Climate Alarmists avoid debating for a reason, they don’t want to be exposed as the Sophists that they are. They usually make unsubstantiated and baseless claims, and then run. Every once in a while, a Climate Alarmist actual makes comments that can be analyzed. This happened a while back when a Climate Alarmist appeared on a Seattle Radio Station. The results weren’t pretty.
Unlike most Climate Alarmist, we here at CO2isLife seek out debate and criticism, that is how we harden and stress test our arguments. A commenter over on Reddit named “Skeeezoid” provides a great example to expose the sophistry of the Climate Alarmists. (Source)
In the introductory graphic Skeeezoid makes two critiques regarding our posting titled:
Climate “Science” on Trial; Temperature Records Don’t Support NASA GISS (Source)
The First critique is that:
“There are two main reasons why weather station + ship/buoy data are preferable for most climate change studies: 1) The thing we’re really interested in is what’s happening at surface level, where we and most of the things we depend on exist. The MSU/AMSU satellites don’t measure surface temperature.
There are multiple problems with this.
- As we’ ve covered countless times in our posts, CO2 and the LWIR that it emits ( between 13 and 18 microns), doesn’t penetrate or warm water, so the warming oceans are evidence of more visible radiation reaching the oceans, not CO2. (Source)
- CO2 has 0.00% impact on the lower atmosphere. This can be demonstrated using the program MODTRAN where it clearly demonstrates that the CO2 signature isn’t expressed until an altitude of 3.5km is reached. That too has been covered countless times on this blog. (Source)
- Ground measurements are tremendously impacted by water vapor and the urban heat island effect. The entire purpose of the Satellite measurements are to measure the layer of the atmosphere most impacted by CO2. We cover that in countless posts as well. Here is one (Source)
- Surface temperatures simply don’t reflect the impact of CO2, they reflect water vapor and the urban heat island effect. If you control for those factors, even ground measurements don’t show warming. (Source) (Source) (Source)
- This graphic is of water vapor and atmospheric temperature. They are literally indistinguishable. Temperature measurements in the troposphere are simply measuring the impact of water vapor, not CO2. TCWV is water vapor.
2) The surface temperature record is much longer than the satellite record.
What difference does time make? This is a cause and effect model. What matters is the Change in Y for a Change in X. The thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18 microns by CO2 happens at the speed of light. Since records began in 1979, CO2 has increased nearly a full 30%. Satellite data demonstrates that a 30% change is CO2 basically has had no impact on temperatures when controlling for water vapor and the urban heat island effect. (Source) Additionally, CO2 actually cools the atmosphere by speeding the transport of energy out of our atmosphere. I know that sounds nuts, but here is the evidence. (Source)
Skeeezoid’s other comment isn’t worth responding to, other than to say that out of the three measurement types, the ground measurements are by far the worse and most “adjusted.” (Source) The better approach would be to have Skeeezoid explain why anyone seeking the truth would choose the highly manipulated ground measurements over the highly scientific satellite and balloon measurements. Why use 16th-century technology over the state of the art measurements? (Source)
The two main groups working on satellite TLT report quite different data. Are they both infinitely accurate? Is each one infinitely more accurate than the other?
Here is Skeeezoid’s next challenge:
…the satellite data shows no non-El Nino warming since its inception in 1979.
Bolding the hilarious qualification in the sentence, which appears to be dependent on numerologically-oriented thinking. Because, yes, the satellite data clearly show warming since 1979. The trend in El Nino behaviour since 1979 is actually negative.
Why wouldn’t I qualify the El Nino Warming when the warming is clearly due to the ocean cycle? The warming clearly isn’t due to CO2. His claim that El Nino having a negative effect is pure nonsense and contradicts the data of ocean temperatures warming. Once again, CO2 doesn’t warm the oceans, visible radiation does. Anyway, as mentioned above, if you control for Water Vapor and the Urban Heat Island effect, and isolate the impact of CO2, the atmosphere shows no warming. None, Nada, Zip, even if you use ground measurements. (Source) (Source)
BTW, El Ninos and ocean cycles don’t only control the atmosphere’s temperature, they also cause the cycle of thickening the thinning polar ice. (Source)
Skeeezoid’s next challenge was:
since 1940, the stations have been gradually moving towards the very warm equator.
The implication being that stations moving from colder to warmer locations is what artificially causes the appearance of a warming trend. Trouble is, that’s not at all how the GISS record works. They use anomalies – differences from a “normal” temperature in each record. Whether stations are in colder or warmer locations is actually completely irrelevant. This is really basic stuff. The author getting this kind of thing wrong indicates either a level of incompetence which means he shouldn’t be commenting, or a deliberate attempt to deceive the uninitiated.
Skeeezoid actually has a point and I should have been far more clear. He is 100% correct that temperatures are reported from deviations from a mean…but think about what he is saying. You start with a mean of temperatures that spans from 1951 to 1980:
“This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures.” (Source)
Over the period during which you are calculating the mean, you have many cold weather stations depressing the average global mean temperatures. You then drop the cold weather stations post 1980 and replace them with more warm weather stations that WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEAN CALCULATION. Anyone with a 2nd Grade education is basic math can tell you what happens. It appears Scheezeoid must have dropped out after 1st Grade.
That isn’t the only problem however with his analysis. As we’ve highlighted countless times, the ground measurements are greatly impacted by water vapor and the urban heat island effect. Weather stations near the poles aren’t greatly impacted by those forces, so they are more reliable and consistent. As you head south you get greater water vapor and more development which greatly skews the data upward. NASA then also “adjusts” that data to make it even warmer.
One only needs to overlay the RSS temperatures and water vapor to see what an impact water vapor has on temperatures. They are indistinguishable. Water Vapor is RSS V7 TCWV in the below chart.
Once again, the question should be, why would Scheeezoid choose the ground measurements?
Skeeezoid’s next challenge is:
Using New York and West Point, it can be claimed that 100% or more of the NASA GISS recorded warming is due to the “Urban Heat Island Effect,”
A common “skeptic” trick. Trying to ignore that the global record is represented by thousands of stations, and pretend that a handful of carefully selected ones are what matters. And you’ll see it’s the same handful of stations which get trotted out over and over, because they seem to tell the story the “skeptic” wants. For the record, there are multiple documented time-of-observation changes and a station move (pdf) at West Point, which explains the difference in the most recent few decades – the data is artificially cooled by these changes.
That “trick” Skeeezoid is referring to is called the Scientific Method. As we’ve pointed out countless time, ground measurements are measuring the non-CO2 impact on temperatures. Warming in the lower atmosphere isn’t evidence CO2 is causing it. That is the very reason West Point and NYC were chosen. They both are in close proximity and they both are exposed to identical CO2 levels. This is like an identical twin experiment, where one twin is given a drug and the other a placebo. The whole purpose is to control for everything except the urban heat island effect. NYC shows warming, West Point doesn’t, that proves CO2 can’t be the cause of the warming. The only “trick” is that Skeeezoid doesn’t seem to understand how a scientific experiment is designed.
The best example of this experiment can be found in Buenos Aires where two stations are separated only by a lake, yet show dramatically different temperature charts. (Source)
The question Skeeezoid needs to answer is how CO2 can cause warming in one location over an extended period of time and not in others? Do the laws of physics just cease to exists in some locations? Does the GHG Effect pick and choose when it works?
Skeeezoid’s next challenge was:
It gets worse for NASA GISS, however, because none of the long-term thermometer temperature records examined by Dr. Phil “Hide-the-Decline” Jones show any significant warming, and none of them show warming to the degree of 1.2 Degree C.
Another common “skeptic” trick: using really out-of-date data. Climate change is an ongoing phenomenon so things which could be claimed true even ten years ago may no longer be so. The solution for someone who wants to keep hold of that lost truth is to ignore recent data and cite something from long ago, in this case 25 years ago. The paper cited was published in 1992 and appears to use data up to 1989/90 in ten-year averages, so the final data point shown reflects conditions in the mid-1980s. This is doubly problematic because the author then compares this out-of-date information with GISS warming right up to 2016 – given this setup it would indicate a problem if they did match.
All of the stations featured in the paper are in the Northern Hemisphere Extratropics. As can be seen on this GISS graph of NH Extratropics, temperatures up to the mid-1980s had not warmed by a great deal and had declined slightly from a peak around 1940. This is fully consistent with that 1992 paper. The majority of warming occurs after this point, hence it is not captured in the paper.
One of the long records covered in the paper is for Central England, which is data easily available. This can be compared with the GISS record for relevant grid cells (50-55N, 4W-2E) using the Climate Explorer tool. And here are the two together. Remarkably similar. The independent HadCET record supports the GISS record for England.
The “trick” Skeeezoid is referring to is that I used the widely published ground measurement by NASA and HadCRU. The longest continual instrumental track record is from HadCRU, and relied upon by basically everyone that uses ground measurements. When you look at the long-term consistent instrumental track records they don’t show warming.
That isn’t my data, that is the data of NASA and HadCRU. Skeeezoid seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. I guess some ground measurements are OK when they fit his theory and not when they don’t. Anyway, as mentioned above, the ground measurements aren’t measuring the impact of CO2 on temperature. (Source) (Source) (Source) (Source)
For a more detailed understanding of the issues discussed above, be sure to read the following:
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment…and post on Reddit and pass it on to Skeeezoid.