This was a bit of a surprise, hat tip to Bucko36 – Anthony
In Science, Ignorance is Not Bliss
By Physicist Walter Cunningham, NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut in July/August 2008 Issue of Launch Magazine. http://launchmagonline.com/index.php/Viewpoint/In-Science-Ignorance-is-not-Bliss.html
Cunningham writes:
“NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused” warming
“[James] Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him.”
BIO Note: Physicist Walter Cunningham, an award-winning NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut, was the recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal and Navy Astronaut Wings, the 1969 Haley Astronautics Award and named to Named to the International Space Hall of Fame. Cunningham is a member of the American Geophysical Union and fellow of the American Astronautical Society. He also worked as a scientist for the RAND Corporation prior to joining NASA. While with RAND, he worked on classified defense studies and problems of the earth’s magnetosphere. He has accumulated more than 4,500 hours of flying time, including more than 3,400 in jet aircraft and 263 hours in space.
For Complete bio see: http://www.waltercunningham.com/introduction.htm
Excerpts:
It doesn’t help that NASA scientist James Hansen was one of the early alarmists claiming humans caused global warming. Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him. […] NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data is being ignored in favor of emotions and politics. […] I do see hopeful signs that some true believers are beginning to harbor doubts about AGW. Let’s hope that NASA can focus the global warming discussion back on scientific evidence before we perpetrate an economic disaster on ourselves.
[…] The fearmongers of global warming base their case on the correlation between CO2 and global temperature, even though we cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect. Historically, temperature increases have preceded high CO2 levels, and there have been periods when atmospheric CO2 levels were as much as 16 times what they are now, periods characterized not by warming but by glaciation. You might have to go back half a million years to match our current level of atmospheric CO2, but you only have to go back to the Medieval Warming Period, from the 10th to the 14th Century, to find an intense global warming episode, followed immediately by the drastic cooling of the Little Ice Age. Neither of these events were caused by variations in CO2 levels. Even though CO2 is a relatively minor constituent of “greenhouse gases,” alarmists have made it the whipping boy for global warming (probably because they know how fruitless it would be to propose controlling other principal constituents, H2O, CH4, and N2O). Since human activity does contribute a tiny portion of atmospheric CO2, they blame us for global warming.
[…] The reality is that atmospheric CO2 has a minimal impact on greenhouse gases and world temperature. Water vapor is responsible for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes just 3.6 percent, with human activity responsible for only 3.2 percent of that. That is why some studies claim CO2 levels are largely irrelevant to global warming. Without the greenhouse effect to keep our world warm, the planet would have an average temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius. Because we do have it, the temperature is a comfortable plus 15 degrees Celsius. Based on the seasonal and geographic distribution of any projected warming, a good case can be made that a warmer average temperature would be even more beneficial for humans.
Full Text at link below:
http://launchmagonline.com/index.php/Viewpoint/In-Science-Ignorance-is-not-Bliss.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
[…] try to discredit Physicist Walter Cunningham, NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut and award-winning scientist, now that he’s dropped Thor’s Hammer o’ Doom™ on their Great Glow Bull Ponzi Scheme™. It doesn’t help that NASA scientist James Hansen was […]
If hydrogen vehicles create “water” then my question is “how much” and what impact will it have on our highways? Will it be a significant amount to affect the road conditions? What if it is below freezing?
H2O is a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion
statePoet1775 (16:52:48) : Maybe this article should go in a full page add in the New York Times.
Or something very much like it. I agree. I think it should also have a sidebar of agreements by prominent scientists. Not necessarily excerpted comments, like those seen in movie ads, but maybe a list headed by the statement, “The following endorse this message”.
I can see it now. Some graphic in the top 1/6th, followed by the text followed by a list of signatures. Like the Declaration of Independence. The graphic is to catch the eye. Not really needed. The top should have the appearance of a regular article so it isn’t skipped over as “just another ad.”
It may go along way in breaking the “consensus” idea and (hopefully) start a genuine debate of the issues.
Jason Salit (04:54:05) If that is true then why shouldn’t C02 concentration continue to increase given the warming since the LIA (despite recent and significant, in my view, cooling)?
Hm. Just a note that, assuming a 800-1000 year lag, the LIA could not be the cause of current CO2 rise as it was not that long ago.
The MWP might be a good candidate though.
Just as the RWP might be a good MWP candidate, assuming that what we are seeing is a rise from the lag.
Funny how we seem to be getting warming in a roughly 1000 year cycle isn’t it?
Andrew W (11:06:34) note: “Carbon dioxide causes 9-26%” and ” water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.)”
It doesn’t bother you that we’re claiming x warming as amount in the models with a precision of 3 decimal places when:
a/ we don’t even know how much warming is occurring from CO2 within a 200% range?
b/ atmospheric CO2 residence is estimated at anywhere from 7 to 200 years?
Please do explain how that all works again.
Come on Andrew – you cannot cite anything from wikipedia or realclimate. Its content is controlled by your side. Please use papers published in scientific journals that was not peer reviewed by members of the good ole boys network of climatology (Mann, et al).
For those who are so in love with J. Hansen I ask – ” Is he also a CO2 scientist?” Please read someone who is.
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf
If you don’t believe water vapor is the prime ‘greenhouse gas’ , then I sugest you spend a week in a tropical jungle clearing, and another week camping out in the soutern part of the Sahara desert.
Back in the 1930’s, when I was in school, I learned that science was about observations and the theories that best explained those verifieable observations,and could accurately predict other verifiable observations.
I have , in my work, found that no true scientist believes that anything is a true FACT, only that it has a probility of being true in that it can forcast something that can be observed. At this the theory of AGW has constantly failed.
Mike, the ranges given do not reflect uncertainty but rather, as mentioned, that “It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive.”
Here’s the paper that these GH effect contributions are based on:
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/publications/Ramanathan%20and%20Coakley%20RevGSP%201978.pdf
“It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive.”
Then percentages should be assigned to individual gases and gases in combination, with the qualification ‘at current atmospheric concentrations and averaged over the atmosphere.
As always with the Warmers, the fact this isn’t done raises the suspicion it is because the CO2 alone contribution is unimpressive.
Andrew: “Just plain wrong”
Yes, that is the paper that Gavin at realclimate chooses to agree with, or base his whiz math on. However, claiming this as the evidence for the 95% statement being “just plain wrong” seems just plain wrong. Perhaps Gavin would like to publish his results showing why those that disagrees with him are wrong.
Here’s the abstract of the paper DOE used:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/1993/smf9301.html
I’ve researched this subject for a couple hours now. Realclimate references Wiki, Wiki references Realclimate…you reference Wiki and realclimate…
I wonder who may be a contributer to Wiki’s global warming pages.
Andrew, you may be right that it is not possible to state “a certain percentage”. And it may be right that stating a certain global temperature doesn’t make sense either, or saying CO2 is “well mixed”, or you and Wiki may be wrong.
Look, both water and CO2 have warming and cooling abilities, dependent on various conditions, mutual effect on eachother, in varying quantities, etc.
There has been a practice of modeling with different scenarios, and I have a hard time accepting that a certain percentage is not possible because “influences of the various gases are not additive”. I suspect that there has been just that going on with these models.
But, water is by volume far more than all other greenhouse gases combined, and an enormously bigger amount than CO2. To ignore it or not include it in consideration of climate change IS “just plain wrong”, and I can point you to many articles, from government agencies to the funny papers where no mention is made of water, only CO2. So if you want to compare notes on what is “just plain wrong” I suggest you look elsewhere than at the claim that water is 95% responsible for the greenhouse effect.
Denis Hopkins (03:20:32) : said,
It seems odd that so many of the posts on here from a pro-AGW standpoint do not seem to use their real names. I wonder why?
Seriously, why? what are they afraid of?
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I have unpaid parking tickets. I’m afraid that some of these government employed defenders of the planet might call their cousin over in the traffic division on me.
That and hell fire of course.
“But, water is by volume far more than all other greenhouse gases combined, and an enormously bigger amount than CO2. To ignore it or not include it in consideration of climate change IS “just plain wrong” ”
It isn’t ignored by scientists Glenn, do you seriously think that water vapour is ignored in the work that contributes towards the IPCC reports??
Andrew W:
I suggest you read the excellent link provided by Ted Annonson (14:54:20) just above. It is written in a clear style that someone unacquainted with the field of climatology or meteorology can understand.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the article, which was written by a credible expert who has been studying this issue since shortly after Al Gore flunked out of divinity school. Please explain if, and how, Dr. Martin Hertzberg may be in error. In your opinion, of course.
Andrew
Thank you for quote mining me and creating a strawman of my statement.
I didn’t say it was ignored by scientists, nor did I mention IPCC. But I did somewhat specify where CO2 claims can be found, since the rest of the *sentence* continued: “and I can point you to many articles, from government agencies to the funny papers where no mention is made of water, only CO2.”
That was an introduction to the next thing I said to you:
“So if you want to compare notes on what is “just plain wrong” I suggest you look elsewhere than at the claim that water is 95% responsible for the greenhouse effect.”
Smokey.
The stength of the greenhouse effect for CO2 and any other GH gas declines logarithmacally with increasing concentration.
A combination of gases covering different parts of the spectum is more effective at trapping heat than lots of one gas.
Water vapour is the most important GH gas but because of that logarithmic decline thing trace gases punch way above their weight.
Water vapour is also a feedback, if the atmosphere is warmed through other factors it can support more WP.
The initial driver to the glacial-interglacial cycle that Earth settled into a million or so years ago is most likely to be the Milankovich cycles of the Earths orbit, which alter the distribution of solar insolation over the planets surface, this triggers an initial retreat in ice cover at the end of each glacial period, lowering the planets albedo, warming the planet further, causing a net release of GH gases, further warming the planet more ice retreat etc etc.
Hertzberg argues that the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is a result of a net release of this gas from the oceans, this is just dumb, if you do the numbers you find that the CO2 released by the burning of fossel fuels over the last century has been double that which would be needed to cause the observed level of atmospheric increase.
In actuality the oceans have been a net CO2 sink.
He mentions that warmer oceans in means they should release CO2, and this would be true if the increase in the partial pressure of the CO2 in the atmosphere weren’t greater than the increase in the partial pressure of the CO2 dissolved in the ocean, looking at it another way, if you pump more CO2 into the top of the coke bottle, more will end up dissolved in the coke, even if you do warm the bottle slightly.
Hertzberg’s graphs around the period of the great depression are missing some data points that might show a different picture, and I doubt that the measurements of CO2 back then (even using modern ice cores) would show such subtle variations over such short periods. (it takes a decade or ten for the air trapped in snow to become isolated from the atmosphere though the compaction of that snow, this varies with location.)
This: “The most authoritative study of the lifetime of CO2 in the
atmosphere was done by a Norwegian, Professor Tom Segalstad of
the University of Oslo. The measured lifetime, based on the studies
of some 50 independent researchers is at most about 5 years.” Is misleading bull shit. CO2 flux is well understood, as other people on this thread have shown.
Dr. Martin Hertzberg seems unduly concerned about Al Gore, rather than the substance of the IPCC reports, he likes to throw around emotive language, he actually strikes me as a bitter man.
“Dr. Martin Hertzberg is a combustion research scientist who
worked on the prevention of fires and explosions in mines and other
industries at the Bureau of Mines in Pittsburgh, PA.”
Oh, and he’s in the pay of the coal industry 😉
Glenn said: “Thank you for quote mining me and creating a strawman of my statement. ”
You were creating your own stawman.
“I didn’t say it was ignored by scientists, nor did I mention IPCC….”
Well if you want to ignore the IPCC and get into arguing about the nonsense published in the MSM, or on loony far right or far left political blogs fine, but don’t expect anyone with a serious interest in the science to be interested in debating with you.
Joel Shore (19:23:19) : Says …..I hate to tell you but I kinda doubt it when he is just regurgitating misleading talking points like “human activity is responsible for only 3.2 percent [of CO2].”….
We have gone over this before.
Nature is currently absorbing 98 percent of all the CO2 being produced.
CO2 is produced by many things. Man is one of them and contributes just 3.2 percent. We have every right to expect and in fact we demand, that nature absorb 98 percent of what we produce.
If you have a beef then take it up with the leaders of the soil bacteria. It seems to me that the soil bacteria are the ones that are really dumping CO2 in the atmosphere.
Serenity now………
Oh dear, oh dear, ladies and gentlemen, we seem to be descending into rudeness again. Let me recount a tale from 20-odd years ago to illustrate the folly (the parts in quotation marks are illustrative not literal).
A group of school children wrote to the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and asked to meet her to discuss some issues of policy. An appointment was arranged and the children arrived in Downing Street with their teacher. After the meeting the children and teacher were interviewed by the press. Some of the children said “Mrs Thatcher didn’t listen to us at all.” The teacher said “It was an interesting discussion, where the children said something the Prime Minister did not agree with she explained why she holds a different view.”
There is the world of difference between (i) not listening and (ii) listening but forming a different view. In this thread people from both sides of the fence have fallen into category (i) when the reality is that they are in category (ii).
On a different point, in this thread many comments have referred to certain emitters of CO2 as “natural”. Is there anything “unnatural” about human beings making their lives more comfortable through industrial development?
http://thefatbigot.blogspot.com/2008/08/unnatural-new-definition.html
Andrew,
You claim I made my own strawman, yet that would be kind of hard to do, but in any event you didn’t even attempt to support that ridiculous claim.
And I’m not “wanting to ignore the IPCC”, nor was the IPCC ever part of the subject. To imply that I wanted to ignore the IPCC, and as well, to imply that I claimed that scientists and the IPCC do not consider water as a greenhouse gas, is quite dishonest, AGWer. Is that clear enough for you?
“Well if you want to ignore the IPCC and get into arguing about the nonsense published in the MSM, or on loony far right or far left political blogs fine, but don’t expect anyone with a serious interest in the science to be interested in debating with you.”
Curious that you wanted to “argue about the nonsense” regarding what has been said on realclimate, a DOE site and launchmagazine.com. Perhaps you don’t have a serious interest in the science, and should not be “debating” here. Take your own advice.
You two both need to chill, please, pretty please?
Aye, I should have ignored the first round.
If man is natural then everything he does is natural including making hydrogen bombs. Oops, that can’t be right so man must be unnatural but that can’t be right either because then how did man originate?
Oh, I found the answer. Man was natural until the Industrial Revolution. Then the excess CO2 caused him to become unnatural and invent H bombs and other nasty things. The obvious solution then
is to reduce CO2 till man becomes natural again.
“Oh, and he’s in the pay of the coal industry ;-)” I see the smiley face. I will acknowledge you meant this as a joke.
However, I have read and heard so many AGW proponents accuse scientists of changing their results for money that it is having an effect on me.
My grandmother told me, “it takes one to know one.” If anyone is not so fortunate, maybe they can look up ‘psychological projection.’ Either way — after years of these kinds of slanders, I personally find it very hard not to be skeptical just because so many AGW proponents have exposed so much about themselves through their constant accusations.
It would be a lot easier to convince me if one did not have to overcome the nagging (and continually reinforced) impression that a large number of AGW proponents are projecting their willingness and motivations to lie about science onto other people.
So, go ahead, turn the tables and accuse me of projection, too. I can’t think of a better way to prove my point. Or, you could actually consider why one side thinks it appropriate to label their fellow citizens as ‘deniers’ even though they fully understand it carries connotations of excusing wholesale mass murderers. Conversely, so far, not even a small faction on the other side has stooped to the label ‘collaborators,’ even though the word appropriately matches the arguments that some small factions advance and they have the built-in excuse that they were negatively labeled first. In fact, the common label ‘alarmist’ is actually a positive word if you turn out to be right. No judgment is attached until the results are in. The contrast could not be starker.
So, are AGW proponents really trying to change minds or just win meaningless debating points? Actually changing minds is going to require some drastic changes in attitude and language as well as being right about the science.
Sorry, I’ll be good.
Glenn the abstract you link to is entitled:
“Solar radiation absorption by CO2, overlap with H2O, and a parameterization for general circulation models”
ie it addresses absorption of solar radiation coming down through the atmophere by CO2 and H2O, not infra-red radiation escaping from the Earth.
Do you have something from a scientifically authorative source supporting the 95% claim?
I’m afraid I still don’t get what point you’re trying to make in your last paragraph at 16:43:15.
I interpreted it as “why do you comment on the 95% BS when there’s lots of (alarmist) BS out there?”
If that’s not what you were saying, could you please rephrase your point differently?
Regards
jc stout — (“Oh, and he’s in the pay of the coal industry ;-)” I see the smiley face. I will acknowledge you meant this as a joke.)
We have all seen this particularly mendacious accusation repeated so often (anyone skeptical being on an oil or coal company payroll) that we can all have fun with it here and there. People do say this in seriousness. That said, I have to wonder what accusers are trying to imply. It sounds stupid, even on the face of it.
For example, I think of the 20 million bbl of oil used per day in the USA, over 50% of this is going into products like plastics. Assume for a moment that we all woke up in the morning tomorrow and found that our vehicles no longer needed gas — they were all electric — and all of our electric power generation came from a vast supply of safe Unobtanium run by 100% efficient, clean, non-polluting micro-plants.
Exxon wouldn’t go out of business. Nope. Oil and coal would be used for plastics, and the supply/demand curve would ramp up the per bbl price such that drilling in shale etc. would *still* be necessary assuming all of the easy to get oil was being consumed. It would still be being consumed, just not burned in engines.
The point being of course that the accusation assumes by definition that the only possible use for oil is to turn it into pollution via SUV’s. Obviously this doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense as it isn’t even remotely true, hence I question the thinking ability of anyone who makes this accusation.