Greenhouse Gas and Global Warming: The Great Delusion
March 21, 2001
Before the coal industry told him to quit putting his foot in his mouth, even George W.
Bush, born and bred in a Texas oil patch, subscribed to the notion that global warming is
largely caused by the so-called "greenhouse gasses," the responsibility of us humans.
Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, hands out to his fellow cabinet members horror
scenarios about the earth frying.
But do all those gloomsters about global warming really know what they're talking about?
Remember those dud forecasts of a blizzard-of-the-century in the northeast United States
earlier this month? If the weather folk can't figure out what's happening for the rest of the
week, why do they think they can tell us what the climate will be across the next decade,
the next 50 years or the next century?
Answer: They can't, and that summary judgment includes the 995 experts who
participated in the "Third Assessment Report of Working Group 1 of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (hereinafter called the IPCC Summary), a
creature of the UN and of the World Meteorological Organization, which seized the
headlines recently with clamorous fears about the role of greenhouse gasses in the creation
of global warming.
The IPCC Summary makes much of the fact that across the last 1,000 years (a nano-
nano-second on the scale of planetary time), "the rate and duration of warming of the 20th
century has been much greater than in any of the previous nine centuries." But to take a
slightly longer-term view, the present warming trend is well within the fluctuations of the
last 100,000 or last million years.
As Pierre Sprey, former government analyst, statistical expert and veteran of many battles
over inflated eco-catastrophic predictions, puts it, "This is like a pimple on the ass of
climate change. To take one example of the monumental differences in geological record:
Today, oxygen is somewhere between 18 and 20 percent of atmosphere. But there was a
period of geological time when oxygen was way over 30 percent of the atmosphere, thus
prompting monstrously large species. The proportion of carbon dioxide (CO2) was way
higher. And here they are today, arguing about differences of one part per million of
The central premise of the greenhouse gas model of global warming is that during
daylight hours our globe gets its huge heat input in the form of short infrared rays from the
sun. In close balance, the globe releases this heat in the form of longer waves in infrared
radiation during the night hours. In the greenhouse model, malign gasses such as carbon
dioxide and methane happen to absorb the long infrared radiation more strongly. Thus,
these allegedly malign gasses let the short infrared rays in, but when heat tries to escape
each night they hold it in the atmosphere. The more CO2 we humans create, the more heat
is trapped and the hotter the world gets.
That's the theory that drives all the greenhouse computer models. But any halfway-
watchful reader of the IPCC Summary will note that in all the graphs and trendlines there
is one extremely significant absence: the role played by water vapor. This is a very striking
omission because, as Sprey emphasizes, "water vapor is the single largest factor in the
heating and cooling of the earth. There is far more water in atmosphere than CO2, and it
absorbs a lot of infrared radiation. But from the computer modeler's point of view, water
vapor is very variable. Rain, they can't predict; clouds, they can't predict. So, if your
computer model can't deal with water, forget it."
Think of the heating/cooling equation as a giant seesaw, with a billion tons at each end.
You are arguing about a few pounds making the seesaw tilt. And it's true. A few pounds
do make a difference. But which few pounds are you talking about? And how do they
affect the overall balance? Take aerosols -- particles fine enough to float in air. As we
know from the seeding of clouds by aerosols, they can cause rain. The more rain we have,
the less water vapor in the form of clouds, hence the less heat trapped by this water vapor.
Though plainly aware it's inconvenient to their greenhouse model, the UN's experts are
forced to admit in their report that there's been more rain this century over much of the
northern hemisphere and even the tropics.
As Sprey emphasizes, since the role of water vapor is much larger than of CO2, it's
crucial to understand what draws water vapor out of the ocean and into the atmosphere,
thus making the world warmer. Oceans are by far the largest part of the earth's surface.
Ocean currents transfer heat from the tropics to the Arctic. They are also important
because they release water vapor. So, changes in ocean currents alone could easily
account for global warming or cooling.
A recent article in Nature caused a hubbub by reconfirming what we already knew, that
greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere do in fact absorb long-wave infrared radiation. But
what went entirely unnoticed in that same article was a confirmation of how little we
understand the effect of water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and secondly, intriguing
measurements showing that the heat trapped in the atmosphere may have decreased over
the 27-year duration of the study.
It may well be that when CO2 goes up into the atmosphere, it rains more. Aerosols feed
clouds and increase precipitation, meaning less water vapor, hence less heat trapped at
night. Since the aerosol effect is as poorly understood as the water effect, who knows
whether the earth is cooling or heating due to human activity? Certainly not the computer
The nearest the IPCC Summary gets to this is their models "cannot yet simulate all
aspects of climate" and "there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their
interaction with radiation and aerosols."
We like catastrophism. It's part of the eschatology of guilt. But it has more to do with
faith than with science, and the IPCC Summary only serves to buttress that basic point:
The global warming/ greenhouse gas thesis is most emphatically non-proven.
Alexander Cockburn is coeditor with Jeffrey St Clair of the muckraking
newsletter CounterPunch. To find out more about Alexander Cockburn and read
features by other columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at
COPYRIGHT 2001 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Email this article to a friend
"From Tora Bora to Squaw Valley"
December 28, 2001
"Enron and the Green Seal"
December 19, 2001
"Like Enron? Like Social Security?"
December 12, 2001
"Sharon or Arafat: Which is the Sponsor of Terror"
December 5, 2001
"H-E-R-E'S the Silver Lining!"
November 29, 2001
"Where Were They When It Counted?"
November 21, 2001
"The Torture Boomlet"
November 14, 2001
"The Case of the Blid Predator"
November 6, 2001
"The Left and the 'Just War'"
October 31, 2001
"FBI Eyes Torture"
October 24, 2001
October 19, 2001
October 10, 2001
"And Now for a Note of Good Cheer"
October 3, 2001
September 27, 2001
"Panic and Indignity: The Currency of Revenge"
September 20, 2001
"Who saw it coming?"
September 12, 2001
"Hot Air is Bad for Us"
August 22, 2001
"Blueprints for Wider Columbian War"
August 15, 2001
"Eating Crow, Eating Dog"
April 11, 2001
"Stones and Glass Houses, Said and Sontag "
April 4, 2001
"The Noise on I-40 "
March 28, 2001
"Greenhouse Gas and Global Warming: The Great Delusion "
March 21, 2001
"After Hanssen: What are Spies For? "
March 14, 2001
"Bombing Big Sur "
March 7, 2001
"Clinton and the Hypocrites - Part 2: The Republicans"
March 1, 2001
"Clinton and the Hypocrites - Part 1 The Democrats"
February 28, 2001
"W: First blood "
February 22, 2001
"Pinochet: The final count"
February 21, 2001
"Bill heads for Harlem "
February 14, 2001
"McKangaroo court in PanAm 103 stunner "
February 7, 2001
"National notes from San Juan Hill to Chengue "
January 31, 2001
"Don't come back "
January 25, 2001
"Ashcroft an extremist? "
January 24, 2001
"Different players, same game"
January 17, 2001
"Nature's revenge "
January 10, 2001
January 3, 2001
Read Articles by Year:
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000