Malcom Shykles: The global warming hoax

Posted: March 25, 2014 by tallbloke in alarmism, Big Brother, Carbon cycle, climate, Politics, propaganda, Robber Barons

goreballsReposted from Ukipdaily.com. The content about Enron and Gore is what caught my eye. The final paragraph is a bit of a mashup. Perhaps we could help Malcom out with a similar length statement which is a bit more rigorous.

There were three key individuals central to the advance of the Global Warming Hoax; Ken Lay of the Enron Corporation, Al Gore Vice President of the USA and his former University lecturer Professor Roger Revelle.

A former under-secretary general of the United Nations, Maurice Strong also aided the promotion of their efforts.

In 1957, Revelle suggested that the Earth’s oceans would absorb excess carbon dioxide generated by humanity at a much slower rate than previously predicted by geoscientists, thereby suggesting that human gas emissions might create a ‘greenhouse effect’ that would cause global warming over time.

Al Gore graduated from Harvard in 1969 and had been particularly impressed by Revelle’s class. From then on Al Gore was and still is, convinced of manmade global warming.

 

By 1991 Revelle had changed his mind and co-authored an article ‘What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap’ which stated: ‘We can sum up our conclusions in a simple message: The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.’  At this point Al Gore, who is still convinced of the Greenhouse effect, pronounced Roger Revelle as senile.

In the 1980s, Lay was an energy company executive at Houston Natural Gas.  This company was bought out and its name changed to Enron in 1985.  The Enron Corporation grew to become a commodities trading company in more than 30 products which included gas fired power stations and even broadband.  It was willing to exploit any commodity for maximum profit.  Before its bankruptcy on December 2, 2001 some 20,000 staff were employed.

California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW yet the demand was only 28GW.  A supply gap was purposely created by Enron in order to obtain artificial shortages.  In order to increase the price, power plants were taken offline for maintenance in days of peak demand.  Traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20 times the normal value.  These manipulations brought about rolling blackouts which adversely affected many businesses and an 800% increase in the price of electricity by the December of 2000.  Enron had cost California between $40 and $45 billion.

The US 1990 Clean Air Act had forced controls on how much pollution a fossil fuel plant could emit.  Enron had then helped to create a market for the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program.  As that market proved to be very profitable, the company next turned to creating a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide, the forerunner of today’s carbon trading scam.  The only problem was that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Under the Clinton administration in 1993, Ken Lay, the CEO of Enron, and Vice President Al Gore met in order to create an international regulatory system that would manage carbon dioxide.  At that time Al Gore claimed he had ‘not known that Ken Lay was a crook’.

In addition, Enron began to cultivate new friends in the environmental community.  From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation gave nearly $1 million to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promoted global warming theories.  Another $1.5 million was donated to other groups advocating international controls to curb global warming, including Greenpeace.

In 1997, Enron was investing in the manufacture of of wind turbines and set about promoting an international treaty to impose cuts on CO2 emissions and to allow Carbon Credit trading. Such an agreement would produce a gigantic windfall for Enron because it would boost the usage of natural gas at the expense of coal and would help Enron’s growing commodity trading and wind turbine business.

In 2006 Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Premiered at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and opened in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, 2006.  The documentary was a critical and box-office success, winning Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song.  The film grossed $24 million in the U.S. and $26 million in the foreign box office, becoming the 9th highest grossing documentary film to date in the United States.

When George W. Bush ran for president, Lay served as host at big fund-raisers and contributed plenty of his own money to the effort.  Britain’s main parties were the recipients of Enron’s generosity.  Between 1997 and 2000, the Labour Party accepted £38,000 from Enron in sponsorship money for its events, whilst the Conservative Party received approximately £25,000.

This skulduggery has led to the closure of our cheaper coal fired powered stations, the wind turbine scandal and expensive fuel bills, and still continues.

There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas because no gas can store energy (heat).  Solids and liquids can store heat but not gases unless they are enclosed.  The belief that CO2 raises the temperature of a gas system is based on the assumption of a closed system in which energy cannot escape.  The earth is an open system and hence it cannot accumulate heat in its atmosphere.  Due to convection currents warmed gases rise, and (if we ignore the adiabatic lapse rate because expanding gases cool anyway) any excess heat is radiated away through the atmosphere and into space, which is certainly apparent on cloudless nights.  Greenhouse gas theory seems to be the domain of mathematically dominated science, rather than empirical science.

Comments
  1. p.g.sharrow says:

    Al Gore claimed he had ‘not known that Ken Lay was a crook’.

    But Ken Lay knew Al Gore was a crook and not very smart. Ken Lay got caught, Enron closed, bankrupt to great loses to investors, as well as the public. Al Gore is still in business, immune to prosecution or liability because he is a politician.

    People that are not very smart can only be educated once. If you fill their minds with crap they will not accept new corrected information, Read Only Memory, no rewrite ability. It does make it easy for them to be strong in their opinions, as they can not process other view points. pg

  2. tallbloke says:

    PG: Your wisdom is a shining light on the mountainside my friend.

  3. Robert JM says:

    Energy storage has nothing to do with the ability of a gas to act as an insulator (and ignores latent heat storage to boot!)
    When you place GHG between a heat source (earth) and its sink (space) they act as an insulator for energy transmission.
    At the same time the presence of a GHG in a gas will assist the gas to cool.
    Its simple quantum physics!

    In addition GHGs effects and warming due to an atmospheric pressure gradient are not mutually exclusive. (let it be noted I think CO2 is near saturated and feedbacks are of course negative)

    The evidence for the greenhouse effect can be seen in the rapid cooling of the desert vs the slow cooling of the tropics on clear nights. Due to water of course, not CO2 whose most important (non overlapping) absorption band has a peak at wavelengths corresponding to minus 60C

  4. michael hart says:

    Slightly on topic, I hope: A little bit of chemical perspective on the “Revelle factor”, as commonly related to oceanic pH responses to carbon dioxide:

    As a grad student, during a group meeting, I once listened to a fellow student presenting a very similar set of calculations relating to pH changes and multiple coupled equilibrium constants in an aqueous buffer as carbon dioxide increased (from biochemical processes). It was tedious stuff (to me) in that I had seen such calculations before, but got little pleasure from doing them. I was certainly glad that my research didn’t require me to routinely do such things. If my supervisor had made me, then I guess I would have done so.

    But knowing my fellow student well enough, and sharing an office with her, I think she would have been well pissed-off to learn that if she did the very same calculations in the ‘climate-change science’ arena, instead of chemistry, then she would stand a chance of getting a whole “effect” named after her, and seeing her name in Wikipedia and lots of papers.

    I’m not dissing Roger Revelle or his calculations here. I’m drawing attention to the fact that what passes as self-described ‘climate science’ these days is not necessarily something higher and mightier than what occurs in many other branches of science. In many cases it is not even different, and can be exactly the same. This is something that I suspect is rarely appreciated by the wider world of non-scientists and the general media who think someone not a ‘climate scientist’ cannot be up-to-speed with the subject.

  5. Richard111 says:

    “and (if we ignore the adiabatic lapse rate because expanding gases cool anyway)”

    Nope. It appears to cool because a thermometer measures total molecular collisions, less dense air. NO HEAT IS LOST. It is redistributed. Work was done lifting those tiddly molecules UP. Energy can only be lost to space by . . . . you guessed it – ‘greenhouse gases’. Only those molecules have the ability to radiate. If there were no ‘greenhouse gases’ radiating to space at the TOA us poor beings at the bottom of the lapse rate would be well cooked.

  6. NikFromNYC says:

    Without a reference to the scientific literature for that last extreme view paragraph, the whole essay comes off as that of a madman. Gas cannot just expand due to heat, I assume because it is indeed held tight by gravity, given that the atmosphere does not just blow away into Space.

  7. tallbloke says:

    Richard 111: There are two ways of measuring heat. Energy per unit volume: i.e. Bulk temperature. And the energy of individual molecules. Woe to those who conflate the two when considering the vertical temperature gradients of the atmosphere.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Nik: For this article, it was the stuff about Enron and Gore that caught my eye, not the rather quaint theoretical rejoinder at the end. I’ll put a warning in the intro.

  9. Richard111 says:

    Rog: Not quite with you there but then I am a total layman. To support my claim I understand total energy out for a black body in space must equal total energy in. If not, this implies energy is being stored in the black body. Cannot find how a gas stores heat. Liquids and solids yes.
    I am trying to expand my understanding from this:

    Click to access natureofgastemperatures.pdf

  10. tallbloke says:

    Richard; You said gas can’t store heat. But it does, just like any other object with mass. But it’s light stuff (at normal pressures) so it doesn’t store much. The top fathom of the ocean has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it.

  11. graphicconception says:

    I was happy until the last paragraph, too. “Happy” is probably not the right word, thinking about it. “Enraged” might be better!

    Interestingly, that last paragraph features here as well: http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-greenhouse-gas/

  12. Richard111 says:

    Thanks for that link graphicconception. Interesting read there Rog. 🙂 I didn’t say a gas CAN’T store heat, just that I don’t understand and that applies to the whole ‘greenhouse effect’.
    Personal observations; I’ve spent many years working in two desert regions, Saudi Arabia and Namibia. I have experienced many times daytime temperatures in excess of 40C decreasing to nearly 0C in about ten hours during the night in periods of clear still air. Not much storage there. During that time I acquired a 3 inch Newtonian and started learning some astronomy. I noticed COLD air falling on me in my night time sessions. I never spoke about it in case I was considered a nutter. But I have recently read this is exactly what happens. Upper air levels can lose heat faster than near surface air. This results in ‘parcels’ of air descending here and there. Having read up the IR performance of ‘greenhouse gasses’ this now makes sense. All in all, a fascinating subject but I am paying a lot of money for my Mediterranean Climate which I am not getting. I want my money back.

  13. Konrad says:

    The final paragraph is indeed a bit of a mash up.

    The political history also needs a bit of a brush up as well, as there is no mention of Margaret Thatcher, the Endangered Atmosphere Conference, Club of Rome, the CFC hoax, Montreal protocol or Obarmaclese and the Joyce Foundation. (It is a very long story.)

    But to the science. There was only one truly correct point there, which was that convective circulation will change speed of radiative gas concentration is altered.

    Some points that could be included in future UKIP material –

    – CO2 is not a “greenhouse” gas, it is a radiative gas that both absorbs and emits IR radiation.
    – Radiative gases do act to warm and cool our atmosphere.
    – However radiative gases are our atmospheres primary cooling mechanism.
    – The cooling effect of radiative gases outweighs the warming effect by over 2:1.
    – Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.
    – IR emitted from radiative gases can slow the cooling of the Earth’s surface, but this effect is only over the land (29%) not the oceans (71%).
    – Radiative gases play a critical role in vertical tropospheric circulation. If their concentration is increased, the speed of non-radiative (convective/evaporative) energy transport away from the surface will also increase.
    – All models based on the foundation claim of a net radiative greenhouse effect on this planet have failed to match reality.

    The take home message –

    The sun heats our oceans.
    The atmosphere cools our oceans.
    Radiative gases cool our atmosphere.

  14. Jack Savage says:

    Can someone ( more technical then me!) please write to Malcolm and set him gently straight? Or even suggest he forget the last para? I am sure he would appreciate it. The historical aspect of this tale is the interesting bit to me.

  15. tallbloke says:

    Jack: Yes, but we should provide a better alternative formulation rather than just tell him to drop it.

  16. Gail Combs says:

    Richard111 says: # March 26, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    …. Personal observations; I’ve spent many years working in two desert regions, Saudi Arabia and Namibia….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The shamsters use the tropics vs deserts to “prove” GHG theory to the lay people but I am not sure that is what is going on.

    Sleepalot @ July 21, 2012 at 4:53 am @ WUWT pointed out the actual effects of the GHG water vapor on the temperature by comparing high vs low humidity. The humid Brazilian rain forest, Barcelos, Brazil, and the dry N. African Desert, Adrar, Algeria.
    wattsupwiththat(DOT)com/2012/07/21/some-thoughts-on-radiative-transfer-and-ghgs/#comment-1038793

    ….monthly min 20C, monthly max 33C, monthly average 26C
    Average humidity 90%

    …..monthly min 9C monthly max 44C, monthly average 30C
    Average humidity around 0%

    The data is from May (2012) which is midway between the vernal equinox and the summer solstice and therefore the sun would be midway between the equator and the Tropic of Cancer (the latitude line at 23.5° North) so the solar insolation at both locations would be roughly equal with a bit more expected in Barcelos, Brazil.

    I took the thought a few steps further.

    The effect of the addition of water vapor (~ 4%) is not to raise the temperature but to even the temperature out. The monthly high is 10C lower and the monthly low is ~ 10C higher when the GHG H2O is added to the atmosphere in this example. The average temperature is about 4C lower in Brazil despite the fact that Algeria is further north above the tropic of Cancer. Some of the difference is from the effect of clouds/albedo but the dramatic effect on the temperature extremes is also from the humidity.

    I took a rough look at the data from Brazil. Twelve days were sunny. I had to toss the data for two days because it was bogus. The average humidity was 80% for those ten days. The high was 32 with a range of 1.7C and the low was 22.7C with a range of 2.8C. Given the small range in values over the month the data is probably a pretty good estimate for the effects of humidity only. You still get the day-night variation of ~ 10C with a high humidity vs a day-night variation of 35C without and the average temp is STILL going to be lower when the humidity is high and the effect of clouds is removed.
    DATA from: classic(DOT)wunderground.com/history/station/82113/2012/5/22/MonthlyHistory.html

    This data would indicate GHGs have two effects. One is to even out the temperature and the second is to act as a “coolant” at least if the GHG is H2O.

    The latent heat of evaporation could be why the average is 4C lower when in Brazil vs Algeria. As one of the commenters at WUWT mentioned using temperature without humidity to estimate the global heat content is bad physics. Also Barcelos is much near the ocean than Adrar so there may be a ‘Lake effect’ with the large body of water moderating the temperature.
    apollo(DOT)lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter2/lat_heat2.html

    ALTITUDE:
    Barcelos, Brazil elevation ~ 30 meters (100 ft)
    Adrar, Algeria ~ Elevation: 280 metres (920 feet)

    One would expect a drop in temperature of ~ 4C due to altitude for Adrar, Algeria so the difference between locations, taking into account altitude is ~ 8C higher in Adrar which is further north but with much lower humidity. – (wwwDOT)engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html

    ….
    RACookPE1978 @ February 18, 2014 at 8:11 pm @ WUWT –

    CRISES IN CLIMATOLOGY

    was kind enough to

    ….duplicate below a “spreadsheet copy” of a spreadsheet I have for all latitudes for the actual radiation on to a horizontal surface at 12:00 on that “average” 342 watts/meter^2 day. Remember, top-of-atmosphere radiation is going to vary over the year from 1410 (high, on January 3) to the 1320 (the “low” value on July 3 each year). This is for a day in mid-September, near that “average” value on the equinox at time of minimum Arctic sea ice extents….

    So lets add Solar energy into the picture.

    Barcelos – 0.9750° S, “Direct Radiation Horizontal Surface” @ noon for 0S= 1150 watts/meter^2

    Adrar – 27.8667° N, “Direct Radiation Horizontal Surface” @ noon for 30S= 970 watts/meter^2

    Adrar, Algeria for September 2012:
    monthly min 24C, monthly max 40C, monthly average 33C
    Average humidity 22% (Humidity increased through the month)
    classic(dot)wunderground.com/history/airport/DAUA/2012/9/29/MonthlyHistory.html

    Barcelos, Brazil for September 2012:
    monthly min 22C, monthly max 33C, monthly average 26C
    Average humidity 81%
    classicDot)wunderground.com/history/station/82113/2012/9/29/MonthlyHistory.html

    There were 11 sunny days in
    Barcelos…………… Adrar
    min 22 °C………… min 24°C
    max 34 °C……………max 40 °C
    Avg 29 °C…………… Avg 33 °C
    humidity 76%……….. 22 %

    So Barcelos, with 180 watts/meter^2 extra solar energy is still ‘cooler’ than Adar by the same 4 °C.

    I wonder just how much of the GHG effect is actually the effect of latent heat of evaporation or sublimation?