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

Exhibit S: The  Equatorial Upper Tropospheric “Hot Spot” simply doesn’t exist.

Hotspot.png

A crucial/critical outcome predicted of the AGW Theory is an Equatorial Upper Tropospheric “Hot Spot.”

Talking Points:

  1. As the above graphic demonstrates, the observed temperature change of the upper equatorial troposphere is the exact opposite of predicted.
  2. When models are a full 180 degrees off they simply can’t be more wrong, and useless for explaining the observation.

The field of Climate “Science” is the only field that I know of outside politics where you can be wrong on such an epic scale and still keep your job.b40bb-haroldhaydenipcchotspotmim

Advertisements

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

Exhibit R: The rate of change in atmospheric CO2 isn’t related to Anthropogenic CO2 production.

co2-yearly-anthro-atmospheric-1959-2012-1

The above chart must be analyzed in the context of the largest CO2 sink, the oceans, are warming and degassing CO2 during this period.

Talking Points:

  1. In 1959 man produced 2.25 GtC per year, atmospheric CO2 increased by 2 ppm/year.
  2. in 1987 man produced 5.5 GtC per year, atmospheric CO2 increased by 2 ppm/year.
  3. The huge spikes in 1987 and 1997 are most likely due to El Ninos, and not related to anthropogenic CO2.temperature-co2
  4. In 1992 man produced 6.1 GtC per year, atmospheric CO2 increased by 1.75 ppm/year.
  5. Anthropogenic CO2 increased by nearly 5x between 1959 and 2014 from 2.2 GtC to 9.8 GtC in an almost linear manner. Here is another look at CO2 production, they all tell the same story, man is producing more CO2.glikson_11_06_09_5
  6. The rate of Atmospheric CO2 increased from 2 ppm in 1959 to 4 ppm in 2012 with a great deal of volatility that could not be due to anthropogenic CO2.co2-yearly-anthro-atmospheric-1959-2012-1
  7. Man’s production of CO2 production has actually exceeded IPCC projections during a period when temperatures “paused.”clip_image0022
  8. CO2 increased at a linear or geometric rate, temperatures controlled for water vapor are almost random.antarctica1

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

Exhibit Q: The rate of change in Temperature is unaffected by Anthropogenic CO2.

global-surface-temperatures-relative-to-1951-1980

Talking Points:

  1. Most anthropogenic CO2 was produced post-WWII.glikson_11_06_09_5
  2. Temperatures increased 0.6 degree Celsius between 1910 and 1945, before most anthropogenic CO2 was produced. 0.6 degrees over 35 years.
  3. Temperatures remained flat between 1940 and 1980, even though CO2 increased/accelerated.
  4. Temperatures increase 0.6 degree Celsius between 1975 and 2010. 0.6 degrees over 35 years.
  5. Anthropogenic CO2 has not accelerated or altered the natural rate of temperature increase.
  6. Satellite measurements demonstrate that there has been very very very little warming over the past 40 years, while CO2 increased from 340 to 400 ppm, or 50% of the CO2 increase from pre-industrial to 280 to the current level of 400 ppm.monckton1.png
  7. Atmospheric temperatures follow ocean temperatures fluctuations like El Nino, El Nino’s, PDO, etc etc, not CO2.  2016 was a strong El Nino year.figure-1
  8. Post the 2016 El Nino where was a record drop in atmospheric temperatures, CO2 didn’t drop, it continued to increase. BTW, climate alarmist talk of a 1 degree Celsius change over 100 years. Satellite temperatures just dropped 1.6 degrees Celsius over a matter of months, an none of the increase or fall was due to CO2.screen-shot-2017-01-04-at-8-25-43-pm

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

Exhibit P: The rate of change in the Sea level is not increasing (2nd derivative)

sealevel_recent

If in fact, temperatures are increasing at an increasing rate, glaciers should be melting at an increasing rate and therefore sea levels should be increasing at an increasing rate. They aren’t, in fact, the most recent data shows that the rate of increase has been DECREASING since 2004.

Talking Points:

  1. The rate of change of the sea level has not been increasing, which would be expected if in fact we are warming at an increasing rate.holgate_update2_fig1
  2. Sea levels are increasing at a rate of 3.27 mm/year, or the height of 3 dimes.student_sea_rise2
  3. The rate of sea level increase is nothing alarming on a historical scale.sealeval
  4. It is far more likely that we will experience a sea level decreasing ice age long before Manhattan gets flooded.solar
  5. James Hansen predicts a sea level rise of 2 to 5 meters over the next 84 years, or 24 to 60 mm/yr. During the ending of the recent ice age, sea level increased 100 m over 6,000 years at a rate of 17 mm/yr, and that was melting mile high ice over North America. NASA’s James Hansen in his “peer reviewed” paper claims sea level we will increase at a rate higher than what existed at the end of the ice age. Does that even seem remotely possible considering there are far fewer glaciers to melt and the actual rate of sea level increase has been DECREASING?post-glacial_sea_level_rise2

In this video Dr. John Christe discusses how sea levels were 18 to 20 feet above today’s level during the previous interglacial period.c2nxiumxcac7iit

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

Exhibit O: Climate “Science” Temperature Reconstructions are not reproducible outside the “Peer Review” community

mwp-hockey-warming_graph

One of the most Orwellian and suspect foundations of the AGW Theory is the temperature reconstruction on which it depends. The original IPCC Report in 1990 used the bottom chart as its temperature reconstruction. The chart accurately identified the well documented Medieval Warming period and Little Ice Age. The problem is, the original chart used by the IPCC did not support the narrative that CO2 was causing global warming. A campaign was then started to rewrite history to make a more convincing argument to convict CO2 and eliminate the inconvenient Medieval Warming period. The IPCC ultimately replaced the problematic chart with the problem-ridden and sharply criticized and widely debunked “Hockey Stick” Chart.

 Talking Points:

  1. The “Hockey Stick” is not reproducible due to its reliance upon unconventional researcher independent/manufactured statistical techniques such as “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline.” (Must Watch Video Clip)hide_the_decline
  2. The Hockey Stick and other following temperature reconstructions include proxies with extremely large errors such at tree rings, coral and even ice cores. Note the large error bars during the pre-1902 proxy period, and the extreme precision during the instrumental period post 1980. The proxy and instrumental data simply behave completely different, and demonstrate a statistical problem called hetroskedasticity making the data set suspect and problematic.   hockeystick1
  3. Even though thermometer data was available, and in fact used by NASA and NOAA in their global temperature reconstructions, Michael Mann did not include instrumental data until 1902. Its addition dramatically altered the trend of the chart. Proxy data was included until 1980, and once discontinued the trend of the chart was dramatically altered again. The fact that the data set’s “behavior” dramatically changes coincident with the changing of its construction makes this data set extremely suspect.
  4. The Hockey Stick shows a full 1.1 degree Celsius increase between 1900 and its publication in 1999. NASA’s global temperature chart shows an increase of about one half that value at 0.6 degree Celsius.global-surface-temperatures-relative-to-1951-1980
  5. The longest continual thermometer record spanning over 350 years shows no warming until a suspicious rapid increase starting in 1980. Nearly 100% of the warming in the 350 year record has occurred since 1980, which is completely inconsistent with the AGW Theory and all other temperature reconstructions. Note how the warming during the 18th century changed temperatures by a full 3.5 degrees Celsius over 50 years, and then collapsed 4 degrees Celsius over a period of less than a decade. In other words, climate change is nothing new, and far more extreme weather/climate events have occurred without the aid of man made CO2.central-england
  6. The “Hockey Stick” passed “peer review,” and helped solidify the “consensus.” If this kind of nonsense can pass “peer review,” the “consensus” isn’t worth a cup of hot air.
  7. The Medievel Warming period has been widely demonstrated to be a global phenemenonmwp-global-studies-map-i-ppt
  8. There are serious problems with the ground measurements used to in the temperature reconstructions.Urbana_WWTP_Detail_South_View.jpg

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

Exhibit N: The relationship between CO2 and Temperature simply isn’t linear

co2_modtrans_img1

One of the most damning smoking guns is that the entire field of climate “science” appears to believe that there is a linear relationship between CO2 and Temperature. The IPCC models focus exclusively on CO2, and the relationship they model is a simple linear regression. If you try to model a logarithmic relationship as linear you can be 100% certain that the predicted value will overestimate the actual observation and that the error will grow over time. That is exactly what has happened with 100% of the IPCC Models, 100%.

 Talking Points:

  1. The vast majority of the heat-trapping capability of CO2 occurred as it increased from 0 ppm to the pre-industrial level of 280 pp. The Downward Forcing changed from 321.536 to 292.051 W/M^2, an increase of 29.5 W/M^2.co20co2280
  2. Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm increased the Downward Forcing from 292.051 to 290.387 W/M^2, an increase of 1.6 W/M^2.co2400
  3. Doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm would increase the downward forcing from 290.387 to 287.122 W/M^2, an increase of 3.3 W/M^2.co2800
  4. That additional energy is dispersed/diluted throughout the entire 70 km of the atmosphere, and CO2’s impact is demonstrated at higher levers after H2O has precipitated out of the air.
  5. Doubling CO2 has no measurable impact on the lowest 1 km of the atmosphere.400800
  6. A simple addition of H2O or a cloud layer dwarfs the impact of the additional CO2.co2clouds
  7. CO2 only impacts the energy balance in the upper atmosphere once H2O has precipitated out.400co2watervapor
  8. The fact that the “adjustments” to the historical temperature records makes temperatures more linear and more correlated with the increase in CO2 makes the “adjustments” very suspect, and inconsistent with the real physics behind atmospheric CO2.screen-shot-2016-12-28-at-4-51-42-am-adj
  9. The climate models are simply designed to “prove” CO2 is the cause of the warming, not to accurately model the real climate. The bottom line is that the climate is impacted my an infinite number of variable, not just CO2.h2o-and-temperature-cross
  10. The best analogy to explain this concept is painting a window. The first coat of paint blocks out a lot of light, but each additional coat blocks less and less light. In economics, it is called “the law of diminishing returns” and the example is always a thirsty party goer that really enjoys his first beer, but by his 20th beer the enjoyment per beer has been greatly reduced.co2_modtrans_img1
  11. Heat in the atmosphere is largely contained in the areas where H2O and O3 reside, not CO2.atmoshereco2-h2o-atmospheric-concentration
  12. The relationship between CO2 and climate is not one-to-one

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

Exhibit M: The ground measurement data supporting the AGW Theory is very suspect

screen-shot-2016-12-28-at-6-41-45-am

 Talking Points:

  1. Ground measurements are continually subject to opaque “adjustments.” screen-shot-2016-12-28-at-5-45-44-am-1
  2. Ground measurements do not correlate well with Satellite and Balloon measurements.screen-shot-2016-08-28-at-2-08-40-pm-diff
  3. Satellite data shows no significant warming since 1997, and much of the warming is clearly due to El Nino caused temperature spikes.figure-1
  4. CO2 has substantially increased during this period that is referred to as “the pause.”1_salby2012temp_co2_observed
  5. 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.screen-shot-2016-12-28-at-4-51-42-am-adj
  6. Real Science does an exhaustive review on this subject.