Larsen Financial is a full-service investment center that has all the products and services of the major brokerages, but without the high costs.

Learn more.

What Global Warming?

  • What Global Warming?

  • 27 June 2013 by 0 Comments

What Global Warming?

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 06/23/13

For anyone to not be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) at this point can only be ascribed to gullibility, or a desire to believe in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. To not be a skeptic is to deny the very science they profess such profound faith in. The appellation used for years against the skeptics can most appropriately be applied to those who still bitterly cling to their empirically unverifiable belief, their Al Gore global warming book, and reject the inconvenient truth – they are themselves “flat earthers.”

In case you’ve been wondering why the AGW alarmists have been so reticent in recent years, except clueless politicians, is because global mean temperatures have not increased for the past two decades. In February, Rajendra Pachauri, the AGW alarmist who heads the U.N.’s climate panel, the IPCC, admitted that the Hadley/CRU temperature record shows no warming for 18 or 19 years. In fact, Remote Sensing System (RSS) satellites validate that there has been no global warming for 23 years. Not one of the IPCC computer models had predicted that.

Global temperatures have flat-lined in spite of the fact that roughly 60 billion tons of manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) has been cumulatively added to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. According to the scientists who track such emissions, that represents about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750, according to The Economist in March.

That sounds like a lot of manmade CO2, but we’ve got to look at it in context to see how relevant it is. Scientists tell us that our atmosphere is composed roughly (by volume) of 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0-4% water vapor, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.

Now, let’s put carbon dioxide into perspective. The atmosphere, oceans, and land biomass contain about 750 billion tons (GT) of CO2 and manmade emissions contribute about 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously which means that the addition by humans is incredibly small, amounting to .00159% of the total, and .0083% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide.

To provide a point of reference for comparative purposes, the average household bathtub holds about 42 gallons of water. If you filled your tub and then poured in an additional half-a-teaspoon of water, that would be the equivalent of our CO2 contribution to the atmosphere. And remember, CO2 makes up just .039% of the atmosphere, which under other measuring systems would constitute no more than a “trace amount.” Water vapor is by far the most prevalent component accounting for as much as 85% of the greenhouse effect.

The theory, as advanced by AGW alarmists, is that there’s a causal relationship between manmade CO2 emissions, and rising global temperatures during the 20th century. The earth’s atmosphere warmed about 1 degree during that time, as manmade emissions were growing exponentially. The disconnect between actual emissions, and satellite global mean temperature data, invalidates the causality they have bitterly clung to.

One explanation climatologists like Dr. Roy Spencer suggest is the increasing body of research that indicates the atmosphere responds differently to higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in ways that had not been recognized before. Evidence suggests that the atmosphere simply releases much more CO2 into space than previously thought, like its own safety valve. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if trapped entirely within the atmosphere, the global mean temperatures would likely increase.

Dr. Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and former U.S. Science Team Leader at NASA, reports, “real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.”

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans,” Spencer stated in a peer-reviewed article two years ago.

Spencer’s research team said that not only is there much less heat being trapped in the atmosphere, than projected by alarmist models, but that the NASA satellite data show that the atmosphere begins releasing the excessive heat and CO2 into space much sooner, and in much larger quantities, than IPCC computer models have predicted. Spencer indicates that’s the most significant reason why all of the UN models are erroneous in their projections.

Two months ago, a group of 20 former NASA scientists, published the results of a year-long exhaustive study of all of the AGW research they could get their hands on. They arrived at several conclusions, but the most salient to this discussion, were, ”The science that predicts the extent of anthropogenic global warming is not settled science,” and “There is no convincing physical evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming; most of the alarm results from output of invalidated computer models.” And finally, “Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, scientists have time to study global climate changes and improve prediction accuracy.”

For Obama to declare AGW to be “the global threat of our time,” as he did in Berlin this week, is to ignore the real science that he pretends so much to respect. The only thing that will be accomplished by executive order directing the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions, will be the fulfillment of his campaign promise four years ago, that energy prices would “skyrocket” under his policies. To do this under the pretense of saving the world from AGW, is much worse than wishful thinking – it’s a lie.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at

About the

More than anything, I want my readers to think. We're told what to think by the education establishment, which is then parroted by politicians from the left, and then reinforced by the mainstream media. Steeped in classical liberalism, my ideological roots are based in the Constitution and our founding documents. Armed with facts, data, and correct principles, today's conservatives can see through the liberal haze and bring clarity to any political discussion.

Related Posts