Climate “Science” on Trial; Cherry Picking Locations to Manufacture Warming

models-wrongOne of the greatest scientific battles today is between which temperature measurements are most accurate. There are ground measurements maintained by NOAA, NASA GISS and the Hadley CRU, and then there are satellite measurements maintained by NASA UHA. Dr. Roy Spencer maintains a nice blog reporting on the satellite measurements. In reality, there are really only 2 data sources for temperature data. Because of the incestuous relationship between the ground measurement facilities detailed in the ClimateGate emails, climate data can simply be broken into factions; ground and space.

6539235-joseph-stalin-quote-about-voting

This concentration of power is simply antithetical to any free democratic society, especially when trillions of dollars are allocated based upon the data these organizations produce. The concentration creates the possibility of what economists call “regulatory capture,” and it is such a threat that President Eisenhower warned the nation about it in his farewell speech. The recent protesting of President Trump’s nominee to run EPA by EPA employees is a clear sign the organization is no longer representing the will of the people. In another branch of the government, that kind of behavior would get you court-martialed. Much like the Trusts of the early 20th Century, it is time to break up government “Robber Barons,” starting with the EPA.

‘What is ‘Regulatory Capture ‘

Regulatory capture is a theory associated with George Stigler, a Nobel laureate economist. It is the process by which regulatory agencies eventually come to be dominated by the very industries they were charged with regulating. Regulatory capture happens when a regulatory agency, formed to act in the public’s interest, eventually acts in ways that benefit the industry it is supposed to be regulating, rather than the public.

How then do we decide which temperature measurement is the best and most accurate? Real science already gives us the answer. In any real science, experiments are performed in a pretty standard manner.

  1. The equipment used is state of the art
  2. Measurements are taken in a very consistent, methodical manner
  3. Confirmation of the measurements are made with other sources
  4. Exogenous factors are controlled for
  5. Raw data requires limited “adjustments”
  6. Measure what is intended to be measured

The equipment used is state of the art:

The ground measurements use a variety of low-tech, highly inaccurate, easily distorted, unevenly distributed and widely different methods of temperature measurements. The recent NOAA Whistleblower case highlighted the problem with some of these data sources. Ground measurements are largely concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, cover very little of the oceans, use various methods centered around the ancient technology of thermometers, are inconsistent, and suffer from a well-known anomaly called the “urban heat island effect.” This video clip highlights the dynamic and inconsistent method by which ground temperature measurements are taken. Because of the lack of coverage, the ground measurements have to “extrapolate” temperatures to develop a global temperature map. This has exposed an embarrassing flaw in the system when the recent claims of record high temperatures were supported by “data” from areas where there are no ground measurements…ooops. It is also important to note that the Climategate emails and the NOAA Whistleblower exposed flaws in the ground measurements, not the satellite measurements.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Satellite data, on the other hand, meet all the requirements of good scientific measurement techniques. You don’t get more state of the art than NASA satellites. In fact, the people that run the NASA satellites are so proud of how well they run their system they write articles about it.

An incredible amount of work has been done to make sure that the satellite data are the best quality possible. Recent claims to the contrary by Hurrell and Trenberth have been shown to be false for a number of reasons, and are laid to rest in the September 25th edition of Nature (page 342). The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.

Measurements are taken in a very consistent, methodical manner:

The ground measurements are taken using countless different instruments, differing locations and times, different staff with different skills (and sobriety when taken on a college campus on a Saturday morning), and different methods of recording. The ground measurements use mercury, alcohol, bimetallic and other thermometers, located in various types of Stevenson’s Screens, ocean buoys, and ships. Anthony Watts of the WattsUpWithThat Blog keeps track of a weather station audit. I participated in a few weather station audits and was personally shocked to learn how these measurements are actually taken (someone literally goes out and looks at a thermometer and records the temperature using a pencil). My conclusion was that these measurements were never intended to justify spending programs measured in the trillions of dollars. Such responsibility would never be entrusted to college kids just looking to make a couple extra bucks…or so I thought. This video clip highlights how inconsistent the ground measurement locations are, and the ship-born measurements are even worse.

Satellite measurements, on the other hand, are the epitome of consistent and methodical.

Earth’s lower atmosphere as measured by orbiting satellites. And while these data are exceedingly precise, verified by multiple satellite observations, and balloon measurements taken in-situ

Confirmation of the measurements are made with other sources:

There are three main measurement approaches; 1) Ground and Sea Measurements 2) Balloon and 3) Satellite. As the quote above states, balloon and satellite measurements confirm each other, balloon and satellite data do not confirm ground measurements.

uahrssgisstrend-1

Exogenous factors are controlled for:

The surface station measurements are corrupted by a well-known problem called the “urban heat island effect,” but I would argue that is just the start of it. The thermometers aren’t standardized, the locations are often changed, the locations are often out of specifications, the staff training for recording the measurements is highly variable, locations are added and dropped, coverage of the globe is only partial, data is collected at many many independent sites and compiled at a few government-run centers, and the list goes on and on and on. Once that data is collected, a few “experts” make “adjustments” to the data to account for the known “errors.” The recent NOAA Whistleblower case exposed the weakness of trusting “experts,” whose jobs security is dependent upon the conclusions reached from the data, to make “adjustments.” It turns out all the “adjustments” tend to favor the desired outcome.

hansen-1

Satellite data, on the other hand, is collected by relatively few highly standardized polar orbiting satellites, collecting highly standardized data, run by relatively few highly skilled professionals, and compiled in a rather transparent manner at a single location. The integrity of the satellite data is impeccable, whereas the integrity of the ground measurements is almost non-existent. Unlike the ground measurements, the accountability regarding the satellite measurements is clearly defined. If there is any monkey business regarding the satellite data, you can blame Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer at the UHA.

Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of fourteen instruments flying on different satellites over the years. A discussion of the latest version (6.0) of the dataset is located here.

Raw data requires limited “adjustments:”

Ground and sea temperature measurements undergo not only adjustments to current data, but for some reason, appear to under continual “retroactive adjustments.” The “adjustment” process is made in an extremely non-transparent and secretive manner, resulting is a closet industry of temperature tampering detectives. These super sleuths make a mockery of the ground measurements data by documenting its progression.  The Climategate emails and NOAA Whistleblower expose the corrupting of the ground measurement “adjustment” process.

Satellite data undergoes a rather uniform and transparent “adjustment” process which has remained relatively scandal-free. It, of course, has been attacked, but those attacks have been refuted.

“In particular, we’ve examined these two `breaks’ claimed by Hurrell and Trenberth. Even in these disputed intervals, we find excellent agreement between the two independent, direct atmospheric temperature measurements from balloons and satellites.”

Measure what is intended to be measured:

All this data is being used to push the false narrative that man-made CO2 is causing undesirable climate change/global warming, which is odd considering many of the “experts” pushing this agenda live on the coast in sunny warm Malibu. Anyway, if one wants to measure the impact CO2 has on the temperature, one would focus on the areas of the globe and atmosphere where the impact of CO2 is isolated. Nearly 100% of ground and sea measurements are taken in the lowest 1km of the atmosphere, that is why they are called ground and sea measurements. According to MODTRAN, NASA’s program for modeling the atmosphere, CO2 has absolutely no impact on the lowest 1km of the atmosphere, at least up to the twice the CO2 level we have today. Let me repeat that. CO2 has no measurable impact on the lowest 1km of the atmosphere for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.  In other words, the ground and sea measurements are located in the area of the atmosphere where CO2 has no measurable impact. Pay attention to the Upward IR Heat Flux value and CO2(ppm).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The first signs of a CO2 signature appear about 3 km up in the atmosphere after H2O has started to precipitate out of the atmosphere. The one area of the earth where ground measurements could identify a CO2 signature would be at the South Pole, where the air is extremely dry. The South Pole shows no warming over the past 50+ years, so the areas where ground measurements could make the case for CO2 driven global warming, they prove just the opposite. Satellite and balloon measurements, on the other hand, measure the layers of the atmosphere where CO2 would have an impact on temperature.

Where Am I Going With This?:

One of the biggest mysteries I’ve been trying to solve is “how accurate are the ground measurement?” All the spending programs are based upon the ground measurements being accurate. All the IPCC models rely on the ground measurements. A whole lot is riding on the accuracy of those measurements. The problem is, events like the Climategate emails, the “Hockeystick,” and now the NOAA Whistleblower all raise serious questions as to their reliability and accuracy. The complete and utter failures of the models that use these data sets don’t help the case.

From the above analysis of the data sets, a simple solution to greatly improve the accuracy of the ground measurements should be apparent. Any real scientist facing these challenges would simply remove the questionable data sets. CO2 evenly blankets the globe, there is no need for temperature measurement to be concentrated in urban areas where countless factors other than CO2 impact the proximal temperature. CO2 is 400 ppm in the city and 400 ppm 10 miles away in the farmland. If one is trying to get an accurate reading of temperature and the impact of CO2, one would remove the urban temperature and use the temperature taken in the farmland. That is how a real scientist seeking the truth would “adjust” the data set. Unfortunately, the people in charge of the ground measurements did just the opposite, they dropped the non-urban thermometers, thousands of them. Unfortunately, that isn’t a joke. How this is not criminal data tampering is beyond me.noaa-data-manipulation-station-removal-small

One of the most unheralded means by which this temperature “shaping” occurs has been the tendentious and wholesale removal of thousands of weather station land thermometers from remote, high altitude, and/or non-urban locations since the 1970s.  These are stations which do not show the warming trends predicted by models, as they are not affected by proximity to artificial or non-climatic heat sources (pavements, buildings, machinery, industry, etc.) like urban weather stations are.  (As detailed below, locating thermometers near urban heat sources can cause warming biases of between 0.1 and 0.4°C per decade.)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


Fortunately, there are a few real scientists left out there, and one of them is Dr. “Willie” Soon from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Recently he gave a talk to the American Freedom Alliance where he covered his research. Click here to watch the video. It is outstanding, entertaining, empowering and educational. What did Dr. Soon discover when the offending data was removed? Basically, all the warming demonstrated in the current ground measurement reconstructions mysteriously disappears…poof. Imagine that, applying sound scientific practices to the data sets magically makes the illusion of warming disappear. His research shows that temperatures are basically unrelated to CO2, and instead, are highly correlated with, you guessed it, the sun. Imagine that, the thing that warms the earth every morning, drives the seasons, and provides basically 100% of all incoming warming radiation, that giant nuclear reactor in the sky, is impacting global temperatures. Who wood’a thunk it?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.”

Read more: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

Post Publishing Headlines:  A Robust Sun-Climate Connection Increasingly Affirmed By Scientists

Hey California!!!, Wind and Solar Don’t Work in a Flood

c4ig8k_vcaa40hv
I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. Climate realists like myself have been trying to call attention to how dangerous the misallocation of resources caused by this war on climate change truly is. Now California is finding out…too late.

Live updates: Evacuations below Oroville Dam remain in effect as officials try to make repairs before new storms

Instead of building and repairing roads, bridges, and dams, Californians built wind and solar farms, and wasted fortunes on countless other “green initiatives.” Just today some California schools are banning meat and cheese from school lunches.

A BIG Green Budget

The focus during Brown’s 2017-18 Budget press conference was climate change policy and spending, increases in spending on childcare, High Speed Rail rather than road improvements, and another $2.2 Billion for the faltering green economy with cap and trade, which Brown promised to double down on.

California is now learning the hard way justs how costly and dangerous it is to worship at the altar of Climate Change. Nothing man or California will ever do will alter the trend in atmospheric CO2, but man can prepare for the impact of climate change, whether caused by man or natural forces. Reinforcing dams, building roads and bridges, managing forests and fire hazard brush, building endangered species breeding farms, buying up and protecting sensitive habitat are all legitimate issues that aren’t being funded because the money is being redirected towards wasteful and ineffective feel good do nothing projects.

To make matters worse, everyone saw it coming and did nothing to prepare.

Environmental groups predicted emergency spillway erosion in 2005 court document

An Oroville reservoir emergency spillway that rapidly eroded over the weekend was first predicted in court documents filed by environmentalists more than a decade ago.

American should use California as a case study in stupidity, and not repeat her mistakes.

johnwayne

At least someone in California still has some common sense. “Make America Great Again” never looked so good.

gettyimages-634957200

Be sure to read: How to argue the science of Global Warming with a Climate Alarmist and win.

Climate Science Behaving Badly; 50 Shades of Green & The Torture Timeline

torture

A casual reader would think very little about the recent revelations from the NOAA Whistleblower. The issue is too complex for the casual reader to comprehend, and to be honest, it doesn’t seem serious enough to raise concern. Most people simply think, “what’s the big deal,” and immediately lose interest. That is exactly the reaction climate alarmists are counting on, and so far, the public has not let them down. Aided by many in the government, environmental movement, academia, and the media, the truth has remained largely hidden from the public. President Dwight D Eisenhower foresaw events like Climategate happening over 50 years ago, yet today few connect-the-dots and understand the enormous consequences this issue has on society and the economy and the trillions of dollars that will be misallocated to left-wing causes that will deliver no measurable benefits.

In reality, this NOAA Whistleblower story has the possibility to become one of the most impactful events of all history. Why? Because it reinforces an established pattern of criminal behavior that so far has been protected through a modus operandi of denial, deflection, deceit, censorship, disinformation, dishonesty, coercion and ad hominem attacks. The cost of Bernie Madoff’s scam was near $10 billion, the cost of the global warming scam is measured in the trillions of dollars. The global warming scam, however, is much worse. Bernie Madoff is one man who acted alone. Exposing the Climategate Conspiracy threatens to undermine the public’s confidence in our most important and trusted institutions that make up the foundation of our society. The media, our elite universities, the organization that put a man on the moon NASA, the EPA, the Supreme Court, environmental groups, the Democratic Party and many of our elected officials all have been complicit in what will go down as the greatest scientific fraud since the Piltdown Man.

mwp-hockey-warming_graph

“Adjusting” data is nothing new to the field of Climate “Science,” in fact, the practice goes all that way back to the founding of the IPCC. The original IPCC Report contained a temperature reconstruction that failed to support the narrative of pending catastrophic global warming. The chart clearly showed the periods known and the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, along with the current temperatures slightly above the average temperature of the past 1,000 years. Before the 1990 IPCC Report, there was never a reason to question the existence of the Medieval Warming and The Little Ice Age, both had plenty of archeological and historical evidence supporting their existence. The problem they created, however, was that their existence proved extreme natural climate variation prior to the period where man-made significant contributions to atmospheric CO2. To make matters worse, the period where man did contribute significant amounts of CO2 corresponded with a period of minimal temperature variation. In other words, the original IPCC Chart did more to calm people fears about CO2 than to support the CO2 driven climate catastrophe narrative the IPCC wished to promote. It simply wasn’t going to be possible to convince the developed world to redistribute countless trillions of dollars to the developing nations based upon that chart. It simply had to go.

In Orwellian fashion, the Climategate conspirators literally set out to erase the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age from the historical records. The Conspirators, however, included an outsider named Dr. David Deming on an email string who ended up testifying before the US Congress about the “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” email.

“I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”

Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth

Over the next ll years, the Climategate Conspirators collaborated on a well orchestrated and elaborate scheme to rewrite the climate history of the past 1,000 years. The result was the now infamous “Hockey-stick” chart of the 2001 IPCC report. Miraculously, the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age periods simply disappeared. figspm-1

As Dr. Demming pointed out in his congressional testimony, in real science there is a “tyranny of the status quo” where one has to reject the accepted explanation through the administration of the scientific method.   The IPCC simply replaced the inconvenient/problematic chart with a more convenient/agreeable chart that supported the narrative promoted by the IPCC. There was no science involved at all, there was no application of the scientific method, there was no rigorous public scientific debate, where was simply a decision made by the IPCC editors.

“Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.”

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Hearing Statements
Date: 12/06/2006

Dr. David Deming
University of Oklahoma
College of Earth and Energy
Climate Change and the Media

Dr. Demming was severely punished for his honesty and whistleblowing. This criminal behavior of intimidating and coercing critics is another pattern that is easily established and well documented.

“At the University of Oklahoma, the School of Geology and Geophysics attempted to silence Professor David Deming, a frequent critic of administrative policy and a politically outspoken faculty member. OU removed him from his department, stripped him of most of his classes, and moved his office to a converted basement lab.”

The construction of the “Hockey-Stick” exposes yet another pattern of criminal behavior. Real science is the process of discovery, an impartial exploration of the data and the acceptance that the data will determine the conclusion. Real science starts at the beginning and lets the data guide the scientist to the conclusion. Climate “science” is done in just the opposite manner. Climate “science” starts with the conclusion that CO2 is the cause of the warming and then tries to work backward. Climate “science” doesn’t try to explain why the climate is changing and what is causing it, they are trying to prove that out of the millions of factors that impact the climate, that CO2 is the most dangerous and important of those factors. This is evidenced by the IPCC themselves who admit that they know very little about climate factors other than the greenhouse gasses. The reason is obvious, funding has only gone to study the greenhouse gasses. Why? Because you can tax carbon, you can’t tax the sun, water vapor, and clouds. The IPCC knows, like any criminal organization, that you have to go to where the money is.

ipcc-forcings

The “Hockey-Stick” was clearly constructed with a preconceived conclusion in mind. It wasn’t constructed to accurately explain the temperature history of the past 1,000 years, it was constructed to make it appear that CO2 was the cause of the recent warming. It is widely accepted that CO2 has been increasing since the beginning of the industrial age, so the Climategate Conspirators needed a temperature chart to match. The construction of the “Hockey-Stick” is almost laughable in its obvious attempts to manufacture the illusion of a sudden warming throughout the 20th Century and gave rise to one of the most hilarious skits on the Daily Show I’ve ever seen. This fraudulent construction method is easily proven because a statistical technique like “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline” is simply not reproducible, a critical requirement of any real science. This act of deliberately manipulating the data to get the desired result, however, is highly illegal, yet it was given a pass by the prosecutors. If a drug company CEO manipulated data to get FDA approval, he/she would be behind bars. If the CEO of a brokerage house manipulated performance data to outperform the competition, the SEC would have him/her behind bars, if the CEO of an auto company manipulated emissions data, the EPA would have him/her behind bars. All those infractions dwarf compared to the consequences of manipulating data on which the spending of trillions of public dollars will be based.

climate-money

The problem is, the relationship between CO2 and temperature is complicated, and it is anything but linear. The IPCC and its modelers, blinded by ideology and a predetermined conclusion, refused to accept those facts, and the results were predictable. The IPCC models all failed by epic proportions.

b40bb-haroldhaydenipcc

In any real science where the data guides the conclusions, results like those generated by the IPCC models would send the scientist back to the drawing board to develop a new hypothesis. Simply studying the basic physics of the atmosphere should have clued these IPCC scientists into the fact that using ground temperature data was ill-founded, CO2 is well known not to impact the lowest levels of the atmosphere. Climate “science” isn’t like real science. Climate “science” isn’t an exercise in honest discovery, climate “science,” is really about pushing an agenda, a highly costly, mostly ineffective and extremely misguided and undemocratic agenda.

The failure of the models, however, establishes the criminal motive for the fraudulent data manipulations. The entire basis of funding for climate “science,” is dependent upon man-made or anthropogenic CO2 being the cause of the warming temperatures. If CO2 isn’t the cause, there is no basis for a carbon tax. CO2 is simply the Witch that has to be burned, or else the entire facade comes crashing down to expose a CO2 emperor that has no clothes.

The models are calculating excessive warming and overstating the effect by CO2. That is the core of the truth that you can take away from this.

Because the IPCC Models were designed with fraudulent intent, they will likely provide the prosecution the evidence needed to convict. The IPCC models have a few fatal flaws that will guarantee that they will NEVER be accurate. The ability to predict their failures is evidence of their fraudulent design. 10 years from now this article could be used as evidence in a court case detailing the predictable coming/continuing failure of the models. The fraud is so evident, any 1st-year econometrics student could identify the flaws.

Here are just a few:

  1. The models detail a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature. That relationship simply doesn’t exist. The result will be that CO2 will continue higher, and the inaccuracy of the models will increase over time. The potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas decreases with increases in concentration.
  2. The models fail to account for the most significant variables impacting the climate; water vapor and the sun. This is the equivalent of doing a weight-loss study and failing to account for exercise and caloric intake, and only modeling the impact of the brand of shoe worn.
  3. The models assume CO2 is the most significant greenhouse gas. Water vapor, by far, is the most significant greenhouse gas. Controlling for water vapor, CO2 has been demonstrated to have no measurable impact on temperature.
  4. The models use ground temperature measurements. CO2 is known to have no material impact on the layer of the atmosphere where the thermometers are located.
  5. The ground measurements and satellite measurements don’t agree, and the ground measurements are widely known to be more inaccurate and subject to “adjustments.” It is worth nothing that the Climategate Conspirators exposed in the Climategate emails and NOAA Whistleblower cases implicate the centers involved with the ground measurements, not the satellite measurements.
  6. CO2 tends to lag temperature, it does not lead temperature. Never in 600 million years has CO2 resulted in catastrophic warming, even at levels 18x the level of today. Experiments done to prove CO2 can cause warming do just the opposite. The CO2 drives temperature model is akin to lung cancer causes smoking.
  7. Evidence shows that the rate of change in temperature is unrelated to CO2. The rate of change in temperature in the first half of the last century was the same as the second half of the century when man was creating the majority of the anthropogenic CO2.

Once the flaws of the models are known, the modus operandi of the criminal Climategate Conspirators becomes clear, and why the recent NOAA Whistleblower case is so damning. The trend in CO2 is near linear, and there is basically nothing man can or will do that will alter that trend. With a linear trend is CO2 established and unlikely to change within our lifetimes, the only way then for an essentially single variable linear model of “Temperature = Function of CO2” to work is to make the temperature data more linear. That is exactly what has been happening with the data from the main suppliers of ground level measurements; The Hadley CRU at East Anglia, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA. Penn State UniversityBerkeley, and The Ohio State University should also be included because of their involvement in the Hockeystick creation, the BEST project and the Byrd Polar Research Center. It is important to note that the people running the NASA Satellite data were never implicated in any of the Climategate emails.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The “adjustments” are extremely convenient in that they tend to lower distal/older temperatures and elevate proximal/more current temperatures. The result is to take a rather flat non-linear temperature chart and make it more sloped and linear. For these kinds of temperature “adjustments” to be justified one would have to demonstrate that there was a systemic error prior to 2000 that elevated temperatures above the actual reading, and then a systemic error post-2000 that depressed temperatures. Unlike most errors that are randomly distributed, these errors all seem suspiciously skewed in favor of a linear temperature/CO2 model. Because these “adjustments” are made behind doors by a select group of people, it may take a Congressional investigation to get to the reasoning. Tony Heller of the Real Climate Science Blog has made a career out of documenting the temperature “adjustments.”There are simply too many for me to cover in this article, but his work alone, if proven to be accurate, should be enough to put a few of the Climategate Conspirators behind bars.

screen-shot-2016-12-28-at-4-51-42-am

As mentioned in the first paragraph, a casual reader of the news would think that the NOAA Whistleblower was a unique event, but as this article has attempted to document, it is just the latest in a clearly established pattern of criminal data manipulation. To add credibility to the NOAA Whistleblower’s story is the fact that his accusations are nothing new, and had been made by others much earlier. But like the Casandra of Greek mythology, their warning went unheeded. With the Obama administration’s fingers on the scales, the Green Gestapo,  complicit media and academia successfully silenced any opposition, the Climategate Conspirator’s criminal enterprise continued unhindered. Here are just a few of the articles that appeared in the Blogosphere immediately after the release of the “Pausebuster” paper that the media conveniently ignored.

    1. @NOAA ‘s desperate new paper: Is there no global warming ‘hiatus’ after all? Guest Blogger / June 4, 2015
    2. Despite attempts to erase it globally, “the pause” still exists in pristine US surface temperature data Anthony Watts / June 14, 2015
    3. Dissent in the climate ranks over Karl’s “pause buster” temperature data tweaking Anthony Watts / October 27, 2015
    4. The Oddities in NOAA’s New “Pause-Buster” Sea Surface Temperature Product – An Overview of Past Posts
    5. Correcting Ocean Cooling: NASAChanges Data to Fit the Models Adjusts Data from Buoys

Fast forward to today, and one will see that many of the claims made back in 2015 are being made by the NOAA Whistleblower, only this time, people are sitting up and listening. The Obama Administration and his cronies in the EPA are no longer there to run interference, and there is a new Sheriff in town with no patience for a dishonest press, dishonest government, dishonest academia or any form of dishonesty. The claims made by the Whistleblower combined with the pattern of criminal data manipulation exposed in this article should give President Trump plenty of material to use in court.

Even without the past pattern of criminal behavior, the NOAA Whistleblower’s claims are damning enough. The NOAA Whistleblower’s name is John Bates, and he wrote a detailed explanation of his claims on Judith Curry’s blog, Climate Etc. I will try to summarize the most important accusations.

      1. The “Pause Buster” report, referred to as K15, conveniently erased a period called “the pause,” much like the inconvenient Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age were erased from the “Hockeystick,” and why not, no one was punished for doing it.
      2. The date supporting K15 was not archived, making it impossible to reproduce. In other words, dead men tell no tales. Any evidence was bit-cleaned away, or put in the shredder.
      3. The timing of the report was very convenient and issued just prior to the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan submission to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015.
      4. The data used in K15 was not properly processed for “adjustments,” and the resulting data set was offered only on the website, lacking any warnings that the data was not operational and not released in digital form. This had the effect of preventing skeptics from easily analyzing the data. The question here has to be what motivated the authors of K15 to intentionally act is a manner consistent with a coverup?
      5. The authors of K15 “had their thumbs on the scale” to ensure that the report demonstrated the desired warming and absence of the “pause.” Findings critical for President Obama to present at the Paris Conference.
      6. The article published in Science Magazine violated the archival requirements, and no disclaimer was given.
      7. From the UK Daily Mail article, about the K15 authors, “Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.” This is reminiscent of “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline,” and the bizarre combinations of the Hockeystick proxies.

This quote says it all and would be considered fraud in any other industry. This is a clear and intentional distortion of the data to reach a predetermined conclusion. If a drug company did they there would be criminal charges. This quote demonstrated fraudulent criminal intent.

“Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”

factcheck

The response from the media to the NOAA Whistleblower has been predictable. They are attempting to portray it as much ado about nothing. Even Science, whose credibility stands to be severely damaged, is trying to pass this off as a simple argument about archiving procedures.

Rose’s story ricocheted around right-wing media outlets, and was publicized by the Republican-led House of Representatives science committee…But ScienceInsider found no evidence of misconduct or violation of agency research policies… Instead, the dispute appears to reflect long-standing tensions within NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)… over how new data sets are used for scientific research.

The claim of the Science Insider finding “no evidence of misconduct” is reminiscent of the Penn State University finding no evidence of misconduct after the release of the Climategate emails.

So for now, it appears like not much has changed, and the Climategate Conspirators are relying on their old friends in the media, academia and the Green Gestapo to run interference for them, but this time, they will not be able to rely on the Government for protection. We can only hope that President Trump takes a more in-depth look at this issue and connects all the dots. Each event taken by itself can be discounted as much ado about nothing, but when taken in their entirety paint a mosaic of crime and corruption. Even if you don’t buy the arguments laid out in this article, most people will agree that we simply can’t afford to spend trillions of dollars based on research done by biased, careless and manipulative researchers and administrators.

cartoon-climate-science

What then are the solutions?:

      1. There must be some accountability and standards. No one gets punished for violating even the most basic of scientific practices.
      2.  There is way too much power concentrated if too few unelected people. The entire climate research industry must be broken up. No longer can one self-interested group collect, adjust, analyze and publish conclusion with basically no oversight.
      3. Good enough for government work isn’t acceptable when trillions of dollars are at stake. Much of this process should be outsourced and modernized. Google could manage the collection of the thermometer data. IBM could compile the data. Oracle could process the data. The final data would then be released to an open source temperature reconstruction society that transparently analyzes the data, and releases their finding to the public for honest and open peer review.
      4. Government funded research projects should be broken apart and duplicated to ensure verification. The “Hockeystick” is being used to justify spending trillions of dollars, and there is zero chance an open source society would ever reconstruct it on their own. “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline,” would never pass public scrutiny.
      5. Conclusions reached from government funded research need to be validated using double-blind and other statistical validation procedures. Climate research simply can’t be taken as valid any more than a drug company’s research should be considered valid without further verification. The IPCC climate models all have failed, and yet the funding of CO2 centric climate research continues. Why? If the results from the IPCC climate models were used by a drug company to get FDA approval it would be rejected in a heartbeat. Funding for climate research needs to be directed away from CO2 and towards the areas identified by the IPCC where scientific understanding is “very low.” (See chart above)
      6. Any research must apply the scientific method to its findings, and valid conclusions must either accept or reject the hypothesis. Failed computer models are not evidence, a consensus is not validation, peer/pal review is not validation nor is the formulation of a hypothesis without any experimental evidence to back it up. Real science is done through the application of the scientific method, experimentation, transparency, objectivity and findings are independently reproducible.

We have anti-trust laws to prevent the kind of concentration of power seen in the climate science industry, and the results are as President Eisenhower predicted. Transparency, accountability and the removal of conflicts of interest is greatly needed to ensure the public’s trust in the results produced by the climate research complex.

Please forward this article to President Trump, share, reblog, repost and comment.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.”

Read more: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

Post Publishing Headlines:

The Battle For Truth And Credibility Over Global Warming Pause

Congress Investigates Climate Study After Scientist Exposes Fake Science

NEW YORK TIMES MANIPULATES NOAA’S CLIMATE SCIENCE SCANDAL

lindzent1

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Prophet Eisenhower Warned Us About Climate Scientists

1101940606_400In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned America about the dangers of a “scientific-technological elite” addicted to government funding abusing their power and betraying the public’s trust. The Climategate Emails and recent NOAA Whistle Blower accusations are proving him correct on an epic scale. It is time for the government to end funding of CO2 centric climate research and outsource the data compilation to Google, IBM, Oracle or some other unbiased impartial data management organization to run an Open Source Temperature Reconstruction Project. If the cost of the resulting public policies is measured in the multiples of world GDP, we have got to get the science and data right.

Here is a video clip of President Eisenhower’s warning.

President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address Text

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in labaratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Farewell Address
January 17, 1961

1b1a8-jo_nova_ipcc_consensus_vote

Climate “Science” on Trial; If Something is Understood, it can be Modeled

models-wrongThe Climate Sophists’ main argument is that there is a scientific “consensus,” and that this “consensus” supports the conclusion that this is “settled” science.

First, science is never settled. Science is a process, a method, real science falsifies claims, it never proves something is true. Claiming that an understanding of something as infinitely complex as the global climate is “settled” is simply ridiculous on its face, and the very claim demonstrates an epic ignorance of how real science is performed. Weather forecasters can’t predict the weather 5 days in the future, Wall Street Brokers can’t predict the stock market 5 days in the future, claiming that the global climate can be predicted 100 years in the future is absurd and demonstrates hubris and arrogance on an epic scale.historyofsettledscience-big11

Second, real science is never determined by “consensus,” or “science by authority.”The Theory of Relativity is accepted not because Einstein said it is so, the Theory of Relativity is accepted because the numbers support the theory. Real science can be replicated and modeled. If objects are said to fall at 9.8m/Sec^2, countless experiments can be run, and the results will all be the same. If a single valid experiment demonstrates something different, the theory is rejected. All science is numbers, and the numbers must support the theory, or it is rejected. Appealing to authority or argumentum ad verecundiam is not only bad science, it is also a well known logical fallacy. Climate alarmists would fail every high school debate, let alone scientific debate. Lastly, it is arguable that much of that “consensus” is based on coercion and perverse incentives, and doesn’t reflect the true beliefs of those involved.c53234bb1ea84a16f8e9e351ef1d136c

Dr. Christy, in this video, highlights the concepts of this article. As he says, “all science is numbers,” and that highlights a major problem with the claims of the climate alarmists. For scientific conclusions to be valid, they must be based upon highly reliable and accurate data. The data simply has to have a great deal of integrity, or the models are simply garbage-in-garbage-out, or GIGO. Unfortunately, there isn’t a lot of integrity with the climate data, making the climate models extremely expensive GIGO exercises, and not much more.cartoon-climate-science

Another important concept Dr. Christy discusses is that if something is understood, it can be modeled. A falling object (in a vacuum at sea level) can me modeled as “Distance = 9.8m/sec^2 * Time^2,” gravity is understood to the level that we can land a vehicle on Mars and claim gravity is “settled.” By that standard, real science is nowhere near settled, in fact, the results of the IPCC climate models do more to reject the CO2 caused warming theory than to support it. In any real science results like this would result in the rejection of the theory, and a new theory would be formulated.b40bb-haroldhaydenipcc

Why then would the climate models do such a poor job modeling the global temperature. After all, if we are going to spend 10s and 100s of trillions of dollars fighting the war on climate change, we had better be sure we will get the results we expect. The first major problem the climate models have is that they define a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature, the relationship is a well defined logarithmic relationship. The second major problem is that they don’t have a solid understanding of many of the significant climate variables. The IPCC itself admits that they the level of scientific understanding of the solar and water vapor variables are “very low.” That is like claiming to have a weight-loss model without understanding the role of exercise and caloric intake.ipcc-forcings

The last major problem of the models is that CO2 doesn’t lead temperature is lags it. The geologic records demonstrate that ice ages end when CO2 is at a low, and ice ages start when CO2 is at a peak. There is no defined mechanism by which CO2 could ever end or start an ice age, CO2’s only mechanism to affect climate is by “trapping” outgoing long-wave infrared radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns. That is it. The CO2 drives temperature model is like claiming that lung cancer causes cancer. Additionally, CO2 has been almost 20x higher than the current level and never in 600 million years has CO2 caused catastrophic warming.

Global temperature isn’t the only critical model failure the climate alarmists have, they also fail to accurately model the critical upper tropospheric “hot spot.” The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW or CAGW) Theories require an equatorial upper tropospheric “hot spot.” The reason is simple, as altitude increases H2O precipitated out of the atmosphere leaving only CO2. An elevated level of CO2 should then result in higher temperatures. In reality, there is no hotspot, if anything there is upper tropospheric cooling.hotspot

Cooling is actually consistent with the physics of CO2 and the Greenhouse Gas Effect. CO2, because its mechanism is radiation, actually works to cool the stratosphere. It doesn’t warm it.spectralcoolingrates_zps27867ef4

Temperature isn’t the only thing the climate alarmists can’t model. The harm done by CO2 can’t be accurately measured either.

McKitrick on Air Pollution: The models get ‘more deaths from air pollution than you were death from all causes’

The climate alarmist may have the “consensus” and claims of this science being “settled,” but they don’t have what matters; the numbers and models to support those claims. That makes climate science more propaganda than science.inquisition

 

Climate “Science” on Trial; Confirmed Mythbusters Busted Practicing Science Sophistry

mb13

I’ve seen some really stupid attempts at creating scientific experiments to prove CO2 is causing global warming, and when I say really stupid, I mean stupid on an epic scale. After Anthony Watts got finished debunking Al Gore and Bill Nye’s experiment, it is amazing they will show their faces in public. Mythbusters, however, may have topped Al and Bill on the stupidity scale, Mythbusters actually disproves CO2 as the cause by trying to prove just the opposite. Here is another video doing the same experiment. Even the BBC is pushing this nonsense. This is how a real scientist runs an experiment.carsrunstupidity

First, let’s review the greenhouse gas effect. Incoming visible radiation warms the surface of the Earth. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (GHG) are transparent to incoming radiation. Incoming radiation has a blackbody temperature 5525ºK. The warmed earth then emits outgoing long-wave infrared radiation (LWIR) with a blackbody temperature of 210-310ºK. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change/global warming is by “trapping” LWIR between 13 and 18 microns. That is the only defined mechanism, CO2 has a very clearly defined LWIR absorption spectrum.

bf899-atmospheric_transmission

Any real scientific experiment would then seek to “control” for all factors except those relevant to CO2. It would also define the ranges to which this experiment would apply. The important range for this experiment is the range of possible CO2 concentrations. Right now CO2 is at 400 parts per million (ppm), doubling it would be 800 ppm, and if we burned every drop of oil, every lump of coal and gasified every pebble of limestone, the maximum CO2 level would reach the Cambrian level of 7,000 ppm.

geological

A well-run experiment would then seek to:

  1. Use a gas chamber of dry air (H2O is a GHG).
  2. Vary CO2 to a level up to but not exceeding 7,000 ppm (the theoretical maximum atmospheric CO2).
  3. Use an IR light and filter that transmits only wavelengths between 13 and 18 microns.
  4. Thermometers would be located throughout the chamber.
  5. Have a glass ceiling to allow radiation to escape, replicating the path to outer-space.
  6. Enclosing the gas prevents conduction from removing some of the heat as it would in the real atmosphere, so this experiment would establish a worst case scenario that wouldn’t truly be possible to reach in the real atmosphere.
  7. While not perfect, this experiment would seek to isolate the impact of 13 to 18-micron LWIR on CO2, and the resulting effect on temperature.

Mythbusters broke just about very one of the above lists for a good experiment, but what they did a fantastic job at were the scientific sophistry and entertaining theater. Like a magician, they use slight of hand tricks to keep the audience focused on one thing while hiding the truth in smoke and mirrors.

First, they brought in an “expert” to add credibility. The show features a chemistry professor from Berkeley, yes, that Berkeley, the one that was just torched because it was going to have a conservative speaker on campus.

Anyway, I digress, here is the Berkeley expert featured in the video. Appealing to authority is a favorite debating tactic of the Climate Alarmists, and for those that aren’t comfortable thinking for themselves. The obvious problem with this approach is that the “expert” has to have the highest moral and ethical character.

mb10a.PNG

Mythbusters then created an elaborate experiment design, with stage lighting, gas chambers, precision thermometers, computer gas regulation, and ice figures.

Remember, however, the only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is by trapping outgoing LWIR between 13 and 18-microns. CO2 and other GHGs are transparent to visible light. How then did Mythbusters control for that factor? They blasted the ice figure with a 1570 footcandle stage light emitting non-GHG activating extremely intense visible lighting. I bet you could get a sunburn standing in front of that oven.

mb2

The experiment was to demonstrate the impact of CO2 and methane on temperature. In reality, CO2 can only cause warming, it traps outgoing radiation. The Climate Alarmists change global warming to climate change not for any scientific reasoning, but for practical reasons. The 1970s gave us the Coming Ice Age, The 1990s gave us Global Warming, and post 2000 we had/have the “pause” with global temperatures showing no significant warming over the past 18 years, with the current level back at the same level we were in 1988. How then did Mythbusters control for the other GHGs in this experiment? How did they isolate the impact of CO2 and methane? You got it, they placed a 2-foot ice figure in the chamber that released plenty of the most potent GHG, H2O.

mb14

But wait, it gets better. Mythbusters makes the mistake of providing some numbers that we can work with. To start, the room temperatures in 20.4ºC, or basically room temperature of 68.72ºF.

mb6a

Mythbusters then adds CO2 and methane to the chamber. Remember, CO2 is 400 ppm with a maximum of 7,000 ppm. Methane is 1,800 parts per billion (ppb), with an unknown maximum. Given those ranges, what CO2 concentration did Mythbusters use? 7.351 parts per hundred, or 7.351%. 400 ppm is 0.04%, 7,000 ppm is 0.7%. 7.351% is 183x the CO2 concentration of today, and 10.50x the highest concentration CO2 could ever reach on Earth. This experiment is far more applicable to the atmosphere on Venus than on Earth.

mb4a

What concentration of methane did Mythbusters use? Only 4.51x the current level. The current methane level is 1,800 ppb or 0.00018%, and Mythbusters used 8.118 ppm or 0.00081%. Not surprising, Mythbusters didn’t dwell on these numbers or give any explanation as to the reasoning behind such unreachable levels. A good magician never gives away their secrets or calls attention to the mechanics of the trick.

mb5

Mythbusters then shines a blinding 1570 footcandle stage light on the block of ice for 3 hours, measuring the temperature as it melts. What then were the results? The chamber started the experiment at 20.4ºC, or basically room temperature of 68.72ºF. 3 hours later the control chamber reached 23.9ºC, the CO2 chamber reached 24.9ºC and the methane chamber reached 24.8ºC. The implied net effect of CO2 and methane is about 1.0ºC.

That demonstration, however, doesn’t prove CO2 and methane are dangerous GHGs, it proves just the opposite. Mythbusters inadvertently debunked the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory (CAGW) and proved the IPCC models and projections to be highly inaccurate and overstated.

The IPCC’s estimates that over the next 100 years temperatures will increase somewhere between 1 and 4ºC and CO2 will increase from 400 ppm to somewhere between 500 to 1,000 ppm.

It took Mythbusters 10.5x the highest CO2 concentration the Earth could ever reach, combined with a scorching 1570 footcandle moth killing stage lamp to get a poorly designed experiment to reach a 1.0ºC temperature increase. Even if we don’t use the marginal temperature differential of 1.0ºC, and use the entire temperature increase of 20.4ºC to 24.8ºC, the IPCC estimates still look unreasonable. Once again, Mythbusters used 10.5x the highest concentration CO2 could ever reach on earth, 8x the current level of methane combined with a 1,570 footcandle heat lamp you could bake a pizza with to achieve a 4.4ºC temperature increase. Those conditions aren’t even possible to reach on Earth, and the worst case scenario barely exceeded the IPCC’s top estimate. In reality, what the Mythbusters did was demonstrate the concept behind an Easy- Bake Oven, not the GHG effect. Note the “Bakes With 2 Ordinary Electric Light Bulbs” explanation below the name.813ab234f187a4d75d309a697903d4a5

The bottom line is Mythbusters couldn’t even rig an experiment to make a convincing case to convict CO2 and methane. If CO2 and methane are truly the villains Climate Alarmists claim they are, they should be able to come up with some valid experiments to make their case. So far, every attempt I’ve seen has failed miserably.

hotspotmim

Climate “Science” on Trial; CO2 is a Weak GHG, it has no Permanent Dipole

absorption

The best way to argue for the science, and against the climate alarmists is to simply go back to the basic physics of the greenhouse gas effect (GHG) and how CO2 contributes to it. Stated simply, the GHG effect is the trapping/absorbing of outgoing infrared (IR) radiation by various greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. These molecules then either thermalize the energy by turning it into kinetic energy or re-radiating the energy in all directions to be absorbed by other molecules.

The key steps are:

  1. High energy visible radiation warms the earth and oceans
  2. The warmed earth radiate IR radiation
  3. GHGs absorb the outgoing IR and either thermalize or re-radiate the energy
  4. This process acts to slow the cooling of the radiating body, much like insulation slows the cooling of a home
  5. At no time does the GHG effect warm the atmosphere above the temperature of the radiating body. The GHG effect does not ever add energy to the system, it only helps contain some of the existing energy

The introductory graphic above identifies the contributions each GHG contributes to the entire GHG effect. The bottom part of the graph demonstrates the IR radiation absorbed by the entire atmosphere, which is a summation of all the GHGs listed above it. The IR absorption spectrum of H2O is almost indistinguishable from the total absorption of atmosphere and is why H2O is by far the most significant GHG.  The entire contribution of CO2 is to absorb 3 very narrow bands of IR at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns. In reality, the only wavelength applicable to the GHG effect is the peak out at 15 microns. 15 microns, by the way, is very low energy and consistent with a blackbody of temperature -80º C.

What makes a GHG is it’s molecular structure. Molecules with a “bipole” are strong GHGs, molecules that don’t have a bipole are considered weak GHGs. Here is a link to help understand the concept; Understanding the DiPole.

DiPole Key Points:

  1. Bent molecules have a permanent bipole, H20 is bent
  2. Linear molecules have no permanent bipole, CO2 is linear
  3. “Bending” of a molecule is easy, and low energy
  4. Compressing and stretching a molecule is hard, and higher energy

This graphic explains how CO2’s IR spectrum is created. The bending of CO2 at 15 microns is it’s only defined contribution to the GHG effect. That comment is worth repeating; The bending of CO2 at 15 microns is it’s only defined contribution to the GHG effect. Any claim of CO2 caused climate change must be explained through that mechanism.co2-dipole-spikes

This graphic provides an understanding of the molecule motions that cause the IR peaks. The center bending is what causes the IR absorption spike at 15 microns/wavenumber 667. That simple weak-energy bending is all CO2 contributes to the GHG effect, that is it. Every claim that identifies CO2 as the cause, must explain how weak-energy bending and the resulting IR absorption/radiation of 15 microns resulted in the observed climate change/global warming/extreme weather. Once again, that weak-energy bending is the only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change, the only one. co2-ir-bipole

Taking a closer look at CO2, this chart is a linear CO2 absorption chart. It highlights the weak-energy of the 15 micron IR band. The absorption band at 4.7 microns is of much higher energy, but is outside the IR spectrum emitted by the earth, and does not play a part in the GHG effect.

spectral-calc-co2-lin

This is a logarithmic chart of CO2’s IR spectrum.

spectral-calc-co2-log

It is worth reviewing that the earth emits radiation at a peak 9.8 to 10 microns, which is consistent with 18º C, or basically room temperature.ghgabsoprtionspectrum

Taking a closer look at H2O’s IR spectrum reveals a much more potent GHG, absorbing the much higher-energy/shorter-wavelengths. This is the linear H2O spectrum.spectral-calc-h2o-lin

This is H2O logarithmic IR Spectrum. H2O simply absorbs across the entire IR spectrum, with its main and densest peaks in the high-energy end. This is the IR signature of a very potent GHG.spectral-calc-h2o-log

This is a linear chart of H2O and CO2’s IR spectrum. The relevant peaks of CO2 are located at the low-energy end of the spectrum, and H2O is focused on the high-energy end of the IR spectrum.spectral-calc-h2o-co2-lin

This is a logarithmic chart of the H2O and CO2’s IR spectrum. The key point is that H2O largely overlaps all of CO2’s spectrum, so in the troposphere, if H2O is present, CO2’s contribution becomes irrelevant. With or without CO2, H2O will absorb the outgoing IR. CO2, however, does not overlap all of H2O’s spectrum, so the absorption at the high-energy end between 5 and 10 microns is dominated by H2O.spectral-calc-co2-h20-log

The consequence of H2O being the dominant GHG in the warmer IR range is that tropospheric atmospheric temperature is basically controlled by H2O. CO2 is basically irrelevant. That is why using ground based temperatures to measure the impact of CO2 is pure nonsense. Even doubling CO2 has no impact on the lower troposphere at all as these two MODTRAN charts demonstrate.  400

800

The other important physical property of CO2 is that it’s IR absorption isn’t linearly related to absorbed energy, it is logarithmically related. That is partially why doubling CO2 in the above graphics had no impact on the energy balance in the troposphere.co2_modtrans_img1

The result is that tropospheric atmospheric temperatures and tropospheric water vapor are almost indistinguishable. The same can not be said about CO2, which is a constant 400 ppm all the way up to 80 km.h2o-and-temperature-cross

One last chart defining the relevant physical properties of CO2, and it’s IR absorption spectrum. The oceans are warming. Ocean warming and atmospheric warming are often conflated, and the claim is that atmospheric CO2 is contributing to the warming of the oceans. In reality, visible light is warming the oceans, and the oceans are warming the atmosphere above it. IR between 13 and 18 microns simply doesn’t penetrate or warm water. Atmospheric CO2 can’t be the cause of the warming oceans.slide_4

The take home message is that CO2 is a weak GHG that has no permanent dipole, whose main absorption peak is in the cold/weak-energy end of the IR spectrum. If anything CO2 helps to act as a temperature floor for the globe, as it’s main contribution is to thermalize energy consistent with a blackbody temperature of -80º C (-50º C to -110º C). H2O, on the other hand, is a much more potent GHG that totally dominates the temperature of the troposphere. It all boils down to “can CO2, a weak non-dipolar GHG, affect catastrophic climate change through “bending” and the resulting absorption/radiation/thermalization of 15 micron IR (13 to 18 micron range). Once again, that is the only defined mechanism by which CO2 can execute the GHG effect, and affect climate change.hed-stop-it