Man-emitted CO2 causing devastating global warming? Uh, no

The Orange County Register political commentary blog: Orange Punch ^ | 1-21-2011 | Mark Landsbaum

[Mark Landsbaum]

A couple of readers questioned our (the Orange County Register editorial) call for an independent investigation of the underlying science that is the basis for global warming alarmism. They claim, in essense, that the science is settled. Who are we to rock this boat, anyway?

Well, there are lots of super-qualified, highly regarded scientists rocking it along with us. Many of them find the claim that man’s meager contribution of a trace gas (CO2) into the atmosphere could significantly change anything, let alone set us on course for a melt down.

Here’s a fellow worth listening to: William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton. He seems fairly qualified in this regard from where we sit. He’s spent his professional life studying one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. He’s published 200 peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, a member of the American Physical Society and the National Academy of Sciences. He’s even previously been the director of energy research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where he supervised all DOE’s climate change work.

Last May, he testified before congress. Guess what he said:

“Global-warming alarmists have tried to silence any who question the party line of impending climate apocalypse. We need to establish a Team B of competent scientists, charged with questioning the party line. The DoD and the CIA do this, there was a devil’s advocate (promoter fidei) for sainthood, why not the same for climate change?“

[DocH]

I think it's time I admit my part in the horror that is Global Warming.

I have secretly (at least I TRY and do it secretly) been releasing methane gas into the environment for 50+ years now.

I am so ashamed.

[Magnatron]

It always amazes me that in any other field of science, skepticism forms the basis of scientific study. Any other field, that is, than Global Warming. Here we are not to question the results or test them in any way.

[Mr Rogers]

I'll bet my gelding has released more methane in one ride than you've managed in your entire life...gives you a goal to aspire to, doesn't it?!

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Try this on a AGW alarmist: “What evidence is there that current global temperature is optimum? Or that current C02 levels are optimal?”

[Ev Reeman]

Does a bear shit in the woods?

If a tree falls in the forest, will an environmental nutjob blame excessive logging?

[aliquando]

Or, “did you know that the #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor”?

[Ev Reeman]

The next thing you know the environmental nutjobs will seek to ban belches and farts and claim that they contribute vastly to global warming.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, watch out, it may be somebody farting.

Urp.

Pardon me.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Zeddicus]

more:
... “When has the earth’s climate ever NOT been changing?”
... “What makes you think the current climate is ‘normal’?”

[elcid1970]

Well, if you’re polite (like me) about emitting methane, you go outside before you go kablooie, and the effect on the atmosphere is both sudden and direct.

Yes, be ashamed. Be very ashamed.

;^)

[Zeddicus]

Oh yes I love the water vapor question. They don’t quite know what to do with the notion of banning clouds.

Here’s a toughy that will stump most climate chicken littles:

“From where do plants get the material to build their stems, trunk, leaves, etc?”

I betcha most climate fools will say, “the ground”.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

The half life of a water vapor molecule in the atmosphere is about a week, CO2 about a century. Actually, as the article points out, water vapor is central to AGW catastrophism. The net effect of water vapor feedback is modeled as positive and strong. The evidence seems to indicate that is it weak and negative.

[EGPWS]

Does a bear shit in the woods?

I would have to say yes.

[Navy Patriot]

Interesting, some real science from a newspaper.

Next thing you know, they'll suspect warmers are communists.

[Ev Reeman]

lmao

[SouthTexas]

... “What makes you think the current climate is ‘normal’?”

From an old biker friend of mine:

Normal is a setting on your Momma's washing machine.

[Carry_Okie]

It always amazes me that in any other field of science, skepticism forms the basis of scientific study.

Not true. Eco-alarmist agitprop has infested nearly every scientific academy in many a discipline. I have yet to find a major ESA critical habitat designation (>1 MM acres) that does not involve cooked data.

[mountn man]

Here’s a toughy that will stump most climate chicken littles:
“From where do plants get the material to build their stems, trunk, leaves, etc?”

How about this:

How much has the average global temperature allegedly raised? (.7°F)

What temperature does water freeze at? (32°F)

What is the average temperature of Antarctica? (-5°F to -94°F)

Why is the Antartic ice shelf "MELTING"???

Or how about this:

When its below freezing, why does snow and ice melt on roads and driveways???

Or this:

Why do ice cubes get smaller the longer they're left in the freezer???

[palmer]

You quoted Happer “With each passing year, experimental observations further undermine the claim of a large positive feedback from water. In fact, observations suggest that the feedback is close to zero and may even be negative. That is, water vapor and clouds may actually diminish the relatively small direct warming expected from CO2, not amplify it.” and that makes sense. In your column you said "It’s because the alarmists assume CO2 will create a positive feed-back in clouds that will increase the greenhouse effect and dramatically increase temperatures."

That's a bit of a red herring. It is true that most alarmists believe clouds will have positive feedback although some will say it is unknown. But they also make the claim that water vapor will increase proportionally to the warming from CO2. That's the notion that Happer is debunking, that weather changes due to warming can be predicted in models (they can't), and that the weather will result in even water vapor increases that amplify the slight warming from CO2 on average (not true right now as shown by the current negative Arctic Oscillation pattern producing uneven water vapor and cooling). Clouds are an important result of weather in terms of climate, so it's not unreasonable to say "clouds" instead of "weather".