Extra! Extra! No Link Found Between Carbon Dioxide and Today's Weather

Ok. Let's end this carbon dioxide (CO2) link to climate change right now so that we may move on to far more important things (nearly anything would qualify). The main idea here is to sever the connection between "global warming," "climate change," or "whatever you want to call it" and the current weather we experience...and in doing so, to dissolve any direct relationship of CO2 levels to that of the current state of the weather, or the climate for that matter.

Let us first look at the definition of what climate is defined as. A good compilation of a variety of climate characterizations goes something like this: The long term average of the weather for a particular region and time period. "Long term" in this case is somewhat subjective, however is usually classified as at least a thirty year length of time (which researcher decided on this, I have no idea since thirty years is often only enough time to capture one particular trend in the data). The important point here is that the climate is not the same as weather, but rather, it is the average pattern of weather for a particular region. Weather, on the other hand, describes the short-term state and/or changes of the atmosphere. Both climate and weather, however, are described by many of the same elements including: precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind speed, and phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail-storms, as well as others. I don't see CO2 anywhere on this list (and it is not a weather phenomenon). No, CO2 is a hidden measured quantity that is used as a proxy for determining the greenhouse effect strength and the subsequent temperature increase.

Interestingly, temperature is often treated as the (only) key element in this list which apparently controls everything else. And I do mean everything...not just the other weather elements, but everything from global economics and politics to religion. However, as I write this, the forecast high temperature for today was 88 to 90 as late as this morning and the temperature now at 1 PM in the afternoon is only 77 degrees with and overcast sky (due to precipitation last night and the passing of an upper level disturbance). The chances of making even into the mid 80s is pretty remote at this point, and will likely top out in the lower 80s if lucky. So here we have a very short term forecast of the most important weather/climate element there is used for determining of not only the extent of global warming, but also the fate of all human life on earth, and it looks as if it will be off by nearly 10%...and that's just a forecast of less than 12 hours! Yes, this is an isolated case, however appropriate the timing, but it is not unusual. The weather service office that issued this forecast high will have some explaining to do (as it will fall out of the +/- 5 degrees used as a hedge factor and also for verification purposes), but that's about it. Most people who live in the region will be pleasantly surprised. Of course, the high temperature for any particular day can also be under forecast, which would have the opposite effect and probably aggravate a good many people (including the utility companies which will pay good money for good temperature forecasts...as they often plan well ahead as to the daily need of electricity, etc. at a given location depending on what the high and low temperature forecasts are). So, now there is a tie to the economics of that given area...and possibly to the judicial branch if too much money was lost by the utility (or the accuracy of the forecast lay outside of the "guarantee" written in the contract). Point here...I (you) could "feel" the difference from what the forecast was saying...it's the weather and it's significant...but it is not the climate! This one relatively significant weather day (short term) only adds into a relatively insignificant portion of the regions climate (long term). And this is just a weather forecast...what happens when you extrapolate this kind of thinking out to 30 years or more to determine the change(s) to the climate? Why the error bias in the observed measured (then averaged) data alone would more than cover up the supposed increase (or decrease) in the temperature (or, any other sensible weather element for that matter). And you are going to tell me that the anthropogenic increase in CO2 over the last hundred or so years has absolutely caused the average global temperature to rise one half of one degree Celsius (and that's at the high end - it's more likely to be closer to one tenth of one degree Celsius. See David Archibald's paper, "The Past and Future of Climate", http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf
for further details) ...and that it is to blame for hurricane Katrina?

At any one point on the surface of the earth, would I (you) be able to actually "feel" a global average temperature rise of 0.5 degrees Celsius? And again, that's at the high end of the scale...and over a period of one hundred years? Answer - No. The truth is, anthropogenic global warming is still a hypothesis and in its infancy...and most importantly, is not the global physical, political, economical, or religious scourge that it has been made out to be.

Air masses and air mass differences (boundaries, both in the horizontal as well as the vertical) make the weather. The interaction of these air masses with each other occurs over relatively short periods of time over relatively small spatial scales (compared to 30 or more years and the entire surface of the Earth). However, the variances in the observed/measured weather elements across these boundaries can be many orders of magnitudes different than the so-called "global averaged" weather element...regardless of what it is. It is these differences that we actually "feel" on a daily basis because we have something to compare it to...yesterday. When we talk about the weather, or what makes up the weather, we are talking about those air masses that I previously mentioned...and whether they are warm, cold, wet or dry primarily. We don't talk about the carbon dioxide content of the air mass ahead of or behind the front. That would be ludicrous. However, you would think that from the way the subject of global warming is treated and what it uses as its scapegoat (CO2). CO2 does not drive the weather...period! And since the weather makes up the climate...well, you see where I am headed.
Now, I haven't been completely fair up to this point as CO2 content in the atmosphere does have some effect, albeit miniscule, in the greenhouse equation over the long term...however, the effect of CO2 on the temperature of the atmosphere actually diminishes as the concentration increases! One of the primary indicators for an increase in the global average temperature would be an associated increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere (warm air can hold more than cold(er) air). Water vapor also happens to be THE most significant primary greenhouse gas, so a considerable average increase in water vapor would actually mean something. Alas, this increase has not been found. Where is it...and why doesn't the global warming community talk about this? They are too busy trying to use significant short term weather events to scare the hell out of us in order to get what they want...at the expense of our faith in science and the money in our wallets (To read more concerning faith in politics vs. science, see The Political Pseudoscience of Global Warming, by J. Braun: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/30302/the_political_pseudoscience_of_global.html ). One more additional piece to the climate equation that you should know is that the global warming models that predict this doom and gloom don't make allowances for compensating mechanisms into their equations - such as wind shear (useful in predicting the possibility of an increase or decrease in tropical storms), or more importantly precipitation which has vast effects on atmospheric temperatures overall.

As we have seen, there are only vague links at best between climate change or global warming and increased CO2 levels. There is NO direct link of CO2 concentration and the weather (you could blast your CO2 fire extinguisher away at the sky and NOTHING will happen...except that you might make your trees happy)...and there is only a weak link to the long term climate, so take comfort and breath normally. Sell your Euro CO2 stock futures and invest in something real...not made up. Stop supporting the states of New York, California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin as well as the cities of Washington D.C. and New York and the groups Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club in their misspent roles in bringing a massive lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for "not regulating carbon dioxide pollution as a contributor to global warming." Can you actually tell me that the enormous amount of money that is being spent on just this one crusade is worth it? You could perhaps save some real lives or actually make a significant environmental difference with this kind of money. This is the kind of waste that should really PYO (piss you off). Just who benefits (the answer is definitely, "Not you!")? It's all a fake! A virtual problem in a virtual world...but played with real money. Just as a reminder...there is no direct link of atmospheric CO2 concentration and the weather...and only a feeble indirect one to the climate.

Finally, as we may be going through some kind of warming phase in our climate history...so what! What's the downside of global warming, if any...or is it (always) all bad news? Could the good points possibly out weigh the bad points? Which would be worse in the long run...global warming or global cooling? The most interesting part in answering these questions is that in most of the cases that there would be a net benefit of a warming atmosphere (including health and associated economics, convenience, quality of life, food/plant growth, etc.), and a large downside if (when) we cool off. Warmth gives life, cold takes it away. Warming, natural or man made, would affect the higher latitudes more than the lower, affect the colder months more than the warm ones (depends on which hemisphere you live in), and influence the daily low temperature more that the high. Humans could take advantage of this situation and be able to grow more food over a larger area of the earth and feed more of the people easier. Why when you mention some small increase in the global average temperature all hell should break loose and the weather will take a turn for the worse is beyond me. The real truth is that no change or little change is boring...it is not headline material and not a money maker. That's why the daily weather is used, erroneously, to describe hypothetical global warming...because it's now, it's real, and it can be big news and affect a lot of people.