Global Average Temperature Debate – Much Ado About Nothing

The global warming priests have presented no evidence that the process they claim causes “global warming” exists.   They just illogically claim that any increase in what they call the “global average temperature”  can only result from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Paul  Homewood has recently reported on questionable manipulation of temperature data used to calculate this global average temperature.   Anthony Watts has documented problems with temperature data for several years on his blog.

The controversy over the accuracy of the data can be viewed as much ado about nothing because the so-called global average temperature  “is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.”

“It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth”, Bjarne Andresen says,  an expert of thermodynamics. “A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate”.

“While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average.”

Even if the concept of a global average temperature was meaningful, the method of determining it is too primitive to produce a valid average.  Instead of using hourly temperatures, they just use the high and low temperature which may not be representative of temperatures during the day.   For example, the arrival of a strong  cold front late in the day can make the low temperature significantly lower than temperatures during the rest of the day.

Even social scientists have moved away from using broad averages because such averages cover up too much information.   For example, social scientists look at the number of people in various age groups instead of the average age.   The number of homes with children or with one adult or two adults is used rather than the average household size which always ends up with a fraction of a person.   In the last presidential election people talked about the 3% in one income group and the percentage that didn’t pay any income tax instead of the per capita income.

A third problem with the climate shaman’s obsession with temperatures is that although a temperature decrease would disprove the claim of global warming, a temperature increase would not prove that CO2 was responsible.   The global warming preachers routinely commit the logical fallacy   “post hoc ergo proper hoc.    I learned that phrase in high school English class. The global warming fanatics either didn’t learn about the fallacy or don’t understand that the fact that A follows B doesn’t necessarily mean A causes B.

With their simple minded view of the situation they blithely assume that any temperature increase could only be a result of an increase in CO2.   They seemingly cannot understand that they must provide evidence that an increase in CO2 would cause any temperature increase.  They ignore the fact that other factors are known to be able to increase air temperature.

The teracalories of heat human activity generates each day would be the most likely cause of any temperature increase that wasn’t caused by an increase in the sun’s output.    Each teracalorie is capable of  raising the temperature of a trillion grams of water by 1 Celsius.   A teracalorie would raise the temperature of about 4-5 trillion grams of air 1 C.

Except in desert and tropical areas, most of the time the human body has a higher temperature than the air.   Automobile engines and other human technology generate sufficient heat to boil water.   Many types of air conditioning systems remove heat from the interior of buildings and transfer it outside where it heats the outside air.   Some of the heat used to warm the interiors of buildings in cold weather leaks out and heats the outside air.


The Mystery of Light Explained

I have been considering rewriting the following essay on the nature of  light, but have decided instead to add a postscript at the front of the article so readers don’t have to read the entire essay to discover the mystery.

Physicists have long debated whether light IS a wave or IS  particle.  Those who believe there are light waves have had trouble explaining what is “waving”.  The answer that electrons are waving should have been obvious, but wasn’t considered because of a false perception of the space between planets and stars.  We think of space as a vacuum, but it is actually only a relative vacuum.  Space contains dust from events such as exploding stars and collisions of asteroids with each other and with planets;  light mass gases  like helium, hydrogen and water vapor; and even some free electrons.

Electrons transfer electrical energy in the form of electricity so it wouldn’t be surprising if they transferred electrical energy in the form of electro-magnetic radiation.  Electron waves would explain why light causes heating in some materials, particularly solids, and not in other matter particularly gases and some liquids.  The passage of radiation through a substance would cause heating in the same basic way as the passage of electricity. Substances heat up based on their resistance to the passage of the energy.    Electrons in atoms in a gas or liquid state may be freer to pass along radiant energy than electrons that are part of a rigid matrix in a solid.  The receipt of radiant energy by electrons in a solid may cause the atoms they are a part of to move [i.e., become hotter].

The mystery of light helped cause an interest in studying physics a long time ago.   I have retained that interest, but am no longer ambitious enough to try to prove a theory that light involves electron waves.  I’ll leave that task up to those who are younger and have more energy to pursue the subject.

19th Century beliefs about the nature of light continue to hamper a study of light.

Early 19th Century physics was characterized by  support for various theories that were subsequently disproved such as the theory that atoms were the smallest particles of matter and  an atom of  one element could not be converted to  another element.  J.J. Thomson  disproved the first theory with his discovery of the electron  in 1897.  Physicists also  discovered that the processes of nuclear fission and nuclear fusion could change an atom of one element to an atom of another element.

Unfortunately the 19th Century debate suggesting that light must BE a particle or BE a wave survives.  The confusion comes in part from the fact that in some situations light acts like a particle  and in other situations acts like a wave.

The standing joke when I studied light in the 60’s was about the university that taught  that light was a wave on Monday, Wednesday and Friday; and taught that light was a particle on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.  My professor took a different approach.  He taught light as a wave for half a semester and light as a particle the other half.

This  false  dichotomy continues to hamper an understanding of light (i.e., electromagnetic radiation).    Some physicists have tried to get around the dichotomy  by suggesting that light consists of particles that may actually  be something called wavicles.

This idea implies a misunderstanding of what a wave is.  A wave involves  particles  forming temporary sets which momentarily function in unison.    Air molecules normally move around like ping pong balls in a bingo machine.  However, when a sound wave passes through  air the separate molecules temporarily  function as if they were entangled with each other as they pass along the sound energy to adjacent air molecules.  Once the wave has passed the air molecules return  to  moving  independently.

Physicists ignore the fact that if light  is a form of energy it cannot be a particle or be a wave although particles or waves might transfer it from one location to another like particles and waves transfer kinetic energy from one location to another.  Particles are ultimately matter, not energy.  Waves involve the movement of matter.  Particles and waves  transfer energy, but they are not energy.

If I throw a baseball the kinetic energy  produced by the movement of my arm is transferred to the baseball which then transfers that kinetic energy to whatever it hits, such as a bat, a glove or perhaps a window.  An underwater earthquake may transfer its kinetic energy to a tsunami wave which may then transfer that energy to objects on  a shore a thousand miles away.

Waves transfer kinetic energy much more effectively than particles.  The energy used to move a guitar string wouldn’t propel a particle very far.  However, that movement produces a wave which can  travel a hundred feet or more and reach anyone in an auditorium.  Such kinetic energy waves are commonly called “sound waves” because they produce a physical sensation in the human ear which the brain interprets as  sound.

Waves can transfer complex sounds from many instruments to the human ear in a manner that allows all the sounds to be heard even though they come from different locations.  Light waves would  be more likely to be able to transfer  light in a variety of colors and intensities  in a way that allows the eye to recognize different colors than would individual particles emitted from various  locations.

In a classic experiment in quantum physics an individual photon carrying light energy approaching two different gates will go through one gate on some occasions and the second gate on other occasions.  If light from Mars were leave the surface as individual photons they would quickly become jumbled together so no details could be seen from Earth.    .

Although there are situations in which the transfer of light can be explained as involving particles (photons),  many situations such as mirror reflections can only be explained as involving waves.  If particles produced a mirror image, objects  that aren’t directly in front of the mirror would be reflected as being on the opposite side of the room because the particles would hit the opposite side of the mirror.  Some reflective surfaces can produce the effect of light going around a corner.

One of the problems about light as a wave is the need for something to be “waving” as  Professor Michael Fowler  points out in some of his lectures.

Some type of aether has long been suggested as what might be waving.  However, an aether would only be necessary to transfer light waves through space.  Physicists have long ignored the possibility  that electrons in atoms could transfer light waves just as easily as  they transfer electricity.

The transfer of light waves by electrons would explain why the passage of light through some substances causes heating but not other substances.    The process would be similar to the process by which the passage of electricity causes heating.

Resistance to the passage of electricity causes heating.  Resistance to the passage of electromagnetic radiation could function in the same way.

A possible explanation for the fact that radiation passes through the atmosphere with minimal heating would be that electrons in gas molecules could pass along a wave without resistance because the molecules move independently.  Electrons in solids might have less ability to pass along radiation without resistance because the atoms they are part of are held in place in a matrix.

Air molecules can transfer sound waves even though they normally move in a highly disorganized fashion because they can temporarily act as if they were all connected together and acting in unison to transfer complex sounds.  Why couldn’t electrons, which can transfer energy through a wire in a highly organized manner, temporarily organize to transfer electromagnetic waves.

Water waves may cause small boats to begin moving back and forth because all of the boat must move at the same time rather than having adjacent molecules  move independently as water molecules do.    Moving electromagnetic  waves through a solid  might require  entire groups of atoms to move in order for the electrons  to transfer  the energy as a wave just like an entire boat must move for the kinetic energy in water waves to be transfered to the other side of the boat.  The motion of atoms is what physicists define as heat.

The issue of how a light  wave  could move through space remains.  Some type of “aether” would be  the most likely explanation.

Physicists claim there must be some type of matter they cannot detect because the matter they can detect seems insufficient to be all the matter of the universe.  They usually describe this matter as being “dark”, but transparent matter would be even harder to detect than matter that was dark.

Dark objects don’t  emit or reflect light, but they  can block light if they pass between the source of the light and the observer.  Light can pass through  transparent matter without  being easily detected.

Transparent matter can be very difficult to detect.  In some cases it may be detectable because some frequencies of light don’t pass through, or because the light that passes through isn’t as bright.

Astronomers have noticed that light coming from distant galaxies seems to have been shifted toward the red end of the light spectrum.  The greater the distance from earth the greater the red shift.  Some have suggested that this red shift indicates the relative velocities of earth and the distant galaxies.  However, the shift could also be due to passage through transparent matter such as what has traditionally been called an aether.

A problem with the theory that the shift indicates movement away from earth is that everything seems to be moving away from earth, but the Hubble telescope images indicate that some distant galaxies are moving toward each other, including the movement of our galaxy toward the Andromeda galaxy.  Thus it would be more likely that some distant galaxies would show movement toward earth with a shift toward the blue end of the spectrum instead of a uniform red shift.  Also the relative motion would vary among galaxies rather than being uniform based on the distance from earth.

The false dichotomy that light must BE a wave or BE a particle continues to hamper  an understanding of light in the 21st Century.  If light is a form of energy it cannot be a particle or a wave because both involve matter.  However, both particles and waves could transfer light energy from location to another just like particles and waves transfer kinetic energy from one location to another.

Original article© Copyright 2011 Reason McLucus (reasonmclucus at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.


Enron’s Global Warming Scam Survived It’s Bankruptcy

The following a copy of an earlier blog post. I’ve changed the link to the Lawrence Solomon article because it is now at another site, but haven’t checked the other links.

Remember Enron, the corrupt firm whose failure should have disproved the myth “too big to fail”, but didn’t?  At the time it was the seventh largest corporation.  It’s bankruptcy was the largest in history  until Lehman Brothers failed.  Incidentally, Lehman Brothers was also involved  in carbon trading.

Enron owed part of its early success to emissions trading.       Basically emissions trading was established as a way for some companies to profit from pollution while allowing some companies to continue to produce the chemicals that can cause acid rain.

Lawrence Solomon, executive director of  Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute, has reported that Enron played a major role in pushing  the global warming scam, including establishing the Kyoto Protocals. [Solomon’s article in the National Post is apparently no longer posted on the web.]

Enron had already profited from trading sulfur dioxide credits and saw the  potential for even greater profits from trading what would become known as “carbon credits“.

The article is the first in a series of articles about those who seek to profit from what Weather  Channel founder John Coleman calls “the greatest scam in history.”

Solomon states,  ” The climate-change industry — the scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and, most importantly, the multinationals that work behind the scenes to cash in on the riches at stake — has emerged as the world’s largest industry. Virtually every resident in the developed world feels the bite of this industry…”  which increases the costs of various goods and services.

Enron was an early player  beginning early in the  administration of Bill Clinton to push for a carbon dioxide trading system.   Enron also sought support from environmental groups.
“Between 1994 and 1996, the Enron Foundation donated $1-million to the Nature Conservancy and its Climate Change Project, a leading force for global warming reform, while [Chairman Kenneth] Lay and other individuals associated with Enron donated $1.5-million to environmental groups seeking international controls on carbon dioxide.”

According to Solomon, “Political contributions and Enron-funded analyses flowed freely, all geared to demonstrating a looming global catastrophe if carbon dioxide emissions weren’t curbed. An Enron-funded study that dismissed the notion that calamity could come of global warming, meanwhile, was quietly buried.”

Enron advised  the Clinton administration what to do at the Kyoto Japan Conference in 1997.

To improve its chances for success Enron hired former Environmental Protection Agency regulator John Palmisano to become the company’s lead lobbyist as senior director for Environmental Policy and Compliance.  Palismano wrote a memo describing the historic corporate achievement that was Kyoto.

“If implemented this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States,” Polisano began. “The potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous.”

The memo, entitled “Implications of the Climate Change Agreement in Kyoto & What Transpired,” summarized the achievements that Enron had accomplished. “I do not think it is possible to overestimate the importance of this year in shaping every aspect of this agreement,” he wrote.  He cited  three issues of specific importance to Enron in the climate-change debate:  the rules governing emissions trading, the rules governing transfers of emission reduction rights between countries, and the rules governing a gargantuan clean energy fund.

Polisano’s memo expressed satisfaction bordering on amazement at Enron’s successes. The rules governing transfers of emission rights “is exactly what I have been lobbying for and it seems like we won. The clean development fund will be a mechanism for funding renewable projects. Again we won …. The endorsement of emissions trading was another victory for us.”

“Enron now has excellent credentials with many ‘green’ interests including Greenpeace, WWF [World Wildlife Fund], NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council], German Watch, the U.S. Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI [World Resources Institute] and Worldwatch. This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monetized),” Polisano explained.

Those who believe in Global Warming like to claim that they are opposed by corporate interests in the form of the energy companies.  They neglect to mention that the battle isn’t against corporations, it is between different groups of corporations.  The energy companies are attempting to continue providing energy to consumers.  Companies on the other side are merely attempting to create a financial opportunity for themselves as financial parasites who provide nothing to anyone and get rich in return.

Democrats often criticize Republicans for being too close to business.  Democrats are just as close to business. They simply favor different businesses.

As  William O’Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, puts it:  “The American people have had enough of convoluted, indecipherable financial schemes and the opportunists who exploit them. The public is understandably angry about Wall Street’s exploitation of Main Street, and yet our political leaders are setting the stage for another complex trading market, ripe for corruption. The future Enrons and Bernie Madoffs of the world would like nothing better than to see the U.S. impose a new market for carbon emission trading.”


I have published numerous posts on the controversy over alleged global warming over the last few years. I plan to consolidate them here with some new posts so they are easier to find.

There is no scientific basis for the claim that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can control air temperature. The belief that greenhouses and the atmosphere trap radiation to raise temperature was disproved a century ago by R.W. Wood.

Unfortunately some religious fanatics masquerading as scientists continue to push the belief that humans, rather than factors beyond human control, determine earth’s climate. Their attempts to silence anyone who opposes their belief is the biggest threat to empirical science since the attacks on Copernicus and Galileo.