Guest post by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
December 7, 2009 is a date that will live in infamy. Not only in memory of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but the day the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
The 52-page EPA Endangerment Finding can be summarized simply. The agency concluded that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases emitted by US industry and vehicles were causing dangerous global warming. The EPA stated that these gases “…threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The agency relied on studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, and the National Research Council.
That ruling is bizarre. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is an invisible, odorless, harmless gas. It does not cause smoke or smog. The rising visible plumes from the smokestacks of a power plant are not CO2. That’s condensing water vapor. We can’t see carbon dioxide.
The EPA ruling failed to include nature’s largest greenhouse gas, water vapor. Scientists estimate that 75 percent to 90 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds. As any eighth-grade chemistry student learns, burning hydrocarbon fuel produces both carbon dioxide and water vapor. When natural gas (methane) is burned, two water vapor molecules are produced for each carbon dioxide molecule. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas produced by human industry, the EPA should declare water a pollutant by its own logic.
Rather than being a pollutant, CO2 is green! Carbon dioxide is plant food, a compound essential for plant photosynthesis. Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies show that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 cause plants to grow faster and larger. Wheat, orange trees, pine trees, hardwood trees, prairie grasses, and even poison ivy thrive in higher levels of CO2.
Plants grow larger root systems, produce more seeds and vegetables, and bloom larger flowers with more CO2. Tree wood density increases. Plants grow better in poor soil and drought conditions with higher levels of atmospheric CO2. In fact, if we wanted to put one compound into the atmosphere that would be great for the biosphere, carbon dioxide is that compound. Yet, almost every university and company now tracks the size of its “carbon footprint” and tries to reduce carbon emissions.
But isn’t it true that too much of anything can be bad for the environment? Yes in the case of real pollutants such as carbon monoxide or lead, but carbon dioxide is a harmless compound that is common in nature. The 2007 IPCC Carbon Cycle Model estimated that the atmosphere contained 750 billion tons of carbon in the form of CO2 with an additional 38,000 billion tons of carbon dissolved in the oceans. Mankind adds a comparably small 6 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere each year.
The current atmospheric level of 394 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide is actually somewhat on the low side. Dr. William Happer of Princeton University points out that atmospheric CO2 reached several thousand ppm in past ages. Geological evidence shows that life flourished during those past times of high CO2.
Over 190 nations are currently gathered in Doha, Qatar, attempting to negotiate a global treaty to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. Future generations will regard the early 20th century as an age of climate foolishness.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
The EPA may also want to consider the dangers of the chemical agent DHMO (Dihydrogen Monoxide). The following is but a very short list of its dangers. For a full, highly alarming listing see http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html.
“Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.”
By not protecting us from DHMO, the EPA is not doing its job!
/sarc
@R Baker
You miss the point and did not answer the question. Why would anyone who knows what they are talking about make an argument that CO2 is harmless start by pointing out that it is invisible? And so what if CO2 is plant food? That also has no bearing on whether or not CO2 is causing global warming and related climate changes.
@mbw:
It is your conjecture that CO2 has ‘harmed’ the planet, therefore the onus is on you to provide testable, verifiable scientific proof, per the scientific method, showing that the rise in CO2 has caused global harm.
There is no such evidence. Without any verifiable, testable examples of global “harm” due to human CO2 emissions, CO2 is, in fact, “harmless”. Your evidence-free conjecture that CO2 causes “harm” is nothing but baseless conjecture.
On balance, the net result of the rise in CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. But you cannot admit that, because it destroys your fact-free argument. So you will always insist that the rise in CO2 is 100% bad. But without verifiable, testable evidence, your conjecture is as valid as saying the moon is made of green cheese — and just as unscientific.
@Matt 12:28. So sorry to hear of your boredom. do try holding your exhalation of co2 for a couple of hours, this will solve all your problems.
So how many parts per million dihydrogen monoxide would be permissible in our lakes and rivers?
Deadliest poison on the plant. Kills more people than anything but life itself. Save the planet right.
So the EPA has picked the hill they’d like to die on. Foolish.
mbw says:
December 9, 2012 at 9:28 am
How do the facts the CO2 is invisible and odorless have any bearing on whether or not is it harmless?
It doesn’t, but why is it, do you suppose, that in any “news” story having to do with C02 and global warming they invariable show the smokestacks of power plants belching out great plumes of what appears to be actual smoke, often appearing black? Some will even show pictures of smog-darkened cities, usually China, which probably has the greatest smog problem. Why do you think they call it “carbon”, which people associate with black carbon, or soot?
Instead of heating our homes directly or indirectly with evil co2 producing fuels, I understand that by covering oneself with a nice polar bear skin one can forego using the central heat. And with proper processing the polar bear fat could run the SUV. Mother nature solves the problem.
David, UK says:
It is not a contradiction at all. It is called understanding the science. Because of the larger quantities of water vapor present in the atmosphere and the much faster cycling of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere, our emissions of water vapor do not significantly change the concentration of water vapor (at least on global scales). However, our emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere do significantly change the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
…Just to add to my last post, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere does turn out to be very important, but the way that humans are increasing that concentration is by increasing the concentration of non-condensable greenhouse gases like CO2, which causes heating, which leads to an increase in water vapor via the water vapor feedback.
[snip. No chemtrails posts on this site. You’re just making extra work for the mods.]
joelshore says:
“…the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere does turn out to be very important, but the way that humans are increasing that concentration is by increasing the concentration of non-condensable greenhouse gases like CO2, which causes heating, which leads to an increase in water vapor …”
Both global relative humidity and specific humidity have been declining for many decades. Therefore, humans are not increasing water vapor. Therefore, not only is joelshore wrong as usual, but he inadvertently proved that CO2 has no measurable heating effect.
I predict joelshore’s response will be to argue about the charts, as always. Because the charts prove he is wrong.
joeldshore:
At December 9, 2012 at 11:21 am you assert
That may or may not be true because the evidence cannot resolve the issue either way.
ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
What is certain is that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had no discernible affect on global temperature.
And it is probable that atmospheric CO2 concentrations cannot have a discernible effect because climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration is less than 1deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
If climate sensitivity is less than 1 deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, then it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected because natural variability is much, much larger. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
Richard
There is a reason Humanity rhymes with insanity.
@D Böehm
The second chart is mislabled as is discussed in the WUWT posting it appeared it. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/
I have no idea where his first chart came from. Here is a chart I found:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/humidity
It came from here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/
Here is what the IPCC said (FYI):
“To summarise, global, local and regional studies all indicate increases in moisture in the atmosphere near the surface, but highlight differences between regions and between day and night. Satellite observations of oceanic lower-tropospheric water vapour reveal substantial variability during the last two decades. This variability is closely tied to changes in surface temperatures, with the water vapour mass changing at roughly the same rate at which the saturated vapour pressure does. A significant upward trend is observed over the global oceans and some NH land areas, although the calculated trend is likely influenced by large interannual variability in the record.”
Draw your own conclusions.
Buzzed,
Thanks for that. I notice that specific humidity rose slightly at ground level, and I assume that is due at least in part to the UHI effect. At higher altitudes, specific humidity is still declining.
You also say you don’t know the provenance of the relative humidity chart. It can be found here, among other sites. Relative humidity is the more relevant metric regarding CO2 anyway.
You say: Draw your own conclusions. That is what I have been doing: Unless verifiable, testable, empirical measurements are produced showing a cause and effect proving that ∆CO2 causes ∆T, then AGW must be too small to measure. QED, eh? And if AGW is too minuscule to measure, then for all practical purposes it amounts to zero [even though I think AGW exists as an extremely minor effect].
If AGW is zero for all practical purposes, then public funding to “study” the effect of “carbon” must be stopped; it is a complete waste of money at this point, and the country does not have money to waste.
D Böehm: You don’t get the nature of empirical science. You cannot prove cause and effect like in mathematics. Rather one considers the preponderance of the evidence. It is very likely that human CO2 and other GHG emissions have caused the observed warming both of the lower atmosphere and oceans while cooling the stratosphere. The pattern is so far as anyone knows best explained by the greenhouse effect. There is considerable uncertainty in how far the warming trend will go. The scientists cannot tell us what to do about the risk. We can cross our fingers and hope for the best or invest in mitigation and adaption measures which do have an economic cost. Your proposal that we not even study this issue is absurd and goes well beyond what even the most ardent skeptics are calling for.
Looks to me like the EPA and a particular political party is in the back pockets of foreign lobbyists who want access to our IP, tech, and most importantly, wealth.
Nice to know that the democrats want to screw us and the US.
Buzzed says:
“You cannot prove cause and effect like in mathematics.”
Wrong.
As we see, the cause-and-effect is crystal clear. Furthermore, we see it on all time scales from months to hundreds of millennia.
But there is no similar empirical evidence showing that ∆T follows ∆CO2. None. There is no evidence of that kind of correlation.
The alarmist crowd has it exactly backward: ∆T causes ∆CO2, not vice-versa; any such putative effect from CO2 is mere conjecture, since there are no empirical measurements showing that CO2 controls temperature. Sorry to bust your fantasy bubble, but evidence-free conjectures don’t cut it here.
D Boehm says:
You predict correctly because (as usual) you have cherry-picked the one re-analysis that shows what you want it to show and have ignored all the other ones…and the satellite analyses that show just the opposite, as well as the response of water vapor to short-term variations in temperature due to things like ENSO. See the discussion here: http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler10.pdf
richardscourtney says:
We have had discussion about the Idso paper before, which is a joke. That Lindzen and Choi paper was so bad that even Spencer was very critical of it. (And, Lindzen and Choi even admitted that their paper had serious problems and published a new and supposedly improved version in some obscure journal.) The Gregory paper isn’t even peer-reviewed.
See here for a real scientific discussion of the empirical determinations of climate sensitivity: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-6.html
Warmists should be obliged to (try to) survive on carbon-free cereals, meat, fruit and vegetables. Released from the obligation only after swearing to maximize their CO2 output from there on to repay it for their lives and survival.
joelshore is as wrong as Buzzed. There is no global warming, and there hasn’t been for a decade and a half. Planet Earth itself is debunking shore’s and Buzz’s baseless assertions.
Planet Earth is the ultimate Authority. Who should we believe? The always mistaken joelshore? Or Planet Earth, and our lyin’ eyes?
“Human-Caused Climate Change Signal Emerges from the Noise
Nov. 29, 2012 — By comparing simulations from 20 different computer models to satellite observations, Lawrence Livermore climate scientists and colleagues from 16 other organizations have found that tropospheric and stratospheric temperature changes are clearly related to human activities.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121129143504.htm
Since all lifeforms emit co2 all lifeforms must be polluters. Does this not contradict evolution or the perception of ecosystems. I have held the belief that religion should be kept out of politics. but now feel science should be held out as they seem to be coming one in the same.
Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas produced by human industry, the EPA should declare water a pollutant by its own logic.
———
No it wouldn’t.
The atmosphere is more or less at constant relative humidity. So any excess water vapour rains out. It can’t increase without limit.
CO2 can just keep on increasing.
joeldshore:
At December 9, 2012 at 7:00 pm you write
OK. I understand that.
It says you are not able to provide any specific criticism of any of the three completely different analyses which each assesses different data sets.
Richard
REPLY: I would tend to agree. Joel’s personal biases are clear here, his scientific ones seem to follow without specifics. – A