Climate “Science” on Trial; The Forensic Files: Exhibit J

Exhibit J: Record High Day Time Temperatures is NOT evidence of AGW


Once again, when discussing AGW you always have to tie the observation back to CO2, and its lone mechanism to affect climate change through absorbing long-wave IR between 13 and 18 microns. CO2 traps outgoing radiation from an already warmed earth, CO2 and LWIR don’t warm the earth. CO2 is transparent to incoming warming visible and UV radiation.

Talking Points:

  1. Daytime temperatures are determined by the amount of incoming radiation that reaches the earth’s surface and has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2. bf899-atmospheric_transmission
  2. CO2 traps outgoing radiation, record high temperatures require new energy to be added to the system. CO2 does not add energy to the system.
  3. During a hot summer day you can fry an egg on the hood of a car, but that has nothing to do with AGW or CO2 and everything to do with incoming radiation.
  4. If the GHG effect and CO2 were the true causes of the warming, you would be able to fry an egg on a hot day in the shade of a tree using only the back radiation from the atmosphere. That would be a nice high-school science fair experiment.
  5. True evidence of AGW and CO2 caused warming would be that the spread between day and night temperatures would be narrowing in the very dry deserts (control for H2O). I’ve found no evidence of that happening, in fact, the South Pole proves otherwise, where there has been no warming at all with the increase of CO2.capture
  6. Water vapor dominates the heat-trapping in the lower atmosphere and is why you can sleep naked in a rain forest, but not in a dry desert. The atmospheric temperature and water vapor are almost indistinguishable. h2o-and-temperature-cross
  7. The fact that record daytime temperatures are being set is evidence that more energy is being added to the system. That alone can explain the warming, and CO2 has nothing to do with it. This can be due to less particulate matter, fewer clouds, cleaner air and a more active sun. livingston-penn-25
  8. If the active sun theory holds true, we may be in for another Little Ice Age or worse starting rather soon. If so, the global warming hype has misallocated resources and left society completely unprepared for global cooling.

Welcome University of Colorado Students. For more arguments, visit this article. Also, here is another article that is worth addressing. For the sources of the graphics, you can use TinEye Reverse Image Search. None of these posts represent original work, I’m simply presenting existing data and interpreting charts and their meanings. If you read my other posts, you will find that they are all well documented and the sources linked. Be sure to think for yourself, and let the data and science lead you to your conclusion.

Here are a few more articles for you to critique:

A Nobel Prize in Science Winning Climate Experiment; An Open Challenge to Settle the Science

Sea Level Sophistry In San Francisco; Climate Alarmists are Playing the Judge as a Fool

High School Climate Change Term Paper for Those Who Don’t Want to Follow the Herd

Climate Change Global Warming Homework to Piss Off Your Teacher

Climate Change Science Fair Project; CO2 and Global Warming

Quantum Physics 101; Why CO2 Can’t be Melting the Glaciers and Sea Ice

Why CO2 is Irrelevant to the Earth’s Lower Atmosphere; You Can’t Absorb More than 100%

Comprehensive Climate Change Beatdown; Debating Points and Graphics to Defeat the Warmists

Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact

Be sure to Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment


Climate “Science” on Trial; The Forensic Files: Exhibit I

Exhibit I: Atmospheric CO2 follows ocean temperatures, not man’s combustion.


Talking Points:

  1. Man’s rate of CO2 creation is increasing, yet the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is highly variable.co2-yearly-anthro-atmospheric-1959-2012-1
  2. The rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is highly correlated with atmospheric temperatures, which are highly correlated with ocean temperatures and cycles.temperature-co2
  3. Man’s production of CO2 can not explain the large variation is either the atmospheric CO2 or atmospheric temperatures. Ocean temperatures can explain both. figure-1
  4. There is no mechanism by which CO2 would allow global temperatures to cool, CO2 only increases, and it only absorbs more and more energy. CO2 can’t explain the large rapid coolings which frequently occurscreen-shot-2017-01-04-at-8-25-43-pm

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Forensic Files: Exhibit H

Exhibit H: Atmospheric Temperatures follow ocean temperatures, not atmospheric CO2.


Talking Points:

  1. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is near linear, atmospheric temperatures are not. 1_salby2012temp_co2_observed
  2. Atmospheric CO2 and Atmospheric Temperatures simply aren’t correlated, and their certainly isn’t the linear relationship that exists in the IPCC Models.
  3. In reality, atmospheric temperatures follow the ocean temperatures, not atmospheric CO2. Ocean temperatures are dependent upon the amount of incoming solar radiation that reaches them combined with ocean cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO/El Nino/El Nina) and others. The balance of incoming and outgoing radiation is why the atmospheric temperature forms spikes and steps instead of a smooth linear increase. CO2 doesn’t spike, and it never falls back down like temperatures do.figure-1
  4. Not only does atmospheric temperatures follow ocean temperatures, so does atmospheric CO2. Once again, the oceans control the global temperature, and CO2 doesn’t warm the oceans.temperature-co2

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Forensic Files: Exhibit G

Exhibit G: Antarctica isn’t warming, but the Oceans are warming


Once again, when discussing CO2 caused climate change or global warming, the question that needs to be asked is how does CO2 cause the observation. CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is to absorb IR radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns, that is it. CO2 can only cause warming by “trapping” outgoing radiation.


Talking Points:

  1. Only incoming visible and ultraviolet light penetrates and warms the oceans. IR radiation does not penetrate the oceans, has very little energy and most likely results in cooling the oceans through surface evaporation.slide_4
  2. The oceans hold over 1,000x more energy than the atmosphere. There simply isn’t enough energy in the entire atmosphere to warm the oceans. The oceans are warmed by incoming radiation and geothermal sources. CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns won’t warm the oceans. total_heat_content_500
  3. Warming oceans also outgas CO2 into the atmosphere. That is why CO2 lags temperature. It takes time to warm the oceans, and as the oceans warm they release CO2. That is also why CO2 falls during ice ages. Cold water absorbs more CO2. This is due to  Henry’s law and can be observed by warming a glass of Coke.
  4. The fact that the oceans are warming is evidence of more incoming high energy visible radiation reaching the earth’s surface, not evidence of CO2 trapping outgoing low energy LWIR IR. The warming oceans are evidence of a hotter sun, fewer clouds, cleaner air and more visible and UV radiation reaching the oceans. Not more CO2. If you can’t explain how CO2 can warm the oceans, you can’t explain how CO2 is causing global warming. The oceans determine the global temperature.
  5. Climate models almost exclusively focus on CO2 levels and ignore incoming high energy visible radiation and atmospheric H2O levels which likely explains why they are so inaccurate.
  6. What is warming the oceans is also most likely what is warming the atmosphere.
  7. Either there are two distinct phenomena occurring, one caused by man and one caused by nature, or there is only one natural phenomenon causing both (which has been the case throughout all of history). Either something natural is warming the oceans and man’s CO2 is warming the atmosphere, or the same natural cause is warming both the oceans and the atmosphere above it.

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Forensic Files: Exhibit F

Exhibit F: Antarctica isn’t warming


If there is anyplace on earth that is a natural control for the impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 it is Antarctica. Antarctica’s average winter temperature is -60 degrees Celsius which is close to the peak absorption of CO2 of -80 degree Celsius. Most importantly however is that the Antarctica air is very very very dry, so there is no impact from water vapor. The only significant GHG in the South Pole Troposphere is CO2.

Talking Points:

  1. Satellite measurements show no South Pole warming over the past 36 years. During this time CO2 increased from 330 ppm to 404 ppm.
  2. Ground measurements show no South Pole warming over the past 59 years. During that time CO2 increased from 315 ppm to 405 ppm.
  3. Increasing CO2 nearly 30% had no impact on temperatures in the region most likely to be impacted by an increase if CO2.kc-monthly-0600
  4. The North Pole is not a “control” for CO2 because its temperature is largely influenced by ocean currents. BTW, an ice free North Pole is nothing new or anything to be alarmed about. The graphic is of the USS Skate SSN-578.pic-23-ssn-skate-5962-globa
  5. What efforts to prove Antarctica has been warming with the rest of the globe have failed. I personally find it odd that they try so hard to prove something instead of trying to understand why Antarctica isn’t warming. If CO2 was the cause it would be obvious.
  6. Antarctica has CO2 at 400 ppm but no atmospheric H2O. The reasons for the cold temperatures are widely known…largely there is no atmospheric H2O.
  7. This quote explains why the Arctic climate is different from the Antarcticthe Arctic is mainly ocean surrounded by land masses, whereas the land mass of Antarctica is surrounded by the Southern Ocean. Given the different heat capacities of land and sea (sea is much slower to both heat up and cool down), we would expect the coldest temperatures to occur at the pole that is dominated by land rather than sea.” In other words, the Arctic ice floats on water, and is greatly influenced by the temperature of the water. Warmer oceans will melt more Arctic ice. CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns won’t warm water, so the loss of Arctic ice is due to something other than CO2. Loss of Arctic ice isn’t evidence that CO2 is causing warming, loss of Antarctic ice would be. Antarctica has been gaining ice mass at a rate of 1.2% per year, or over 1,000,000 sq km/yr1,000,000 sq km/yr.s_plot_hires
  8. The recent dip in Antarctica sea ice appears to be an anomaly, and may be due to warmer oceans. Studies show Antarctic has been gaining ice while CO2 has been increasing for the past 100 years.csic_figure3
  9. NASA Study: ‘Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise’ – ‘Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses’ antarctic-ice
  10. Antarctica is an extremely cold location, and rarely if ever gets above freezing except for coastal areas which are warmed by the ocean currents bringing in heat. Ice won’t melt in sub zero temperatures, so what ice loss does occur is due to ocean warmth, not CO2 driven atmospheric warming. The oceans are warmed by incoming visible and UV radiation, not outgoing LWIR between 13 and 18 microns.
  11. The North Pole also rarely gets above freezing, so once again, any loss of sea ice is due to the oceans bringing in the extra energy, not the atmosphere. CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns won’t warm the oceans. Note the rapid increase in temperature over a matter of hours. No way can a constant level of CO2 cause such a rapid increase in temperature. The above freezing reading of the North Pole is rare enough that it makes the newspaper. imrsscreenhunter_249-aug-05-14-21

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Forensic Files: Exhibit E

Exhibit E: Water Vapor is by far the most significant Green House Gas (GHG)


When discussing global warming with a climate alarmist, be sure to always tie things back to how CO2 could be the cause. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is by trapping outgoing radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns.

Talking Points:

  1. Incoming visible radiation has a wavelength between 0.4 and 0.7 microns and is consistent with a black body with a temperature around 5,525 degrees Celsius (the Sun). CO2 is transparent to those wavelengths. (See chart above/below)
  2. The earth emits IR mostly between 6.5 and 12.5 microns, with a peak near 9.5 microns. 9.5 microns is consistent with a black body of temperature  18 degrees Celsius. CO2 is mostly transparent to those wavelengths. bf899-atmospheric_transmission
  3. CO2’s absorbs between 13 and 18 microns, with a peak near 15 microns. Those wavelengths are consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degrees Celsius. CO2’s signature would be to cause warming in Antarctica, which is a natural control for CO2. There has been no observed warming in Antarctica over the past 50 years.SpectralCalc2
  4. H2O is by far the most significant GHG, and absorbs across the IR Spectrum. Where there is water vapor in the atmosphere, there is warmth. The same can’t be said about CO2. absorption
  5. CO2 absorbs a small fraction of the IR Spectrum having 3 narrow peaks at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns, all of which largely miss the peak outgoing  IR radiance of the earth at 9.5 microns.
  6. H2O largely absorbs the same IR spectrum as CO2, and is at much higher concentrations in the atmosphere. H2O IR absorption usually makes CO2’s contribution to warming inconsequential. The following 2 charts demonstrate the impact on the lower 1.0 km of the earth’s atmosphere (the layer where all ground measurements are taken) from doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm. The W/M^2 remains UNCHANGED at 407.572.800400
  7. CO2 has changed from 0.0003 to 0.0004 over the past 100 years and absorbs a very very very small % of the outgoing radiation. H2O can change from 0.001 to 0.04 in a day and absorbs a vast majority of the outgoing IR spectrum. Neither H20 or CO2 have ever caused catastrophic warming of the globe, and CO2 has been as high at 7,000 ppm.co2-and-geocraft-graph
  8. Given that the GHG effect only slows cooling, and can never actually “warm” the atmosphere, the dynamics of the GHG effect is to put in a temperature floor. If you notice from the introductory graphic above, as the earth warms, it enters what is called an “atmospheric window” where little energy is trapped. As the earth cools, more and more of the outgoing wavelengths are trapped (note the near solid black to the right of 13 microns).
  9. Water vapor and temperature are almost indistinguishable in the atmosphere.h2o-and-temperature-cross

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Forensic Files: Exhibit D

Exhibit D: There simply isn’t enough Anthropocentric CO2 to make a difference


Talking Points:

  1. OSU Stadium holds 100,000 Buckeye Fans and atmospheric CO2 is 400 ppm. If every Buckeye Fan represents one atmospheric molecule, then 40 Buckeye Fans would represent atmospheric CO2. Man, however, is not responsible for all the atmospheric CO2, and is responsible for at most 15 of those 40 molecules of CO2. Man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is the equivalent of 15 Buckeye Fans in OSU Stadium. Here is another graphic demonstrating 1 molecule out of 2,500.co2-onemolecule
  2. CO2 is a trace gas at 400 ppm, and its contribution to global warming is to trap a very narrow band of outgoing radiation between 13 and 18 microns. Those wavelengths are consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degrees Celsius. It is hard to warm something with a temperature of 18 degrees Celsius with energy consistent with a much colder body. The law of entropy has energy going from high-energy states to low-energy states.
  3. CO2 is 0.00004 or 0.04% of the atmosphere. Is it plausible that “activating” 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere can actually result in a material temperature change? That energy also is distributed/diluted throughout the entire atmosphere and is not concentrated in the lower troposphere, like water vapor.co2-h2o-atmospheric-concentration
  4. Unfortunately, simple experiments to demonstrate even the basics of this “science” haven’t been properly run or even tried. What efforts have been attempted are complete jokes from the perspective of real science. Anthony Watts shows no mercy when he “peer reviews” Al Gore’s and Bill Nye’s effort to demonstrate the GHG effect of CO2. It is truly alarming how such foundational figures can’t demonstrate even the basics of the “science” that they have manufactured and promoted at great tax-payer expense.
  5. Does it seem plausible that “thermalizing” 1 out of every 2,500 molecules can make a material difference upon the remaining 2,499? Especially when its energy if consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degrees Celsius?
  6. CO2 is evenly distributed at 400 ppm up to 80 km, most H2O precipitates out by 10 km. You be the judge, this chart shows atmospheric H2O and atmospheric temperature. Can you even tell the difference between the charts? Temperature clearly follows H2O, not CO2.h2o-and-temperature-cross