Climate Data Doesn’t Support CO2 Driving Climate Change and Global Temperatures

A1

Most Charts in this post come from Climate4You and are the most current version available.

All the data one needs to discredit the CO2 driven Climate Change Theory, or AGW, or CAGW is widely available to anyone that chooses to look. The published data simply doesn’t support CO2 driving global temperatures and climate change.

Refresher:

  1. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect/cause climate change is through the GHG Effect and thermalization of 13 to 18µ LWIR.
  2. CO2 at any given moment blankets the globe in an even and relatively constant layer of about 400 ppm and only varies by about 1 to 3 ppm per year.
  3. CO2 has an even concentration of about 400 ppm all the way up to 70km.
  4. The blackbody temperature of 13 to 18µ LWIR is -80°C.
  5. 13 to 18µ LWIR does not penetrate or warm water.
  6. CO2 absorption of LWIR shows a logarithmic decay, with current concentration nearing the part of the graph where the slope is rapidly approaching zero.
  7. H2O/Water Vapor is by far the most abundant and potent GHG, and it also absorbs 13 to 18µ LWIR, making the contribution of CO2 immeasurable in the atmosphere until the altitude of 3 km is reached and H2O starts to precipitate out of the atmosphere.

The Evidence:

Here at CO2isLife we have maintained that CO2 actually works to cool, not warm the atmosphere. That claim sounds absurd until you look at the physics behind the GHG effect. The atmosphere thins with altitude, and what that means is that probability of a photon hitting a molecule decreases with altitude. If you have 100 molecules in a cube with 1 cm between each molecule you have 10x the probability of a collision than if you only have 10 molecules and 10cm between each molecule. The result is that radiation has a far easier time leaving the atmosphere when it is going against the traffic, then going back towards the earth and with the traffic. A photon going back towards earth may only have to travel 10 cm before it is absorbed whereas it may travel 1 m leaving the earth before it is absorbed. In other words, radiation takes 3 steps forward and 1 step back on its way out of the atmosphere. The following chart also supports the CO2 causes cooling theory.spectralcoolingrates_zps27867ef4

Heat is transferred through the atmosphere by three methods 1) Conduction 2) Convection and 3) Radiation. Convection transfers heat through the atmosphere at about the rate at which a Chinese Lantern ascends. Conduction travels even slower. Radiation, on the other hand, travels at the speed of light. Radiation is the rapid delivery system of the atmospheric heat transfer system. A previous post reviewed how evidence shows CO2 cools the atmosphere, but for this post we are providing the introductory graphic as evidence. It clearly shows greater outgoing radiation above the CO2 level of 360 ppm. In reality, however, there isn’t a well-defined trend, meaning that CO2 and outgoing radiation aren’t closely related as the climate alarmists would have us believe.

hockey_stick_TAR

If I were a fraud and I was trying to fool the FDA into approving an insulin boosting drug I would have a “Control” group fast and take their blood sample early in the A.M. right after waking to show a very low level of insulin. For the “Experimental” group, I would give them the phony drug…and a Snickers Candy Bar and large Coke. The candy bar and coke would almost certainly trigger a surge in insulin as the sugar is absorbed into the blood. I would then take a blood sample showing a very high level of insulin and claim that the phony drug as the cause of the insulin surge. That is statistical sophistry where I would attribute the effect to an erroneous cause.

In the following examples, The Urban Heat Island Effect, Atmospheric H2O/Water Vapor, and the Oceans are analogous to the Snickers Bar and Coke in the Insulin example. Climate “Scientists” knowingly attribute effects caused by non-CO2 factors to CO2. That is scientific fraud, that is statistical sophistry, that is not real science.

Above is the highly discredited “Hockeystick” chart that clearly shows 1) A dogleg at 1902 2) Another dogleg at 1980 3) Temperatures decreasing 0.2°C between 1,000 and 1902 4) Temperatures rapidly increasing 1.1°C between 1902 and 2000 5) Thermometer data NOT used until 1902 6) Thermometer data exclusively used post 1980.

Given that CO2 is a constant around the globe, what is important isn’t how many samples you take, it is the consistency and quality of the measurements that count. The physics of the CO2 molecule doesn’t change due to location, its concentration and physical properties are constant at any given moment. The other given is that instrumental/thermometer data is infinitely more accurate than proxies like coral, tree rings and ice core samples for measuring temperature.

A2

The longest continuous instrumental record of temperature is the Central England dataset. Its record starts back in the mid-1600s and provides an apples to apples way to measure the impact of CO2 on the relatively constant environment. No proxies, just the state of the art measuring instrument available at the time. Over that time period, CO2 increased from around 250 to over 400 ppm today. Central England is a good, but not ideal control for measuring the impact of CO2 on temperature.

What was the impact when CO2 went from the Little Ice Age low of 250 to today’s 400+ PPM, a full 60% higher? Basically nothing. Summer temperatures in 1650 were about 15.5 °C and today they are about 15.75°C. Annual Temperatures were about 9.5°C and today they are about 10°C, but were below 9°C just a few years ago and in line with the temperatures from around 1720. Winter temperatures of 3.5°C in 1650, 4.5°C around 1720 and about 5.0°C today. Temperatures were near record lows in 1965, and the moving average was at the same level of 1650 in 1970. 100% of the charts show the most recent trend bottom in 1990 being below previous temperature peaks. Warming periods like the current one have been repeated multiple times since 1650, and remember, 1650 was in the middle of the Little Ice Age.

A3.gif

Remember, CO2 is a constant around the globe. Being a constant it can’t cause a temperature differential. CO2 is 400 ppm in the Arctic, Equator, and Antarctic. The physics of the CO2 molecule and GHG don’t change due to location. Because the Southern Hemisphere is mostly water, it minimizes the Urban Heat Island Effect, so like Central England, it is a good, not great, control for measuring the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperature.

The N Hemisphere saw temperatures increase from -0.2°C in 1979 to 0.5°C in 2018, an increase of 0.7°C. Temperatures in the S Hemisphere, relatively void of the Urban Heat Island Effect, temperatures increased from -0.1°C to 0.2°C, an increase of 0.3°C. Because CO2 is 400ppm in both the N and S Hemisphere, CO2 can’t be the cause of the 0.4°C temperature differential. The 0.4°C differential is greater than the entire 0.3°C increase in the S Hemisphere, so something more powerful than CO2 must be impacting the temperatures if we assume 100% of the S Hemisphere warming is due to CO2…which we will see it isn’t.

A4

Three major factor must be controlled for to determine the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere 1) standardization of measurement instrumentation 2) The Urban Heat Island Effect and 3) Atmospheric H2O. Central England is a good example of controlling for the instrumentation. Using a consistent thermometer methodology one finds that CO2 has had little to no effect on atmospheric temperatures. Satellite measurements over the N and S Hemisphere are a good example of controlling for the Urban Heat Island Effect. A couple of previous posts click here and click here also addressed this issue, showing that controlling for the Urban Heat Island Effect it is hard to make the case that CO2 is causing warming.

While Central England and the Satellite Hemisphere measurements are good controls, by far the best data set is Antarctica. The Antarctic atmosphere is void of both H2O and the Urban Heat Island Effect. Antarctica is a natural control, a natural laboratory for analyzing the direct impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures. While the above graphic goes back to 1979, other datasets go back to the 1950s, and they all show the same thing. No warming in Antarctica with an increase in atmospheric CO2. The best control available shows no warming due to CO2 over the last 60+ years…none.

Much has been made about the Arctic losing sea ice due to warming. Both the N and S Poles have identical CO2 levels, yet the N Pole shows significant warming relative to the S Pole. Because both N and S Poles have identical CO2, this temperature differential can’t be attributed to CO2, it must come from another source. That other source is the warming oceans.

A8.gif

The oceans have been warming as the above chart demonstrates, the problem is, ocean warming can’t be attributed to CO2 and 13 to 18µ LWIR. Visible radiation is required to warm the oceans…a whole lot of visible radiation, especially from the high energy blue end of the spectrum.

A6

The above chart shows a warming above the N Atlantic Ocean which would explain the melting of the sea ice, and would have nothing to do with CO2.

A7

The S Atlantic Ocean doesn’t show such warming, and once again both the N and S Atlantic Ocean are exposed to 400 ppm CO2, so CO2 can’t be the cause of the temperature differential. Something other than CO2 must be causing the temperature differential.

Co2 Current

From the above chart, one can see that CO2 increases at a near-linear trend. “Adjustments” made to the ground measurements tend to make global temperatures more linear. On the surface that appears to support the CO2 drives temperature theory. Problem is, as we will see later, CO2 shows a logarithmic decay for its absorption of energy. The Climate Sophists have the physics wrong, but they know most of the public doesn’t know or understand the underlying physics of the GHG effect. It isn’t the concentration of CO2 that matters, it is the amount of energy that it thermalizes that is related to temperature and that relationship shows a log decay.

co2_modtrans_img1

Lastly, the physics of the CO2 molecule and GHG effect don’t implicate CO2 as a major threat to cause warming. The lowest the CO2 has been over the past 1,000 years was about 250 ppm. By the time CO2 reached that level, it had nearly exhausted its contribution to atmospheric warming. As the above chart demonstrates the marginal impact of additional CO2 follows a rapid logarithmic decay. There is no physical basis for CO2 to cause a linear increase in atmospheric temperatures with an increase in concentration, and there is certainly no basis for CO2 to ever cause a rapid dog-leg change in slope of atmospheric temperature and/or sea level.

MT6

Additionally, the thermalization of 13 to 18µ LWIR has a blackbody temperature of -80°C (220°K to 163°K Range), so its impact is to put a temperature floor in the atmosphere, not to raise the ceiling. That is evident from a MODTRAN graphic of the atmosphere looking down from 70 km which shows the 13 to 18µ LWIR reaching a peak at the blackbody curve of temperature -80°C (Range -50°C to -110°C). CO2 doesn’t warm the upper troposphere/lower-stratosphere and thermosphere, it prevents them from cooling below -80°C (Range -50 to -110°C).

atmosphere-temperature

CO2 is 400 ppm all the way up to 70 km. The atmosphere cools with altitude in the troposphere, warms with altitude in the stratosphere, cools with altitude in the mesosphere, and warms with altitude in the thermosphere. If CO2 can’t explain all those temperature differentials, once again, it is a constant.

Above I claimed that Climate “Scientists” knowingly attribute non-CO2 effects to CO2. Given that all the above charts are actually produced by these Climate “Scientists” I have to assume they are aware of them, and if their Ph.D.s are worth the paper they are written on, they too would be able to identify the issues I covered above. My bet is that readers of this article are learning the above facts and conflicts for the first time, and it isn’t being told to them by the “experts.” That, however, isn’t proof that they “knowingly” are misleading the public.

070601_thompson1_vmed_1p-grid-4x21

How then can I say they “knowingly” keep this sort of information from the public? The Climate Gate Emails. In the Climate Gate Emails, unethical practices regarding the Peer Review Process are exposed, Statistical Sophistry like “Mike’s Nature Trick…To Hide the Decline” are exposed, and the most damning is the revelation that the Mt. Kilimanjaro Glacier isn’t melting, it is disappearing due to a natural process called sublimation. The glacier at the top of Mt. Kilimanjaro is at 19,340 ft, well above the freeze line. The “experts” of course keep this secret from the public, as Al Gore did in his documentary. As long as the “experts” can keep the truth from the public, their publically funded gravy train will just keep rolling on.

How can this be addressed? Transparency. Progressives use a form of Marxist Science, a Science by Authority Approach. Similar to how Progressives want to stack the Supreme Court with Activist Judges to undermine the Democratic Process, Progressive seek to capture critical positions to undermine the Scientific Process. Progressives want the political process to determine the “truth,” not the scientific process. They want science by dictate, scientific consensus, not science by experimentation and reproducibility.

Science to a progressive isn’t a method of intellectual exploration, it is a means to a political end. Progressives view science like they view just about everything else, a tool to push their agenda. Simply go see the most recent Star Wars movie Solo or watch ESPN to see how they politicize every aspect of society to push their agenda. That is why controlling NASA GISS, the Peer Review Process and Journals, Catholic Church, Supreme Court, the Educational System Administrators, Disney, ESPN, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, NOAA, CIA, IRS, FBI, and EPA are so critical. They have to control the message and be able to silence all dissenting views.

Scott Pruitt at the EPA can change all that. He can demand transparency for all science that is used to shape public policy. He can also demand a Point/Counter-Point for all science, a public peer review process. The above examples highlight how is there is no set of critical eyes places on the data, the Climate “Experts” can easily get away with their Climate Sophistry. The Progressives have simply stacked the deck with people dependent upon the CO2 is the cause theory being accepted by the people. People with huge conflicts of interest are the very last people we should be trusted to make public policy and receive taxpayer-funded research.

The problem with Climate “Science” is that it isn’t science. Climate “Scientists” are all out there trying to PROVE CO2 is the cause, their livelihoods depend upon it. Real science is the unbiased search for the truth. Real science seeks to understand and explain, not prove one theory over the other. Real science never proves anything. Real science rejects the null/consensus, it doesn’t PROVE the cause, it PROVES the currently accepted cause is wrong. Real science shatters the consensus, it doesn’t seek to defend it. Climate “Scientists” are practicing Anti-Science, Climate Sophistry, and Propaganda, and the above graphics and analysis prove it.

The more the public is informed about the basis of CO2 driven climate change, the less they will trust the “scientists” promoting it. Problem is, it shouldn’t take bloggers like me and a few rare “skeptics” to do the work. The EPA, NOAA, NASA and others should be forced to publish work critical of what is being accepted as “consensus” so the public can get both sides of the story and make an informed and rational decision as to the real threat posed by AGW.

Geden-vs-THEM_2.png

BTW, honest men don’t fear policing or oversight. Only in Climate Science do you find progressives arguing against Government Oversight and more Regulations. I guess rules and regulations are only for the rest of us.

Read More

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Climate Data Doesn’t Support CO2 Driving Climate Change and Global Temperatures”

  1. Nice article. Can you update the first chart? CO2 as reported by ERSL is up to about 410 ppm. (Amazingly they report it to five significant figures, today as 410.26 ppm.)

    Like

  2. You commented over at Spincer’s site, linking to this post.-

    One of Spincer’s handlers responded:

    “The blackbody temperature of 13 to 18 LWIR is -80C.

    Radiation does not have a temperature.”

    Of course he was wrong. Of course, he misrepresented you.

    What else would you expect at a spin site.

    (Careful you don’t get censored there. Truth is soon rejected.)

    Like

      1. It’s “site”, as in website.

        He has changed the spelling of his name. He goes by “Spencer”.

        🙂

        I see you are starting to draw some flak over there. That means you are effective.

        Keep up the effort. When you get censored, you know you’ve won.

        Like

      2. LOL, thanks a million. I’ve been censored plenty of places. I notice when I mention facts I get cencored a lot.

        Like

    1. Paul, go to spectralcalc. They have a blackbody calculator. Anything with a temperature emits a spectrum. The hotter the object, the shorter the wavelength peak. Blue light is hotter than red light, and has more energy. Something that is -80 degree has a peak wavelength of 15 microns. This is in the long wave IR spectrum, and low energy light.

      Like

  3. And you say that “13 to 18µ LWIR does not penetrate or warm water.”

    Does that mean that LWIR can warm water vapour but not liquid water? Why?

    Sorry to ask such basic Qs …. a quick link would be great if you could, thanks.

    Like

    1. 13 to 18 micron light is absorbed in the surface micrometer of water. This causes evaporation which cools the underlying water. Water vapor also absorbs those wavelengths, and thermalizes them along with many other wavelengths as well. I would imagine that is H2O was exposed to only 15 micron light, it wouldn’t warm much if at all. LWIR is very low energy light.

      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 )

w

Connecting to %s