Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
Apex Predator Dies Shortly After the Arrival of Humans, Climate Change Blamed
The University of New South Wales, birthplace of the Ship of Fools, sees no connection between the arrival of Australian Aboriginals, and the subsequent rapid demise of a dangerous apex predator which dominated Australia for millions of years. (Source)
BTW, that garbage passed Peer Review. Also, the SUV didn’t exist 350,000 years ago, so something other than CO2 must have been the cause.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
Communist China-funded US enviro groups working to stop US military base on Okinawa
China is funding US green groups to harm our national security. (Source)
Never in your life will you see a communist organization fund the NRA, RNC or other conservative groups unless it is for the expressed intent to undermine from within.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
Unfortunately, you won’t see any jokes like the above on SNL. Their political bias robs them of some of the best material out there.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
After a complete failure by the IPCC climate models and the crazy assignment of CO2 as a pollutant, scientific reason must once again return to the climate discussion.
Neither did the sea ice in the Arctic disappear in the summer of 2016 as it was often predicted by nutty scientists (even by NASA, who wrote that Arctic summers would be ice-free by 2013), nor have global temperatures risen by an significance over the past 20 years, thus contradicting the projections of IPCC models. (Source)
BTW, look at the graphic. The only reason it has a positive slope is because of the arbitrary starting point in 1979 (The Coming Ice Age Period). Had the data started just 3 years later it would have a negative slope right now. The way regressions are calculated pretty much guarantees that the slope of that line if almost certain to flatten with time. The next down-leg of the trend should flatten the regression towards a 0.00 slope.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
Does it seem strange to you that the smartest kids in the class, the kids that can explain the quantum mechanics supporting the greenhouse gas effect, can’t adequately explain how Long Wave Infrared Radiation (LWIR) and CO2 can warm the earth? This Video made by TEDEd does a phenomenal job explaining the quantum mechanics involved, but then they forget to mention the most important metrics.
Here are the important facts they failed to mention:
How does LWIR Electromagnetic radiation convert to thermal energy? Molecular Vibrations
666 cm-1 wavenumber is 15 microns and is associated with the “bending” of the CO2 molecules. The 2.7 and 4.3 Micron absorption bands are related to the stretching and are not involved in the atmospheric absorption.
This graphic shows the absorption spectrum of CO2, which is transparent to incoming visible radiation (0.4 to 0.8 microns)
What makes a potent Greenhouse Gas is a “permanent dipole” or bend. CO2 doesn’t have a bend, unlike the extremely potent Greenhouse Gas H2O.
Because CO2 doesn’t have a Permanent Dipole, it only absorbs the three above mentioned wavelengths, allowing it to absorb only a small amount of radiation.
LWIR of 15 Microns gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule, kicking the CO2 Molecule’s electrons into a higher energy state, causing them to bend back and forth. This movement is thermal energy, the LWIR electromagnetic radiation is changed in form into kinetic energy which can be measured with a thermometer. (Remember, Energy can be neither created or destroyed, it can only be changed in form)
In the video, it claimed that the CO2 molecule radiates LWIR back to earth resulting in warming. That isn’t the Greenhouse Gas Effect, and LWIR of 15 microns won’t even warm ice. The Greenhouse Gas Effect is the thermalization of the LWIR causing warming of the surrounding atmosphere.
Why CO2 isn’t significant is because it is a trace gas. CO2 is 410 parts per million or 4.1 parts per 10,000, or 0.00041 or 0.041% of the atmosphere. If you look at a 100,000 seat stadium, with each person representing a molecule in the atmosphere, CO2 would represent 41 people. If 41 people suddenly went into epileptic seizures, would their kinetic energy be able to significantly alter the kinetic energy of the other 999,959 people in the stadium? Absolutely not. Being only 0.041% of the atmosphere, its impact is greatly diffused to basically nothing.
More importantly, the energy associated with 15 Microns isn’t even warm enough to melt ice. Ice emits LWIR of a shorter wavelength than 15 Microns. In other words, the 41 people aren’t having violent epileptic seizures, they are having slight shivers.
In Conclusion, 1 out of every 2500 molecules vibrating at an energy level consistent with -112°F/-80°C isn’t going to warm anything to any significant amount.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
In order to melt ice, sufficient energy (Latent Heat) must be added to the system to surpass the energy required for a phase change (Solid to Liquid). (Source) Melting ice is endothermic, meaning the ice absorbs energy during the phase change from solid to liquid. The problem here is that CO2 only emits longwave Infrared radiation between 13 and 18 microns. A blackbody of temperature -80 Degree C emits those wavelengths. In other words, if the only energy reaching liquid water is longwave Infrared radiation between 13 and 18 microns, it will FREEZE!!!
How do we know that? Because Ice emits longwave Infrared radiation between 6 and 18 microns, with a peak of 10.5 microns. If longwave Infrared radiation between 13 and 18 microns could melt ice, ice would melt itself. The existence of ice pretty much proves the CAGW Theory to be a complete joke, and CO2 certainly isn’t causing sea ice or glaciers to melt. The hotter an object gets, the peak level of radiation moves to the left, i.e. the wavelength shortens. 10.5 microns is hotter than 15 microns. The earth emits around 9.5 to 10 microns which is room temperature. Very hot very high energy visible light is between 0.4 and 0.7 microns.
Lastly, any University Chemistry or Physics Lab could validate this with an experiment. You won’t find that experiment published in any Climate Change Journals.
Simply put, the physics of the CO2 molecule simply don’t support the case that CO2 can cause much warming. (Source)
Arctic Sea Ice not cooperating with doomsday climate predictions (Source)
Internet Vs. The Ministry Of Truth (Source)
10 New Reconstructions Show Today’s Temperatures Still Among The Coldest Of The Last 10,000 Years (Source)
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
The one thing I’ve learned about Climate Science is that the “experts” do everything to avoid the actual science supporting the Greenhouse Gas Effect. To isolate the impact of CO2 on the climate one must understand the physics of the CO2 molecule and the thermodynamics of the atmosphere.
This is the radiative profile of the CO2 molecule. Note the -80 Degree C and 15 micron peak in the following graphic.
With that understanding, we can then examine CO2’s role is altering the earth’s lower atmosphere’s temperature. To do that we need to look at a “gas cell” filled with various amounts of CO2, and then shine a light of 13 thru 18 microns into it and measure its absorption.
We will start with the pre-industrial CO2 level of 280 ppm. What we find is that at that concentration, 100% of the longwave IR radiation between 13 and 18 microns is absorbed by the altitude of 150 cm, or about 5 feet. 13 and 18 microns with a peak of 15 microns has a wave number of 666 in the following graphic. The peak reaching 1 represents 100% absorption, or 0% transmission. The take home is that by an altitude of 5 feet, the pre-industrial CO2 Greenhouse Gas Effect is saturated.
Now we have to measure the change in the saturation altitude to understand the impact of the additional 130 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial age. This literally is the only effect CO2 has on changing the climate. Once again, you can’t trap more than 100%, and pre-industrial CO2 saturates by 5 ft. All CO2 can do by increasing its concentration is to make the radiative windows smaller so that the outgoing radiation gets “trapped” sooner (closer to earth).
What do we find when we change the gas cell to today’s CO2 level of 410 ppm? We find that 100% saturation occurs at 120 cm, or about 4 feet. That literally is the only relevant contribution the post-industrial CO2 makes to the climate. Saturation occurs 1 foot closer to the earth.
Another way to look at it is to plug in 280 ppm for the saturation level of 410 ppm to see how much less radiation is being trapped. As you can see, about 98% of the radiation is being absorbed by 4 feet, and the remaining 1 foot absorbs the final 2%. That is it, that is the contribution of post-industrial CO2 and you are being told that that small change can cause catastrophic climate change.
In reality, that slight change is completely immaterial because the lower atmosphere is so well mixed through conduction and convection, minor changes in the saturation level are irrelevant. Take a thermometer outside and measure the temperature at 4 ft and then again at 5 foot and you will record identical temperatures. Once again, CO2 doesn’t trap more heat, it simply traps the heat sooner. You can’t trap more than 100%. That is why all these claims of CO2 causing catastrophic climate change are complete and utter nonsense.
Additionally, remember, the above example isolates the impact of CO2. It is a minor trace Greenhouse Gas, with a very narrow absorption band. Just look at the absorption spectrum of all Greenhouse Gasses, and the breadth of what water vapor absorbs, and you quickly realize this focus on CO2 is completely absurd. Additionally, water vapor also absorbs longwave IR radiation between 13 and 18 microns. It just saturates at a higher altitude.
If we decide to look not only at the impact of CO2, but the entire atmosphere including water vapor, the impact of CO2 is simply drowned out by water vapor and other factors. If, using 280 ppm CO2, we program MODTRAN to be looking down from 0.01 km and measure the Upward IR Heat Flux, we get 446.508 W/m2.
This is the IR Profile of the pre-industrial lower atmosphere.
If we then change only the CO2 level from 280 to 410 ppm to reflect the marginal impact of industrial era CO2, we discover that the change in Upward IR Heat Flux is a whopping 0.00 W/m2. There is absolutely no change what so ever to the lower atmosphere with the addition of 130 ppm industrial CO2. None, nada, zip, the Upward IR Heat Flux remains completely unchanged at 446.508 W/m2.
I have yet to find an atmospheric calculator, modeler or Meteorology textbook that shows that CO2 has any impact at all on the atmosphere. Only when you get into the Climate Science Department does CO2 suddenly play a significant role in the climate, and their models are completely worthless.
Much has been written about CO2 causing the Sea Ice to decline. Al Gore claims melting glaciers will flood Manhatten. The only problem is, the LWIR emitted by CO2 won’t melt ice. Longwave IR between 13 and 18 microns has a black body temperature of -80 Degree C. The graphic of the Spectralcalc output is above. The blackbody radiation of 0.00 Degree C Ice has a peak radiation of 10.5 microns. In other words, Ice emits higher energy radiation than CO2 does (shorter wavelength radiation has higher energy). That isn’t a joke. Climate alarmists claim that energy that won’t even melt ice can cause catastrophic global warming. Sorry, climate change.
In conclusion, either the SpectralCal and MODTRAN Programs are lying to me, or the Climate Scientists are, and I tend to trust the calculators.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
Chart #1: This is the chart on which the entire CO2 driven climate change fraud is based. It is also the chart that will ultimately be used to prove the fraudulent nature of the NASA, NOAA and HadCRU data “adjustments.” CO2’s increase in near-linear and it is this linear trend that will ultimately undermine the CO2 driven climate change fraud. The reason will be explained later in this posting.
Chart #2: This is an 800,000 year ice core record of temperature and CO2. The first thing to note is that climate change is the norm. Never in 800,000 has the climate not been changing. If Al Gore and his policies were somehow able to stop the climate from changing, it would be the first time in 800,000 that that has happened, and extremely unnatural.
The second thing to note is that every previous temperature peak was higher than today’s temperatures and occurred at LOWER CO2 levels. In other words, record high CO2 didn’t result in record high temperatures.
The third thing to note is that there is no linear relationship between CO2 and temperature, and what relationship does exist has temperatures LEADING CO2. There is no defined mechanism by which CO2 would suddenly increase shortly before the ending of an ice age and there is no mechanism by which CO2 would suddenly decrease before the start of an ice age. CO2 can’t explain the most significant points of the glacial intra-glacial cycle. CO2 simply can’t be the Climate Control Knob the alarmists claim it to be.
Chart #3: This is a 600 million year history of atmospheric CO2 and temperatures. The first thing to note is that NEVER in 600 million years has CO2 resulted in catastrophic warming, even when it was as high as 7,000 ppm, or nearly 18x the level that it is today. The second thing to note is that no matter what CO2 is doing, temperatures seem to stay between 12 and 22°C. The last thing to note is that we are in a CO2 drought, and near the lowest levels of the past 600 million years. Plants begin to die when CO2 falls below 180 ppm. As above, there is no linear relationship between CO2 and temperatures.
Chart #4: If something is understood, it can be modeled. Well, the IPCC Climate Models FAIL at a 95% confidence rate, and the rate is INCREASING. A monkey throwing darts at the WSJ would do a better job of modeling the Stock Market than the Climate Models do the climate. The fraud is obvious in that 100% of the Climate Models overestimate the temperature increase. That isn’t evidence of a sound and settled science, but of an systemic bias and failure. The reason I say this is a fraud goes back to Chart #1, the linear rate of increase of CO2.
Additionally, as the models’ failure grew, the IPCC’s confidence in their theory also grew. That is basically the scientific method flipped on its head. No real science behaves that way. Results like the IPCC models would result in any real science looking into causes other than CO2, which their models do a good job ruling out as the cause.
Chart #5: Climate models assume a linear relationship between CO2 and Temperature. The alarmists use the core model of ΔT = f(ΔCO2). It is a direct, linear, and essentially single variable model. That is how they can claim man is responsible for ALL the industrial era warming. CO2 they claim is the only disruption to the climate system that can explain the warming, and that CO2 is 100% attributable to man.
Sounds good, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t what is important, it is the amount of energy that the excess man-made CO2 absorbs/ thermalizes that is important. If you have a 5-gallon bucket with a hole in it, it doesn’t matter how large the bucket is, it won’t hold much water. Well, the absorption of energy by CO2 shows a logarithmic DECAY with an increase in concentration. (Source)
Mother Nature isn’t stupid, she designed CO2 with a natural off switch. A certain level of warmth is needed for life to survive, so the first 280 ppm (Pre-Industrial) of CO2 trap 258 W/M^2 of outgoing LWIR. The additional CO2 attributed by man, the additional 130 ppm up to the current 410 ppm, traps only an additional 2 W/M^2, and that is rounded up. Anyone seeking the truth can experiment with various CO2 scenarios using the program MODTRAN (Click Here)
Because the marginal absorption of energy by CO2 isn’t linear, I can say with 100% complete certainty that the IPCC Models will NEVER in all CAPs be even close to being correct. Never, and I can make that bold of a statement without having a Ph.D. in climate “science.” Anyone that takes 2 seconds to understand the basics of the CO2 molecule would reach that exact same conclusion. (Source) (More Info)
Chart #6: Highlights how ground measurement data from NASA has been “adjusted” over time. Why I say the “adjustments” aren’t done in good faith is because of the way they are adjusted. The adjustments are systematically applied to result in a more linear and steeper incline of ground temperatures. Why I say the “adjustments” are fraudulent is because that isn’t what you would expect if CO2 was the cause of the warming. As Chart #5 demonstrates, CO2’s relationship with temperatures isn’t linear. A linear increase in temperatures disproves CO2 as the cause and proves there must be some other factor. The climate alarmist then manufacture untestable and unexplainable “feedbacks” to justify the linearity. As we will see, those feedback claims crumble under scrutiny as well. (More Info)
Chart #7: In Climate Science there are 3 main data sets. Satellite (UAH), Balloons (RSS) and Ground Measurements (NASA GISS). Two of the data sets confirm each other, and one is an outlier. The Climate Alarmists, of course, choose the highly “adjusted” NASA GISS ground measurements over the highly more accurate balloon and satellite measurements.
By far the most accurate temperature data we have are from satellite and balloon measurements. In the above graphic, you can see that actual atmospheric temperatures are in no way linear and in no way tied related to CO2. That data clearly shows temperatures are extremely correlated with water vapor and ocean cycles, which are in turn related to the sun and the amount of radiation reaching the earth’s surface. CO2 is transparent to incoming warming visible radiation.
The Red RSS V7 TCWV line is atmospheric water vapor and the other lines are atmospheric temperature. Water vapor and atmospheric temperatures are almost indistinguishable. The reason you most likely have never seen this before is because we don’t debate this issue in public, and charts like this totally destroy the CO2 drives temperature myth.
Chart #8: Ground measurements have known corrupting forces, largely water vapor, and the Urban Heat Island Effect. The above graphic highlight the best example I’ve found to demonstrate the Urban Heat Island Effect. It highlights two different weather stations separated by only a small lake. On one side is a great deal of urban development, on the other side no development at all to speak of. It is the perfect location to isolate the impact of the Urban Heat Island Effect. What we find is that the one side of the lake, undisturbed by urban development, shows actual COOLING over the past 80 years, or at least between 1930 through 1995. (A period including Al Gore’s hottest 10 years in history) The other side impacted by the Urban Heat Island Effect shows distinct warming. Climate Alarmists use this obviously corrupted data to implicate CO2, when in fact, it is really measuring the Urban Heat Island Effect and has nothing to do with CO2. (More)
Chart #9 and 10: The other problem with ground measurements is that water vapor saturates the Greenhouse Gas Effect of the lower atmosphere. The CO2 “signature” isn’t even measurable until you are at an altitude of 3.5km or above. 100% of all ground measurements are taken in the layer of the atmosphere where CO2 has absolutely zero impact. By relying on the “adjusted” ground measurements, Climate Alarmists are allowed to claim warming, and attribute it to CO2. In reality, the only warming in the lower atmosphere is due to greater sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and oceans, water vapor, the Urban Heat Island Effect and intentionally biased data “adjustments”, not CO2.
Chart #11 and 12: The regrettably small graphics above are MODTRAN results of the lower atmosphere under conditions of 400 ppm and 800 ppm. The graphics record the outgoing LWIR of 417.306 W/M^2 for both levels of CO2. (Click Here) What that means is that the ground measurements are taken at the level where it is impossible to measure the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperature because it is dominated by water vapor. CO2 is irrelevant to the lower atmosphere, so once again, the linear adjustments NASA applies make even less sense. The reason you haven’t heard of MODTRAN is because the more people that know how to use it, the less credibility the Climate Alarmists have. It is hard to win a public debate when your position is that the calculator is wrong.
Chart #12 and 13: The impact of CO2 on temperatures is also absent from the ice core records of the Holocene. Temperatures didn’t increase with CO2 over the Holocene, THEY FELL. Temperatures have been falling for the past 3,500 years, during a time when CO2 was increasing, and in fact is now at a record level for the Holocene.
The other oddity about Climate “Science” is that it doesn’t rely on the Scientific Method, Experimentation and Reproducibility, the hallmarks of any real science. If it did, this debate would have been over a very long time ago. If one tests the hypothesis “Man if not causing climate change” using ice core data, that hypothesis isn’t rejected, not even close. Simply calculate the mean and standard deviation of the temperature of the Holocene before the industrial age, then calculate the mean temperature of the Industrial Age. You will find that there is absolutely nothing unusual about the past 150 years of temperature variation. Simply eyeballing the above chart will tell you that, no need for a calculator.
Chart #14: The other major problem with ground measurements is that it is an apples and oranges dataset, combining different regions over different time periods, using different instrumentation. To control for the ground measurement location and instrumentation issues, we select the longest single continuous record of instrumental temperatures, Central England. If you control for measuring instrumentation and location, what you find is that temperatures are volatile, but by no means showing an uptrend or relationship to CO2. The Central England record goes back to 1650, and temperatures were below that level as recently as 2010. There are also other long-term data sets that show no warming as well. (Click Here)
Chart #15: It is easy for Climate Alarmists to cherry pick data sets to make an alarmist’s claim. (Source) This is especially true regarding the “adjusted” data over the past 30 years. The problem is, there is a major reason the earth would have a “fever” over the past 30 years, and it has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with clean air. As the air has been cleaned of its volcanic and other particulate matter, more sunlight has been reaching the earth’s surface. CO2 has nothing to do with the recent warming.
Chart #16: The reason I can say the recent warming is due to the sun and not CO2 is because the oceans are warming. It takes vast amounts of incoming warming VISIBLE radiation to warm the oceans, especially from the blue end of the spectrum. The physics of the CO2 molecule are related to a narrow band of the IR spectrum between 13 and 18µ. Those wavelengths simply don’t penetrate or warm water and don’t carry much energy anyways. The black body temperature of thermalizing those wavelengths in a bone-chilling -50 to -110°C.
Chart #17: Those wavelengths won’t even melt ice, let alone warm water. Ironically, the climate alarmists use the warming oceans as their best evidence that CO2 is the cause of the warming. (Click Here)
Chart #18: If you line up the Sun’s radiation, CO2 and Temperatures, it becomes apparent that something other than CO2 is driving atmospheric temperatures, namely the sun and related ocean cycles.
Chart #19: Another piece of evidence working against the climate alarmists are the sea level measurements. Recently the sea level data is getting the “adjustment” treatment similar to the temperature data. (Source) By using the same approach we used with the Central England Temperature dataset, we can use with sea levels as well. Recently newspapers were littered with alarmist headlines about 3 Trillion Tons of Ice from Antarctica Vanishing since 1992. (Source) The impact of the rate of change of New York City sea level was immeasurable, in fact, it looks like the current level was recently below that of 1992. Facts are if temperatures were, in fact, increasing at an increasing rate, glaciers would be melting at an increasing rate, and sea level would, in turn, be increasing at an increasing rate. It is a second derivative problem across the board. The problem for the climate alarmists is that sea levels aren’t increasing at an increasing rate. Battery Park, at the South end of Manhatten, shows the same rate of change/slope since 1850.
Chart #19: Believe it or not, record high daytime temperatures is not a sign of CO2 global warming. The Greenhouse Gas Effect thermalizes OUTGOING longwave IR radiation. Record temperatures require new energy being added to the system, and that comes from the Sun. If you are setting record high temperatures the most likely causes are clear skies and a hot sun. Recently the jet stream has been slightly altered, as has the Hadley Cell, which has allowed more sunlight to reach both the surface of the earth and the oceans. More sunlight reaching the oceans and surface can explain record high daytime temperatures and the warming oceans, neither of which CO2 can explain. (Read More)(And More) (And More)
Chart #20: Believe it or not, the real impact CO2 has on the atmosphere is to COOL it. That isn’t a TYPO, CO2 actually has worked to COOL the atmosphere, and the above graphic proves it. The Greenhouse Gas Effect is measured by the amount of outgoing Long Wave IR measured in W/M^2. The Blue in the above graphic represents more energy leaving the atmosphere or a greater outgoing flux. The amount of Blue exceeds the amount of Red, so CO2 has actually worked to COOL the layer of the atmosphere where we can isolate the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere, the water vapor free Stratosphere. Even if the Stratosphere did warm over that period, there certainly is not a linear trend to the stratosphere, either warming or cooling. (Read more)
Chart #21 and 22: CO2 is a constant 400 ppm all the way up to 80 km, Water Vapor is basically out of the atmosphere by 10 km. Over that distance, temperatures fall with altitude in the Troposphere as Water Vapor decreases and CO2 remains constant, temperatures then “pause” in the tropopause close to the temperature that CO2 thermalizes LWIR between 13 and 18µ of -50 to -110°C. That is the best signature you can find for CO2, and it is to prevent temperatures from falling below a certain temperature, not to warm it. Temperatures then warm with altitude in the stratosphere largely due to the creation of Ozone, CO2 remains constant. Temperatures then fall again in the Mesosphere, and temperatures don’t fall below the magic -50 to -110°C until you are above 80km where CO2 starts to decline below 400 ppm. Temperatures then “pause” again, before warming again in the Thermosphere WHERE CO2 is decreasing.
Clearly, from the physics of the CO2 molecule (thermalizing LWIR between 13 and 18µ generating energy consistent with -50 to -110°C) and knowledge of the temperature profile of the atmosphere, CO2’s main role in the atmosphere isn’t to “warm” but to put in a temperature “floor” between -50 to -110°C. CO2 is present in all layers of the atmosphere, largely at a constant concentration of around 400 ppm, yet temperatures increase AND fall as if CO2 has no impact at all. The best CO2 signature one can find in the atmosphere is the Tropopause, where CO2 prevents temperatures from falling below -50 to -110°C. CO2 is the only major Greenhouse gas present, so the Troposphere is a natural “control” for CO2.
Chart #23: Climate data is constantly being “adjusted,” so it is difficult to put any credibility in it, especially the ground measurements. Climate scientists will have a “consensus” during one period, and then “adjust” the data to get different results, and the “consensus” remains. Oddly, it doesn’t shake the confidence of the researchers in their ability to measure global temperatures, their confidence actually grows.
The problem is, those “experts” have one of the worst records of predictions in scientific history. Even after “adjusting” the data to improve the results of their models, they still fail. One of the favorite targets of the experts is the polar ice cap. They are constantly making dire predictions of melting ice caps, ice-free Arctic, rising sea levels, etc etc. When all we have to rely on is data, it is hard to know who is telling the truth. Fortunately, we no longer have to rely on the experts, we now have photo documentation. (Source)
Al Gore and Jim Hansen can make claims that we will have an “ice-free Arctic” by the end of 2018 all they want, and we can easily test their accuracy by simply looking at the “near-real-time” computer graphic or photo. Now people have the ability to answer the question, “do I believe the Experts of my lying eyes?” My bet is that most people will trust their eyes over the experts, especially after doing it for a while. I’ve done so and rarely have I found the experts to be even in the ballpark, let alone correct. Climate Science’s obsession with CO2 guarantees their predictions will always be inaccurate. They are like the auto mechanic that keeps replacing the oil filter when your car needs new spark plugs. They simply don’t understand the problem, so they will never be able to fix it. That is the unfortunate reality of the situation. (Source)
Old Photos and Newspapers exist as well:
h/t Real Science
Chart #24: This is the infamous “Hockeystick” chart. While consistent thermometer data exists from the mid-1600s, Michael Mann inexplicably chose not to include instrumental data until 1902. The chart abruptly does a “dog-leg” precisely at 1902. Proxy data is mixed with the instrumental data until 1980. Once the proxy data is dropped, the chart does yet another “dog-leg.”(Source) There is nothing regarding the physics of the CO2 molecule or its rate of change in atmospheric concentration that would explain an abrupt change in trend by temperatures. Longterm instrumental records like Central England do not show any abrupt “dog-legs.” (Source) Michael Mann also conveniently chose the peak of the Medieval Warming Period to start his graphic, and for some reason erased the Little-Ice Age. The fact that this graphic passed “Peer Review” and was accepted by the IPCC and “Consensus” should give any fair-minded individual pause in trusting these organizations and groups.
Chart #25: This is a chart of the temperature reading from the stations closest to Glacier National Park. The glaciers in the part are in fact disappearing, but the majority of the disappearance occurred before the mid-1940s, before the surge in CO2. Most importantly, there is no warming trend in Glacier National Park to implicate CO2. The Kilimanjaro Glacier is at 19,340 feet, thousands of feet above the freeze line. The Kilimanjaro Glacier never experiences temperatures above freezing, and yet its glacier is disappearing. The Kilimanjaro Glacier and many like it are disappearing not due to warming, but to changing humidity in the air. Dryer air can cause “sublimation” which is the process that makes ice cubes disappear if left in the freezer too long. Climate Alarmists routinely identify natural phenomenon and falsely attribute them to man-made CO2. I personally would like to hear Google’s explanation as to how ice “melts” in sub-zero temperatures.(Source)
Chart #26: Believe it or not, CO2 is a weak, a very weak Greenhouse Gas. (Source) The potency of a Greenhouse Gas is determined by its molecular structure. Molecules like H2O have a permanent “dipole” or bend to their structure. The bend allows the molecule to have many vibrational states, which correspond to various wavelengths in the LWIR spectrum. From the above graphic of absorptivity of various Greenhouse Gasses, Water Vapor is almost indistinguishable from the total atmospheric absorption. That is why people that know what they are talking about always say Water Vapor is by far the most potent Greenhouse Gas.
CO2, on the other hand, has no permanent “dipole” and is only affected by 3 very narrow bands of LWIR, 2.7, 4.3, and 15µ, with peek 15µ (13µ to 18µ band) being the only band of importance regarding the earth’s Greenhouse Gas Effect. The problem is, water vapor also absorbs 15µ, and it has a much much much higher atmospheric concentration. Water vapor can be as high as 4 parts per hundred, CO2 is measured in parts per 10,000. CO2 is commonly reported at 400 parts per million. Water vapor simply saturates the Greenhouse Gas Effect of the Troposphere, making CO2 simply insignificant. The first the CO2 signature is measurable is up over 3.5 km when water vapor starts to precipitate out of the atmosphere.
The other important point is that the earth emits LWIR with a peak of 10µ, and CO2’s effect starts out near 15µ, the “cool” very low energy end of the IR spectrum. What CO2 does is provide a temperature floor, preventing temperatures from falling below -50 to -110°C, it really doesn’t warm the atmosphere at all, temperatures just stop falling once you reach the Tropopause and CO2’s main effect is expressed.
Chart #26, 28 and 29: CO2 warms the atmosphere, it doesn’t warm the oceans. The Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice don’t melt from above, they melt from below. (Source) There are only a few months out of the year that the temperatures are above freezing, so even if the Arctic is warming, warming from -30°C to -28°C won’t melt ice. The reason the Arctic Ice is melting isn’t because of the Greenhouse Gas Effect, it is because visible radiation is reaching and warming the oceans, resulting in predictable and long-established Natural Trends in ocean cycles. Cycles like El Niño and La Niña existed long before the industrial age began. If you can’t explain how CO2 warms the oceans, you can’t explain how CO2 is the cause of the melting ice caps.
Chart #30 and 31: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed in form. The Greenhouse Gas Effect takes cold Electromagnetic Radiation from the longwave infrared spectrum the “thermalizes” it , changing its form from cold EM to Hot Kinetic energy. Different molecules absorb different wavelengths, and CO2 absorbs LWIR, 2.7, 4.3, and 15µ, with peek 15µ (13µ to 18µ band) being the range important to the Greenhouse Gas Effect.
The above gas cells demonstrate the absorption of LWIR 15µ by CO2 for both the pre-industrial and current levels of CO2. The one of the right shows that 100% of LWIR 15µ is absorbed by about 4 ft into the atmosphere for the current level of CO2. The one on the left shows that 98% of LWIR 15µ is absorbed by 4ft with the pre-industrial level of CO2.
The reason Climate Science relies on computer models is that when you rely on empirical evidence, like gas cell outputs, you discover that the marginal effect of industrial era CO2 is that 2% of LWIR 15µ is absorbed 1 foot lower in the atmosphere. Pre-industrial CO2 saturates at 5 ft, current level saturates at 4 ft, but under both situations, at least 98% of LWIR 15µ is absorbed by 4 ft. Basically, additional CO2 has no marginal impact on the lower atmosphere. (Source)
Chart #32: OK, we’ve saved the best for last. The whole approach to Climate Science regarding CO2’s impact on the climate should be focused on controlling for the factors of water vapor, the Urban Heat Island Effect, the Sun and other factors other than CO2 that may impact temperatures. Only when you isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures can you honestly begin to understand its role in changing the climate. To do that we scoured the data sets looking for a way to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures.
That data set is the Tropopause Layer above the extreme South Pole. There is no water vapor in that layer, the sun’s role is reduced, and there is absolutely no Urban Heat Island Effect. The extreme South Pole Tropopause DataSet is the ideal control for isolating the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures. If CO2 was going to warm any layer of the atmosphere, its fingerprint would be found there. (Source)
What does one find when they study the ideal dataset controlled for all factors other than CO2? What does one find when they finally can isolate and identify the impact CO2 has on atmospheric temperatures? One finds that CO2 has absolutely no warming impact what so ever on atmospheric temperatures. None, nada, zip. You are more likely to find a little green elf riding a rainbow-colored unicorn than to find warming in that dataset. CO2 simply doesn’t warm the atmosphere like the alarmists claim, and that data proves it.
The above charts and analysis detail why Climate Alarmists won’t debate this topic in public, and why the social media attempting to be the arbiters of the truth is so dangerous. They have bought into the Big Lie manufactured by the Progressive Left. The Social Media outlets should be forums for discussion so we can better understand the world in which we live, not a place for one side to force their opinions on the other. Instead of censoring, shunning, attacking, slandering and labeling people that disagree with “consensus,” the Social Media Firms should be facilitating public dialog and debates. The very fact that most Americans have never seen a debate regarding climate change should be concerning for everyone give the extreme costs of the proposed publicly funded policies.
If YouTube, Facebook, and other Social Media truly want to be a force for good and really want to get to the truth, this was written to be the basis for a public debate. I welcome the Climate Alarmists trying to refute the claims we’ve made, all of which are exquisitely sourced and supported by hard facts and data. If the Climate Alarmists want to explain why MODTRAN and NASA Satelite Data is wrong, I welcome their explanation.
Please like, share, subscribe, comment and forward to your Elected Representative, Child’s Teacher, and/or your Favorite Newspaper. Help start the debate that the Social Media is trying to stop. Fight the power, spread the word. Share this post everywhere you can. Demand the Debate, Fight the Censorship of Climate Realists.
#Start the Debate #Climate Change Debate Bring It #Only Cowards Censor over Debate
In any real science great care is given to “controlling” for exogenous factors. The whole purpose of the scientific method is to relate the impact of an independent variable upon a dependent variable, removed from any other factors. Y = mX + b + e, is the formula of a linear regression, and e is the error of the model. In order to minimize the “e,” one must control for as many outside factors that may impact the dependent variable as possible. In climate science, efforts to control for exogenous factors is completely absent. In fact, by choosing the highly flawed and “adjusted” ground measurements they are effectively maximizing the impact of exogenous factors on their data set and minimizing the usefullness of their preferred data set to identify and isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures.
Here is the best example I’ve found of the Urban Heat Island Effect:
In climate science, the main model being promoted is Temperature is a function of CO2, or Temp = f (CO2) or ΔT = ΔCO2 + b + e. Given this single variable model, there are obvious exogenous factors that could impact temperature that are unrelated to CO2. They are water vapor, the most potent and abundant greenhouse gas, the sun, the source of almost all incoming energy to the earth, and the Urban Heat Island Effect.
With that understanding, any real scientist would seek to control for water vapor, the Urban Heat Island Effect, and the Sun. Let’s first take a look at water vapor. Water vapor in the lower troposphere is so potent and abundant that it makes CO2 irrelevant. Where water vapor is, heat is, regardless of how much CO2 is present.
To control for water vapor we need to measure the layer of the atmosphere where there is no water vapor, but plenty of CO2. That layer is 4.5 km and higher in the atmosphere. The Mid-Troposphere and Tropopause data sets are what we will be using to control for water vapor. The following charts show the concentration of water vapor and CO2. At the altitude of 4.5 km the temperature reaches 0.00°C, so water vapor is assumed to have precipitated out of the atmosphere.
This graphic demonstrates just how closely related water vapor and temperatures truly are. The charts are nearly identical. Water vapor is represented by the TCWV line.
The introductory image is often published as a measure of Global Temperatures, which it is, but the lower atmosphere is corrupted by the Urban Heat Island Effect, water vapor and variations in the sun and cloud cover. To isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures you have to use the temperature data of the higher layers of the atmosphere.
First, we will look at the Southern Hemisphere. The Southern Hemisphere is mostly water and largely void of the Urban Heat Island Effect, but there is plenty of water vapor and clouds in the lower atmosphere. Even so, the Mid-Troposphere and Tropopause show no material warming. The Mid-Troposphere shows a little more near-term warming, but both layers are within the range of the past 40 years. The spikes seen in the Mid-Troposphere Graph correspond with El Niños, so water vapor does have an impact on this data set. The rapid drop in temperatures post-peak proves the temperature spikes are unrelated to CO2 which remains effectively constant during the time period.
Another way to control for the Urban Heat Island Effect is to simply focus on the upper atmosphere above the oceans. When you do that, you discover no material warming. Certainly nothing like the introductory graphic. The spikes once again correspond to El Niños and are unrelated to CO2.
To control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and water vapor, the poles are the best location, with the South Pole being more effective than the North Pole. The North Pole is more impacted by ocean temperatures. When we look at the upper atmospheric temperatures above the Poles, we find no material warming.
The oceans have an impact on the Poles, so we can further narrow the focus to the extremes of the South Pole, between 20S and 90S. When we do that, we again find no material warming. While the one chart does show a near-term trend, its level was below that of 1980 as recently as 06/2016.
As the above graphics and discussion demonstrate, when care is given to selecting data sets that control for the exogenous factors of water vapor and the Urban Heat Island Effect, the isolated impact of CO2 on the atmosphere is nonexistent. The one factor we didn’t control for was the sun. We do however know that the atmosphere has become more transparent over the past 26 years, so some warming would have been expected. That warming, however, wouldn’t be due to CO2.
Climate alarmists simply choose corrupted data sets to make their alarmist case. That isn’t just bad science, that is deliberate and willful deceit. Not only do they choose the wrong data sets, they “adjust” them to make them fit their desired outcome. No amount of adjusting and cherrypicking data sets will be able to win the scientific debate in the long run. The physics of the CO2 molecule simply doesn’t support the alarmist’s claims, and eventually, reality and the truth will win. The alarmists won’t be able to continually “adjust” their way out of a scientifically indefensible position.
You simply don’t need to “adjust” data like I provided above, or data like this following chart. The data speaks for itself. If you have to “adjust” the data to make your model work, your model is wrong, it is that simple.
Higher up in the atmosphere, it is well documented that an increase in CO2 is associated with greater COOLING. That may sound counter-intuitive until you understand the physics of the atmosphere.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
Note: This Post may be being Shadow Banned on FB. It has 131 Facebook Shares, but a relatively few views for so many shares. Most views are coming from Bloggers ReBlogging it.
It appears that the #1 requirement to succeed in the field of Climate Science is the inability to read very simple graphs and understand their meaning. Al Gore first demonstrated this requirement when he produced the Ice Core data to defend his CO2 drives temperature theory. The problem is, the chart he used as evidence ruled out CO2, it didn’t implicate it. 100% of temperature maxima in Al Gore’s charts are above current temperatures and we have higher CO2 levels today. Additionally, CO2 lags temperatures from between 800 and 1500 years. For CO2 to be the cause of the temperature variation, the cause always has to lead the effect. Lastly, there is absolutely no defined mechanism where CO2 would increase before temperatures to pull the globe out of an ice age, and no mechanism by which CO2 would decrease before temperatures to end an ice age.
Michael Mann, apparently inspired by the complete and utter ignorance of Al Gore, decided to improve upon this concept and manufactured the “Hockey Stick” to make his case that CO2 drives temperatures. In fact, it does just the opposite. If Michael Mann understood how to read a chart, he would understand that his “Hockey Stick” rules out CO2 as the cause.
CO2 between 1000 and the start of the industrial age was extremely stable. According to ice core records it bounced around in a very narrow range of 275 to 285 ppm. In other words, CO2 was a constant for the vast majority of the time covered in the Hockey Stick. As a refresher, constants in a model can’t cause variation in the dependent variable. That is why they are called constants. Constants cause shifts in, not movements along the chart. The standard deviation of a constant is zero, and the variation it causes to the dependent variable is zero. Let me say that one more time for emphasis. For the vast majority of the time covered in Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick chart, CO2 was effectively a constant.
Now, with an understanding that a constant can’t cause a variation, just look at the Hockey Stick chart. It suffers from the most extreme case of Heteroscedasticity I have ever seen in a chart claiming to support a theory that passed “Peer Review” and was accepted as the basis for a “Consensus.” That chart would fail any econometrics 101 class, and most likely fails other tests to qualify as a BLUE Variable (Best Linear Unbiased Estimator). In the year 1000 temperatures range from +0.4 to -0.8, around the year 1350 temperatures range between +0.6 and -1.0. By the time we get to 1902, variations are down to -1.0 to -0.7. In other words, as CO2 increased, temperature variation DECREASED!!! And was still falling until 1902.
Suddenly then, at year 1902 in the chart, Michael Mann discovered something called a thermometer and started adding instrumental data. The chart immediately dog-legs. There is nothing about the physics of the CO2 molecule that would support a dog-leg in temperatures with an increase in CO2. CO2’s absorption of LWIR demonstrates a logarithmic DECAY!!! Temperatures wouldn’t dog-leg up, they would gradually flatten. They must not teach how to use MODTRAN or Quantum Physics where Michael got his Ph.D. Either that, or he failed both miserably.
Many things can cause warming, not just CO2. H2O is by far the most abundant and potent GHG. It is so potent that it makes CO2 irrelevant in the lower atmosphere. No that is not a typo, CO2 is irrelevant in the lower atmosphere. H2O saturates the absorption of the same wavelengths CO2 absorbs. Had Michael Mann taken a course on MODTRAN he would have known that. 100% of the proxies and instrumental records Michael used are taken from the layer of the atmosphere unaffected by CO2. Don’t take my word for it, here are the MODTRAN results for doubling CO2 near the surface. There is a 0.00 change in the Upward IR Heat Flux.
In reality, because Michael doesn’t understand basic science, what his chart really measures is the impact of non-CO2 factors like the Urban Heat Island Effect and atmospheric H20. Because CO2 evenly blankets the globe, CO2’s influence is evenly distributed. Multiple sources only complicate the issue and greatly increases the error of models and data. Had Micheal controlled for such factors, his instrumental data post-1902 would have been flat and showed no warming at all. Antarctica is the ideal control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and atmospheric CO2 and it shows no warming since 1902.
While CO2 doesn’t correlate well with temperatures controlled for H2O and the Urban Heat Island Effect, the sun is highly correlated.
Most ironic however is that the layer of the atmosphere that CO2 does affect, the Stratosphere, its influence is to COOL, not warm. No that isn’t a typo or a joke, CO2, through its rapid radiative effect, speeds transport of energy into outer space.
Michael must also have failed Geology 101. CO2 has been as high as 7000 ppm and never caused catastrophic warming, and shows no relationship to temperatures on a geologic scale. The globe also fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4000 ppm, or 10x the level it is today.
Lastly, Michael must have failed or never took ethics. He conveniently Cherry-Picked the past 1000 years to reconstruct, ignoring hundreds of years of instrumental data. Ice core, tree ring, and coral proxies go back much further. He also chose the N Hemisphere, whose temperature has a much greater chance of being influenced by non-CO2 factors. Had he chosen to reconstruct a more appropriate time, the entire Holocene, he would have found that we are nowhere near the peak in temperatures for the current warming period, and all previous Holocene temperature optima occurred at lower CO2 levels. Had he chosen a location that controlled for H2O and the Urban Heat Island effect, his chart would be sending the warning that we may be slowly sliding into the next Ice Age.
In conclusion, Michael Mann is an expert in sophistry, not science. It is that simple. The biggest crime, however, isn’t the piece of garbage Michael Mann produced, it is that his piece of garbage passed “Peer Review” and is the foundation of the “Consensus.” Everyone on the “Peer Review” panels that reviewed this piece of garbage should be charged with criminal incompetence, and barred from ever reviewing scientific literature. As a remedy, Michael Mann should be forced to return any Federal Dollars he used to create this piece of garbage, as well as being barred from ever receiving Federal Dollars in the future. Michael Mann and his cabal of “Peers” are the scientific equivalents of FBI Agent Peter Strzok. They were granted a position of public trust and betrayed that trust on a scale rarely seen in history. Time for Trump to do what he is doing to the FBI to the field of Climate Science.
And as for those Yamal tree samples, they came from only 12 specimens of 252 in the data set… while a larger data set of 34 trees from the same vicinity that weren’t used showed no dramatic recent warming, but warmer temperatures in those Middle Ages.
Scientific critics have also raised another looming question. Since Mann’s 1,000-year-long graph was cobbled together using various proxy data derived from ice cores, tree rings and written records of growing season dates up until 1961 where it then switched to using surface (ground station) temperature data, then why change in 1961? Some theorize that maybe it’s because that’s when other tree ring proxy data calculations by Keith Briffa at the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) began going the other way in a steady temperature decline.
After presenting these unwelcome results to Mann and others, Briffa was reportedly put under pressure to recalculate them. He did, and the decline became even greater. As recorded in ClimateGate e-mails, this presented what Mann referred to as a “conundrum” in that the late 20thcentury decline indicated by Briffa would be perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”, that there was a “problem”, and that it posed a “potential distraction/detraction”. Mann went on to say that the warming skeptics would have a “field day” if Briffa’s declining temperature reconstruction was shown, and that he would “hate to be the one” to give them “fodder”.
In an e-mail sent to Mann and others, CRU’s director Dr. Philip Jones reported: “I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann’s] Nature [journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [Briffa’s] to hide the decline [in global temperatures]…” Then all of the proxy and surface measurement chartings were presented in different colors on a single graph, and Briffa’s were simply cut off in a spaghetti clutter of lines at the 1961 date.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
Please Share this Post with as many sources as possible and reblog.
Recently there was a debate featuring Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Curry, Dr. Moore and Dr. Titley. This debate followed the structure of just about all other debates on Climate Change. Each participant gave their presentation and then went into Q&A. Dr. Curry posted her presentation on her website. (Click Here) It is an extremely fine presentation, but unlikely to sway too many opinions when matched against Climate Sophist Michael Mann. From the review I’ve seen, that seems to have been the case. (Click Here)
Going in, I think it’s unlikely that anyone would find an event such as this sufficient to change a mind that’s already made up. What it can do, however, is introduce a topic, or suggest an idea, that might lead an individual to do some deeper exploring.
The benefit we now have is that we know Michael Mann’s approach, presentation, and focus. It is like disclosure in a court trial. Recently in the Exxon vs San Francisco Trial Dr. Myles Allen gave his best evidence against CO2 and it was a complete and utter joke. It was pure unadulterated sophistry, 100% completely dependent upon the Judge being newspaper educated on the issue. Climate Sophists like Allen and Mann are 100% completely dependent upon people not looking behind the curtain. Their arguments are as shallow as a dime and as resilient as a paper tiger. Here is a point by point dressing down of Dr. Allen’s court testimony. (Click Here) (Click Here)
It is this cross-examination approach that should be used in debates against Mann and Allen. If the information provided by Dr. Allan and Mann is the best a Climate Sophist can offer, they literally have no arguments at all. Here is what Dr. Mann used in the recent debate. (Click Here)
Dr. Michael Mann, at ease and confident at the podium, led off the evening by stating his hope for “a robust conversation” on how to address climate change. His presentation was based around the idea that the only debate to be had is on what to do about man-made climate change. Indeed, he stated this position several times, reinforcing it by clarifying that there’s no worthy debate to be had on whether there’s a problem, or that man has caused it. As a justification for this, Dr. Mann explained that the science behind anthropogenic climate change is verifiable fact. Incontrovertible. Well known and agreed upon for over a hundred years.
Of all the claims made throughout the evening, this is the one I found to be the most personally problematic. Clearly scientists such as Curry and Moore aren’t, to borrow a tired phrase, “denying” the basic science of atmospheric and radiative physics. To claim otherwise, or even to imply through omission, that they do so is unfair, untrue, and frankly, does nothing to increase the credibility of the presenter.
At any rate, moving on, as anyone familiar with this subject could guess, Dr. Mann’s presentation centered on his “iconic” hockey stick graph, noting that this year marks the 20th anniversary of its publication. The point he made sure to emphasize with the hockey stick was the “warming spike” of the late 20th century is unnatural, and unprecedented in tens of thousands of years. He noted that 2014, 2015, and 2016 were each record-breaking years for global temperatures, and cited his 2017 paper which ostensibly demonstrated there was only a 1 in 3000 chance that three consecutive years of global warming would be due to natural causes. In the course of his presentation, Dr. Mann made two specific claims: temperatures were now likely to rise by 4 to 5 degrees Celsius and sea levels by 6 to 8 feet.
Michael Mann is a narcissistic megalomaniacal bully. (Click Here) He is the epitome of a participation trophy snowflake. He has been showered with praise and rewards from all his progressive supporters (Click Here) (Click Here), and they have emboldened him into thinking that he can get away with anything, even statistical fraud like “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline.” He is the Scientific equivalent of treasonous FBI Agent Peter Strzok (Click Here). He was put in a position of public trust, and he completely betrayed that trust. (Click Here)
Fortunately, Michael Mann’s “science” is so bad, even the most scientifically illiterate audience would be able to understand the flaws. The Progressive CAGW Theory is a giant house of cards, founded upon Michael Mann’s infamous “Hockey Stick” graph. A graph that he is completely dependent upon for his case and credibility. (Click Here) (Click Here)
Dr. Mann’s presentation centered on his “iconic” hockey stick graph, noting that this year marks the 20th anniversary of its publication. The point he made sure to emphasize with the hockey stick was the “warming spike” of the late 20th century is unnatural, and unprecedented in tens of thousands of years.
Therefore the proper way to defeat Michael Mann isn’t to provide arguements that run 100% counter to the manufactured “Consensus.” The proper approach is to demonstrate that the “Consensus” is based 100% upon garbage science, or “Fake Science” as President Trump would call it. The people hate to be lied to, and the mood of the people today makes this approach ideal. The Fake News Media, The FBI/CIA/Justice Department scandal, the manufactured Russian Collusion, the childish/bratish blind resistance, the obstructionist Democrats have awaken America to the complete and utter corruption of the Progressive establishments and way of doing business. Democrats even rigged their own primary. How off the charts despicable is that?
We’ve already dismantled Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” chart in various earlier posts:
And the list goes on and on, but for this post, we want to focus on few key points for discrediting the “Hockey Stick” chart.
Every debate on Climate Change should always revert back to the actual science of the GHG Effect. Key points about the GHG are:
When the above GHG principles are applied to the “Hockey Stick” it crumbles under scrutiny. I doubt Michael Mann’s ego would be able to withstand the onslaught that follows. Michael Mann is truly an emperor with no clothes, a wizard behind a curtain, a con Mann of the greatest degree.
How to Discredit the “Hockey Stick” and trigger Michael Mann into having a public meltdown.
In conclusion, future debates including Michael Mann should not be directed at providing an alternative to Michael Mann’s position, they should be directed at exposing him as the fraud that he is, and proving that the research that supports his position is the greatest piece of scientific garbage ever produced. The above talking points presented in a public debate would go a long way towards erasing Michael Mann, the Peter Strzok of the Scientific Community, from the record books and arena of those trying to influence public policy and doing serious scientific research. (Click Here) Law firms are likely to seek Michael Mann out as they seek to loot our energy industries, and that should be enough evidence of his credibility or lack thereof. (Click Here) The only reason Michael Mann has any credibility at all is because the majority of the population is unaware of the facts covered in this article. The more people know about the real science behind Climate Change, the less power Michael Mann will have to deceive them.
Be sure to click on all links to get the full understanding of just how corrupt and fraudulent Michael Mann and is research truly is. Its simply can’t be fully explained in a single posting. With the FBI scandal in the headlines, now is the perfect time to expose corruption in another institution critical to our society, the institution of Science. As a reminder, Eisenhower warned America about people like Michael Mann. (Click Here) (Click Here)
Additional Concise Descriptions of the Science:
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
To understand AGW, one must understand quantum physics. The Greenhouse Gas Effect is the thermalization of Longwave Infrared (LWIR) Photons. LWIR is relatively long-wavelength electromagnetic (EM) radiation and having a long-wavelength, it doesn’t pack much energy into a unit of distance. If you view a Slinky (Spring) as an Em Wave, as you pull the Slinky, the less Slinky there is per foot. If a Slinky is 6 inches fully compressed, and you stretch it to 1 foot in length, there is 1/2 the amount of Slinky per inch as a fully compressed Slinky. The more you pull the Slinky apart, the less Slinky there is per inch. If the Slinky represents a quantum of energy, the longer you stretch the Slinky the less energy you have per inch. That is how EM radiation works. Frequency is directly related to energy, and wavelength is inversely related to energy.
As we’ve mentioned countless times on this blog, to understand the climate you have to understand the oceans (Click Here). The oceans, lakes and rivers cover upwards of 70% of the earth’s surface, and water is a highly effective heat sink, storing over 2,000x the energy found in the atmosphere. Very small changes to the energy in the oceans, therefore, means very big changes to the relative energy balance between the oceans and the atmosphere, and the oceans warm the atmosphere, not vice versa.
The only defined mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 can affect climate change is through the thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18µ, that is it. Climate alarmists point to the warming of the oceans as evidence that CO2 is the cause. The problem with that theory is that they can’t explain how LWIR between 13 and 18µ warms the oceans (Click Here). LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate the oceans and actually causes cooling through surface evaporation. Additionally, LWIR between 13 and 18µ is very very low energy EM Radiation when compared to EM wavelengths that do actually penetrate and warm the oceans, wavelengths mostly at the blue end of the spectrum. CO2, in reality, is a very weak Greenhouse Gas (Click Here) in terms of warming the atmosphere and the oceans.
A British Thermal Unit or BTU is the amount of energy it takes to warm 1lb or water 1°F. 1 BTU is the energy equivalent of 1,055 joules (Click Here). A Joule is a unit of energy measured in kg*m^2/s^2 (Click Here). Basically, it takes a lot of energy to warm water.
LWIR between 13 and 18µ has 8kJ/mol (Click Here). A mole is a fixed number of molecules found in 12 grams of Carbon-12. I use kJ/mol instead of Joules to avoid numbers like 1×10^-23. The relative relationship is what matters for this problem.
Blue light, on the other hand, has a wavelength of 0.45µ and 266kJ/mol. 266kJ/mol is 33x the energy of LWIR between 13 and 18µ. Additionally, CO2 only thermalizes a narrow band of low energy LWIR between 13 and 18µ, and the oceans absorb the full high energy visible spectrum between 0.4 and 0.7µ.
Even adjusting for the 24/7 Greenhouse effect, and visible radiation being on a 12/7 schedule, the energy balance is still 16.5x. Working in the fact that the N Hemisphere has more land mass and the angle of incidence over the hemisphere at any given moment you might be able to cut the relative energy down to 8x, but that still means that 1 day of clear visible radiation is greater than 8 days of LWIR between 13 and 18µ.
There is another problem, we are dealing with marginal gains, not absolute levels. The CO2 change from 270 to 411 ppm only accounts for a fraction of the 8kJ/mol. To make matters worse, H2O absorbs those identical wavelengths, so the LWIR between 13 and 18µ downwelling that is impacting the oceans isn’t increased/affected by CO2. H2O saturates the absorption of LWIR between 13 and 18µ in the lower atmosphere directly above the oceans. The following MODTRAN reports highlight how doubling CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm has no impact on outgoing radiation in the lower atmosphere.
Note how the CO2 level is changed from 400ppm to 800ppm, and the upward IR heat flux remains constant at 417.306 W/M^2.
No matter how the climate alarmists want to spin this con, no matter how desperate they want to believe, no matter how much lipstick they want to put on this pig, there is no way the actual physics behind the GHG Effect and the CO2 molecule will ever support their claims that CO2 is the cause of the oceans, and in turn atmosphere warming. It all is simply a big lie. The introductory graphic of the cleaning of the atmosphere is the cause of the warming. More visible warming radiation is simply reaching the oceans. CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
We have mentioned countless times on this blog that the warming oceans are evidence that CO2 is not the cause of global warming. To understand the climate you must first understand the oceans. The oceans control the global climate. As the oceans warm, they warm and alter the humidity of the atmosphere above them. The problem is, as we have pointed out countless times, CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18µ.
LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate or warm the oceans. Visible radiation, mainly from the high energy blue end of the spectrum does. CO2 is transparent to incoming visible radiation. The energy stored in the atmosphere and land is insignificant when compared to the oceans. The oceans contain 2,000x the energy of the atmosphere, so small changes to the oceans can mean big changes in the atmospheric temperature. The oceans also produce vast amounts of CO2 (20 x the amount man produces), and the most abundant and potent greenhouse gas, water vapor.
The warming oceans are evidence that CO2 ISN’T the cause of the recent warming. Oceans are warmed by more incoming radiation reaching them, and that is in fact what has been happening (Click Here). It is extremely easy to explain the recent warming due to natural causes, an explanation that is backed by the evidence (Click Here), not just uneducated highly biased and conflicted opinions.
How does “Inside Climate News” report on the issue of the warming oceans? They claim that the warming oceans are the greatest evidence of fossil fuels caused global warming.
The Most Powerful Evidence Climate Scientists Have of Global Warming
The oceans hold the story of a planet warming as fossil fuels are burned
Clearly, they don’t understand the physics supporting the warming of the oceans and the GHG effect, but, let’s have a look at how “Inside Climate News” defends such ignorance.
They claim to have all the proof in 4 charts:
Here is what scientists have discovered, in four charts.
No one argues that the oceans are warming, they are. Warming oceans aren’t evidence that CO2 is causing the warming. As stated above, LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate or warm the oceans. “Inside Climate News” offers no explanation as to how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ could possibly warm the oceans. As mentioned above, post-1992, cleaner air has resulted in more warming visible radiation warming of the oceans, not CO2. Funny how “Inside Climate News” forgot to mention that.
This graphic validates the incoming visible radiation warms the oceans theory. CO2 is transparent to incoming warming visible radiation. While it is correct that Greenhouse gases do absorb much of the outgoing radiation, CO2 is insignificant in the lower atmosphere. The first CO2 signature is identified at an altitude of about 3 km when H2O starts to precipitate out of the atmosphere. MODTRAN demonstrates that CO2 has zero impact on the energy budget in the lower atmosphere as long as H2O is present. The following MODTRAN reports show that doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm results in zero change to the 407.572 W/M^2 of outgoing radiation in the lower atmosphere. A zero change. Funny how “Inside Climate News” forgot to mention that. Who do you trust more? A computer program or “Inside Climate News.”
Okay, I got it, the oceans are warming…but what does that have to do with CO2? The Oceans naturally go through cycles like El Niño and La Niña, but those aren’t caused by CO2. There recently was a strong El Niño, and ocean temperatures are rapidly returning to normal. CO2 has nothing to do with the ocean cycles. “Inside Climate News” conveniently choose the time period leading up to the El Niño, and forgot to mention what happened after. Funny how “Inside Climate News” forgot to mention that. (H/T Real Science)
Satellite data also shows atmospheric temperatures tightly tied to ocean cycles. Note how fast temperatures are falling post-El Niño. How can CO2 explain that? CO2 can’t cause temperature spikes, nor can it cause rapid cooling. CO2 simply can’t explain the volatility in the temperature chart. Current temperatures are below the levels set in 1998, 1996, 1990, 1988 and in line with temperatures of 1983. How can CO2 explain that, given its increase over that time period? Funny how “Inside Climate News” forgot to explain that.
Wow, thermal expansion of the oceans also results in a rising sea level. We can kill two birds with one stone using one single “Inside Climate News” article. If CO2 can’t cause the oceans to warm, it can’t cause thermal expansion, so it isn’t causing the increase in sea level. BTW, the sea levels aren’t rising at an increasing rate, so this is a Strawman anyway. Here is the tidal chart of Battery Park at the South end of Manhatten. It shows no increase in the rate at all going way back to 1850. Sea levels have in fact paused since 1998, and the current level is below the level reached in the late 1950s. Sea levels BTW are increasing at a rate of less than 3mm/yr. Do the math, Manhatten is at no risk of sinking anytime soon. Funny how “Inside Climate News” forgot to mention that.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
(H/T Real Science)
Exhibit A: Al Gore’s Ice Core CO2 Temperature Chart
Ironically, some of the most damning evidence again the AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory comes from Al Gore himself.
18. This chart demonstrates the variability of the Holocene in greater detail.
19. This chart highlights how dust, particulate matter, and solar output are extremely important to global temperatures.
Greenland temperatures today are no different then they were in 1880. How then can man-made CO2 be blamed for the glacier melting and the sea level rising? CO2 in 1880 is estimated to have been below 300 ppm, today it is 400 ppm. CO2 has increased a full 33%+ over that time, and yet it has had zero measurable impact on atmospheric temperatures. While climate alarmists use Greenland and its potential threat of sea level rise as evidence for their CAGW Theory, in reality, Greenland is the ideal case study to debunk the theory. The evidence of this fraud is available for anyone to see if they simply choose to look.
Climate change means Greenland is the same temperature now as 1880
Hands up who knew that Greenland has been pretty much the same temperature for the last hundred and forty years?
We know that there has been massive melting ice, shrinking ice sheets, a dark zone that is a huge problem, that the melting is accelerating, faster than at any time in the last 400 years. We all know “this is scary”, and due to climate change and could raise sea levels by 20 feet. And that’s just the news stories in the last two weeks.
At NoTricksZone, Kenneth Richards has found an up to date graph of Greenland temperatures buried in the supplement of a new paper by Mikkelsen et al., 2018:
Dr. Myles Allen must think that the San Francisco Judge is a complete fool. I just finished a post refuting many of his claims, but one example needed to be singled out. In his presentation, Dr. Myles Allen replaced the poster child Mt. Kilimanjaro, which was exposed as a fraud in the Climategate emails, with the Glacier National Park Glacier. He claimed that man-made global warming is the cause of the decline of the glacier. The problem is, Glacier National Park is in the middle of nowhere, and there is no urban heat island effect. There has been no warming in that area since 1994 and temperatures have actually been in a slight DOWNTREND!!! The judge needs to ask Dr. Myles Allen how does a glacier melt due to man-made warming when there is no warming? Just what evidence does he have to support his claim? Show me the data!!! The following headline from 1923 predicted all the glaciers would be gone from Glacier National Park by 1948.
This highlights the main source of Climate Sophistry, the selective use of the ground measurements corrupted by the urban heat island effect. They find warming, and deliberately misattribute it to CO2. That tactic was highlighted in an earlier post Click Here. As long as this fraud is not thoroughly exposed, the Climate Sophists will always be able to make there case using Cherry-Picked Corrupted and Adjusted Ground Measurements. This is truly the scientific fraud of the ages.
Additionally, while I wasn’t able to find a pre-1960’s Sperry Glacier Photo, I was able to find one of Gulkana Glacier. That photo shows much of the glacier being gone by the early 1950s. You can cherry-pick glacier photos to make any story you want. Some glaciers are larger today than back in the 1960s. There is also plenty of evidence glaciers were disappearing well before the 1950s.
BTW, Dr. Myles Allen is from Oxford and should know better. He must be one of those people that used Orwell, Rand, Huxley, and Vonnegut as instruction manuals, not warmings. Allowing this kind of corruption, dishonesty, and deception to undermine science is one of the worst things society can do. If we let people like this punish legitimate companies producing an essential quality of life improving commodity, it will be a huge step back for all of us. Without oil, the global economy will collapse. Without climate sophistry, the world is a far better place. The astronomical costs of following these false scientific prophets far outweigh their benefits.
More Posts on the Issue:
Please Like, Share, Subscribe, comment and forward to the San Francisco Judge and Exxon. This madness has to be stopped. Court Rulings based upon Fraud is one of the quickest ways to break down society and trust in our country’s foundation and essential institutions. Once we lose trust in our judicial system, truth and justice, and the rule of law we will quickly degenerate into anarchy. Progressives may want to live in the world of Mad Max/Road Warrior…I sure as hell don’t.
Note: The one introductory graphic is of Gulkana Glacier, and it shows that much of the glacier was gone by the early 1950s. It is the only graphic I could find specifically labeled pre-1960.
Thanks for Anthony Watts and Willie Soon over at WUWT, we now have the San Francisco Court Documents. My immediate thought was how short and concise the defense’s document was–Click Here and understand the issue–, compared to the prosecution’s–Click — and–Click Here and understand the issues. People that truly understand issues can better simplify the topic, whereas those who don’t often try to impress the audience with endless graphs.
The second issue that caught my eye wasn’t what was in the reports of the prosecution, but what wasn’t. Their presentations are masterful demonstrations of sophistry, leaving out highly important information, and attributing effects to erroneous causes. They even used misleading graphics. In this post, I’ll try to expose some of the sophistry that is happening in San Francisco.
Link to the above Presentation
Rebuttal: No one denies the physics of the GHG effect, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2, however, is a very weak GHG. CO2’s blanket is more like a thin sheet of tissue paper put over an H20 mummy sleeping bag. H2O’s effect negates anything CO2 does in the lower atmosphere. According to MODTRAN, the CO2 signature isn’t even measurable until you are up 3km in the atmosphere. Additionally, as demonstrated by the SpectralCalc Blackbody calculator, the IR temperature of thermalized CO2, 13 to 18µ is a sweltering -80°C. CO2 doesn’t “warm” the planet, it helps prevent it from cooling below -80°C.
As noted above, CO2 is a GHG, but a very weak one. H2O, on the other hand, has a permanent dipole and is a very very very potent GHG. Dr. Myles Allen points out that CO2 is potent relative to the non-GHGs of O2 and N2, but fails to address H2O. That is like claiming an aspirin cured the pain AFTER being given a huge dose of morphine, and never mentioning the morphine.
As the graphic describes there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature, and it decays…rapidly. Actually, it isn’t really between CO2 and temperature, it is between CO2 and W/M^2. The models used to associate CO2 with Temperature used by the IPCC all model a linear, not a logarithmic, relationship. Because ground measurements are subject to “adjustments” and the “Urban Heat Island Effect” it is impossible to identify how much warming CO2 has caused since the beginning of the industrial age. If however, if you control for exogenous factors and isolate the impact of CO2 on the lower atmosphere, you find that the increase in CO2 over the past 50+ years has had no impact on temperature. Additionally, changing the concentration of CO2 doesn’t change the absorption spectrum, CO2 still absorbs LWIR between 13 to 18µ. Thermalizing those wavelengths doesn’t change the temperature from -80°C, you just have a few more CO2 molecules vibrating out of 2,500. Hardly enough energy to increase the temperature of the entire atmosphere.
This was the graphic the judge found to be misleading. CO2 is 400 parts per million. What that means is that 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere is CO2. If a stadium holds 100,000 sports fans, 40 would represent CO2, about 10 would represent the CO2 attributed to man. The entire AGW theory is based upon thermalizing 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere to an IR temperature of -80°C. The entire AGW Theory is the equivalent of 40 people in a 100,000 seat stadium trying to do a wave.
Dr. Myles Allen uses the same graphic to make 5 claims:
Temperature and density of CO2 are not related to altitude. Temperature drops in the troposphere in direct relationship to H2O, not CO2. Where there is H2O there is warmth, where there isn’t H2O there is cold. The temperature then “inverts” and warms with altitude in the stratosphere due to the ionization of O2 to O3. It then cools again in the mesosphere where CO2’s true impact on warming is observed by placing a floor on temperatures. The temperature then increases again in the thermosphere. H2O dominates the Troposphere, O2/O3 dominates the Stratosphere, and CO2’s main impact is way up in the mesosphere, far from the surface. Additionally, there is wide difference between measured IR temperature and actual energy. The Thermosphere is warm as measured by IR spectrometry, but an astronaut would freeze to death without insulation and water freezes as well in the “warm” thermosphere.
When the astronauts take a leak while on a mission and expel the result into space, it boils violently. The vapor then passes immediately into the solid state (a process known as desublimation), and you end up with a cloud of very fine crystals of frozen urine.
Note how the graphic Y-Axis is labeled “Brightness Temperature,” and is measured from far above the earth. The X-Axis isn’t even labeled, but I assume it is wavenumber. It demonstrates a slight difference between wavenumber 800 and 1000. CO2’s impact is at 13 to 18µ or wavenumber 667, outside the area showing the difference. The graphic is showing a difference occurring in the wavenumbers associated more with O3 and H2O than CO2. Once again, I’m assuming the X-Axis is wavenumber. Any competent lecturer would have known to label the axis.
Temperatures clearly follow H2O in the troposphere, O3 in the stratosphere, and CO2’s only observable impact is to establish a temperature floor in the mesosphere—THE COLDEST LAYER IN THE ATMOSPHERE. CO2 is 400 ppm in the Troposphere where temperatures cool with altitude, CO2 is 400 ppm in the stratosphere where temperatures increase with altitude, CO2 is 400 ppm in the mesosphere where temperatures decrease with altitude, and CO2 is 400 ppm in the thermosphere (at least to 80km) where temperatures increase with altitude. There simply is no relationship between CO2, Temperature, and altitude.
Yep, CO2 has increased at a nearly linear rate since measurements began in 1959. Problem is, temperatures are anything but linear, and they track ocean temperatures, not CO2. Satellite temperatures are cooler today than they were in 1998, and are at the level reached in 1987. Ground measurements don’t measure the impact of CO2, they measure the impact of H2O. If you isolate the impact of CO2 on the lower atmosphere you find no warming. BTW, note the slope of CO2. The trillions of dollars wasted on fighting CO2 have done absolutely nothing to alter that slope. Trillions of dollars poured down a rathole.
Cherry picking at its best. CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and NEVER caused catastrophic warming or ocean acidification. Life has thrived through all levels of atmospheric CO2. Coral Reefs formed during periods where there was much higher CO2. The globe fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4,000 ppm, 10x what it is today. BTW, plants die when CO2 falls below 180 ppm. We are near the lowest level in geological history for CO2, and we are dangerously close to the level where plants starve to death. Warming is infinitely preferable to an ice age. Funny how Dr. Myles Allen forgot to include the longer-term CO2 graphic. BTW, that CO2 graphic follows standard of living far better than temperatures.
I personally can’t believe Dr. Myles Allen would mention climate modeling. Nothing discredits the CO2 AGW theory more than the computer models. If something is understood, it can be modeled, and the Climate Alarmists can’t model the climate using CO2. Climate models are epic failures.
Epic mistake here. Dr. Myles Allen establishes that the oceans are controlling the energy balance…which they do. The problem is, once you’ve established the oceans are the main driver, and you attribute the change to CO2 you have to explain how CO2 warms the oceans. It doesn’t, and can’t. To explain global warming, you have to explain ocean warming, and CO2’s only defined mechanism to affect climate change is through the thermalization of LWIR between 13 to 18µ. Those wavelengths do not penetrate or warm water. Huge amounts of high energy visible radiation are required to warm the oceans. If the oceans are warming, it means we have clearer skies allowing more solar radiation to reach the surface of the earth. CO2 has nothing to do with it.
Research from 1975 & 1979? Ranges of 1.5 to 4.5°C. Words like “may” and “could” are hardly the terms used for a “settled” science.
First, warming is not evidence CO2 is causing the warming. Warming ended the ice age without the aid of CO2. The rate of change between 1900 and 1942 is nearly identical to the rate of change in temperature between 1979 and today. Most CO2 was produced post-1970, yet the rate of temperature change remained unaltered from the natural rate. CO2 increased between 1940 and 1979, yet temperatures FELL. Lastly, the ground measurements used to make this graphic are highly “adjusted.” Properly constructing a temperature graph controlling for the Urban Heat Island Effect shows far less warming.
1 molecule out of 2,500 absorbing low energy LWIR can increase the temperature a full 4°C? Really? Since the end of the last ice age, temperatures have been above where we are today with much lower CO2, and even when CO2 was 7,000 ppm we didn’t have significant warming. Once again, life has thrived for billions of years on earth, especially over the past 600 million years, when CO2 was much higher than today.
No argument there, but what does that have to do with CO2? Climate alarmists are supposed to discount the sun. In reality, we are likely headed for a cooling phase, and it is due to the sun, and CO2 won’t be able to prevent it.
60 million years ago, Antarctica wasn’t the South Pole, it was up near Australia. Lack of ice had nothing to do with CO2 any more than CO2 has to do with the lack of ice in Australia today. BTW, note the error bars. “Settled” sciences don’t allow for such uncertainty.
Solar activity isn’t what matters, the amount of solar radiation that reaches the oceans is what matters. On a hot day with open shades, my room gets very hot. If I draw the shades, even though it is still hot outside my room cools. The sun’s output isn’t what matters, what reaches the oceans to warm them is what matters. To define that, you have to define the impact of clouds and cosmic rays. Guess what? This “settled” science hasn’t bothered to do that.
Few frauds in this one. First is that they show temperatures increasing linearly. That wouldn’t happen with an increase in CO2. The problem is, they have a linear CO2 concentration graph and they have to tie it to a non-linear temperature chart. What do they do? They simply “adjust” the temperatures to make them more linear. The second is that they rely on “adjusted” ground measurements, not on far more reliable satellite data. This is the only time I know of when NASA chooses to use 16th-century technology over its modern satellites.
These claims are not supported by the evidence. First, the climate models don’t match satellite temperatures and only match the highly “adjusted” ground temperature data. Ground temperature measurements don’t measure the impact of CO2, they measure the urban heat island effect and water vapor. Climate models “provide one line of evidence.” That is completely inconsistent with the claims of this science being “settled.” The physics understood in the 19th century doesn’t imply a linear relationship between CO2 and temperatures, and certainly can’t explain the “pauses” that have occurred. The scientific hypothesis “man does not cause climate change” is not rejected at the 95% confidence level if the scientific method is applied to ice core data. There is absolutely nothing abnormal about the temperature variation over the past 150 years when compared to the entire Holocene. Just look at Al Gore’s charts.
Both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice are melting FROM BELOW. Greenland is a volcanic island and the localized warming of the West Antarctica ice shelves takes place above active volcanos. Many of the other glaciers are “melting” at altitudes where there is no documented warming. CO2 is evenly distributed over the globe and can not cause a localized warming.
CO2 doesn’t cause volcanos and thermal expansion of the water. If CO2 is being blamed for thermal expansion of the oceans, you have to be able to explain how LWIR between 13 to 18µ can warm water. That can be tested in a lab. Where is the evidence? The physics of the CO2 molecule does not support CO2 and LWIR between 13 to 18µ warming water.
One suspicious aspect of the presentation is that it avoided the poster child Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier. The Climategate emails revealed that the climate alarmists were aware that there was no warming in the vicinity of the glacier, and that the disappearance of the glacier was due to sublimation, and had nothing to do with CO2. Instead, Dr. Myles Allen chose to focus on Glacier National Park. Problem is, he forgot to see if there was any evidence of warming in that vicinity. There isn’t. Temperatures have actually been in a slight downtrend since 1994. Dr. Myles Allen must think this San Francisco judge is a complete fool. Glaciers have been disappearing long before the spike in CO2. The following article published in 1923 predicted the glaciers in Glacier National Park would be gone by 1948.
Notable Charts “accidentally” left out of Dr. Myles Allen’s presentation:
Please suggest any edits, corrections and/or additions in the comments.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
One of the key principles to sound science is “ceteris paribus.” With any experiment, one wants to “control” as many outside forces as possible to isolate the impact of the independent variable upon the dependent variable. The posting: Isolating the Contribution of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature attempted to demonstrate an experiment where CO2’s impact on the climate was isolated by controlling for as many outside factors as possible.
In another post, two locations in close proximity to themselves were used to demonstrate that constant CO2 couldn’t be the explanation of the temperature differential. New York City has an upward trend consistent with the urban heat island effect, and West Point has flat to falling temperatures. Both have identical CO2, but different temperatures. CO2, being the constant in the equation, can’t be the explanation for the differential. Here is the post: CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does.
Tony Heller over at Real Science really took this concept to a whole new level. He found two cities right across a lake. One city is well developed and subject to the urban heat island effect, whereas the other is relatively undeveloped. From those two locations, a real scientist would recognize that the one data set is corrupted, and would rely on data from the uncorrupted data set.
Sure enough, the two data sets demonstrate wildly different temperatures histories. The one is clearly corrupted by the urban heat island effect, and the other is not. One is sharply increasing and the other is actually falling.
Any real scientist would recognize the corruption and eliminate the one data set from the record. CO2 is equal on both sides of the lake, and the close proximity allows one to be a relatively good proxy for the region. Using both simply corrupts the data, and reduces the value of the output of a model by increasing uncertainty. How did NASA address this issue? They simply ignored it, and use a data set showing warming in that region.
If the real scientists over in the Aerospace Division of NASA ever used these derelict practices NASA would never have put a man on the moon. Imagine if a Drug Company attempted to get a drug through FDA approval using this kind of research. The work the NASA Climate Division is doing makes the Tobacco Companies’ Science Divisions look competent. As long as the climate alarmists rely on the garbage ground measurement data sets, they will never gain any real credibility, no matter what the “consensus” says. People simply aren’t that stupid, and they can smell a rat from a mile away.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
h/t Real Science
In any serious scientific experiment, efforts are made to “control” for as many exogenous factors as possible. The whole purpose is to isolate the impact of the independent variable on the dependent variable. ΔWeightloss = ΔCaloric Intake + ΔExercise + ΔBase Metabolism + error. To minimize the error of the model (maximize explanatory power), variables outside the model (exogenous factors), are controlled for to make the relationships as close to apples to apples as possible. Factors that impact the dependent variable but aren’t in the model can result in erroneous results and conclusions, for instance, if the person is taking diet drugs during the experiment without reporting them.
Applying this concept to climate change, the ideal model would be ΔTemperature = ΔCO2 + error. The problem is, it isn’t that simple. H2O is a far more potent GHG than CO2, and has a far greater impact on temperature as demonstrated in a previous post. The Urban Heat Island Effect also impacts temperatures. A more robust model would be ΔTemperature = ΔCO2 + ΔH20 + ΔUrban Heat Island Effect + error. For a real scientist to model CO2’s impact on temperature, they would need to create an experiment or model that controls for all factors other than CO2.
Controlling for The Urban Heat Island Effect:
To control for the Urban Heat Island Effect, the easiest way is to simply look at the areas where there are no urban areas. There are no cities in the oceans. If you look at just the temperatures over the oceans, they show 0.1°C less warming than over land since 1979. CO2 is 400ppm over the oceans and 400ppm over land so CO2 cannot be the cause of that differential. The vast majority of the earth’s land mass and cities are in the Northern Hemisphere, so the Southern Hemisphere offers another way to control for the Urban Heat Island Effect. Since 1979, Southern Hemisphere Temperatures increased 0.2°C less than the Northern Hemisphere. CO2 is 400ppm over the Northern Hemisphere and 400ppm over the Southern Hemisphere so CO2 cannot be the cause of that differential
Controlling for Water Vapor:
The introductory graphic demonstrates how atmospheric temperature and water vapor are extremely highly correlated. Where there is water vapor, there is warmth, where there isn’t, there isn’t. CO2 blankets the globe with 400ppm so it can’t be responsible for the extreme variations of temperatures, and it certainly can’t explain the high correlation with water vapor.
This effect is so powerful, that it can be observed in local climates. Rainforests have moderate temperatures and a small differential between day and night temperatures. You can comfortably sleep naked in a rainforest. Deserts, on the other hand, have extreme temperature variations between day an night. Temperatures in Death Valley can reach over 100°F in the day, and fall to near freezing at night. If you sleep naked in a desert, you will most likely regret it.
This effect can also be seen in mountainous areas, where the moist windward air is warmer than the dry leeward air on the other side of the mountain. One can see that effect on the Hawaiian Island of Oahu where the temperatures as of this writing are 78°F on the moist windward side, and 71°F on the dry leeward side. CO2 is 400ppm on both sides of the mountain, and the distance between the two spots is about 25 miles. Once again, CO2 can’t explain a temperature differential because it is a constant 400ppm.
Controlling for the Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor:
Antarctica is by far the best natural control for measuring the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperature. There are no cities, no roads, no buildings, no lakes and the air is extremely dry and cold. Antarctica is a large area of almost uniform “albedo” or reflectivity, naturally controlling for any distortion caused by the terrain. The major greenhouse gas over Antarctica is CO2, and its temperature is close to the -80°C which is close to the temperature absorbed by CO2 in the 13 & 18µ band of LWIR. Antarctica is like a giant petri dish for climate research.
What do you get when you control for water vapor and the Urban Heat Island Effect? Temperatures have actually FALLEN since 1979 in Antarctica. In fact, temperatures are actually flat over the past 50 years. CO2 has increased from 310 ppm in 1955 to 400 ppm today, and its impact on temperatures in Antarctica is immeasurable. When the impact of CO2 is isolated, and all other significant factors are controlled for, CO2 has no measurable impact on atmospheric temperatures. Antarctica temperature data proves it beyond any reasonable doubt.
People are often making hysterical claims about the polar sea ice disappearing. CO2 is 400ppm over the North Pole, and 400ppm over the South Pole, yet only the North Pole shows warming. CO2 can’t be the cause of the warming, and the warming is due to oceans, not CO2. The 13 & 18µ band of LWIR that CO2 absorbs doesn’t penetrate or warm water.
Other Factors to control for:
Calibration and consistency of measurement equipment and methods are essential for any real science, and it is completely lacking in the field of ground measurement temperatures. What “calibration” is done, is done through universal “adjustments” done in a computer program and the equipment varies from one station to another. The countless network of temperature units was never designed to be used as a global climate database. They were used to report on local temperatures. Satellite measurements are infinitely better and measured scientifically than the ground measurements.
That being said, there are a few data stations that have remained in the same spot and measured the same way for extended periods. Central England is the most famous data set going back to 1650. Summer temperatures in Central England show no increase since 1650, annual numbers show no warming since 1720 and Winter temperatures show minimal warming since 1720, but because of the large variability of temperatures, all periods are most likely statistically identical.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
Let me begin by thanking the bipartisan group of U.S. governors who convened this meeting.
Few challenges facing America – and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.
Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.
Claim #1: Few Challenges Facing America – And The World – Are More Urgent Than Combating Climate Change.
Response to Claim #1: Climate Change has always occurred, and it has nothing to do with CO2. CO2 once reached 7000 ppm and there was no catastrophic warming. The earth fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4000 ppm, or 10x the level it is today. Never in the history of the earth has the climate not been changing. A changing climate is the norm, not the exception, and man’s ability to stop climate change is about the same as man’s ability to stop the seasons, and night and day. Fighting climate change is the Quixotic venture of all Quixotic ventures. Terrorism, unfunded pension liabilities, job displacement, poor inner city schools, poor inner-city healthcare, run away college inflation, China blackmailing the US with their US Debt holdings, cleaner water, protecting natural treasures, rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, job training, energy independence, promoting freedom worldwide, etc etc etc. If fact, fighting climate change ranks near dead last on the public’s priorities.
Claim #2: The “Science” Is Beyond Dispute.
Response to Claim #2: Real Science is never settled, and real science relies on experimentation and application of the scientific method. Climate “Science” claims to be “settled” and relies on unprovable hypothesis where CO2 can cause both warming and cooling, and uses computer models in place of the scientific method. What evidence the slimate clientists do present to support their hypothesis, fails miserably. None of the IPCC Computer Models accurately model CO2 and Temperature, and 100% of them overestimate warming. That is evidence of a systemic bias, not evidence of sound science. Real scientists would use the results on the computer models to change their conclusion that CO2 drives climate change.
Claim #3: The Facts Are Clear
Response to Claim #3: If the facts were clear, the computer models would be producing results that support the conclusion that CO2 is driving climate change. They don’t. To complicate this matter, the data supporting these “facts” are highly “adjusted.” Also, how can the facts ever be clear when CO2 can cause both warming and cooling? Who decides which is better, and what is the desired outcome? Do the climate alarmists claim they can manufacture a stable global climate? That is absurd.
Claim #4: Sea Levels Are Rising
Response to Claim #4: When haven’t sea levels been increasing? Sea levels have been increasing since the end of the last ice age, and the rate of change is near the lowest in the past 15,000 years. A rising sea level is evidence that we are no longer in an ice age, not that we have produced too much CO2. If the global temperatures were, in fact, increasing at an increasing rate, glaciers would be melting at an increasing rate, and sea levels would be increasing at an increasing rate. They aren’t. There is no evidence that sea level rate of change has been accelerating. Even if sea levels are accelerating, and temperatures are accelerating, that still doesn’t mean CO2 is the cause. There are plenty of periods in world history when temperatures and sea levels have accelerated without CO2 being the driver.
Claim #5: Coastlines Are Shrinking
Response to Claim #5: See Response to Claim #4. Coastlines are shrinking, and they are also growing. Earthquakes, tectonic plate shifting, volcanic activity, construction, etc etc etc all work to shape the coastlines and they have nothing to do with CO2. The oceans are warming and expanding. That will increase the sea level and shrink the coastline, but the wavelengths CO2 absorbs won’t penetrate or warm the oceans. Visible radiation warms the oceans.
Claim #6: We’ve Seen Record Drought
Response to Claim #6: Drought isn’t even an expected outcome of a warming globe. Warmer air holds more water vapor. Droughts haven’t been getting worse, in fact, according to NASA, the earth has undergone substantial greening. CO2, after all, is plant food, and plants are huge producers of air humidity.
Claim #7: We’ve Seen…Spreading Famine
Response to Claim #7: This is the most absurd claim. CO2 is plant food, and higher CO2 levels result in higher crop yields. That BTW is about as settled as science can be and easily demonstrated in a lab. Higher CO2 is the answer to ending famine, not the cause. If there is famine today it is due to a food distribution problem, not a food production issue. Most likely, the cause of famine is a war, tyrannical government or other man-made causes blocking the delivery of food to needy people.
Claim #8: We’ve Seen…Storms That Are Growing Stronger
Response to Claim #8: The evidence simply doesn’t support this claim. Tornados have not been becoming more frequent or strong, and they certainly aren’t tied to the rate of change of CO2. Once again, warming isn’t evidence that man is causing the warming. Unless you can explain how CO2 can warm the oceans, there must be some other factor causing the warming. The most likely cause is simply fewer clouds over the oceans allowing more visible radiation to reach the oceans.
Claim #9: We’ve Seen..Storms That Are Growing Stronger With Each Passing Hurricane Season
Response to Claim #9: Hurricanes are actually growing less frequent and less severe, and once again, any trend isn’t tied to CO2. Almost all claims that current weather events are getting worse crumble under analysis. If you want to learn about extreme weather read the Bible, or study the history of the collapse of the Bronze Age.
Claim #10: Climate Change And Our Dependence On Foreign Oil, If Left Unaddressed, Will Continue To Weaken Our Economy And Threaten Our National Security.
Response to Claim #10: That is true, but the solution isn’t building wind and solar farms. Blocking the Keystone Pipeline, fracking and drilling simply prolonged and worsened our position and strengthened the terrorists. President Trump’s position of promoting US Energy DOMINANCE by drilling, deregulating, opening Federal Lands and promoting revolution in Iran is an infinitely better approach. An approach that will actually deliver results.
Other nonsensical claims made by the climate alarmists also crumble under analysis.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
The above video from NOAA clearly identifies warmer arctic oceans as the cause of the thinning and shrinking of the Arctic Sea Ice. CO2 is NEVER mentioned.
NASA’ Goddard’s Institute for Space Studies explains that the warming of the Arctic is due to 5% more solar radiation being absorbed since 2000. CO2 is transparent to the incoming warming visible radiation that warms the earth and oceans. CO2 traps a small amount of outgoing IR between 13 and 18µ, wavelengths that don’t penetrate or warm the oceans. NOAA and NASA appear to understand the real cause of the loss of Arctic Sea Ice, incoming solar radiation. The one thing they don’t and can’t do is explain how increasing CO2 can somehow make more visible radiation reach the oceans and surface of the earth. If you can’t explain how CO2 can warm the oceans, you can’t blame CO2. If people want to know the truth about Climate Change and its causes, they simply have to watch NOAA’s videos and NASA’s graphics and take them at their words. Visible radiation is warming our oceans, no more explanation needed. CO2 simply isn’t involved.
Read More: NOAA’s Arctic report card released at #AGU17
Please like, share, subscribe and commment.
One of the most basic statistical techniques used in science is the linear regression. The linear regression defines the relationship between the independent variable (cause) and the dependent variable (effect). The mathematical relationship is Y = mX + b, where Y is the dependent variable, m is the slope of the relationship, X is the independent variable and b is the Y-Axis intercept. There is also an error component, but for the sake of simplicity, we will stick with just Y = mX + b.
In the IPCC models and the anthropogenic global warming theory, CO2 is by far the most significant greenhouse gas and responsible for the majority of warming since the start of the industrial age. The “Hockeystick” comically demonstrates a very stable climate over 900 of the past 1,000 years and then a sharp spike in temperatures over the last 100 years.
Here is an actual formula used in one of the IPCC models, demonstrating that CO2 is really the only factor in the models of any significance. Also, note the “linear extrapolation” comment at the bottom of the graphic.
The important point being that CO2 is a linear independent variable. While it has annual cycles which vari by about 5 to 8 ppm from peak to trough, the overall “trend” is nearly a straight line with a slope of about 3 ppm/yr.
What happens when you plug a linear independent variable/X (CO2) in the formula Y = mX + b? You get a linear dependent variable/Y (Temperature estimate). That is exactly what the IPCC models do. The black line is the temperature estimates of 73 IPCC models. None, I repeat, None with a capital N came close to modeling actual observed temperatures, and all demonstrate a positive highly linear relationship between CO2 and temperature.
What do you do if you define a linear relationship between CO2 and Temperature, and 100% of your models fail? Do you admit your theory is flawed and go back and try to find a better explanation for the warming? Hell no!!!, what you do is “adjust” the dependent variable data to become more linear so the model works. The above data demonstrates how the GISS data has been “adjusted” over time to make temperatures more linear. As you can see from this chart, the “linearization” of the temperature is almost complete.
Current temperature charts are wildly different from the raw and historical data, and the following graphic highlighting the “adjustments” demonstrates an almost complete bias towards steepening and straightening of the data. That would never happen if one was correcting for random errors in data. These “adjustments” demonstrate a clear bias. More importantly, the “adjustments” tie very closely to the CO2. With an R-Squared of 0.98, you will never find greater and more convincing evidence of scientific fraud.
Why can I claim the “adjustments” are clear evidence of scientific fraud? Easy, CO2 doesn’t cause atmospheric warming, the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 is what causes the warming. While CO2 may be a linear variable, the absorption of energy by CO2 is logarithmic. The underlying physics of the CO2 molecule and the greenhouse gas effect simply aren’t captured in the IPCC models. The IPCC model is Temperature = m(CO2) +b, the actual model is Temperature = mLog(CO2) + b. Those models give extremely different results. The Temperature = mLog(CO2) +b model would make CO2 basically irrelevant to the variation in temperature. The result of that model would be very similar to what the satellite and long-term CO2 and temperature records show, that being that temperature variations aren’t highly correlated with CO2.
I am not a climate scientist, and because I’m not a climate scientist I should not be able to make predictions that are far more accurate than the climate “experts” and “scientists.” Clearly, if this “science” is worthy enough to boast that title, bloggers like me should have no chance what so ever of proving the “experts” wrong. From my explanation above there is 0.00% chance that the IPCC models will ever produce results that match the “unadjusted” satellite and balloon data. The only way the IPCC models will ever work is if they continue to “adjust” the NOAA/GISS/HadCRU data to make it more linear and steep. If I am correct in properly identifying the motives and intent of the fraud, the divergence between the ground measurements and satellite data will continue to widen with time. In 10 years, an understanding of the crime detailed above and an update of the following chart is all Congress should need to present an open and shut case against the climate alarmists that have defrauded the American taxpayers, corrupted real science, and destroyed the credibility of our media and educational system.
Please like, share, subscribe and comment.
One of the problems with this climate change issues is that it is so vaguely defined, in very very unscientific terminology. Climate alarmists will claim that man is impacting the climate, and immediately demand taxpayer funding every one of their pet projects that they can tie to climate change. There is no doubt man can impact the climate. When the forests of Manhattan were replaced with skyscrapers, man changed the climate of New York City. When man built tens of thousands of miles of Interstate highways through forests, grasslands, meadows and deserts, he most likely altered the climate. When man cut down the vast forests that once dominated the East and Midwest, and replaced them with corn and wheat fields, man changed the climate. When man damned up rivers, and irrigated deserts, man altered the climate. No one denies that man can and does alter the climate.
No skeptic I know denies the Urban Heat Island Effect. One only needs to look at the temperatures from New York City and compare them to the temperatures at West Point. CO2 is 405ppm at both locations, yet the temperature increase is much more dramatic for New York City. CO2 can’t explain this divergence, roads, and buildings can. Clearly, some warming isn’t due to CO2. There is a full 2 Degree C difference between West Point and New York City, and Westpoint is below the level of 1830 whereas New York City is well above it. Once again, CO2 can’t explain that difference, so CO2 can’t be the cause of 100% of the warming.
The issue isn’t if man can alter the climate, he can. The issue is if CO2 produced by man can cause the warming that alarmists claim that it does. I am skeptical simply because of the physics that support the greenhouse gas effect. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can cause climate change is through the “thermalization” of long-wave infrared radiation between 13 and 18 microns. CO2 can also result in cooling due to radiation, but the climate alarmists never mention that fact, and this article will focus on the warming aspect.
The problem with the CO2 warming theory is that the relationship between CO2 and concentration is a logarithmic relationship. What that means is that CO2 acts like taking aspirin. The first aspirin relieves 90% of the pain, the second 7%, the third 3%, and the fourth makes you sick and ears ring. Each additional aspirin has a smaller and smaller effect. Most of the impact of CO2 was reached by the time it hit 100 ppm, and the effect rapidly decreased since then. Going from 0 to 100 resulted in 18 w/m^2 downward forcing, going from 100 to 200 resulted in an additional 4 w/m^2, and going from 200 to 300 ppm adds another 2 w/m^2. The point being the slope is rapidly flattening, and even doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will only result in a minor change in the new downward forcing.
Mother nature isn’t stupid. She isn’t going to create a natural doomsday bomb. CO2 has varied from over 7,000 ppm to as low as 180 ppm, and never caused catastrophic warming. The reason is the natural “off switch” in CO2 which is the logarithmic relationship.
The other problem I have with the CO2 caused warming theory is that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, absorbing only the 13 to 18 micron long-wave infrared. Water vapor, on the other hand, absorbs those wavelengths and many more and can be as high as 5% of the atmosphere. Basically, H20 makes CO2 irrelevant to the lower troposphere.
The real problem the CO2 caused warming theory has, however, is the above chart. CO2 increases at a relatively constant near linear increase. In a linear regression Y=mX+b, where CO2 is the independent variable X and temperature is the dependent variable Y, it is hard to see CO2 do anything but cause temperatures to increase. In reality, the real relationship is Y=Log(X)+b, but once again, you will never hear a climate alarmist mention that. Clearly, from the IPCC model output, the IPCC is modeling a linear relationship, defying/denying the true physics of the CO2 molecule.
Where CO2 is a linear variable, temperature is curvilinear. In other words, the IPCC model of Y=mX+b simply doesn’t exist. Unless the climate alarmists find a way to “adjust” the satellite data, the failure of the IPCC models will simply increase.
CO2 covers the globe in a 405 ppm blanket and increases in a linear fashion, yet temperatures are very non-linear. The above graphic is a 12 month moving average of global, land and ocean temperatures. The 12-month average is significant because it removes the variation that occurs throughout the year due to the seasons. Every data point includes data from each month of the year. If in fact, CO2 was the only factor driving temperature, the 12-month moving average would be linear, or logarithmically related to CO2. It is neither. The other point to note is that global temperatures and ocean temperatures are very tightly correlated, whereas land temperatures differ substantially. Land temperatures are corrupted by the urban heat island effect, so the difference between land and ocean temperatures can’t be explained by CO2. That alone makes the claim that man made CO2 is responsible for 100% of the warming null and void. That is unless you “deny” that the urban heat island effect exists.
The other observation is that the moving average follows a relatively cyclical pattern. Once again, the seasonal variation has been removed by using a 12-month moving average. CO2 doesn’t increase/decrease in a cyclical manner. Something is causing the temperatures to “cycle” and it isn’t CO2. CO2 could also never cause a rapid decrease in temperatures if is the sole cause of the warming. CO2 never decreases on an annual basis in the above CO2 chart going back to the late 1950s. CO2 only increased, yet the seasonally adjusted temperatures vari greatly.
Another observation is that the oceans are warming. CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns don’t warm water. Evidence that the oceans are warming is evidence of more visible radiation reaching the oceans, not more CO2 in the atmosphere. If you can’t explain how CO2 can warm the oceans, you can’t explain how the atmosphere above the oceans is warming. If I remember correctly, heat rises in our atmosphere, and a warm ocean would warm the atmosphere above it.
The above chart is for global temperatures, and the take home is that CO2 can’t explain the warming of the oceans, the atmosphere above the oceans track the warming oceans, the atmosphere above the oceans is warming at a different rate and cycle than the land measurements, and the extreme variability is due to ocean phenomena like El Ninos and La Nina’s, which have nothing to do with CO2. If CO2 doesn’t cause El Ninos and La Nina’s, how can man be responsible for 100% of the warming? El Ninos and La Ninas existed long before the industrial age.
The oceans are rather uniform emitters of radiation, whereas the land isn’t. As man has turned fields into cities, forests into farmland, rivers into lakes, and dirt into asphalt roads, man has altered the heat absorption of the land. He has no similar impact on the oceans. Therefore, to identify the CO2 “signature” we should focus on the Southern Hemisphere, instead of the corrupted Northern Hemisphere. The above chart does just that, and demonstrates that the Southern Hemisphere has much lower temperature volatility, did not surpass the previous peak set in 1998, and has increased 0.2 Degree C less than the Northern Hemisphere since records began in 1979. Both Hemispheres, however, show that they closely track the changes in the ocean temperatures. Once again, CO2 is 405 ppm, so CO2 can’t be the cause of the temperature differential between the two hemispheres. Clearly, there is warming that is not due to CO2. This observation is also supported by other research as well.
Now let’s isolate the impact of the seasons. The tropical/equatorial zone gets an even bathing of sunlight year round, adding a nice consistency to our analysis. CO2 is 405 ppm as it is elsewhere on the globe. From the above chart, it is evident that the tropical zone (black line) is far more volatile than the Globe, Northern, or Southern Hemisphere. The atmosphere temperatures also closely track the ocean temperatures. Most importantly, however, is that there is no real trend. Yes, there are spikes in temperatures due to the ocean events, but those are only temporary. Once the El Nino, La Nina’s and other events are over, the temperatures return to “normal.” Tropical temperatures were the same in 1980 as they were in 2013. 2011 was much cooler than 1984. Current temperatures look to be rapidly headed back to the baseline, and I would expect that it should be reached within a year or two. The point being, CO2 was 335 ppm in 1979, it is now 405 ppm, a full 20%+ increase, yet temperatures in the tropics will likely to be below the level of 1980 by the end of the year, and certainly below the level reached in 1983. The CO2 signature simply can’t be found in the tropics.
Okay, I think I’ve established that the urban heat island effect and ocean temperatures greatly impact atmospheric temperatures. No reasonable person would disagree with that. I think I’ve also established that CO2 doesn’t/can’t warm the oceans, CO2 doesn’t/can’t cause El Nino’s and La Nina’s, and that CO2 doesn’t/can’t cause the urban heat island effect. If we accept all that, then to isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures we need to find land that isn’t corrupted by the urban heat island effect and far removed from the oceans. Ideally, to really go above and beyond, we would want to find land that emits close to the LWIR wavelengths that CO2 most efficiently absorbs, 13 to 18 microns. And if we want to really prove our point we would choose a location with very dry air so we can remove the corrupting impact of atmospheric H2O.
Fortunately, that place exists and we have data for it. Antarctica is the ideal location to isolate the true impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures. The South Pole is well removed from the oceans, has very very dry air, has 405 ppm CO2, has no urban heat island effect, emits LWIR near the ideal 13 to 18-micron range. Being an even reflective white also helps control for the impact of distorting incoming visible radiation. Antarctica is about as perfect a control for atmospheric CO2 as you can get. What then does this natural control experiment for the impact of atmospheric CO2 tell us? There has been no warming what so ever at the South Pole since records began in 1979. There is absolutely no trend in temperatures. The thick black line in the above chart is the land South Pole reading, and just last year was threatening to fall below the lowest temperature on record, set back in 1979. Land Antarctica temperatures also don’t correlate well with the other temperature charts, proving that something other than CO2 is driving temperature volatility elsewhere on the Globe.
In conclusion, if you break the data down to isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures, there simply isn’t a strong case to be made that CO2 is the cause of the warming. Yes the oceans are warming, yes temperatures have been warming, but that doesn’t mean CO2 is the cause of that warming. If you isolate the impact of CO2 by removing the impact of the oceans, the urban heat island effect, and atmospheric water vapor, the result is that those areas show no warming what so ever. CO2 increased from 335 ppm to 405 ppm in Antarctica, and it had no impact at all, none, nada, zip.
If you were wondering why I used the Satellite data, this email exchange highlights why the ground measurements are simply unreliable.
Please like, share, subscribe and comment.
The best way to argue for the science, and against the climate alarmists is to simply go back to the basic physics of the greenhouse gas effect (GHG) and how CO2 contributes to it. Stated simply, the GHG effect is the trapping/absorbing of outgoing infrared (IR) radiation by various greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. These molecules then either thermalize the energy by turning it into kinetic energy or re-radiating the energy in all directions to be absorbed by other molecules.
The key steps are:
The introductory graphic above identifies the contributions each GHG contributes to the entire GHG effect. The bottom part of the graph demonstrates the IR radiation absorbed by the entire atmosphere, which is a summation of all the GHGs listed above it. The IR absorption spectrum of H2O is almost indistinguishable from the total absorption of atmosphere and is why H2O is by far the most significant GHG. The entire contribution of CO2 is to absorb 3 very narrow bands of IR at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns. In reality, the only wavelength applicable to the GHG effect is the peak out at 15 microns. 15 microns, by the way, is very low energy and consistent with a blackbody of temperature -80º C.
What makes a GHG is it’s molecular structure. Molecules with a “bipole” are strong GHGs, molecules that don’t have a bipole are considered weak GHGs. Here is a link to help understand the concept; Understanding the DiPole.
DiPole Key Points:
This graphic explains how CO2’s IR spectrum is created. The bending of CO2 at 15 microns is it’s only defined contribution to the GHG effect. That comment is worth repeating; The bending of CO2 at 15 microns is it’s only defined contribution to the GHG effect. Any claim of CO2 caused climate change must be explained through that mechanism.
This graphic provides an understanding of the molecule motions that cause the IR peaks. The center bending is what causes the IR absorption spike at 15 microns/wavenumber 667. That simple weak-energy bending is all CO2 contributes to the GHG effect, that is it. Every claim that identifies CO2 as the cause, must explain how weak-energy bending and the resulting IR absorption/radiation of 15 microns resulted in the observed climate change/global warming/extreme weather. Once again, that weak-energy bending is the only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change, the only one.
Taking a closer look at CO2, this chart is a linear CO2 absorption chart. It highlights the weak-energy of the 15 micron IR band. The absorption band at 4.7 microns is of much higher energy, but is outside the IR spectrum emitted by the earth, and does not play a part in the GHG effect.
This is a logarithmic chart of CO2’s IR spectrum.
It is worth reviewing that the earth emits radiation at a peak 9.8 to 10 microns, which is consistent with 18º C, or basically room temperature.
Taking a closer look at H2O’s IR spectrum reveals a much more potent GHG, absorbing the much higher-energy/shorter-wavelengths. This is the linear H2O spectrum.
This is H2O logarithmic IR Spectrum. H2O simply absorbs across the entire IR spectrum, with its main and densest peaks in the high-energy end. This is the IR signature of a very potent GHG.
This is a linear chart of H2O and CO2’s IR spectrum. The relevant peaks of CO2 are located at the low-energy end of the spectrum, and H2O is focused on the high-energy end of the IR spectrum.
This is a logarithmic chart of the H2O and CO2’s IR spectrum. The key point is that H2O largely overlaps all of CO2’s spectrum, so in the troposphere, if H2O is present, CO2’s contribution becomes irrelevant. With or without CO2, H2O will absorb the outgoing IR. CO2, however, does not overlap all of H2O’s spectrum, so the absorption at the high-energy end between 5 and 10 microns is dominated by H2O.
The consequence of H2O being the dominant GHG in the warmer IR range is that tropospheric atmospheric temperature is basically controlled by H2O. CO2 is basically irrelevant. That is why using ground based temperatures to measure the impact of CO2 is pure nonsense. Even doubling CO2 has no impact on the lower troposphere at all as these two MODTRAN charts demonstrate.
The other important physical property of CO2 is that it’s IR absorption isn’t linearly related to absorbed energy, it is logarithmically related. That is partially why doubling CO2 in the above graphics had no impact on the energy balance in the troposphere.
The result is that tropospheric atmospheric temperatures and tropospheric water vapor are almost indistinguishable. The same can not be said about CO2, which is a constant 400 ppm all the way up to 80 km.
One last chart defining the relevant physical properties of CO2, and it’s IR absorption spectrum. The oceans are warming. Ocean warming and atmospheric warming are often conflated, and the claim is that atmospheric CO2 is contributing to the warming of the oceans. In reality, visible light is warming the oceans, and the oceans are warming the atmosphere above it. IR between 13 and 18 microns simply doesn’t penetrate or warm water. Atmospheric CO2 can’t be the cause of the warming oceans.
The take home message is that CO2 is a weak GHG that has no permanent dipole, whose main absorption peak is in the cold/weak-energy end of the IR spectrum. If anything CO2 helps to act as a temperature floor for the globe, as it’s main contribution is to thermalize energy consistent with a blackbody temperature of -80º C (-50º C to -110º C). H2O, on the other hand, is a much more potent GHG that totally dominates the temperature of the troposphere. It all boils down to “can CO2, a weak non-dipolar GHG, affect catastrophic climate change through “bending” and the resulting absorption/radiation/thermalization of 15 micron IR (13 to 18 micron range). Once again, that is the only defined mechanism by which CO2 can execute the GHG effect, and affect climate change.
How do you have “settled science” when the data isn’t even accurate? Isn’t ensuring data integrity and accuracy step #1 in any scientific venture? Otherwise you get GIGO.
“We corrected the errors he then identified to us,” Met Office Spokesman (Source)
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
Democrats seem to think that if they keep inciting the riotous leftist mobs, and promise to stop the rioting if they get elected, that that is a winning strategy. Most People in America don’t want to elect the Godfather, they want a leader that will Make America Great Again without resorting to violence.
Hitler used the Brownshirts much as the Democrats are using Antifa today.
“Chaos showed the failure of Democracy,” so you manufacture chaos, get elected, and “undermine Democracy from the inside.” Typical leftist tactics, yes, the NATIONAL SOCIALISTs were leftists. Nothing about the totalitarian big government NAZIs can be associated with modern rightwing Conservatives. (Source)
BTW, many Latinos came to America to escape this kind of lawlessness and rule by druglords. (Source)
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment