NASA's Global CO2 Surveyor

My son recently sent me an article about NASA’s global CO2 surveyor satellite that unfortunately didn’t achieve orbit and was destroyed. I could not find any links to the article, so I attached it to this email. In it I found some interesting statements that prompted the following response:

Dear Mike:

I often become suspicious of the veracity and the political motives of articles published by some “scientists” when those articles contain statements that are patently false or at least misleading. I also view as suspect the common assumption made that CO2 generated by human activity is a major factor in and causes catastrophic global warming. This one assumption runs counter to conclusions from many long studied and well known factors that affect climate. The following paragraph is from that article. It caught my eye because one little sentence in italics, the basis for the accuracy of the entire project, is untrue.

“Carbon dioxide molecules aren’t measured directly; the instrument tabulates the absorption of sunlight by CO2 and molecular oxygen molecules before and after sunlight is reflected off the Earth’s surface. Since each molecule has a unique infrared signature, they can be singled out and counted. There are two detectors for CO2 because it is easier to spot near the Earth’s surface at 1/61 microns and in the atmosphere at 2.06 microns. The molecular oxygen A-band channel acts as a survey control because its presence in the atmosphere is constant.”

In rebuttal I offer a substantiated quote from my book, A Convenient Solution, and an article I published in 2007. The full article on global warming can be found at http://hjgulfstream.blogspot.com. Should you want to read the section in my book it is available on the web at http://acsexcerpts.blogspot.com.

From page 47 of the book: With the exception of hydrogen, all gaseous, liquid, and solid fuels produce carbon dioxide when burned in any energy process. In addition, the production of hydrogen by any means other than by electrolysis, using energy from nuclear, wind, water or tidal power plants will add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from both the energy and the raw materials used to create the hydrogen (coal-fired power plants for instance). It is interesting to note that for each pound of carbon oxidized to carbon dioxide, four pounds of oxygen are removed from the atmosphere. For every thousand tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere, eight hundred tons of oxygen are removed. In all the concern about CO2 there has never been a single mention of that fact.

The obvious conclusion is that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is not a constant as stated in the article in Aviation Week.

It should be interesting to note that I do not agree with those who say atmospheric CO2 has a catastrophic effect on climate or with those who argue it has absolutely no effect. It is just that the amount of that effect, though real, is so small as to be insignificant compared to other, well known factors. In just the same way, pouring a bucket of water into Lake Erie raises the lake level. I do not think shore dwellers need to fear that will flood their homes. This puts me solidly against global warming proponents in government who use it to gain power and as a huge cash cow of tax revenue. In addition there are literally thousands of groups using proven tactics to frighten the public into compliance donations, and mindless support.

From my article on global warming: Any global warming from the effects of CO2, if indeed it exists or poses any danger at all, is grossly distorted relative to the facts at hand. Most of the data used to show global warming are at best statistical and at worst, anecdotal. Both of which provide great opportunities for opinions (and agendas) to mitigate the data we can obtain. We know for certain that addition to the atmosphere of any gas will contribute that gas’s infrared absorption properties with all its complexities. Actually, all gases in the atmosphere have some “greenhouse” effect. This includes, nitrogen (75.0% - 78.08%), oxygen (20.11% - 20.95%), argon (0.89$ - 0.93%), and carbon dioxide (0.035% - 0.038%). The percentages in parentheses are of air at sea level. Ranges are shown because air also contains a variable amount of water vapor (from 1- 4% ±0.25%) and trace amounts of other gases. Each gas has a complex rate of infrared absorption and emission at various infrared frequencies. Water vapor has from 30 to 90 times the temperature effect of CO2 depending on various conditions.

The warmer air becomes, the more water vapor it can hold. Remember the weatherman’s favorite “dew point” predictions? When the temperature lowers to that point, the air can hold no more water vapor so it condenses out as “dew” or rain in the big picture. Using the same rationale as the global warming folks use for CO2, increasing amounts of water vapor would cause a much larger increase in atmospheric temperatures than CO2 resulting in still warmer air and still more water vapor. Shouldn’t this lead to a runaway greenhouse effect? Wouldn’t this drive atmospheric temperatures higher and higher until the oceans boil and all life is extinguished? Obviously this has not happened so something about these assumptions must be wrong for water vapor and CO2 as well.

Water vapor adds still another factor to the mix. That is the heat of vaporization or condensation of water. Tremendous amounts of the sun’s radiant energy evaporates water all over the earth. All of that energy enters the atmosphere in water vapor. The warmer the ocean or wet land, the more energy goes into the air. When all this water vapor condenses out as rain, that energy is released and the air warms. This is the driving energy that causes the air to move and creates windstorms, tornados and hurricanes. For all practical purposes, the CO2 content of the air has zero effect on the amount of energy that goes into the atmosphere or heats the air when water condenses.

One huge factor that man has affected greatly is the water vapor that green plants give off and particularly dense rain forests. Our continuing decimation of all types of rain forests is removing a huge source of water vapor that formerly entered the air. One example of this effect was used incorrectly as an example of global warming, which it was not. The disappearing snows of Mount Kilimanjaro are not an effect of global warming. Studies have shown that the cutting of the forest around the base of the mountain so reduced the amount of water vapor in the air flowing up the mountain that both the rainfall and snowfall on the higher slopes has been reduced dramatically. This is one correct example of where human activity has interfered with nature. Deforestation worldwide has done far more damage to our environment and effected climate far more than even tripling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could do. It alone could arguably be responsible for any temperature increase over the last hundred years as a reduction in the amount of water vapor would reduce cloud cover resulting in less of the sun’s energy reflected away. Why don’t we do something about that?

Whatever the effect of carbon dioxide, it is so small in comparison as to raise questions about the real amount of the danger it poses. Certainly it is not the degree of danger claimed by the high priests of global warming. I seriously question the validity of the often quoted phrase, “Overwhelming numbers of scientists support the theory that man’s use of fossil fuels is bringing about catastrophic global warming.” In the first place, the worldwide destructive clearing and burning of rain forest results in putting far more net carbon dioxide into the air than all the vehicles in the entire world. Second, shrinking rain forests mean less water vapor is released into the air. This could in turn mean less rain and snow where the air over land is drier. The questions remain, does the evaporation from the oceans increase and make up for this loss, and what effect does the drier air have on cloud cover and the resulting reflection of the sun’s energy away from the earth? All of these interacting variables have much larger net effects on global temperatures than CO2.. Because of this, “Overwhelming numbers of scientists” may have no real clue about the degree of effect that CO2 might have on atmospheric temperatures leading to global warming. Obviously it is much smaller than that of water vapor.