Some math about CO2
I love AboveTopSecret. I’m not ashamed to admit it. Some people enjoy soap operas, some people love sex crazed vampires, some people love Monty Python movies. The difference with ATS is occasionally you get a gem of information. This morning was one of those. Running with the sudden debate over the accuracy of the math behind global warming climate change, some guy who calls himself theredneck took it to a level way beyond my comprehension. And, from reading the East Anglia emails, beyond the guys who got Nobel Peace prizes for theirs. Since it is way beyond my comprehension, I’m just going to lift the entire post.
Thanks to buddhasystem, I have decided to finish some calculations I started some time back. I am posting them here. The following will be used:
- Due to character limitations, I will be avoiding the use of exponential expressions. I apologize for any difficulty this may cause; it causes me difficulty as well, but is an inherent weakness in the font systems used on the internet and tends to cause confusion itself when used.
- All values are given in metric units. The abbreviations used are:
- m = meter
- cm = centimeter (0.01m)
- km = kilometer (1000m)
- g = gram
- kg = kilogram (1000g)
- J = Joule
- kJ = kiloJoule (1000J)
- W = Watt
- s = second
- °K = degree Kelvin
Calculations, due to the size of the values involved in planetary mechanics, will be based on the km/kg/kJ units. Other units are used for conversion of physical values.
- The Kelvin temperature scale will be used. Remember that a degree Kelvim is equal to a degree Celsius; the two are interchangeable for purposes of temperature variance.
- All sources will, of course, be linked. This will, however, be done through the use of footnotes at the end and reference numbers, rather than by links embedded throughout the text, in order to keep the calculations themselves as uncluttered as possible.
It has been theorized that the use of anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide is the reason for the recently observed warming trend from ca. 1960-1998. The present level of CO2 in the troposphere is stated by multiple sources as being on the order of 380 ppmv[1] or 0.038% of the atmosphere. This represents an increase, based on the most liberal estimates I have uncovered for pre-industrial levels of 280 ppmv[2], of 100 ppmv or 0.01%. Since this base point is considered to be ’safe and natural’, it would logically follow that any warming would have to be associated with the 0.01% increase and it alone.
All heat energy reaching the earth is from the sun, in the form of solar irradiance. Heatb reflected back into space is a result of this solar irradiance, and can therefore be considered the same in energy calculations. Solar irradiance can and has been quantified. The amount of energy reaching the planet is on the order of 1366 W/m²[3]. The planet presents a more or less circular profile to the sun, so the area of the earth normal to solar irradiance can be calculated as this circle. The earth is an average of 6371 km[4], with a troposhere layer surrounding it that averages 17km in height[5], which also must be included since it is the location of the atmospheric carbon dioxide. That means a circular area of
r = 6371 + 17 = 6388 km
A = π r² = π (6388)² = 128,197,539 km²
We can now calculate the amount of energy which is thus intercepted by the earth (including the troposphere):
1366 W/m² = 1,366,000,000 W/km²
1,366,000,000 W/km² · 128,197,539 km² = 175,117,838,274,000,000 W (equivalent to J/s)
175,117,838,274,000,000 J/s = 175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s
That result in in Joules (or kiloJoules) per second. Since most climate predictions are based on much longer time intervals, I will now calculate how much energy would be available during such a longer time interval such as the commonly used 100-yr. period:
100 yr = 36,525 days = 876,600 hr. = 52,596,000 minutes = 3,155,760,000 s
We can now multiply this time interval by the rate of energy influx to obtain the total energy that the planet will recieve from solar irradiation over the next 100 years:
175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s · 3,155,760,000 s/100yr =
552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yrNow we must calculate exactly how much of that energy will be affected by the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Remembering that the increase from pre-industrial levels is 0.01% of total atmospheric volume, we multiple this total energy by 0.0001:
552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr · 0.0001 =
55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ/100yr intercepted by anthropogenic CO2Now let us turn to the question of how much energy is needed to increase global temperatures. Of course, the first and most obvious area to be heated is the troposphere itself. Air under average atmospheric conditions has a specific heat capacity of 1.012 J/g·°K[6] and an average density of 1.2 kg/m³[7]. The troposphere itself can be calculated by using the information presented earlier (average radius of earth = 6371 km[4] and a troposhere extending 17 km above the surface[5]). Thus the area of the troposphere can be determined by calculating the volume of a sphere of 6388 km radius and subtracting a sphere of 6371 km radius from it:
V(tot) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π · 6388³ = 1,091,901,171 km³
V(earth) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π · 6371³ = 1,083,206,917 km³
V = V(tot) – V(earth) = 1,091,901,171 km³ – 1,083,206,917 km³
= 8,694,154 km³Now we can calculate how much energy it would require to raise the temperature of the troposphere by a single degree Kelvin:
1.012 J/g·°K = 1.012 kJ/kg·°K
1.012 kJ/kg·°K · 1.2 kg/m³ = 1.2144 kJ/m³·°K
1.2144 kJ/m³·°K = 1,214,400,000 kJ/km³·°K
Since our calculations are based on a single degree Kelvin temperature rise, we can write this as
1,214,400,000 kJ/km³1,214,400,000 kJ/km³ · 8,694,154 km³ = 10,558,180,617,600,000 kJ
But to be accurate, the troposphere is not the only thing warming up. It has been often claimed (correctly) that the oceans are a major heat sink. So let us now calculate the amount of energy required to raise the ocean temperature by a single degree Kelvin. The volume of water on the surface of the Earth is an estimation, but several estimations are available and all of them are close. Therefore, in the interests of conservatism, I am using the smaller of the estimated values: 1,347,000,000 km³[8]. The specific heat capacity of water by volume is 4.186 J/cm³·°K[6] at 25°C. Thus, in order to raise the temperature of the oceans by a single degree Kelvin:
4.186 J/cm³·°K = 4,186,000,000,000 kJ/km³·°K
4,186,000,000,000 kJ/km³·°K · 1,347,000,000 km³
= 5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ/°KAs before, since we are considering a single degree Kelvin temperature rise, this is equal to
5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJWe now add the values for the troposhpere and the oceans together to obtain the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of these two areas combned by a single degree Kelvin:
5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ + 10,558,180,617,600,000 kJ
= 5,638,532,558,180,617,600,000 kJNow, remember from earlier calculations the total amount of energy that is available from the solar irradiance that can intercept anthropogenic carbon dioxide:
55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ
So if we know the energy required to raise a single degree, and we know how much energy can be intercepted by the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, we can calculate how many degrees of temperature rise could possibly happen. Remember, please, that we are making the following assumptions in these calculations:
- We only include the energy required to raise the temperatures of the troposphere (where the carbon dioxide is) and the oceans (climatic heat sink). No energy calculations are included to this point for land masses or for upper atmospheric levels, each of which would, in reality, contribute in some way to the amount of energy required.
- We are assuming that 100% of the available solar irradiance is being absorbed by anthropogenic carbon dioxide. This includes shortwave solar irradiation which is actually reflected back into space without being absorbed, and it also includes radiation that is absorbed through other means such as photosynthesis.
- We are assuming 100% conversion of that intercepted energy by anthropogenic carbon dioxide into heat, and not calculating how much of that heat is dissipated back into space through emission.
All of the above are extremely conservative assumptions. Inclusion of them will only decrease the expected temperature increases due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.
Now, the actual calculation we have been waiting for:
Energy(required) / Energy(available) = Ratio
5,638,552,558,180,617,600,000 kJ / 55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ = 102.03
It would require 102 times as much energy as is available to raise the temperature 1°K in 100 years.
In other words, if ALL of the solar irradiance that the anthropogenic CO2 could intercept were converted into heat, and if it took no energy to warm the land masses and the upper atmosphere, the temperature of the planet would only warm by about 0.01°K in 100 years.
Ignorance denied.
Case closed.
Sleep well tonight. The sun will rise tomorrow.
TheRedneck
References:
Wow. Anyone care to rebut this math? It’s out of my league for sure.
Climate change is in your back yard
Steve Milloy over at greenhellblog is parsing the hell out of a comment NOAA’s Thomas Karl made regarding climate change:
“What we would want to have people take away is that climate change is happening now, and it’s actually beginning to affect our lives,” said Thomas R. Karl, director of theNational Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a principal author of the report. “It’s not just happening in the Arctic regions, but it’s beginning to show up in our own backyards.”
To which Milloy had this observation to make:
From Green Hell Blog
But, I got to looking. That chart was nearly a week old! How gauche! So, I decided to check out today’s chart:
It’s still cold. In fact, so far today we’re struggling to get out of the 70’s so far. It’s rained again, and just been plum-not-much-fun kind of weather. Used to I’d think whenever the weather was bad I would just jet to southern California. Well, it’s actually colder there than it is here. Phoenix? Nope, in the 80’s. Guess we’ll have to wait a little while longer for global warming to arrive in my backyard.
In the meantime:
Opposition was pretty focused:
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association Pres. Charles T. Drevna said, “While this may appear, in the short term, to be a monumental political success, ultimately it represents nothing more than an abject policy failure. The whole notion of capping carbon dioxide emissions, issuing allowances disproportionately to favored industries, and hoping that the false promise of ‘green jobs’ could gloss over the current and real jobs that will be lost should HR 2454 become law belies the complexity of fairly balancing energy and environmental policy.”
Now, everyone knows the intent of all this legislation is to basically kill the coal industry. Obama flat out stated that while running for President. There is no good coal in Obama’s eyes. By taxing the hell out of people who make or use coal, and rewarding energy sources and users that did not use coal, it would replace the coal industry in short time. So, what did Waxman and Markey do to make sure the American Clean Energy and Security Act do to get passed? They pretty much gutted all penalties on coal producers. The cap and trade idea is still there tho. What’s the first thing large energy producers did when this thing passed? They of course started asking for rate increases. Citing of course, the new climate change regulations.
And finally, while Obama is very visibly killing the coal industry while not allowing expanded oil drilling in Alaska or anywhere for that matter. How you wanna bet that gap is filled until the first nuke is built?
So, although the climate is cooler pretty much all over the country than it was two years ago and cap and trade passed without really demanding any change from CO2 based energy production, the costs imposed by those cap and trade regulations are justifying energy companies hitting people for more than 10% increases countrywide right now and our added demand for oil has not only INCREASED our dependance on foreign oil, it’s caused more pain at the pump with nothing to gain from it.
There’s your change so far folks. Next up, healthcare.
Someone else is thinking like I do
First, read this:
Secretary-General, United Nations
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the “precautionary principle” because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The current UN focus on “fighting climate change,” as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,
Think that part’s long? Here are the signatories:
- Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia
- William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
- Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
- Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
- Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg
- Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany
- Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal
- Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.
- Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin
- Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta
- R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
- Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
- Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
- Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
- David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
- Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
- Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
- Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
- Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
- Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
- Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
- David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,’ Australia
- William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
- Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
- R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa
- Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
- Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
- Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
- Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
- Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
- William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
- Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
- Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia
- Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
- Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
- Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
- Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman – Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, PolandJon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling – virology, NSW, Australia
- Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
- Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
- Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
- David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
- Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
- William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
- Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
- Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
- Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
- The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
- Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
- David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
- Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
- Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
- William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
- Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
- Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
- Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
- Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
- John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
- Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
- Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
- John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia
- Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
- Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
- Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen’s University
- Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
- Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia
- Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
- Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
- John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
- David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
- James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
- Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
- Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
- R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
- Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
- Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
- Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
- Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
- Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief – Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
- R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
- Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
- Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
- Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
- Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
- S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service
- L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
- Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
- Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
- Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
- Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
- Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager – Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
- Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
- Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia
- Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia
- Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
- Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
- David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia
- Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
- A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
By my count, 85 of those peeps have PhD’s. A few more have even higher sounding titles like “Emeritus Professor”.
How many peeps at the UN Conference today have doctorate degrees in science?
Bet this doesn’t make Robert Roy Britt’s column either. I’m waiting equally on Al Gore’s new movie, An Inconvenient Mistake. I’m sure an astronomer or two will say everyone on the list believes in a flat Earth. And, not to be outdone, I’m sure Nancy Pelosi will declare the debate on global warming to be over.
Others are starting to catch this story as well:
