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

[AlexW]

“I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there isn’t any peer reviewed science out there that effectively debunks global warming. The few things that are published inevitably have corporate backing and don’t survive long when inspected by the climatology community.”

Err, newbie, are you Al Goron in drag?
There are plenty of CERTIFIABLE climate scientist that debunk man made global warming.
As for being in the pocket of big business, that coin has two sides.

Anyway, welcome to FR...You have at least two other FReepers
who will hold your hand on global warming, but they, as well as Al Gore, are not real climatologist, they just play one on TV..I mean internet.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Ping.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Eventually temperature must go down due to water cloud formation.

[AlexW]

“I am curious to know who these global warming debunked”

You could start with the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle.

As for papers, the great Global Warming grant mill is running full blast, cranking out billions of bucks to feed those leftist printing plants.
There is little money out there for any thoughts of warming to be natural.
That does not fit the template of the socialist.

[AlexW]

“I’m glad you’re not trying to deny that the earth is warming”

I have no doubt that the earth is in a warm period, the same as it was in the MWP, one thousand years ago.
When you can explain that time in history, and explain why
warming in our universe and the planets is caused by the sun, but not here on earth, then I will start to take notice. As for CO2, I will go with the scientist that say
it follows warming, not preceeds it.
In the meantime, I am not interested in the rantings of
grant hungry scientist, or a fat flunkie of divinity school.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

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.

The fact that you are unable to defend your beliefs in your own words and choose to defer to your religious leaders' pontifications rather than doing so is proof that you don't really understand what you are advocating, it is just a matter of faith for you.

FAITH = RELIGION

[Excellence]

I just noticed something abut this chart you sent me. The blue label says “Temperature change from 1950 to 1980.” But each line on the chart represents 10,000 years. The time range is over a 160,000 year period, how does one measure 30 years, and who cares what happens in a microscopic 30 year period?! And it looks as if it was even hotter a mere 10,000 year ago. Does this fall under the general heading of obfuscation?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The blue label says “Temperature change from 1950 to 1980.” But each line on the chart represents 10,000 years.

It actually says "Temperature Change 1950-1980 Mean."

They are using the mean (average) temperature during that period as the reference temperature. In other words, the period 1950-1980 is "0.0" on the Y-axis. The temperatures for all other years are degrees above or degrees below the average temperature for the 1950-1980 period.

There is no obfuscation going on here. They are perfectly reasonable scaling factors.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Here ya’ go:

For starters, Essenhigh’s assertion that “water averages out as 97% of the thermal trapping” is unsupported in his paper and at wide variance with generally accepted values – he’s able to present these assertions as plausible because he does not understand even the basics of atmospheric physics and chemistry, for example disregards variable absorption rates with altitude. He hasn’t apparently hasn’t even bothered to try to defend this paper since shortly after its publication, and instead has concentrated his criticisms on the economic effects of programs to reduce the rate of increase in atmospheric C02. Nevertheless, the paper won’t die, but surfaces every few years presented in the guise of cutting-edge and well-supported criticism of current consensus views.

Happy now?

Convinced of anything?

I don’t expect so – because the only way to judge the reasonableness and accuracy of such opinion is either to study the question yourself, or to adopt the views of authorities you accept as competent to evaluate them for you.

[TC Rider]

Ruh roh, the global warming mullahs are going to rip through this guy like the Vatican through the Hare Club for Men!

[Robert A Cook PE]

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?

What’s “flawed” about them?

The relationship, the emissivity comparison, the concentrations are correct?

What’s “flawed” - other than that he destroys (the desired) theory of man-caused global-warming that is needed to destroy the American economy.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Why was the temperature higher 100,000 years ago than it is now? Higher about 200,00 years ago than it is now?

Gore wasn’t putting out his CO2 emissions then.

If average mid-atmospheric temperatures ARE dependent on average CO2 levels (because of reflectivity) why haven’t temperatures gone up since theirpeak in 1998-1999? They’ve just stayed the same for almost 8 years now, but CO2 levels have been gradually increasing the whole time.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

"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."

More "consensus" science, eh?

Consensus is not science. Consensus is politics.

I contacted Dr. Essenhigh with the information that his paper had been thoroughly refuted. He was genuinely surprised to hear this.

Here is his response:

---

Dear (E. Pluribus Unum)

Very much appreciate your interest.  I didn't know that the article had been refuted.  If the "refutees" (if there is such a word) had a point it would have been a professional courtesy to have contacted me, but nothing like that has yet come my way.  In fact, since the article was published -- 6 years ago (and republished the same year, with ACS permission, in Energy and Environment [12(4), 351 – 355 (2001)] -- I've been getting comments every few weeks ever since, with some questions, but mostly approval and support.

On the matter of more, this is the Attachment, just published last year in another ACS journal, Energy and Fuels, that as a chemist you are probably familiar with.  As you will see, this is more analytical, but it comes up with essentially the same result regarding the (radiative) dominance of water over CO2, and the conclusion that anthopogenic CO2 is unlikely to be possible to have significant impact on global warming.  You will see one change between this and the original article which is setting the (average) water/CO2 absorption/emission properties to about 75-80% for water and 15-20% for CO2 compared with the (original) estimate of about 95%/5%.  The change was taking into account the very much faster drop in water with altitude compared with CO2, but it still sets water as the dominant gas.

If you have time to read it (it is rather long), I'd be interested in your comments.

Thanks again for the interest

Robert H. Essenhigh
E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion; Department of Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University; Columbus, OH: 43210
 
http://rclsgi.eng.ohio-state.edu/~essenhig/
http://rclsgi.eng.ohio-state.edu/~essenhig/ACE.html
http://rclsgi.eng.ohio-state.edu/~essenhig/hier.html
http://www.mecheng.ohio-state.edu/people/essenhig.html

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Ping the list please.

RealClimate.org dishonesty on display.('Mannmade science' strikes again.)

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Link to Dr. Essenhigh's latest article.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Excellent!

[Excellence]

Ah, thanks for straightening that out.
My first thought is that choosing that time span as a reference point is rather arbitrary. What says this particular reference point is “normal” and everything outside of it is “too” hot or cold?

[Old Professer]

Probably laughed his way through it.