Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]

Mises Economic Blog ^ | 10/29/2009 | Stephan Kinsella

[sionnsar]

Physicist Howard Hayden, a staunch advocate of sound energy policy, sent me a copy of his letter to the EPA about global warming. The text is also appended below, with permission.

As noted in my post Access to Energy, Hayden helped the late, great Petr Beckmann found the dissident physics journal Galilean Electrodynamics (brochures and further Beckmann info here; further dissident physics links). Hayden later began to publish his own pro-energy newsletter, The Energy Advocate, following in the footsteps of Beckmann's own journal Access to Energy

I love Hayden's email sign-off, "People will do anything to save the world ... except take a course in science." Here's the letter:

***

Howard C. Hayden
785 S. McCoy Drive
Pueblo West, CO 81007

October 27, 2009

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson:

I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."

It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.

The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.

Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.

We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.

Let me next address the horror story that we are approaching (or have passed) a "tipping point." Anybody who has worked with amplifiers knows about tipping points. The output "goes to the rail." Not only that, but it stays there. That's the official worry coming from the likes of James Hansen (of NASA­GISS) and Al Gore.

But therein lies the proof that we are nowhere near a tipping point. The earth, it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to 8,000 ppm, and that did not lead to a tipping point. If it did, we would not be here talking about it. In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials (ca. 200 ppm) and interglacials (ca. 300-400 ppm) is lower than it has been for the last 300 million years.

Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.

(A) CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution. Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the "pre-industrial" value.

• The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.
  

(B) The first principle of causality is that the cause has to come before the effect. The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?

Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing. But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?

• A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.
  
• The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.
  
• CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.
  

• A warmer world begets more precipitation.
  
• All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms.
  
• The melting point of ice is 0 ºC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. The highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is -14 ºC, and the lowest is -117 ºC. How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?
  

Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that's climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change.

In a way, we have been here before. Lord Kelvin "proved" that the earth could not possibly be as old as the geologists said. He "proved" it using the conservation of energy. What he didn't know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the internal heat of the sun and the earth.

Similarly, the global-warming alarmists have "proved" that CO2 causes global warming.

Except when it doesn't.

To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.

Best Regards,

Howard C. Hayden

Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn

[sionnsar]

Cretans vs cretins — I saw that too. LOL.

[D Rider]

As stated, CO2 is preceded by temp increase. Now for the simple soda pop experiment. Get one can cold soda one can warm. Open both carefully, which one releases the most CO2 gas? The warm one. The earth surface is 70% water. The temperature of the ocean has the greatest influence on CO2 in the atmosphere.

The basic hydrologic cycle is a negative feedback loop, not a positive feedback loop like the IPCC climate models. The warmer the surface of the earth, the more water vapor is absorbed into the air. The more water vapor, the more cloud cover. The more cloud cover the more sunlight is reflected back into space, thus the more the earth cools.

[maine-iac7]

[sionnsar]

Such things... “machts nichts” in German.

[Marine_Uncle]

Let us hope our bros down in the far south English speaking countries put up such a howl against this criminal offense it will bring more in Europe, USA, South American, and Canada, Russian, China, Japan to follow suit.
Now is time for each nation to join together and throw off this yoke of AGW bad science once and for all.
Face the facts squarely. Do go after those things that are legit, such as real known air pollutions that do harm humans as well as animal life. But in a responsible way that does not break the piggy banks of nations.
Now is the time perhaps as never before a entry level common goal could set back the one world elitist from having their way any time soon. End goal, subjugation of the world's populations. IMHO this later, is as evil as the world of Islamic Jihadist hell bent on cutting off the heads of the infidels. The carefully craft how they can control nations and extract wealth and control how they want things to proceed, wars, peace, industrial growth, otherwise.

[azkathy]

I just added an article I wrote-East Valley Tribune published and would like to keep some balanced comments on. Please see,

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2396108/posts

[SuziQ]

Just sent that to our daughter, who is an Economics major.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I usually make note in a thread when I think it is so excellent that I bookmark it - but in this case I didn’t. I just happened to review it now, and I marvel at how concise a refutation it is.

But it doesn’t treat of the Climategate emails/computer programs. I wonder if by any chance you have a link to a good survey article on that?

[NCLaw441]

This man is a liar!! It took about 2.25 pages to print mine out so I could show to rational people I run into.

[MileHi]

It took 2.25 pages to print the letter “s”?

[publius911]

Bookmark.

[GeronL]

great post

[21twelve]

And it took 6 years too!

[publius911]

According to Ed Begley he's only a physicist so has no professional credentials to criticize global warming.

As opposed to the chief wizards of the "catastrophic alarmists," Al Gore and James Hansen, and the East Anglia data faking and manipulating criminal fraudsters?

[okie01]

Of course, Dr. Hayden made no impression with his convincing scientific argument -- because the EPAs Lisa Jackson and her ilk aren't driven by science.

The left may call climate change "settled science", but what it really is is "settled politics".

[RainMan]

I was just pining this for future reference ... and I saw who originally posted it. Sionnsar, you are missed my friend ...

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Bump!