column 1 Washington Free Beacon

February 14, 2015

With the help of the Washington Free Beacon editorial staff, I want to write a series of columns that will settle the man-made climate change controversy with absolutely no wiggle room left for any lingering doubt. To date I have never seen a comprehensive record of the average annual global air temperature of the earth’s climate along with the applicable principles of science to make a compelling argument against man-made climate change. My ultimate hope is that Mark Levin will make his radio show audience aware of this series of columns. I am not claiming to be a climate science authority that you have to trust. I want your readers to validated for themselves, every fact, every application of a principle of science, every statistical inference and every public policy that I derive. I am just making the intellectual resources available to any sincere, virtuous, patriotic American who wants to know for certain that the human activity of burning fossil fuels and the resulting increase in the carbon dioxide concentration in the air does not raise the earth’s average annual global air temperature.

How the Sun Heats the Suns Air

November 11, 2013

How the Sun Heats the Earth’s Surface Air


John C. Warner Jr.

The purpose of this paper is to use the principals of physics to show how solar radiation heats the earth’s surface air. An argument is an appeal to reason. I know that anthropogenic global warming is a big lie but in order to persuade a sincere seeker of the truth in a later paper, I have to establish a baseline of facts about reality in order to not waste time trying to convince the unreasonable. Imagine that the earth is a flat black disk, with no air, facing the sun. The measure of the power per area (P/A) of the sunlight shining on this disk, at the earth’s average distance from the sun, is called the solar constant. The value of the solar constant is 1,368 watts per square meter (wpsm). Assuming all of the sunlight is absorbed by the disk, e=1, how hot will the surface of this disk become? The applicable principle of physics is that the surface of this disk will continue to become hotter as long as the P/A of the sunlight shining on the disk is greater than the P/A of the infrared radiation being emitted off of the disk. The disk will reach its steady state temperature when the infrared radiation emitted off of the disk is equal to the solar constant, 1368wpsm. According to the theory of black body radiation, if we know the P/A of the radiation being emitted off of the disk we can calculate the temperature of the disk. P/A is equal to the Stefan-Boltzmann constant multiplied times the absolute temperature T raised to the fourth power.



obama gives America false hope about solving our energy problem

January 27, 2011

Dennis I was very upset last night by President Obama giving the American public false hope that his massive government research and development spending program would solve our energy problems with new green alternative energy technologies. People who actually know science and technology just know things that other people don’t. For example I am going to use a simple electric circuit to prove that any electric car using a battery of electric storage cells will never be more efficient than the internal combustion engine. And I don’t have to spend any time, effort or money on research and development to draw the correct public policy inference from the well established fundamental laws of physics pertaining to the electrical properties of matter.

Imagine a circuit with a 3 volt electric storage cell with 8 ohms internal resistance and an 8 ohm load resistor. Since the resistances are equal the voltage drop across each component will be 1.5 volts. The power generated by this circuit will be 3 volts squared, divided by 16 ohms. This .5625 watts of electric power will be divided equally between .28125 watts of heat from the resistor and .28125 watts of heat from the electric storage cell. The power for each component was calculated by squaring 1.5 volts and dividing by 8 ohms.

Whenever you hook up an electric generator to a battery of electric storage cells half of the power is lost in the battery of electric storage cells. And again when the battery of electric storage cells discharges to the electric motor half of the power is also lost in the battery of electric storage cells. One half of one half is one quarter. Therefore, the mere introduction of a battery of electric storage cells allows only 25% of the electric power generated to get to the electric motor. 75% of the electric power produced by the electric generator is wasted in the battery of electric storage cells where it can do no usable work.

Introduction to moraleconomist

January 27, 2011

When I asked my son, who is 34 years old and a world class computer programmer, to set up a blog for me he chose the title. He chose this title because in 1752 Adam Smith became the professor of moral philosophy at Glassgow University. The subjects of his lectures were natural theology, ethics, jurisprudence and political economy. I have a Ph.D. in Economics and 14 years of college teaching experience which includes teaching Environmental Economics. My son said that he chose this title because his generation of elite intellectuals were not even aware that Economics was a Moral Science. And furthermore, they needed to hear the experience proven message of the enlightenment philosophers that the only way to soul satisfying and self-actualizing prosperity is if the government provides an environment of Ordered Liberty where everybody feels secure in his life, his personal freedom and his property.

Since my first economics course in 1960 every progressive media led so-called government reform has undermined order and liberty with the consequent increases in poverty, economic insecurity and unnecessary suffering. This is to big a topic to tackle right now but a few examples would be a mandatory law to buy health insurance, any tax or regulation to limit ones freedom to buy energy produced by fossil fuels, any subsidy or mandate forcing anybody to buy energy made from alternative fuels. “A man coerced against his will is of the same opinion still.” By definition Liberty is the freedom to do what you ought to do. Government telling you what you ought to do and putting you in jail if you don’t is the antithesis of Liberty. To prove the relationship between Liberty and Prosperity I will give you the first and the most recent testimonies. The King of England gave Pennsylvania to William Penn. William Penn called Pennsylvania his “Holy Experiment” to prove to the world the effect that freedom of religion and freedom of conscience would have on the level of economic prosperity. In 1701 Penn wrote his frame of government for Pennsylvania. By 1751 Pennsylvania had the highest standard of living in the world. In 1751 Pennsylvania Commissioned the Liberty Bell to celebrate William Penn’s Frame of Government and to Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land. I saw a show in Public Television about how the State Capital is adorned with murals about William Penn”s “Holy Experiment.” I also saw a show on Public Television where the most important economist in China said that if China wanted to maintain its current level of economic growth until it becomes a fully developed economy it will have to become a Christian Nation. He said that the essential social environment necessary for economic development to occur is trust. I have a friend who is an expert on China who told me that trust is not a part of the Chinese Culture. That is why the makers of wheat gluten could see nothing wrong with adding cheap food poisons to make routine food quality test look like they contained more protein.

I will revisit all of these topics and more at a later date. My current topic of interest is Global Warming. I taught Environmental Economics in the 1970’s. I had to live with radical environmentalists and I can assure you that they are not technically competent or intellectually honest nor do they like people. In 1992 I read an article in the American Economic Review advocating cap and trade and carbon tax as an alternative to an outright ban in carbon fuels. The English Economist Pigou introduced the idea of external economic costs to the field of welfare economics and there are a number of appropriate public policy responses including cap and trade and carbon taxes. But I knew then that the carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels did not rise to even the minimum level of being a negative economic externality. When I am finished I want you to know three things: (1)There has been a 30 year warming trend of 0.39 degrees celsius but any claims that this trend is anthropogenic, will continue in the future or will be catastrophic are speculative and not scientific to say the least. (2)How the sun heats the earth’s air and the role that carbon dioxide plays in that process. (3)The bold faced lies that the global warming advocates and the popular mass media used to deceive the public because they were not capable of discerning the truth. I want you to realize how evil people have corrupted all of the trust institutions, (religion, education, science, media, and representative government), that are necessary for a civil society to exist. I am going to beat the dead horse of the global warming scare long after it is gone because I hope a critical mass of morally motivated citizens will vow to never let internal threats to our country ever raise their ugly heads again.

In order to assure you that I am right and to make it worth your while to visit my blog periodically I will leave you with three facts that you cannot ignore if you take your citizenship responsibility to your 300 million fellow citizens seriously.

One way to deceive the public is to change the meaning of the words you use to get the message out. This way you can say the truth but the general public hears a lie being repeated over and over again by the mass media. There are 6 billion plus people in the world and who do you know that would read through 563 pages of IPCC phoney baloney scientific mumbo jumbo to find this change in the meaning of the words, “climate change”. From the IPCC Third Assessment Report on Climate Change 2001 1st footnote from page 5 Summary for Policy Makers 1

“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

563 pages of stuff designed to overwhelm anybody who attempts to make a good faith effort to understand the global warming argument. Because it looks technical, competent and scientific most people give up and just assume that they have proved the case for global warming. And if the talking heads in the media and other public opinion makers think that this proves the case so much the better. The few people who know enough understand that the IPCC report doesn’t prove anything, so the authors have to cover their scientific asses and say in footnote 1 on page 5 of the Summary for Policy Makers that the earth’s climate changes and given this natural variability that has always existed and always will exist we can’t find any statistically significant, substantial change in this natural variability that is attributable to human economic activity.

A second thing you should know is that there is no alternative for fossil fuels. I googled EIA-Energy Kids-Energy Calculators. Solar, Wind and Geothermal produce less than 1% of U.S. energy needs. Furthermore 8 gallon of gasoline contains 1 million BTU’s of energy. The cost of 1 million BTU’s of coal is $2.06. The cost of 1 million BTU’s of petroleum is $11.19. The cost of 1 million BTU’s of gasoline is $26.37. The real cost to produce 1 million BTU’s of middle east oil is $0.17. In economic terms this represents an $11.00 subsidy to middle east countries for every million BTU’s of middle east oil. The economic reality imposed upon mankind by nature is that nothing comes close to being as cheap a source of energy as middle east oil. In the United States the real cost to produce petroleum is $3.40 for 1 million BTU’s. Thus the Federal Government’s energy policy creates an $8.00 per 1 million BTU’s excess profits for the oil companies. That comes to about 1 dollar per gallon of excess profits that the oil companies have to share with the government. Remember the year Exxon-Mobil made 42 billion dollars in after tax profits. They had to pay 65 billion dollars in taxes. When the government interferes in the normal determination of market prices to this extent, (raising the price of middle east oil by as much as 65 times), the economic damage to the welfare of America’s citizens is unimaginable. Now multiply this human misery by another order of magnitude to imagine the welfare damage done to people living in developing and undeveloped countries. Just imagine how much more petroleum poor people could buy for transportation, refrigeration, heating, manufacturing, building and feed stocks if the price of oil was only 17 cents per 7.2 gallons instead of $11.19. Like I said radical environmentalist and progressives do not like people. They broke the nuclear electricity industry in the U.S. by delaying the construction time of power plants from 4 years to 12 years. The 8 year additional compounded interest cost on the money borrowed to build nuclear power plant that could not operate and therefore make money to pay off the loan became the single biggest cost of building the plant and made nuclear power not economically feasible. This was just part of the strategy to make coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power expensive enough so that alternative energy sources could compete for the generation of electricity. One more perverse point I need to make. I don’t hold the electric utilities or the state government regulators faultless because under regulated pricing rules if the cost of the generating plant doubles the profits allowable for the generating plant double. Under Jimmy Carter the price of gasoline went to $1.50 per gallon. When President Reagan took over the price of gasoline went down to 65 cents per gallon and 30 cents of that was state and federal tax. I never imagined that social engineers could get away with $4.00 a gallon for gas. In addition to no drilling for gas or oil in the United States or off shore, ridiculous mandates for clean coal and scrubbers for emissions, no new nuclear power plants or oil refineries for 30 years, the EPA forced the states to come up with 26 different blends of gasoline that could not be sold in neighboring states. This was all calculated to force people to buy smaller cars, to drive less and live colder in the winter and hotter in the summer. And the people who did this said the price should be between 7 and 12 dollars a gallon and these prices should be permanent. How any human being with children or grand children with a capacity to reason in a democratic republic could vote for a politician who promises no coal, no oil, no nuclear, no natural gas that would condemn his heirs to a life time of living at a level of subsistence is incomprehensible to me. Anybody who disagrees can convince me if he can find a currently existing 2 dollar per million BTU substitute for coal or a $3.50 per million BTU substitute for petroleum.

The third thing you should know is that how the sun heats the earth’s air is more complicated than the global warming advocates would like you to believe. Anybody who can confirm that my facts in the following paradox are correct will earn my respect. For anybody who can adequately explain the paradox, I will have to acknowledge that he is my equal and I will have to seriously respond to anything he has to say concerning the issue of catastrophic global warming caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The following facts alone should convince you that the global warming argument is a fraud. The Global Warming Advocates say that a 3.7 watts per square meter increase in radiative forcing can cause a 10.44 degree Fahrenheit increase in the earth’s average annual surface air temperature. On January 5th the earth is closest to the sun. On July 5th the earth is farthest from the sun. On January 5th the sun’s irradiation impinging on the earth’s surface is 24 watts per square meter more than on July 5th. If the simple arithmetic of the global warming advocates is correct the earth’s daily surface air temperature should be 67.72 degrees warmer on January 5th than on July 5th. In fact on January 5th the earth’s daily surface air temperature is 6.34 degrees F cooler. Their simple coefficient fails to predict the outcome of the experiment conveniently provided for us by nature by 74.06 degrees Fahrenheit.


January 27, 2011

My name is John Warner. I have a Ph.D. in Economics and 14 years of college teaching experience. I only have one important publication. I did not get tenure in 1980 and I have not taught since 1987. I am deeply troubled for America’s future. I believe we are experiencing a failure of democracy. The masses are too ignorant to fulfill their citizen-ship responsibilities because our religious, education and information institutions have failed their vital functions for society. I am 67 years old and my son is 33 years old. He is a computer programmer and is smart beyond my ability to describe but I will give just one example. He has computer programs that search the internet every day for articles on subjects that interest him. He reads up to 300 summaries and abstracts every night and the complete articles that are worthy. Even though he is contemptuous of social science whenever he encounters a subject in my area of expertise he will initiate a discussion. He absorbs what I know and with common sense and the facts of the case leads me into at least two levels of deeper insights than I had ever imagined. For example he has convinced me that our current laws regarding intellectual property rights are wrong. My disappointment in my son is that he voted for Barack Obama and he is liberal on most of the social issues. But he is so smart, knowledgeable and thoughtful that I have to concede that he is probably right even though I do not know how he knows these things. In our household the saying is, “If you bet against Jamie you are going to lose.”
Today while he had me trapped in the car during a 2 hour trip he said he wanted to tell me about a book with a title something like the Myth of Rational Markets. Before he could say anything I gave him a lecture on the legal economic interface and that markets can’t exist without rules and that quality of the rules and the quality of their enforcement will have a lot to do with their effectiveness. Of course I invoked the authority of the moral philosophers to demonstrate that when the wisdom of their moral principles are imbedded into the practical application of the law economic prosperity is the inevitable outcome. I have often pointed out to my family that most of the changes in the law in my lifetime appeal to the masses but since they violate the very moral principles that are hardwired into human nature they are guaranteed to reduce America to a subsistence economy within a 100 years. In 2008 with the high energy prices, the near financial collapse and the current recession I realized that in addition to the ignorant masses there were no longer any adults in business or government who knew how to make the economic system work. And furthermore, these bad guys, with the publics support were using the crisis to pass laws that were going to makes things worse. And not just in the lifetime of my children and grand children but in my lifetime! Jamie said that he had a belly full of my detailed, economic jargon filled technical statistical explanations of how economic things worked in theory and practice. In addition he said my biases, my conservative beliefs, my dreadful predictions, and my bad attitude were not helpful either. But then he surprised me. He said that his generation needed to hear about the moral philosophers! On fathers day I got a card from my daughter. It said, “I listened more than you think. I remember more than you realize.” That card made me cry because I was so happy. I am crying now because Jamie said that, “If you will teach the serious adults of my generation about the moral philosophers I will create a Weblog for you. I stayed up all night preparing this introduction.

Jamie has already shown me that I really don’t know much about the moral philosopher so I will be reading books that he selects for me and I will try to impart their insights through my intellectual filter. Other tangential subjects of interest to me are: William Penn’s “Holy Experiment,” the transmission mechanism of monetary policy, the legal economic interface, environmental economics including the external cost of burning fossil fuels and the appropriate public policy response to global warming, energy including coal-oil-nuclear and alternative.