From Friends of Science. Be sure to visit their page and bookmark it.
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the warming trend over land from 1980 by half.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The “hockey stick” graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The “hockey stick”, a poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth’s oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.039% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as “greenhouse agents” than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the “Greenhouse effect”. (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption – that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not “prove” anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier’s health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
More FACTS and MYTHS? See what Professor deFreitas has to say. Click here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OT, but the BOM Nino 3.4 SST index is currently 0.12 degrees and falling, for more than a week:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
The Nino 3 index has just fallen below zero:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml
But the WUWT ENSO dial shows the value just increased from 0.5 to 0.7 degrees. Do we have a closet warmist controlling this dial?
Bookmarked, and will be added to my ‘Climate Change Resource Page’ on the site where I post my articles.
“MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.”
—
What isn’t a myth is the fact that the national debt of most countries is rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate. Are warmists concerned about the catastrophe of debt that is about to hit us and our posterity? Are they even willing to cut their expenses and CO2 output just a little bit by using video conferencing rather than flying off to conferences and award ceremonies around the world? Somebody wake me up when Al Gore and the rest of the warmists show any sign of taking climate change serious enough to actually modify their own behavior.
Very good, but I wish you added the classic line that assumes that all research showing we don’t have “Global Warming” is paid for by the oil companies. This seems to be the standard answer I get when I point to research showing the AGW idea wrong.
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
———————————–
But wouldn’t this mean that deleting the two statements shows they they believe they had proved it, at least to themselves?
Oh good, this FAQ definitely proves we can ignore everything the scientists have figured out and stop worrying.
There are a fair number of myths in the rebuttal above as well. For example, when it speaks of “variation in solar output” it fails to note the magnitude of that variation: miniscule on the scale of the insolation itself. Solar intensity variation is not a plausible explanation for climate variation. The correlation (or lack thereof) between other aspects of solar state and the climate is possibly convincing, possibly not, but either way is remarkably difficult to tie in causally in a completely believable way.
The fact is that in many cases we do not know the answer to many questions in climate science. We do not know (for example) the “climate sensitivity”. We do not know how the decadal oscillations affect climate (or if) in the long run. We do not know precisely why ice ages happen when they happen, or end when they end. We cannot predict, even in hindsite, the proxy-derived thermal history from roughly 20,000 BCE through the present, let alone the 500,000 year history or the 50,000,000 year history. We do not know what the temperature outside would be if (for example) humans had become extinct 20,000, 10,000, 5000, 1000, 500, or 100 years ago (with no other change). We do not know what the temperature would be outside if we dropped CO_2 by 100 ppm tomorrow and kept it there for a decade. We do not know what the temperature outside would be if we bumped it by 100 ppm tomorrow and kept it that way for a decade. We do know what the temperature outside will be three weeks, three months, three year, or thirty years from now, not even on average, within a tenth of a degree (possibly not within a full degree).
I could continue our litany of ignorance. The real issue with this or any other statement of “myths” is that nobody wants to admit that we don’t know but has some sort of agenda, so that all assertions stated as fact to further an agenda are “myths”!
For example, the “mythbuster” snippets above state that there is “no evidence of any sea level rise” in a couple of places. Who cares? There is overwhelmingly sound evidence of global sea level rise. At the whopping rate of roughly 3 mm/year, on average, nearly constant over nearly 100 years. That is 30 cm a century, around a foot a century. This not “no” SLR, it is “unimportant” SLR — so far. Why not state it correctly, and back it up with the simple tide gauge/satellite data?
What I’d really like to see is not a site like this that makes naked statements without any concrete backing available on the site. It is too easy for uncritical “accepters” (the opposite of uncritical “deniers”) to ignore. I’d like to see naked comments or myths debunked, sure, but with two simple additions:
a) With feedback, so that when an indefensible statement about SLR is included, the authors fix it to precisely mirror the actual facts as best we know them, not cherrypicked facts or a view that is itself easily and correctly debunked. The facts where we know them are what they are, whether or not they support or do not support our “favorite” conclusions.
b) References? I mean seriously, this is the internet age. Here, look, I can do it myself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
I’m perfectly happy to ignore the egregious cherrypicking in this article, especially given the grafting on of satellite to gauge data at the end, but the fact of the matter is SLR from 1870 to the present is roughly 9 inches, not even ten inches per century, around 3 mm per year, sustained. I can’t even make myself see any significant sub-structure in this graph beyond a linear trend.
References to real publications even more welcome.
rgb
Here’s a useful resource too:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Myth 11: Temperature measures heat content. Without knowing the relative humidity you don’t know squat. Warm, moist air can contain more heat than hotter drier air, especially within the temperature ranges the IPCC is worried about.
A contribution: myth is not a lie or a mistake, not a legend. Myth is a truth intuited that imposes itself on a non-rational basis and always contains a cosmogony and cosmology as an explanation for the incomprehensible, perceived spontaneously without the need of proof.
Beautiful..Bookmarked for future reference when warmist co-worker looks out the window
and says “Ah snow ,and cold, the warm is cold and the cold warm. thus sayeth the Profit.”
I agree with the article, but at the end it links to “Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? by C. R. DE FREITAS”, from June 2002.
My experience is that the alarmist lobby will say that this information irrevelvant, because it is ten years old, and has been replaced by newer, updated information, models, data, studies, etc.
Unfortunate, but true.
Myth 11: There is a greenhouse effect.
Explanation here.
Bob Diaz says:
November 20, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Very good, but I wish you added the classic line that assumes that all research showing we don’t have “Global Warming” is paid for by the oil companies. This seems to be the standard answer I get when I point to research showing the AGW idea wrong.
_____________________________________
The answer to that is NO, NO you have it backwards, the oil companies like BP and Shell are paying for the “Global Warming” research. They provided the funds for CRU and the World Bank provided Robert Watson (1996- present) as the head of the IPCC from 1997 to 2002 .
A contribution: myth is not a lie or a mistake, not a legend. Myth is a truth intuited that imposes itself on a non-rational basis and always contains a cosmogony and cosmology as an explanation for the incomprehensible, perceived spontaneously without the need of proof.
Absolutely correct, sir. I was speaking in the loosest of terms. I lie is deliberate, a mistake is unknown, and a legend (possibly) has a kernel of historical truth, although whether Hercules is mythical or legendary is difficult to say.
rgb
I have to agree with rgbatduke. Our level of ignorance regarding causes is phenomenal. Regarding climate science, we are at the place where astronomy was after Tycho Brahe made his observations of the heavens: we have tons of measurements, and are just beginning to try to make sense of them and form hypotheses. In my opinion, the CAGW-ists are the Ptolemaics, determined to keep CO2 at the center of their universe, while we Naturalists are not yet sure where the center should be, but pretty certain it’s not there.
I’d rather say “I don’t know” than have the wrong answer.
I mostly agree with RGB and would like to add another quibble:
“glacier’s health”
What!? A glacier can’t be healthy or sick. It’s just that kind of zoomorphic idolization of some supposed perfect and static climate metric(s) of circa 1900 that’s helped to take us so far off the path reasonable conclusions based on rigorous logic and solid evidence.
Myth: CAGW/AGW are reasonable conclusions based on the available evidence.
Truth: CAGW/AGW are conclusions that have been jumped to without sufficient evidence by the application of several logical fallacies. The conclusions could still turn out to be right, even jumped to conclusions are sometimes right; only time will tell for sure.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/09jumping.pdf
In Myth 1 there is again a reference to various trends in temperature. Are there any references available where someone has done a statistical test, most particularly on the 2000 to current trend vs 1980 to 2000 to see if they are truly significantly different? I also wonder about whether the trends in the other time periods have been statistically tested, but the current trend is the one I most immediately wonder about.
phlogiston: I suggest you again look at the graphs you linked. I believe you were reporting on old values. Both indices at the BOM webpages you linked have warmed recently. The NOAA Reynolds OI.v2 data (base years 1971-2000) included in my mid-month update today shows NINO3.4 SST anomalies well above the 0.5 deg C threshold of El Nino conditions:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/looks-like-the-enso-event-this-season-will-be-a-la-nada/
Even with the recent warming there, the title of the post is “Looks Like the ENSO Event This Season Will Be a La Nada”.
Regards
Science_Author says:
November 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Myth 11: There is a greenhouse effect.
Explanation here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m all for letting all sides speak, but this drivel does more harm to our cause in part by serving to discredit actual skeptics who talk about actual science, and in part by the damage it does to newcomers who get suckered by this total bshyt. The very first sentence is an outright lie and the article descends from there into poorly written gibberish.
If links to this site are going to be allowed, at least the site should appear in the sidebar under “unreliable”. It has about as much to do with science as butterflies affect the orbit of asteroids in the next galaxy.
numerobis says:
November 20, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Oh good, this FAQ definitely proves we can ignore everything the scientists have figured out and stop worrying.
RELIGION!
That’s all I have to say..or maybe, “Worship at the SHRINE” my dear fellow.
I reread the first sentence and “outright lie” may have been too strong.
But the notion that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist is simply nonsense.
Why can’t the media provide such clear and reasonable material? Unlike the scientists and politicians they have no interest in one particular outcome so are free to say it as it is and let the others look after themselves. Then the voters, who mainly rely on the media, will be properly informed to choose politicians agreeing with their own view of things and not the worldwide fund for fraud. Presumably if the media follow a party line it must be in their own interests as if they choose a bias it is because they have been employed to. Like the BBC for instance. That is truly fraud and collusion, and in my view once reflected by governments, treason.
I believe that if people could remember how all this AGW nonsense came about maybe they would think about it in a different light. Mrs Thatcher was losing popularity at home. Prompted by Crispin Tickel newly appointed UK rep to UN and notable greenie, she made her mark in 1988 as the only scientist among world leaders by announcing impending doom from AGW. This also served to stifle enthusiasm for fossil fuelled power generation, to make way for her favourite nuclear power and to bury for ever the miner’s unions that had blighted the country since 1972 and had brought down Heath’s government. To support her position she robbed the research budgets to form the Hadley Centre to generate models for the IPCC to use in its alarmist campaigns intended to attract even more research money for model builders. AGW was a political, not a scientific construct. It only partly served her purposes and in her book Statecraft, she rubbished AGW – the ‘doomster’s favourite subject’ in a chapter headed ‘Hot Air and Global Warming’. Crispin Ticklel got his GCMG in 1988 for services to the UN (after being in post for only a year). Thatcher put wheels on a band wagon that ran away with every computer model builder aboard stuffed with research grants. Now a new generation has been brain washed into believing this nonsense to be real science. The fear of AGW is now embedded in the culture of the West and will exert its baleful influence against all reason. I believe that the real origins of this superstition should be more widely understood and that scepticism will flourish in its light.
NASA Rewriting US History – changing the 80 year cooling trend to a warming trend.
This may be due to “homogenizing” temperatures to eliminate “outliers” which has the unanticipated effect of eliminating the best cooler temperatures. See: Watts et al. 2012 and the last session by Evans and Watts at WUWT-TV. As I understood the presentation, the best #1 and #2 grade temperature sites form only ~20% of the total. Therefore the homogenization routine thinks the BEST sites are the OUTLIERS and replaces those best quality data with the average of much poorer #3, #4, and #5 with UHI driven higher temperatures.