Climate Alarmists Don’t Understand the Basics of the Scientific Method

einstein-skeptic

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the committee, entered into the record an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that claimed sea levels are not rising because of climate change, a view that rejects thousands of scientific studies. The piece was written by Fred Singer, who is affiliated with the Heartland Institute in Chicago, Illinois, which promotes the rejection of mainstream climate science.

The above quote highlights two of the most popular sophistry tactics of the Progressive Left and Mainstream Media. As the quote mentions, Dr. Fred Singer is affiliated with the Heartland Institute…so what? Almost every other climate researcher is on the payroll of a Liberal University, the Federal Government or an Environmental Group. Sanctimonious and arrogant Progressives groups seem to believe they are the only ones that can perform climate research. The ability of the research to withstand scrutiny determines the quality of the research, not who funded it. These Progressive attacks on funding are simply a brand of scientific censorship and/or scientific McCarthyism.

The second sophistry tactic is to brand scientists whose research rejects the conventional wisdom as not being sound science. News flash, that is how science is advanced, scientific discoveries must by definition reject the null. The Null is the usually the Status Quo, the “Consensus.” We don’t remember Einstein because he confirmed what was already known, we remember Einstein because he proved that what we knew was wrong. When scientific studies showed that the earth was flat, no matter how many experiments were run supporting the belief that the earth was flat changed the fact that the earth was round. The number of experiments doesn’t determine the quality of the science, the ability to accurately represent what is being studied does.

Climate alarmists simply start with CO2 causes climate change and then find countless data sets that correlate with the CO2 trend. That isn’t real science, that is nonsense, that is witchcraft, that is Zoodoo, that is anti-science. Everyone knows correlation does not prove causation. In fact, they write books about it, yet that is all Climate Alarmists offer as “proof.”

Correlation

There are countless experiments that can be run demonstrating that temperature and climate change correlate with CO2, but there are also countless other experiments that can demonstrate something else is the cause. There are infinite experiments that must be run to prove CO2 is the cause, but only one is needed to disprove it. That is why real science rejects the null, it doesn’t prove the null.

Sea level is a great example of this principle. Climate alarmists will simply claim CO2 is causing the sea level to rise. That is convenient, but they can’t explain how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ can warm water and melt ice. There are infinite other factors that could be causing the sea level to rise. Shifting fault lines, rock slides and erosion, volcanic activity, visible radiation causing thermal expansion, moon orbit, development draining swamps, etc etc etc. To prove CO2 is the cause one would need to rule out all other causes…which is simply impossible as the Einstein quote above highlights.

Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up.

Representative Mo Brooks (R–AL)

While Climate Alarmists approach Climate Change in the impossible unscientific manner to “prove” CO2 is the cause, skeptics approach it scientifically and search for the one experiment that CO2 can’t explain. That is how real science is performed.

That one experiment is Antarctica, a natural control for isolating the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperature. Antarctica has very dry cold air, void of H2O, and whose only main GHG is CO2 which has increased the same as the rest of the globe. What do you find when you isolate the impact of CO2 on temperature? CO2 has basically zero impact on temperatures. Climate alarmists simply can not explain how CO2 has increased 30%+ in Antarctica and there has been 0.00°C change in temperature. They also can’t explain how no warming in the Arctic is causing the ice to melt more than in the past. Hint: Warm water, not the atmosphere is melting the ice. CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ don’t warm water, visible light does. Visible light also causes thermal expansion of the water and sea level increase. CO2 is transparent to visible light.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The “settled science” behind AGW doesn’t support the claims of warming, nor do the possible experiments.

  1. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through thermalization, i.e. warming of the LWIR spectrum between 13 and 18µ.
  2. CO2 represents only 1 out of every 2,500 air molecules, so the thermalization is greatly diffused in the atmosphere.
  3. The thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18µ has a blackbody temperature of -50 thru -110°C.
  4. The W/m^2 absorption of LWIR between 13 and 18µ has a logarithmic decay, meaning each additional molecule absorbs less and less energy.
  5. The oceans control the climate, and LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate or warm water, visible radiation does.
  6. CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and never caused catastrophic warming, the earth fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4,000 ppm.
  7. Analogies between Earth and Venus are completely misleading and scientifically dishonest.
  8. CO2 follows temperature in the geologic record, it doesn’t lead it. There is no mechanism by which CO2 should cyclically increase to end an ice age and decrease to start an ice age.
  9. MODTRAN demonstrates that CO2 has zero impact on atmospheric temperature in the lower atmosphere where H2O is abundant. The CO2 signature only appears once H2O is no longer present in the atmosphere.
  10. If data sets are identified to control for H2O and the Urban Heat Island Effect, they show no warming with an increase in CO2.
  11. CO2 is evenly distributed around the globe, there is no way for CO2, a constant, to cause regional, hemispheric, or pockets of warming. CO2 would cause a parallel or near parallel shift in the global temperature. There is no way for CO2 to cause warming in one area and cooling in another.
  12. The earth cools through conduction, convection, and radiation. Radiation moves energy much faster than the other two methods. CO2 may actually work to cool, not warm the atmosphere. Evidence actually shows that.

Read more on this topic: Scientific Experiments that Debunk AGW ignored by the Alarmists

Isolating the Contribution of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature

Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Temperature Reveals No Warming over the Past 100 Years

Controlling for H2O and Urban Heat Island Effect; Greenland Validates CO2 Doesn’t Drive Warming

Climate “Science” on Trial; Cherry Picking Locations to Manufacture Warming

Climate Sophistry In San Francisco; Half-Truths are Twice the Lie

How Does CO2 Melt Ice FROM BELOW? The Right Questions Must Be Asked to Put the Climate Alarmists on the Defensive

CO2 Can’t Explain Ground Measurement Variations

CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does

4 Graphs That Demonstrate Why The IPCC Climate Models Will NEVER Be Accurate

Climate “Science” on Trial; CO2 is a Weak GHG, it has no Permanent Dipole

Climate “Science” on Trial; Temperature Records Don’t Support NASA GISS

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

9 thoughts on “Climate Alarmists Don’t Understand the Basics of the Scientific Method”

  1. “Sea level is a great example of this principle. Climate alarmists will simply claim CO2 is causing the sea level to rise. That is convenient, but they can’t explain how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ can warm water and melt ice.”

    https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/6712410/2007ChemPhysLindner.pdf See Figure 5
    “Finally, pathway (iv) effectively converts librational excitations [labeled roughly 700 cm-1 or 15 um] into single low-frequency mode excitations on m4 particles and can be regarded as a delayed heat production mechanism with the librations serving as the intermediate state.”

    Like

    1. Yes, H2O absorbs 13 to 18 microns. It causes surface evaporation…and cooling. Those wavelengths do not penetrate H2O. Visible light does however.

      Like

  2. It’s common for Warmists to be confused about radiative physics. They believe that photons “add”. To them, one photon may not have enough energy to raise the temperature of a surface, but if you have billions of identical photons striking the surface, the temperature will go up.

    What they fail to understand is that radiated Watts do NOT add. Ice emits about 300 Watt/m^2. So, if you had 10 square meters, you could be radiating 3000 Watts. But, all that power could not raise the surface above the temperature of the emitting ice.

    Radiated Watts are essentially temperatures. Two identical glasses of water, both at 40 º, poured together would NOT have a temperature of 80 º. Billions of photons emitted from an effective temperature of T, could NOT raise the temperature of anything above T.

    Like

    1. Great explanation, and I might add that the black body temp of 13 to 18 micron LWIR is -50 to -110 degree C. That is why there is an inward spike looking down from 70km that stops near that temperature and covers those wavelengths. You can use MODTRAN to see that CO2 puts a temperature floor in the atmosphere, and has no impact when H2O is present.

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s