Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Editor
Author:  Bob Webster
Bio: Bob Webster
Date:  May 3, 2008
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

Carbon Dioxide Emission Controls - Costly and Pointless
Understand the Truth about CO2 and Climate

Controlling carbon dioxide in hopes of modifying climate makes about as much sense as buying snowblowers for the citizens of Florida in hopes of preventing a blizzard.

According to highly respected physicist (Prof. Emeritus, U. of CT, PhD) Howard C. Hayden (and others, including Australians Dr. Bob Carter and David C. Archibald), the ability of atmospheric CO2 to act as a greenhouse gas is severely curtailed at today's levels of atmospheric CO2. There are three key pieces of scientific fact that lead to this inescapable conclusion: (1) the primary greenhouse agent (water vapor, clouds) is responsible for the vast majority of "greenhouse" heat retention by absorbing and reflecting heat radiation in a large portion (but not all) of the IR; (2) CO2 has heat retention capability that overlaps the portion of the IR that water vapor already traps (no additional heat in that portion of the IR can be retained by adding either more water vapor or more CO2 to the atmosphere), so very little of reflected heat (in the IR) is available for CO2 to influence; and, (3) a property of CO2's heat retention capacity is that it diminishes logarithmically as quantity of atmospheric CO2 increases (i.e., it becomes less capable of affecting temperature). The heat retention capacity with the first 20 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere cannot be matched until another 400 ppm of CO2 are added! In other words, adding more CO2 has severely diminishing returns. Coupled with the small portion of the IR over which CO2 is meaningful (given water vapor has already saturated the heat retention ability of the atmosphere over the remainder of CO2's IR potential), the belief that atmospheric CO2 is a significant climate change force is simply unfounded in scientific fact. Indeed, the theory that atmospheric CO2 produced by human activity can be a significant climate force is absolutely refuted by scientific facts that are simply not in doubt.

What is the most important natural force prevents the Earth from either overheating or overcooling (in the absence of significant external changes such as solar and orbital variabilities)? Weather, principally precipitation. And guess what? The greatest flaw of climate models is their utter inability to accurately model water vapor, clouds, and precipitation! One of the most important reasons they cannot do this is that science has not figured out how these really work. While their effects can be observed and understood, the generation of clouds and precipitation is simply not predictable with today's level of knowledge. Yet these are the greatest factors (forces) that act to prevent both overheating and overcooling of the Earth's atmosphere! When climate science is as poorly understood as it is today, developing and using computer simulations is a worthless venture.

Another great weakness of the IPCC methodology's use of climate models and their projections is the exclusion from the process of two significant natural producers of atmospheric CO2, namely, volcanoes and erosion of carbonate rock.

We are left with deeply flawed computer models being used to detect a significant climate warming due to human CO2 emissions when natural emissions from two key sources are ignored! Is there a better example of stacking the cards in favor of a pre-determined outcome?

Read the IPCC summary report and you'll notice many uses of the qualifying terms "likely" "very likely" "not likely" etc. These are all statisticians' terms for "we haven't a clue, but based on what we think we know, this is our best guess". And they've stacked the deck to make sure they get the "best guesses" they wanted.

A WEBCommentary reader wrote me about an experiment that the "true believers" in prophet Gore's theory were conducting. Befuddled and tired of being ridiculed because there hasn't been any of the predicted warming since 1998, these "believers" in human-caused (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW) postulated that the oceans must be absorbing much of the heat that should have been reflected in rising temperatures that failed to appear. So they conducted an experiment to "prove" their postulation. Sea temperatures were taken over a vast network of locations to find where all the heat went. Guess why you haven't heard about this experiment? They found that sea temperatures had dropped!

So, where has all the heat gone? Well, real scientists who are unfettered by the need for continued government funding of catastrophic climate change caused by humans have already provided the answer. Dr. Lindzen (MIT) proposed an "iris" concept and was ridiculed for it in the early 2000s. Now research demonstrates that Dr. Lindzen was absolutely correct. This is in keeping with the theory that natural atmospheric processes act as a naturale thermostat to Earth so that climate is kept within a moderate regime. Only significant solar and planetary orbital variabilities can severely impact this natural balance. CO2 as a greenhouse gas is irrevelant and is not a significant force for climate change, regardless of it's source.

Read Dr. Hayden's latest book, A Primer on CO2 and Climate if you want to learn more. You can purchase the book at by Clicking Here.

Also, the best description of how weather acts to moderate climate is contained in Dr. Roy Spencer's new book, Climate Confusion - How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor. You can purchase the book at by Clicking Here. width=1 height=1 border=0 style=border:none !important; margin:0px !important;/>

Let's not waste vast sums of money on senseless schemes to reduce CO2 emissions when there is a wealth of evidence that doing so will have no detectible influence on global average temperature (despite the theories of Gore and the IPCC whose only evidence is the projections of seriously flawed climate models that omit two significant sources of CO2 emissions, volcanos and carbonate rock erosion!).

We are being led down a fool's path that will be more costly than any venture undertaken in this nation's history -- simply on the basis of shoddy "science" (IPCC) and a false prophet (Gore) who stands to make millions from his carbon credit trading scam.

Let's spend our money where it matters if we want to conserve our resources and improve our quality of life while protecting our enviornment.

An educated public is needed to know the truth. Too much disinformation is being peddled about the theory of anthropogenic global warming. It is a false theory where any one contradiction is sufficient to render it "bunk", yet despite a host of contradictions, the media and politicians (and die-hard government funded scientists) along with false prophet Gore, continue to mislead the public.

The very limited capacity of CO2 to increase global temperature coupled with the fact that important sources of atmospheric CO2 (volcanos and carbonate rock erosion) are not even included in IPCC model simulations are sufficient in themselves to undermine the Gore/IPCC theory. Astonishingly, they are coupled with many other facts that fly in the face of the theory, any one of which are sufficient to render the Gore/IPCC theory "bunk". These facts are simply ignored by the media and other "true believers" (AGW has become a religion to some folks). Some of these key facts that contradict the theory include: (1) polar warming -- it's not happening in Antarctica and Arctic polar ice cover recovered this past winter to well beyond original extent at beginning of recent warming (ironically, just after Gore made an hysterical plea last fall that the Arctic Sea was vanishing faster than projected), (2) average global temperature and CO2 are completely uncorrelated over the past 100 years, (3) average global temperature and CO2 are highly correlated on a hundred thousand year time scale with a time shift that proves CO2 reacts to temperature changes, it does not cause those changes, (4) the bedrock of the IPCC "guesses" of future climate is rooted in climate models, none of which model water vapor, clouds, or precipitation influences (simply because those factors are not well enough understood to be modeled), (5) current solar inactivity indicates a highly likely sustained and possibly severe cooling trend over the next 10-20 years before moderating, and (6) average global temperature is highly correlated with solar activity (which is also correlated with the ENSO, PDO, and ADO cycles). These are just six scientific facts, any one of which is sufficient to put the IPCC and Mr. Gore out of business. But the beat still goes on. This beast is almost impossible to slay!

Let's hope more citizens, more scientists, and real environmentalists continue to step forward to lead the way in exposing the human-caused climate change scam so that this beast can finally be slayed.

Bob Webster
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)

Send email feedback to Bob Webster

Biography - Bob Webster

Author of "Looking Out the Window", an evidence-based examination of the "climate change" issue, Bob Webster, is a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s). He is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.

A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.

Read other commentaries by Bob Webster.

Visit Bob Webster's website at WEBCommentary

Copyright 2008 by Bob Webster
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]

© 2004-2023 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved