distance of 149,400,000 miles divided by the 20,333,000 Brits and you have the individual’s personal impact.

Ready for the terrible news? Are you ready to feel real guilty and hang your head in shame for what you did to Gaia?

Your individual carbon footprint amounts to a drive of 7.35 miles. Whoop-de-do! What a let down. Who cares? But that’s for your whole Christmas dinner. You were going to eat anyway so let’s be liberal and say you splurged twice as much for Christmas dinner as a regular meal. Your extra carbon footprint amounts to a drive of 3.675 miles.

Whenever your personal carbon footprint is calculated, it is small. It is so insignificant that it is irrelevant. In order for the news media to make a mountain out of a mole hill, they must aggregate individual carbon footprints for large blocks of people. Then the numbers are huge, but not understandable to us. That’s the way they want it. They don’t want you to know your extra carbon footprint for Christmas dinner is equivalent to driving 3.7 miles!

Media Trickery: Part 1

The news media loves hype. A recent article warned us that tons and tons of carbon dioxide were created to provide Christmas dinner for Britons. Or tons of CO₂ were produced flying to the global warming conference in Bali.

The Gaia-loving media has some tricks they use to pull on the heart strings of their readers. Let’s consider a few.

Perspective is everything

Many in the media do not want you to have perspective when you are reading their claptrap. They do not want you to be able to focus clearly on what is presented. So they distort the picture deliberately to keep it out of focus.

Enormity
Here is an example. A writer hypes billions and billions of pounds of CO₂. 580 billion pounds of the stuff is incomprehensible. It’s a big number, but nondescript. That’s the intention. It is intended to overwhelm you. Whatever the size, volume or weight 580 billion pounds of the awful stuff is, it is intended to remain amorphous, mysterious, deadly and your fault.

Bigger numbers
In the above article, notice the writer hyped 580 billion pounds of the poison. Why talk about pounds? That is deliberately designed because it sounds worse than 290 million tons.

They love to use bigger numbers to make it sound better (or worse, depending on the situation). They figure we are like the little kid who will choose the ten pennies over the dime. The number, not value, is in the little one’s inexperienced mind. The bigger the number, the better (or worse) it is. 580 billion is more than 290 million, but when we know that 2,000 pounds are in a ton, then we are dealing with the same weight. Yet the larger number sounds worse. Most Americans are so mathematically challenged they are like the little kid.

Remember your math teacher said it would be useful! It is. Don’t be fooled by the media’s use of numbers.

The media loves to raise awareness about climate change. It's time we raise awareness of their tricky use of numbers.