Samuel D'Arcangelis. holds a Ph.D in chemistry from The Johns Hopkins University.

You may search for me on the Internet. In 1994, when I received my degree, there was no such thing as a climate scientist. Climate scientists (until recently, with Universities under pressure, I suspect) are self-proclaimed in their field. I have no direct experience in meteorology (the true Earth science relevant here) What I do have is a full understanding of reaction chemistry, molecular spectroscopy and photochemistry, and reaction kinetics, with enough experience thermodynamics and physics to speak on any level of authority, and I will put my qualifications up against "san quentin" or pretty much anyone else, for comparison so long as I live. It should also be understood that if I can't comprehend an explanation in excruciating detail about how a self-proclaimed climate scientists knows something is true, then you can hardly expect me to jump on the bandwagon. We'll start there.

I have seen precisely zero evidence that global warning is an artifice of Mankind. In fact, I have seen little evidence, much of which is specious (before Climategate), that warming is occuring at all. That CO2 levels are rising, and indeed they can be shown to be, and coincidentally the human population is growing, is a false correlation. "Proof" of that relationship has come in the form of a great deal of data, in which hugh assumptions about relationships are made (e.g. tree ring size to temperature) Also, another false correlation (one that becomes weaker in the last decade) is that between rising temperatures and rising levels of carbon dioxide.

The foundations laid down by these false correlations in the grand double correlation is: that Mankind has increased in numbers and consumes more and more fossil fuels, causing a rise in the CO2 component in the atmosphere. The increased CO2 traps more and more heat causing the average world temperature to rise.

Carbon dioxide is a minor component of our very complex atmosphere. It absorbs precisely three narrow bands of infrared light in a huge manifold of light up through the ultraviolet, that come from the Sun, much of which passes effortlessly to the planet surface. If CO2 and the rest of the atmosphere were that effective in trapping, or arresting incoming solar irradiation, then sunshine wouldn't feel warm on your face.

Water can be (should be)regarded in precisely the same way as CO2, with three bands, (close to the CO2 bands), absorbing infrared light. The main difference is, while there is anywhere from 250 to 350 ppm CO2 in the air (0.03%), distributed essentially equally across the globe, there can be anywhere up to 4 parts per hundred (4.00%) of excess water, distributed inhomogeneously, and locally, across the Earth. But there is much more water than that.
At the earth surface, oceans await to be heated by the solar influs. Consequently, clouds form. Clouds can, in fact, rob one of the sensation of warming one's face during the day. Clouds in turn can block out the sun (or lock in heat) completely. (This is why deserts get so hot in the daytime and cool so quickly at night, not because of the lack of atmospheric CO2, which is everywhere, but because of the lack of water vapor and bodies of liquid water trapping heat or resisting heating and cooling.)

(Direct evidence is seen in infrared radar, used to heighten contrast in weather precipitation. It doesn't see all that excess CO2 rising from industrial regions, but sees atmospheric water vapor, isolated or in clouds.)

Water is by far a more effective "greenhouse gas", and in fact, is the pre-eminent greenhouse gas on the planet, and so shall it always be.

So why not consider water as a componenet in the latest EPA endangerment finding, when CO2 has been labeled such. Because, that would be absurd to the layperson, and rightfully so. CO2 is singled out because it is policitally expedient to do so. Too bad the contribution of water is neglected in every AGW proponents' work. Their modelling might work out to be much more predictive.

Speaking of modelling, until Climate gate, the algorithms for their models have been a closely held secret. This is a shame to the scientfic community. I suspect that they are hiding something, but can't prove it, and that doubt works in their favor.

I DO know for a fact (because we really don't have a good way of doing it now) that the biosphere is completely neglected from the calculations, which again is absurd on its face. Green plants not only remove CO2 from the air, they do so endothermically, that is to say in the process of removal, they ALSO REMOVE HEAT from the system, the atmosphere. This is why forests, even rain forests in the equatorial tropics, are temperate. They'd be much warmer if they photosynthesis didn't consume light directly and convert water and CO2 into sugar and oxygen. At night, the reverse reaction happens and plant warm the cooling atmosphere and trap the heat with the CO2 and water they release. In the ocean, CO2 is taken directly from the water by green plants and algae and replaced by atmospheric CO2, fairly quickly, through wave agitation. This happens wherever plant life exists, everywhere on the planet, with some variances in season, and mode of photosynthesis

This process is the single most important factor in quantifying the kinetics of CO2. Modellers don't have sufficient algorithms to represent forests and green plants (and oceanic photosynthesis for that matter), SO THEY DON'T. What they must do is this: treat the world in the absence of human influence as forever in balance, and static, and assign whatever changes they find to human activity. This is a dangerous, incorrect, and neglectful set of assumptions, presuming that the world doesn't change unless Humans change it. Assuming that the terrestrial arena and the biosphere coupled to it are harmoniously constant is patently absurd. Any conclusions from this mindset are automatically hung on the evils of human activity (which was the original point, I think).

Anyone who knows something about chemistry and physics knows that first you must have the relationship right, then you design an experiment in isolation to derive an immutable, meaningful constant. Take, for instance, CO2. How many times have AGW proponents had to revise a "forcing constant"? "forcing constants" are proposed based on the assumption that the world is being forced out of an established equilibrium by human activity. The very definition of a "forcing constant" reveals it bias. The constant is based on a correlation between temperature rise, and CO2 concentration. Thanks to wealth of dispute data, and an inability to reconcile the original value for the constant with a lack of predicted event coming true, the constant has been changed. This is a pity. I have a better constant, a known, immutable one, to apply to carbon dioxide as a green house gas. Carbon dioxide can have, like every other substance that absorbs light, a molar absorptivity constant ascribed to it. Colored compounds have them, and so too can substances that absorb in the infrared but not in the visible. CO2 would have three such constants permanently affixed to it, one for each band of absorption. The constants would define, using a derived century-old law (Beer-Lambert), just how much light would be absorbed per molecule of CO2. Molar absorptivity. It's little wonder why climate scientists needed a new set of constants: they can't manipulate the true ones.

Just as a taste, we have false correlations, from multivariate data, with lots of room for statistical interpretation. The treatment of CO2 as a input variable and not a output. The negligence of factors which actually dominate the deterination of heat and carbon dioxide, namely photosynthesis and the dominance of water. Models whose algorithms are subjected to outside scrutiny. Manufactured constants.

Climategate is merely the end result of all these machinations, a bunch of liars getting thrust into the sunshine who are now trying to cover their deliberate attempt to dupe the world into doing what their told, by complaining about how they'd been robbed of their confidentiality.

They are fraud writ large and they should be stopped for once and for good.

Samuel D'Arcangelis, Ph.D.
on November 29, 2009
at 10:49 PM

I know “heathcare reform” is a big topic right now, but one aspect not often written about is health insurance is cheaper in some states. In others it costs as much as the lease on a Ferrari. This isn't because of any flaw in the free market. It's because we don't have a free market! What we have instead are laws that reward corporate welfare benefits to special interests and insurance companies.
The average medical plan in New Jersey costs $37,164 per year. The monthly premiums exceed the lease for a Ferrari! By comparison, Indiana has far fewer corporate welfare mandates dictating what health insurance must cover. People in that state can choose between 43 plans costing less than $5,400 annually!
If the New Jersey family could buy medical insurance from an Indiana provider, they'd save over $31,000 a year! Extend this to the entire country and the results would be dramatic. Simply dropping the law that prohibits insurance companies from selling across state lines, would cover more Americans that this trillion dollar debacle in congress, and it would do it for no cost to the taxpayers, and save everyone who has coverage a lot of money.
One study indicates that this simple reform would make medical insurance instantly affordable for over 12 million “uninsured Americans”. If Americans had the freedom of insurance choice, the State legislatures will have to start competing with other states to repeal their corporate welfare mandates. And insurance companies will compete to provide better coverage at lower prices
All Americans should have free market choices in health insurance! No American should have to pay corporate welfare benefits through their insurance premiums, or have to go without insurance. You can make this possible, so call your senators and make your opinion known. Oppose the cancerous healthcare bill being pushed in the House and Senate. Oppose complicated insurance buying pools. Instead, please just fix the problems politicians created!
This issue is important to people here in the 7th district, and people want to be represented by someone who shares their appreciation of market solutions instead of failed political “solutions”