A Fox News Science Lesson
August 09, 2011 4:42 pm ET by Jocelyn Fong
Those who watched Fox News over the weekend were treated to a brief but ambitious science lesson on "Why CO2 Can't Cause Warming":

Oh boy. Let's take these one at a time.
During the segment Fox's global warming expert, Joe Bastardi, who is employed by the WeatherBELL meteorological consulting firm, declared that the theory of human-induced climate change "contradicts what we call the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So to look for input of energy into the atmosphere, you have to come from a foreign source."
It's not clear what to conclude from this except that Fox and Bastardi are not familiar with the greenhouse effect. Climate scientists aren't claiming that humans are creating energy. They're saying that humans are trapping more energy by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Duke University scientist William Chameides, who called Fox's claims "utter nonsense," explained via email:
It is true that global warming requires a source of heat. In this case it comes from the sun. What CO2 does is trap a larger amount of the heat from the sun, preventing it from escaping and thus driving up temperatures. To argue otherwise is to argue that the greenhouse effect does not exist. In fact the existence of the greenhouse effect was established by scientists more than a century ago. It would be impossible to explain the temperatures of Mars and Venus, as well as the Earth, without invoking this effect.
Bastardi went on to claim Le Chatelier's Principle "says that any system in distress, physical or chemical in the atmosphere, tries to return toward normalcy. And that is why you're seeing temperatures level off."
In fact the notion of a system moving toward "normalcy," or more accurately, toward a new "equilibrium," explains why greenhouse gases do cause warming, rather than "Why CO2 Can't Cause Warming." By preventing infrared energy from efficiently escaping to space, increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere make it more difficult for the earth to maintain its previous energy balance, and thus its previous temperature.
Kevin Trenberth, Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, explained via email that the system "re-creates equilibrium" by heating up, since the surface and atmosphere radiate more at a higher temperature. As a result, "it reaches a new equilibrium but at a higher temperature," he said, adding: "And of course we keep adding more CO2 so we have not reached that new state yet."
Though it appears that Bastardi cites Le Chatelier's Principle in a general sense and not in reference to any specific process, the principle does have implications for "the uptake of fossil fuel carbon by the ocean," according to David Archer of the University of Chicago's Department of Geophysical Sciences. He said, "Without Le Chatelier's principle, the climate crisis would be much worse than it is, but even with this buffering, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is rising and will continue to remain elevated for tens of thousands of years into the future. So to suggest that Le Chatelier's principle is going to save us is wrong." And the principle certainly doesn't establish that "CO2 Can't Cause Warming."
And that's not all Fox got wrong.
Bastardi claimed that human-induced climate change is implausible because "When you look at carbon dioxide, it increases 1.5 parts per million a year. We contribute 3 percent of that, which means the human contribution is 1 part per 20 million." Chameides says it's "not true" that human activities represent such a small fraction of the annual increase in CO2, adding: "Isotopic data show that the increase is mostly traceable to burning of fossil fuel."
And as the Congressional Research Service explained, the human CO2 contribution is important even if it makes up a small amount of the atmosphere because it affects the Earth's carbon cycle and "the oceans, vegetation, and soils do not take up carbon released from human activities quickly enough to prevent CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere from increasing ... As a result, the atmosphere contains approximately 35% more CO2 today than prior to the beginning of the industrial revolution."
Bastardi also claimed that "We have warmed up overall over the last 20 to 30 years, over the last 200 years because of the sunspot cycles. You can trace it to the sunspot cycles and you can trace it to the movement of the ocean." Chameides responds:
Bastardi attributes the warming to: a) sunspots - no there has been no secular trend in sunspots over the past 2 - 3 decades; b) the ocean - no, data show that the ocean has heated up over the past 20 -30 years; in other words the ocean has absorbed heat from the atmosphere not the other way around.
Lastly, Bastardi claimed that satellites allow us to "measure the temperatures without having to readjust things." In fact, satellite temperature data do require adjustments, as Roy Spencer, who maintains the UAH satellite temperature record, has explained.
Watch it:
Previously:
Scientist Calls Fox's Global Warming Headline "Patently False"
Fox News Maligns Scientists With Baseless Accusation Of "Doctoring" Sea Level Data
Fox Twists Scientific Research To Announce A "Mini Ice Age" -- Again
Stanford Scientist Criticizes Fox Distortion Of His Climate Study








<sarc>
FOX FOOLs (Friends Of Outright LIARs) ought to be circumspect about lifting open the lid of the sarcophagus of bullsh!t with which they cover up Science. Lest the suppressed true facts of Science FOX opens into view becomes for them a Pandora's box out of which erupts Murdockalypse.
After learning the 1st Law of Thermodynamics viewers might start studying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every Action (of Energy) there is an equal an opposite (Energy of) Reaction.
And a sample Test Question for a homework problem to calculate Newton's 2nd Law in the case of nine-eleven op, (just in time for the Xth Anniversary Toronto Hearings), FOX viewers could readily prove for themselves that thermodynamic Reaction Energy out of each Tower was more than 100 times (unequal) GREATER than the Action Energy (reported to be) in each Tower.
Science facts are not only 'stubborn things,' but also long-lived. The same calculation 100 years ago or 100 years from now goes on proving (after all eye-witnesses are dead) there was explosives someone pre-planted in the Towers, somehow, for some reason.
Unlike FOX FOOLs, thermodynamic true facts don't lie. Also unlike FOX's FOOLs, science facts are admissible testimony in a court of law.
-
More like the fossil fuel industry is heavily influencing their reporting somehow.
That's not an acceptable answer because it frames the argument correctly. If it's going to fly in our new right wing media dominated culture it's got to be broken down to:
GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL? Y/N
MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? Y/N
You've brought too much nuance and data to the discussion, dumb it down!
/sarc
Since there is no pipeline to another planet to get rid of the CO2 we pump out, it doesnt really have anywhere to go. So even if all that they say about global warming was true, we're still filling the atmosphere and the water with things that kill people.
Really sad.
Damn liberal laws of nature.
Money.
Why should he or anybody else be the least bit ashamed? He is an moron who is judged by imbeciles.
This is an issue of vital importance to the world, and it is evil almost beyond my comprehension to organize a campaign of lies about it, using a phony news agency as a front. It is sickening and frankly, frightening.
Le Chatelier's Principle goes in.
Le Chatelier's Principle goes out...
I laughed my b@lls off reading this.
Also, love the first line of that article. In the very first sentence it sums up his job, and why he's totally unqualified to make such statements.
2. Le Chatelier's Principle is a principle of chemistry, not physics. In any case, it applies only to one-step chemical reactions. Anyway, what it says is: if you put more stuff into one side of a chemical equation, you'll get more stuff on the other side of equation. Thus, everything balances out. So, following Bastardi's logic, if it's really, really hot in Dallas, there will be artic howls in Paris. Mon Dieu!
Joe started out doing the "drive time" weather on a radio station in Philly. With his ascension as climate change denier-in-chief on Fox, he's proving another immutable law: The Peter Principle.
The First Law still stands.
HughG is also right about the matter -> energy conversion, but would like to point out that it is not "irreversable" like you claim. If it was not reversable, we would not be able to take advantage of nuclear reactions for energy or destruction.
I wish I had known this when I was a kid- when my dad asked me to take out the garbage, I would have responded "what garbage, you atheistic lib!"
It would have helped that my father was, in fact, an atheist. Still, I don't think he would have taken my theory in the spirit in which it was offered- the scientific one.
I don't know who this guys is playing to. First - Thermodynamics has way to many syllables to be taken seriously as anything other than some liberal elitist college-learned indoctrination propoganda. Second - "Le Chatelier's Principle" sounds like some kind of socialist marxist facist communist ideaology. Sounds kind of French, maybe if he renamed it "Le Freedom Principle" he would get more tbaggers and foxbots to take it seriously.
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."
— Dr. Who
Why not acknowledge the problem exists and then argue for conservative solutions? Obviously, because it would not be in the interests of the oil or auto industry. Why do people fall for this misinformation?
And I also seriously LMAO with their absurd butchery of the First Law of Thermo. (Or rather, it's application to AGW.) You've got to be sofa king stupid to take that remotely seriously. What a bunch of morons.
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
Of course, for this Law to help their case against Evolution or Climate Change, the Troglodytes have to disregard one minor detail... THE F***ING SUN!
Take a fertilized ovum. It's a single cell that splits into two cells, then four cells, then eight cells...and so on, and so on...until the cells begin to change and specialize, eventually turning into a baby. This is an increase in complexity and, according to those that ascribe to the "Second Law Disproves Evolution" crowd, the very fact of reproduction is somehow wrong. Strange, huh?
And this is the depth and breadth of understand of those that say the First or Second Law disproves global warming...
If you take the Sun, Meteorites and the cold vacuum of Space out of the equation, they would have a point.
And since the sun easily provides enough energy to drive increases of complexity / order on the planet, the second law does not falsify evolution.
This "scientist" just needs to be introduced to The Copernican Model of things. Then it's a simple matter of catching up with the other 450 years of science.
Easy-peasy
On a more serious note: This guy is paid to lie. It's as simple as that. In fact, I can't find a single statement in his "report" that is not the opposite of the truth.
Did these people take junior high science at all?
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game.
I reckon Faux should have had a fifth grader on for balance.
Bastardi's statement that "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed" fails to continue the narrative and doesn't mention that nasty little fact that energy can be converted.
All energy on this planet comes from the sun or it came from the sun and has been stored here in several forms.
While there is natural conversion taking place all the time, nothing in nature converts energy like humans do.
With the exception of water turbines and fuel cells, most of the conversion methods humans have developed are very inefficient, so a huge amount of energy we convert is wasted.
In the form of heat.
The Earth has a molten core
Which comes from gravity not the sun
Doesn't this also affect the temperature?
With the exception of material from outside our solar system (possible but remotely so), every atom of Earth originated with the formation of our sun.
Earth does indeed emit heat from within but it is energy stored since our planet formed - see above.
This is not correct. The vast majority of what makes up the Earth and you and me came from the supernova explosion of another star, not our current sun. Some of these higher elements (such as uranium) experience radioactive decay and produce much of the energy inside Earth. Thus, you could see the creation of uranium in an ancient star as a way the energy that is now being released was stored. This has nothing to do with our sun.
………………………………,.-‘ …………….“~.,
………………………..,.- …………………………..“-.,
…………………….,/………………………………………..â€:,
…………………,?………………………………………………\,
………………./…………………………………………………..,}
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
……………/……………………………………………,: ……/
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
…………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./
………../(_….â€~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/
……….{.._$;_……â€=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~â€;/….}
………..((…..*~_…….â€=-._……“;,,./`…./ ………../
…,,,___.\`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-â€
…………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/\
………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,__
,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
…..`=~-,_\_……`\,……………………………\
……………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….\
…………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………..__
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“
…………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`\
……………………………..,< `.._|_,-&``................`\
I think you need to save the image as an ASCII file and then cut and paste it.
If he is, he's keeping his ties to the relatives of the rich and famous to himself this time.
………………………………,.-‘â"
"Well that didn't come out quite right.... but anyways, where do they find these idiots?"
That didn't come out right? I could have sworn you were simply quoting those idiots.
Not to split hairs, but:
3% of 1 part per million is .045 parts per million.
Divide 1 part per million by .045 and you get 22.222, making it
It's really 1 in 22 parts per million instead of 20, so I guess he's close enough on the math.
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v7i1f.htm
Too many facts. Move on.
For instance: y'all make fun of the first argument, yet it is, in fact, scientifically correct. Atmospheric CO2 does not, in fact, warm the atmosphere. The Sun, residual compaction heat and radioactive decay do, but not CO2.
And the idiot who didn't realize that CO2 absorption is, in fact, a chemical reaction just highlights and underscores how blind, deaf and dumb the religion of Global Climate (make up a new term) is.
Aw, you're being too nice. I would have said that they weren't familiar with THE SUN!
It's because every time we try to heat it up it just keeps returning to "normalcy."
Science is an amazing thing.
stupid - intentionally ignorant
The fact that he implies that energy is being created (i.e. by man), shows right away he is a hack. I watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. I don't necessarily hate Fox, but its very disappointing to see this information perpetrated in such a matter by ANY organization.
I still can't see why this issue has been so heavily politicized in the media.