Climate “Science” on Trial; Give a Climate Alarmist Enough Rope They’ll Hang Themselves

Title Hang 'Em High (1968)Ask any real scientist to examine the factors impacting climate and they would almost certainly identify the most significant factors, those being solar radiation and water vapor. A simple input/output model focused on the most powerful/significant variables. The problem with the field of climate “science” is there is no incentive to seek the truth, in fact, there are tremendous costs to do so.

If you aren’t looking for the answer, you will never find it, especially for a question as complicated as the global climate. Ask any climate “expert” the cause of the drought and there will be a universal canned answer of “man-made CO2.” Ignoring the fact that droughts have occurred in California throughout history and some of the worst were before the industrial era. The answer is easy, and the media will never challenge it. The problem that answer has been proven 100% wrong.

The problem with the field of climate “science” is they are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. By doing so it opens them up to accidentally exposing the truth, which is what Nature Magazine recently did. The theory goes that 1) man increased CO2 2) CO2 traps heat and 3) the extra heat melts the Arctic ice. Pretty simple, but wrong, and Nature proves it. In the Nature article abstract, it claims that:

A tendency towards a stronger anticyclonic circulation over Greenland and the Arctic Ocean with a barotropic structure in the troposphere increased the downwelling longwave radiation above the ice by warming and moistening the lower troposphere.

In other words, warm moist air brings extra heat to the Arctic. That warm moist air melts the ice. No CO2 needed. Those aren’t my words, those are the words of Nature.h2o-and-temperature-cross

Blaming CO2 for the downwelling longwave IR doesn’t make any sense. CO2’s only impact there is with 13 to 18 micron IR, which is consistent with a blackbody of temperature -50 to -110 Degree C, whereas H2O traps IR radiation across most of the IR spectrum. IR wavelengths shorter than 10.5 microns are associated with blackbodies warmer than 0.0 Degrees C. CO2’s absorption doesn’t fall within that range. Visible light starts at 0.78 microns.absorption

Real scientists look for “ceteris paribus” situations, and one exists between the poles. Both the North and South Poles have 400ppm CO2, but the atmospheric water vapor is much different. As the Nature article highlights, warm moist air, air with 400 ppm CO2, is pumped into the Arctic. The Arctic is also ice floating on water, so ocean currents can also import extra heat. The same isn’t true about Antarctica. Antarctica is a continent and has very very very dry air. Water vapor is a non-issue in Antarctica, but, like the Arctic, has 400ppm CO2. Because both poles have 400ppm CO2, the Arctic isolates the impact of water vapor, ocean and wind currents. The result is that Antarctica, impacted only by CO2, shows no warming at all, and has gained ice. The Arctic, impacted by water vapor and other natural factors shows sea ice loss and a slight temperature gain. To any real science, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and gain of Antarctic sea ice rules CO2 out as the cause.MSU UAH ArcticAndAntarctic MonthlyTempSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage

This slideshow requires JavaScript.




7 thoughts on “Climate “Science” on Trial; Give a Climate Alarmist Enough Rope They’ll Hang Themselves”

  1. I agree with the observation that the temperature of the ground is largely dependant on the wavelength of the radiative atmospheric window. In very dry places, CO2 is unable to prevent large radiative losses to space.


  2. The presence of water vapour enables air to radiate energy from warmer to cooler which reduces the difference between them. The gravitational lapse rate of 9.8ºC/km will be reduced in proportion to the water vapour content.
    In a troposphere with an average temperature of -18ºC. and a thickness of 10km, the average lapse rate of 6.5ºC/km lessens the temperature difference between surface and tropopause by 33ºC.
    This shrinkage of the temperature gradient results in an apparent reduction of 16.5ºC at the surface and an apparent increase of 16.5C at the tropopause. That is to say.. surface temp. down from 31ºC to 14.5ºC and tropopause temp. up from -67ºC to -50.5ºC
    Water vapour is a moderator of extreme surface temperatures not an amplifier.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s