Does CO2 really drive global warming?

May 2001 Chemical Innovation, May 2001, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp 44—46 ^ | May 2001 | Robert H. Essenhigh, E. G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Ohio State University

[Excellence]

This looks very promising. Thank you. That website is a great resource, too. Thanks again!

[Excellence]

Thanks for your help. If I can figure out how to do that, I will.

[redangus]

Yes but, but the Polar bear cubs are going to die. You are so heartless, geez!

[M. Dodge Thomas]

One thing at a time.

Before we get onto the “ocean CO2 sink issues”, are we in agreement that the portions of this paper centered on discussion of the physics and chemistry of the relative contributions of *atmospheric* water vapor and CO2 are fundamentally flawed?

[capt. norm]

I am way too curious. Going by your screen-name, could it possibly be that you like to fly gliders?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

One thing at a time. Before we get onto the “ocean CO2 sink issues”, are we in agreement that the portions of this paper centered on discussion of the physics and chemistry of the relative contributions of *atmospheric* water vapor and CO2 are fundamentally flawed?

Which paper, my paper or your paper?

You need to put a reference at the beginning of your comment like I do so I know what you are talking about.

It's a common courtesy.

PS - Yours is a typical tactic of anthropogenic global-warming advocates: make things as confusing and complicated as possible so your point can't even be understood, much less refuted.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Which paper, my paper or your paper?

Sorry if that was unclear, I was referring to the paper being discussed in the header of this topic.

Yours is a typical tactic of anthropogenic global-warming advocates: make things as confusing and complicated as possible so your point can't even be understood, much less refuted.

The author makes a "complicated" technical argument.

As is sometimes the case when someone analyzes a problem from the perspective of narrow technical knowledge, some of his fundamental assumptions are in error and/or the author is unaware that questions raised have already been settled, or at least discussed in a fuller and more relevant context.

In this case the errors were discovered shortly after the time of publication, were discussed at the time (including in the journal where the original paper was published) and have been noted repeatedly since.

The article, however, keeps reappearing, stripped of the context that would allow readers to evaluate it.

The nature of these questions is often such that they are "confusing and complicated" to non-specialists, and in many cases intelligent lay readers are eventually going to have to make their pick of authorities.

But when you find an old paper which has attracted fundamental criticisms shortly after publication and has few if any technically competent current defenders, it's generally safe to assume that the critics were right.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

In this case the errors were discovered shortly after the time of publication, were discussed at the time (including in the journal where the original paper was published) and have been noted repeatedly since.

I presumed that you linked to one of these articles.

Show me something from your article that proves my article "fundamentally flawed."

As you said, "One thing at a time."

[M. Dodge Thomas]

The Realclimat.org link (and the discussion which follows, do a search in comments for “Essenhigh” and follow the links there) outlines the problems with the atmospheric chemistry and physics in Essenhigh’s paper. Essenhigh remains a “global warming skeptic’, but as far as I know he has not responded to professional criticism of this paper subsequent to 1992.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The Realclimat.org link (and the discussion which follows, do a search in comments for “Essenhigh” and follow the links there) outlines the problems with the atmospheric chemistry and physics in Essenhigh’s paper.

I'm not going to do your work for you.

If you have an argument, make it.

If you don't, shut up.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

"'m not going to do your work for you.

If you have an argument, make it.

If you don't, shut up.

Spoken like a true seeker after truth.

You have the link. You can follow it or not, as you choose.

If you can find a link where the author of this paper address professional criticism post 2002 please post it, and I will certainly read it.

But at this point we have an old paper, we have criticisms of the author's conclusions, and (as far as I've been able to determine) no response.

At this point, the argument is not mine to make.

[AFreeBird]

Global warming in and of itself does not exist.

Actually, it does exist. And as the article pointed out, it has been happening for millions (billions) of years. The argument is whether mans activities influences it anymore than the natural cycles that have existed since time began, and will exist long after we've turned to dust, and released the CO₂ in our bodies back into the atmo.

I'm of the opinion that the universe is a very large, and very complex place, and we're pretty damn arrogant to think we know it all. We don't.

That, and the global warming "crisis" is in itself a man made phenomenon designed to redistribute the wealth of nations, and hobble continued grown and advancement of the west in general, and the USA in particular.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

You have the link. You can follow it or not, as you choose.

Spoken like a true religious zealot.

No ideas of your own, just things and people you have a religious belief in.

You can't even express or defend your beliefs yourself, you have to post links to the words of your religious leaders.

Global warming dogma truly is a religion, and you just proved it.

[steveab]

Ref #21
Wouldn't’t you like to be the fly on the wall with both Robert H. Essenhigh, Baily and Lonnie Thompson at friendly faculty get together.

[stm]

I guess I sould have done a better job of communicating my point. What I meant to say is that global warming as a consequence of man’s existence does not exist. This earth has been going through climactic changes since it’s beginning.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

"Spoken like a true religious zealot. No ideas of your own, just things and people you have a religious belief in.

You can't even express or defend your beliefs yourself, you have to post links to the words of your religious leaders. Global warming dogma truly is a religion, and you just proved it."

You have it backwards there, I think.

This is exactly the opposite of debating something like religious doctrine, where everybody has an opinion, every body's opinion is of equal validity on an objective basis, and the more adroit debater "wins".

Expressing "my opinion" (except in so far as I might summarize the arguments) in the case of a technical debate over atmospheric chemistry and physics is pretty pointless in such cases, what anyone who wants to understand the question has to do is go back, read the paper, and read the responses, and attempt to evaluate which is the more reasonable position - there just is no other, easier, way to do it, and no one else can do it for you,

I've done my part - read the original, read the responses, attempted to discover if the author as responded to criticism of the original paper, especially in the last few years (as far as I can determine, he hasn't), and reached the best judgement I can, and pointed you the relevant material I have been able to discover.

If you have done the same, and arrived at a different opinion, IMO the productive thing to do is to take up the question with either the original author or his critics - it's easy to post (for example) and realclimat.org, and the moderators ad posters there are generally quick to respond to substantive comments - you will, though, have to raise substantive issues with regard to the criticism of the paper presented there.

[aruanan]

The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers.

More to the point: as he said, if the change in CO2 is driving the change in temperature, what could be driving the periodic changes in CO2? This has not been answered except to assert that the most recent change in CO2 is anthropogenic. This still doesn't account for the cycling going back hundreds of thousands of years before man could ever have been a factor. But if the change in CO2 levels is driven by changes in global temperature, and changes in global temperature can be correlated pretty exactly with changes in solar output, then there is a much greater likelihood that the sun is driving temperature changes that are driving changes in atmospheric CO2 than that changes in atmospheric CO2 are driving temperature changes that are driving changes in solar output or that correlated changes between temperature and CO2 just happen to correlate with changes in solar output. In this case, neither happenstance nor causation is believable.

[tophat9000]

bump