Exhibit M: The ground measurement data supporting the AGW Theory is very suspect
- Ground measurements are continually subject to opaque “adjustments.”
- Ground measurements do not correlate well with Satellite and Balloon measurements.
- Satellite data shows no significant warming since 1997, and much of the warming is clearly due to El Nino caused temperature spikes.
- CO2 has substantially increased during this period that is referred to as “the pause.”
- The data adjustments aren’t similar to adjustments for random errors, where the adjustments are also random in nature. Temperature “adjustments” almost universally increase the slope of the temperature graph, lowering distal and elevating proximal data. The result is to suspiciously make the temperature increase more linear and in line with the CO2 increase. For this kind of “adjustment” to be justified there needed to be a systematic error in the calculations that over estimated temperatures prior to 2005 that justified a systemic lower of temperatures, and post 2005 a systemic elevating of temperatures. What makes this so suspicious however is that the result was to make temperatures more linear. A major criticism of the climate models is that they don’t do a good job modeling reality. CO2 increases in a linear fashion, temperatures do not. By making temperatures more linear, the models appear to be doing a better job. The problem, however, is that temperatures and CO2 aren’t linearly related, the relationship is logarithmic. Ironically, by adjusting the data to fit the existing linear models, they are ensuring that their models will further deviate from reality, and the models are simply becoming exercises in GIGO.
- Real Science does an exhaustive review on this subject.
Exhibit L: Doubling CO2 has NO MEASURABLE IMPACT on the lower atmosphere temperature, none
The main data sources used to support the AGW Theory are ground level surface and ocean thermometers. There are all sorts of problems with this approach such as the “Urban Heat Island Effect,” and the non-transparent process of “adjustments.” Those issues aside, once again, the warming has to be tied to CO2 and trapping outgoing radiation between 13 and 18 microns. Fortunately, NASA has a program to define and answer many climate-related questions. MODTRAN is a wonderful tool to use when discussing global warming with a climate alarmist, it will save you countless headaches.
- Looking down from 1 km (the atmospheric layer where all thermometers are located) the Upward IR Flux when CO2 if 400 ppm is 407.572 W/M^2.
- Ceteris paribus, doubling CO2 to 800 ppm results in an Upward IR Flux of 407.572 W/M^2.
- According to MODTRAN, doubling CO2 has no measurable impact on the energy balance is the lower 1 km of the atmosphere that contains all the ground/surface/ocean temperature measurements. The net change to the energy balance is 0.000 W/M^2.
- Changing the water vapor scale from 0 to 1 decreases the outgoing radiation from 415.422 W/M^2 to 407.572 W/M^2, demonstrating that H2O has a much greater impact on the troposphere than CO2. Where there is water vapor in the atmosphere there is heat. The same can not be said about CO2.
- Adding a simple stratus cloud base will change it to 396.896 W/M^2, in other words, when clouds and water vapor are considered, CO2 becomes irrelevant.
- For the entire atmosphere (looking down from 70 km), changing CO2 from pre-industrial 280 ppm to the current 400 ppm changed the Upward IR Flux from 282.600 to 280.999 W/M^2, or less than 2 W/M^2 throughout the entire atmosphere. A simple cloud layer alters the balance by over 10 W/M^2.
- Doing exercises with MODTRAN is another lesson plan every high-school class should do, and MODTRAN is a great tool to use for science fair projects. It is kind of hard for a climate alarmist to win an argument when they are arguing against a NASA calculator.
- The relationship between CO2 and climate is not one-to-one
Exhibit K: The Scientific Method is Ignored, The Null is not Rejected
Classical science is done through the “Scientific Method.” An observation is made, a hypothesis is formed, experiments are designed, data is collected, the data is analyzed and the hypothesis is either accepted or rejected. In most fields of science, the “null hypothesis” is the status quo or the accepted explanation. If in that rare case the null hypothesis is in fact rejected, the research is published and others will rush to “replicate” the experiments to validate the findings.
True science is based upon skepticism and the “belief in the ignorance of experts.” Science progresses through falsification, over-turning the apple cart, proving the experts wrong, angering one’s “peers” and defying the “consensus.” Classical science is not done by sheeple following the herd, agreeing with the consensus and being welcomed, accepted and celebrated by like-minded “peers.” Real science is done by proclaiming that “the earth is not flat dammit, and I’m going to prove it, and I don’t care what anyone else thinks.” How then would the scientific method be applied to the field of climate science? An observation is made that both temperatures and CO2 have been increasing since the dawn of the industrial age.
A hypothesis is made that man-made CO2 must be causing the increase in temperatures, the commonly accepted/status quo belief is that climate change is natural. Experiments would be designed and data would be collected and then analyzed. For this exhibit we will ignore the design experiments part because the field of climate science doesn’t rely on experiments, it is almost completely dependent upon data samples and computer models. The primary sources of data are proxy temperature and CO2 records collected from ice cores. To reject the hypothesis that climate change is natural would require demonstrating that during the period when man has been producing CO2 (the past 150 and 50 years) the temperature variation is statistically different from the previous 12,000 years of the Holocene.
- Using the scientific method and applying it to the available ice core data, the null hypothesis that climate change is natural IS NOT REJECTED. Here is the data for Al Gore’s chart. Because of the nature of ice core data, the ice core data must be combined with other data sets to bring it up to the present. BTW, this is an experiment that should be run in every high-school science class and presented in science fairs. It is the perfect lesson plan to teach an application of the scientific method.
- The relevant data is the temperature and CO2 data for the “Holocene.” Download any ice core data set and test the hypothesis yourself. I have yet to find a single ice core data set that shows the temperature variation over the past 150 and/or 50 years is statistically different from the previous 12 to 15,000 years of the Holocene. Note, you have to use surface temperatures for the most recent 150/50 years, so unfortunately it is an apples and oranges situation with instrumental data being compared to proxy data. Not perfect, but the best we can do.
- There have been many previous temperature peaks during the Holocene, all of which reached temperatures above today’s level. The Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods were all warmer than today. Archaeological evidence of a warmer past are Roman vineyards in Northern England and the Vikings inhabited and farmed Greenland.
- I have yet to find a single ice core data set demonstrating that current temperatures are at a peak for the Holocene. It is important to note that when NASA/NOAA, the Main Stream Media or Al Gore report that “we are experiencing the hottest year on record,” they are referring only to the past 156 years of instrumental records, not the ice core data or the entire Holocene. Those data set begin right when an unusually cold period called the “Little Ice Age” was ending. Much of the warming since 1860 is nothing more than the earth rebounding from an unusually cold period. Additionally, the rate of sea level increase would have been expected to slow or even reverse during the Little Ice Age, so an acceleration of the rate of change in sea levels is not unusual and would be expected as the earth returns to normal temperatures.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
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.
- Daytime temperatures are determined by the amount of incoming radiation that reaches the earth’s surface and has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.
- CO2 traps outgoing radiation, record high temperatures require new energy to be added to the system. CO2 does not add energy to the system.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Exhibit H: Atmospheric Temperatures follow ocean temperatures, not atmospheric CO2.
- The increase in atmospheric CO2 is near linear, atmospheric temperatures are not.
- Atmospheric CO2 and Atmospheric Temperatures simply aren’t correlated, and their certainly isn’t the linear relationship that exists in the IPCC Models.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- What is warming the oceans is also most likely what is warming the atmosphere.
- 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.