The Beginning of the End for the Theory of Global Warming?

The commentator known as Zombie describes a week of bad news for the true believers in global warming. (See here.) What struck me in particular was the claim by some scientists that they had found a molecule in the atmosphere that acts to make clouds and so negate global warming. (See here.) I always thought there was likely to be a feedback mechanism that prevented things from getting too much out of hand. After all, the earth has gone through a lot of different periods of warming and cooling, so it seems likely that feedback mechanisms exist because otherwise either warming or cooling would have prevailed and the earth would be either permanently a lot warmer or colder than it is now.

But it was impossible to tell the true believers this. They insisted that everything was already settled and that we must act immediately. Of course, I admit there is nothing at this point to guarantee that the above result will hold. On the other hand, those who think the science is settled are committed to saying this discovery is bad science, which is plainly and irresponsibly premature.

Comments

[new era hats]

But it was impossible to tell the true believers this. They insisted that everything was already settled

[Quizikle]

"There are 3 FACTS. Not to be doubted. And to question these facts is to be declared ignorant or incompetent. The only problem with this is telling the difference."

These are the words from a "research" center: a "scientist" (Just received it via an internal comment this morning). The believers are going to get ugly before they fade away.

One of those facts is that man-made CO2 molecules are different than natural CO2 molecules and the MM type are pushing the NM type out of the plant cycle.

Someone must have confused "good" and "bad" cholesterol with CO2 molecules.

I believe the heart of this problem is James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. (The NASA Goddard Reserach Center is in Greenbelt, MD). He's held this position since 1981. A fine demonstration of sludge collecting when something doesn't move for a long time.

from Wiki:
Physicist Freeman Dyson is critical of Hansen's climate-change activism. "The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers... Hansen has turned his science into ideology.”

Sigh...
Q

[Mark Spahn]

Maybe I need to get my BS detector recalibrated, but
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120112142232.htm
is setting it off. Let's detail what is suspicious about this article...

* It is dated "Jan. 12, 2012", when I viewed it at
3:40 a.m. New York time on January 11, 2012.
Could the Jan. 12 date be correct, even if Science
Daily is an Australian publication?

* Criegee biradicals are later referred to as "the"
Criegee biradical. So what is it: a certain biradical,
or a family of biradicals?

* What *is* a biradical? Are there tri- and tetraradicals too? Is this a fake chemical name, like "dihydrogen monoxide"?

* Nowhere does the article identify which chemical
elements make up this Criegee biradical. A reader
would expect a chemical formula like NOH or
C5H2P2, but finds none.

* Criegee biradicals are described as "invisible chemical
intermediates". "Invisible"? Really? Even under a
scanning electron microscope? Are they invisible
in the same sense that the emperor's new clothes
are invisible?

* The third sentence in the article reads:
"These invisible chemical intermediates are powerful
oxidisers [British/Australian spelling] of pollutants
such as nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide, produced
by combustion, and can naturally clean up the atmosphere."
The phrase "produced by combustion" is misplaced;
it should come right after "pollutants". More importantly, the reactions by which these invisible intermediates "clean up the atmosphere" are not described.

Conclusion: This is either a hoax or incredibly incompetent science reporting.
-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), waiting for April 1

[Mark Spahn]

Hello Quizikle,
You write: "One of those [three] facts is that man-made CO2 molecules are different than natural CO2 molecules and the MM [=man-made molecule?] type are pushing the NM [=natural molecule?] type out of the plant cycle."
It is not clear to me whether you are stating this as a fact, or mocking it as a so-called fact.
How does a plant distinguish between a CO2 molecule that is man-made and one that is natural? What is different about them?

[John Pepple]

Hi Mark,
Wikipedia has some info on criegee biradicals. I don't claim to understand the chemistry of it, and the info was obviously posted very recently.

I did wonder about this article, which ought to have given some more info on chemistry, but I also implied that one needed to be cautious about this result.

I'm also pretty sure that Quizikle was mocking it as a so-called fact.

[Quizikle]

Yeah...I was mocking a "fact"...but I was more mocking a "scientist" that could make such a statement. I mocked it publicly at work as well ... and I expect repercussions next week (minor ones - I'm a "scientist" also). One should not mock the indisputable.

Should have been more clear - but I don't have the specific reference in front of me. This was one of the three indisputable facts of CO2 that could not and should not be questioned.

The article had phrasing that led one to believe that man-generated CO2 was a problem by displacing CO2 generated by natural means. Somehow this was interfering with the plant-oxygen-CO2 cycle.

I suspect the evidence and support for AGW is fading and the believers are searching for something to base their faith on. Or something to justify continued funding.
Q