Myths and Facts about Global Warming

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
phlogiston

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?

Otter

Bookmarked, and will be added to my ‘Climate Change Resource Page’ on the site where I post my articles.

Louis

“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.

Bob Diaz

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.

Ben D.

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?

numerobis

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

Paul
Random Thoughts

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.

Raul F Iserhard

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.

tgmccoy

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.”

Cam_S

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.

Science_Author

 
 
Myth 11: There is a greenhouse effect.
 
Explanation here.
 
 
 
 

Gail Combs

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 .

rgbatduke

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

James Schrumpf

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.

John West

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

Chris4692

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

davidmhoffer

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.

davidmhoffer

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.

mitigatedsceptic

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.

David L. Hagen

NASA Rewriting US History – changing the 80 year cooling trend to a warming trend.

Until about ten years ago, NASA showed the US on an 80 year long cooling trend, with the three hottest years being in the 1920s and 1930s. They have deleted the raw data from their website and blocked archiving, but John Daly captured it. It was originally located at this link :
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt
and can now be seen here :
http://www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006

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.

davidmhoffer says on November 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm

Science_Author says:
November 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm
“Myth 11: There is a greenhouse effect.
Explanation here.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Science_Author,
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. [ . . . ]
– – – – – –
davidmhoffer,
I agree with with most of your very numerous comments over the years, but I cannot agree with your reference to ‘our cause’. I do not have a cause wrt science, merely an extraordinary love of the fact that us human beings have the capability to know reality through stringent scientific discipline.
So for me it is love of science with no scientific cause. OK?
John

David L. Hagen

Chris4692
See Lucia Liljegren at The Blackboard under Data Comparisons
Trends Relative to Models: (Ending September 2012) etc.

1.In all cases, the observed trend since January 2000 exhibits slower warming than the mean trend. This is sufficient to state that the observations have not been warming faster that expected based on the models.

The 1990 to 2000 is inferred within the 1990-2012. See
HadCrut Trends: Flat for 15 years?

Examining this graph we could conclude that if 2001 is the “right” year to start an analysis (or better yet if the choice of 2001 was some how random), and if the ‘weather noise’ can be modeled as red, the data since 2001 are consistent with 2 σ uncertainty for the trend of -0.170 C/dec to +0.031 c/decade with a best estimate of -0.069 Based on this one would not rule out a positive real trend. . . .That is: Accounting for earth weather, a trend of 0.2C/decade is inconsistent with this observation of the earth’s trend and the earth’s weather variability.

Arima11 Test: Reject AR4 Multi-Model Mean since 1980, 1995, 2001,2001,2003.

garym

please show references and graphs. just saying it means nothing.

Science_Author

 
Davidmhoffer (and others) If you wish to discuss the physics in the article statement by statement then I’m more than willing to have a public debate with you or anyone right here – if Anthony allows it.
Most thinking readers would also ignore the type of unsubstantiated comments you make, which are rather typical of the type of assertive statements often made when people just lap up the IPCC propaganda without having a “feeling” for the physics of the situation.
You are backing the message of this propaganda against the research carried out by myself and other members of the 120-strong PSI organization, such membership including many well qualified and experienced scientists from a wide range of disciplines. All members have one thing in common – they know that what the IPCC promulgates about carbon dioxide having any effect whatsoever on climate is nothing but incorrect pseudo science – the biggest hoax the world has ever seen. Neither you nor Anthony will stop Principia Scientific International informing the public and the politicians of the facts.
Science and Math may change my views
but words will never sway me.
.
[Reply: WUWT is not like RealClimate, SkepticalScience, or any of the other heavily censoring climate alarmist blogs. So long as you stick to science, your comments will not be censored. — mod.]
UPDATE 11/21/12: Let me amend that. This is Doug Cotton writing under yet another fake name. He’s been banned for threadbombing the “principia” garbage science he keeps pushing, even though I’ve made it clear (and so have other bloggers) that his interpretations of science are unwelcome.
So, now that I’ve found out who he is, delete at will, because he’s not sticking to science, he’s pushing a falsehood cloaking in sciency terms. – Anthony

davidmhoffer

John Whitman;
So for me it is love of science with no scientific cause. OK?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What do you presume my cause is? ‘Cuz I thought it was science. Yes I define myself as a skeptic, but that is not my cause, science is.

Science_Author

OK then let me start with two questions to all of you.
Consider backradiation from a cooler region of the atmosphere striking a warmer region of a body of water. The radiation carries electro-magnetic energy, which is not the same as thermal energy.
Q.1: Does the radiation penetrate the water a little so that its electro-magnetic energy gets converted to thermal energy which then warms the water so that, some time later, additional evaporation, conduction and radiation will transfer the original energy back to the atmosphere and space? YES / NO
Q.2 If you answered NO to Q.1 then do you accept my description of what happens in the above article? Or, if your answer to Q.1 was YES, then why would the first process (radiation warming the water) not be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
If you assume Q.1 to be correct, then the answer to the second question is not that the 2LoT is not violated because there is no net energy transfer between the surface and the atmosphere – after all, only the same amount of energy comes back out of the (water) surface (at a later time) as a direct result of the first process, and some of that is radiated direct to space (not the atmosphere) and some exits the surface by non-radiative processes, so there’s more net radiation into the surface – if Q.1 is correct, that is.

REPLY: Ignore him. This denial of the greenhouse effect is just more CRAP from Doug Cotton under another one of his FAKE NAMES to get around the fact that he’s been banned from WUWT for thread bombing with Principia junk. He and the whole crowd of slayers can take a flying leap. Doug, let me be clear. You are creating fake email addresses. One more incident and I launch a complaint against your ISP. Now, for the last time GET OUT – Anthony

tegirinenashi

Can we also dismiss that “CO2 level follows the temperature” nonsense? One just have to give a quick glance at the temperature record (noise) and compare it with Mauna Loa graph of CO2 increase (smooth, exponential, modulo seasonal variations).

davidmhoffer

Science_Author;
which are rather typical of the type of assertive statements often made when people just lap up the IPCC propaganda
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: I don’t think anyone who is remotely familiar with me would accuse me of “lapping up” the IPCC propaganda.
Science_Author;
You are backing the message of this propaganda
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: There are few people more vocal in their criticism of the IPCC’s science than me. Their science being questionable, or even outright wrong, doesn’t make yours right and the implication that I must choose one or the other is as ridiculous as asserting that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist.
Science_Author;
the research carried out by myself and other members of the 120-strong PSI organization
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: the number of researchers you have is immaterial. If numbers mattered, the debate would have been over ages ago, and the warmists would have won hands down.
Science_Author
they know that what the IPCC promulgates about carbon dioxide having any effect whatsoever on climate is nothing but incorrect pseudo science
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Them being wrong doesn’t make you right. What they do or do not know doesn’t make you right. You’re principle tenet is that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. This is just silly. The earth is warmer than the moon despite both bodes getting nearly the exact same insolation. One has an atmosphere, one doesn’t, the one with the atmosphere is warmer. Mercury has no atmosphere, and yet peak temperatures on Mercury barely rival the AVERAGE temperatures on Venus which gets much less insolation…but has an atmosphere. Unless you have an alternative explanation for these FACTS, the greenhouse effect obviously DOES exist.
If you want to argue that a change in CO2 levels from what we have now has an unknown result, I’d agree with you. If you want to argue that the magnitude and the sign of the sum of all direct and feedback effects is not well understood or known to any precision, I’ll agree with that. If you want to argue that the IPCC has grossly exaggerated both the expected effects of increases in CO2 and their actual knowledge of the science, I’ll agree with that.
But argue that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist and you’re just wasting my time and misleading others.

davidmhoffer on November 20, 2012 at 5:32 pm

John Whitman;
So for me it is love of science with no scientific cause. OK?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What do you presume my cause is? ‘Cuz I thought it was science. Yes I define myself as a skeptic, but that is not my cause, science is.
– – – – – –
davidmhoffer,
In my previous comment to you, I was responding to your comment on November 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm. You made a reference to ‘our cause’. Which I took exception to.
I did not know what your cause was when I responded to your ‘our cause’ statement. But with your current response to me you seem to indicate your cause is science.
My position is a love affair with our species’ capability of producing science; a love affair that has almost continuous and delicious skeptical interludes. In my case I have no causes wrt science.
John

re Myth 3 : I think the explanation given is misleading and incorrect. I think also that the issue is muddled since it mixes two ideas – CO2 concentration, and warming.
May I suggest this instead:
Fact [not Myth] x: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, thus increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Over the last 50 years or so, human actions have almost certainly increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Just how much of the observed increase is man-made is uncertain because there are natural factors operating too. 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 when temperatures increase, and absorb more CO2 when temperatures decrease. It is likely, however, that human actions are the major factor.
Fact y: CO2 in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas which warms the planet.
CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” which does have a warming effect. However, as the CO2 concentration increases, it takes more and more additional CO2 to produce the same increment in temperature. “Greenhouse gas” is a misnomer because the process is completely different to that in a greenhouse.
The IPCC report claims that a doubling of CO2 concentration will eventually increase global temperature by about 3 degrees Celcius, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. There is a significant body of evidence which indicates that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will eventually increase global temperature by about 1 degree Celcius. This is generally accepted, but it is still possible that the CO2 “greenhouse” effect is now saturated, ie. that adding further CO2 will not increase temperature any further.

And perhaps the following could be added:
Myth z: Man-made CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a century or more.
There is a significant body of evidence that the half-life of excess CO2 in the atmosphere is 3-4 years. In other words, whenever the natural balance with the oceans at the current temperature is disturbed by extra CO2 being placed into the atmosphere, then half of the “excess” CO2 is absorbed within 3-4 years. It makes no difference whether the CO2 has a natural source or is man-made.
Consistent with the evidence, the oceans have so far absorbed about half of all man-made CO2. This proportion may change in future. For example if, as many climate scientists now think, we have just entered a multi-decade cooling phase, then the rate of CO2 absorption by the oceans is likely to increase.

re Myth 2 : You could mention that the HS uses a lot of tree-ring data which is completely unreliable as a temperature proxy because trees react just as strongly to other factors, particularly rainfall. You could also mention that data was removed from the graph where it diverged from the other data, thus rendering the entire study useless.

I deny one word of AGW is true

Science_Author says:
November 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Myth 11: There is a greenhouse effect.
Explanation here.
—————————————————
Pure ownage.
The fact refractive gases block what comes in before it goes out – cooling the planet – means, the more you put into the air, the more of it’s relevant spectra refract about and are deflected, before they can ever become heat.
This isn’t some grammar nazi fetish, it’s based in principles of law. Juries have to hear information related to them in commonly correct terms so that what they are hearing is as plain a version of reality as people from several science backgrounds might need; and, in settling matters legal, utmost plainness is demanded so that jurors from different backgrounds – all educated in cross-referenced educational realms – might understand things correctly.
These people claim that in spite of the many facts that do indeed mean, these gases cool, we have to use the term heating ‘so people can understand.’
Bullshooting this way is lying on the way to criminal fraud and has been since Al Gore said he approved of the idea there’s a Magic Gas in the atmosphere that might be collecting unusual amounts of infrared light in our atmosphere at night, but that since there’s no way to check on that, we’d better go ahead and institute Al Gore’s policies in spite of whatever elections occur.
That is crime.
Pure
Simple
Naked
Fearless of law enforcement.

Correction : instead of human actions are the major factor
try
human actions have been the major factor over the last few decades.

Robert Olsen

First, let me state that I don’t buy the AGW stuff. I don’t think that mankind is catastrophically warming the planet. I believe that the planet is getting warmer. (and it seems that a great many of you agree.)
So, on Myth #1… Are we really cooling? Has it really been cooling since 1998? Having looked at quite a bit of data, it seems to me that we are hanging steady, especially when you account for 2012, which has been a very warm year.
I agree with most of the other, “facts,” but I don’t think that it’s very intellectually honest to say that we are, “cooling,” when the drop in temperature is barely measurable, and 2 of the last 4 years are among the top 3 in hottest years in the past century. The kind of statement allows dissenting views to say, “look, their first “fact,” is a joke. We all knows that the alarmists have done plenty of cherry picking and stat distortions of their own. Let’s not play their game.

Science_Author

Firstly, to Davidmhoffer: I have read many of your posts over the last year or two at least. In that you agree with the IPCC that there is a radiative GHE (and you propagate such a claim) you will know that I disagree, because I believe I can show, with valid physics, why such cannot exist.
For example, you cite Venus as an example of such a radiative GHE. It is not. Its atmosphere of CO2 is so massive that hardly any Solar radiation gets through to the surface, and nor does much backradiation. Read what one PSI researcher had to say about Venus in the three pages in Section 8 of this paper.
The atmosphere of any planet will have a temperature gradient based on the adiabatic lapse rate. This is as it says, adiabatic, and thus does not require the addition of energy. It is a function of the mass of the atmosphere and the force of gravity – thus a function of pressure. If Earth’s atmosphere were only nitrogen and oxygen in the same proportions the lapse rate would be almost identical with what it is now, so a very similar temperature gradient would exist, and the surface temperature would be almost identical to what it is, any variation being mainly due to the different mass of water vapor molecules, not the backradiation coming from such.
To all: Please respond to the two questions in my post above at 6:09pm.
REPLY: Ignore him. This denial of the greenhouse effect is just more CRAP from Doug Cotton under another one of his FAKE NAMES to get around the fact that he’s been banned from WUWT for thread bombing with Principia junk. He and the whole crowd of slayers can take a flying leap. Doug, let me be clear. You are creating fake email addresses. One more incident and I launch a complaint against your ISP. Now, for the last time GET OUT – Anthony

DR

Another myth:

Scientists say Alaska is like a canary in a coal mine, foreshadowing the types of changes we can expect for the rest of the world.

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1404/segments/1404-1.htm
Note we don’t hear much about Alaska anymore. I wonder why.

Werner Brozek

phlogiston says:
November 20, 2012 at 2:16 pm
OT, but the BOM Nino 3.4 SST index is currently 0.12 degrees and falling, for more than a week:
Bob Tisdale says:
November 20, 2012 at 4:14 pm
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
There is obviously a contradiction between different data sets here. phlogiston is looking at the ENSO Meter on this WUWT website. I noticed this as well, namely on November 6, the reading was 0.42, but the graph showed 0.50. Then on November 13, the reading dropped to 0.12, but the graph stayed at 0.50. An hour ago, the latest reading went up to 0.39, but the graph shows 0.7 now. WUWT? Was someone not wanting to discourage Gore or one of his followers before the big day? Was this an innocent mistake or is this graphgate?

David Ball

The empirical evidence is, ……

The Myths and Facts page is just one of 608 pages and articles on the Friends of Science website. It is just an introduction to the key points about climate change. For further information on climate science, use the left navigation menu item “Climate Science” which has 15 sections. This makes it easy to find the best articles on the topics that interests you. Example, “The Sun” section has 25 articles, the “Temperature History” section has 28 articles.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=194
Our most recent articles are;
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=393
Friends of Science hosts luncheons featuring presentations from the world’s top climate scientists (last month, Journalist Donna Laframbroise), issues press releases on current topics of interests, gives presentations to groups, submissions to governments and other outreach activities. We send climate science news and general interest climate news several times per month, and quarterly newsletters to our members.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=605

Werner Brozek

Robert Olsen says:
November 20, 2012 at 7:07 pm
especially when you account for 2012, which has been a very warm year
I do not know what you consider warm, but 2012 has been one of the cooler years of the past decade as shown below.
2012 in Perspective so far on Six Data Sets
Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded so far in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far. There is no comparison.

With the UAH anomaly for October at 0.33, the average for the first ten months of the year is (-0.13 -0.13 + 0.05 + 0.23 + 0.18 + 0.24 + 0.13 + 0.20 + 0.34 + 0.33)/10 = 0.14. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly of 0.66 was reached in April of 1998.
With the GISS anomaly for October at 0.69, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.32 + 0.37 + 0.45 + 0.55 + 0.67 + 0.56 + 0.46 + 0.58 + 0.61 + 0.69)/10 = 0.53. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomaly of 0.89 was reached in March of 2002 and in January of 2007.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for September at 0.520, the average for the first nine months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.475 + 0.477 + 0.446 + 0.512+ 0.520 )/9 = 0.403. This would rank 10th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly of 0.756 was reached in February of 1998. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.
With the sea surface anomaly for October at 0.428, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.428)/10 = 0.336. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly of 0.555 was reached in August of 1998.
With the RSS anomaly for October at 0.294, the average for the first ten months of the year is (-0.059 -0.122 + 0.072 + 0.331 + 0.232 + 0.338 + 0.291 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294)/10 = 0.202. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly of 0.857 was reached in April of 1998.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for September at 0.524, the average for the first nine months of the year is (0.288 + 0.209 + 0.339 + 0.514 + 0.516 + 0.501 + 0.469 + 0.529 + 0.524)/9 = 0.432. This would rank virtually tied for 10th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly of 0.818 was reached in January of 2007. The 2011 anomaly at 0.399 puts 2011 in 12th place and the 2008 anomaly of 0.383 puts 2008 in 14th place.
On all six of the above data sets, a record is out of reach.
2 of the last 4 years are among the top 3 in hottest years
Please tell me which data set this applies to. (It is not one of the above 6.) Thank you!

davidmhoffer

Science_Author;
For example, you cite Venus as an example of such a radiative GHE. It is not. Its atmosphere of CO2 is so massive that hardly any Solar radiation gets through to the surface
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And yet it is hot. Hotter than Mercury. How’s that work? Oh, I see… you say:
Science_Author;
The atmosphere of any planet will have a temperature gradient based on the adiabatic lapse rate. This is as it says, adiabatic, and thus does not require the addition of energy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well congratulations, you’ve invented perpetual motion. You’ve also explained why the night side of a planet is the exact same temperature as the day side. When the sun goes down, and it cools off at night, just remember that this is your imagination at work because it couldn’t possibly be cooler due to the lack of energy input from the sun.

D Böehm

I have to say that Werner Brozek’s comments are spot on. He is scientifically accurate, and logically correct. Kudos to Mr. Brozek.

Science_Author

 
SUMMARY
1. The Moon and the planets demonstrate clearly that their temperatures can be fully explained without resorting to assuming there is a GHE due to backradiation from their atmosphere, if they have one. I have linked above a paper in which Section 8 discusses how and why the atmosphere on Venus is so hot, even during the 117-Earth-day “night” on the dark side of Venus. The radiation from the surface of Venus is a mere 2.1 to 4.1W/m^2 which is about 2.5% of the incident Solar radiative flux. Its atmosphere absorbs and reflects about 97.5% of that radiation. Yes, CO2 can absorb some incident Solar radiation in the 2 micron band for example, and that is probably the mechanism by which the Venus atmosphere acquired its temperature over billions of years.
2. All atmospheres exhibit a temperature gradient which is only a function of the adiabatic lapse rate – that rate depending upon the mass of the atmosphere and the force of gravity. Venus is far hotter than Earth because its atmosphere is about 94 times that of Earth. It is also closer to the Sun.
3. The radiation emitted by any planet adjusts spontaneously to match closely the incident radiation. But the temperature that can indeed be calculated using S-B Law must be calculated by integrating the various levels of radiation over the whole spherical surface because of the proportionality with T^4. (The fourth power of the mean of a set of values is very different from the mean of the fourth powers of those numbers.)
4. The temperature thus calculated for a planet with an atmosphere may be thought of as a weighted mean of all temperatures found both on the surface and throughout the atmosphere. (The atmosphere may have a lower emissivity than the surface, so this also has to be taken into account.)
5. There will always be an adiabatic lapse rate in any atmosphere, and this is the cause of the temperature gradient (in the troposphere) which ensures that the surface will always be much hotter than the top of the troposphere. So, the mean radiating temperature will be found somewhere in the atmosphere and the surface temperature will always be much warmer than this radiating temperature, purely because of the temperature gradient based on the lapse rate.
6. Thus no GHE concept or slowing of surface cooling rates is required to explain what is observed.
7. It is true that radiation from a cooler source will slow the rate of cooling by radiation of a warmer target. But most of the energy transferring from the surface to the atmosphere (night or day) does so by non-radiative processes. (You may disagree with the word “most” but I believe I have substantiated this in the article and my linked paper published March 2012.) These non-radiative processes – such as evaporative cooling and conduction (or “diffusion) leading to convection – all these processes spontaneously adjust in order to compensate for any slowing of the radiative effect. (Reasons are in the article.) Thus the overall rate of surface cooling is not affected by backradiation and there is no radiative GHE.
Please keep any discussion relevant to the above numbered points, or in response to the two questions in my earlier comment above. I will discuss the physics, but not assertive statements or verbal waffle about consensus opinions or the like.

Friends of Science said in part:
“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.”
CO2 level has been the result of warming when it was a feedback rather
than a cause. That was when the sum of CO2 in the atmosphere, hydrosphere
and biosphere was constant.
Since 1959, nature has been *removing* CO2 from the atmosphere. See:
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/global-carbon-budget-2010. So, it appears
unlikely that the modern atmospheric CO2 increase is mainly a result of
warming.
It appears to me that the debate should be on how much or how little
warming the almost certainly anthropogenic CO2 increase is causing,
and how sensitive (or insensitive) the climate is to change of CO2, and
variation of sensitivity as CO2 level increases.
I suspect climate sensitivity to change of CO2 level will decrease as CO2
increases, because that will increase the lapse rate negative feedback.

AndyG55

“You’ve also explained why the night side of a planet is the exact same temperature as the day side.”
umm, IIRC, on Venus, it is. The atmosphere governs the surface temperature.
Earth’s atmosphere is not thick enough to do this. so we are sort of half way between a massive Venusian atmosphere with small night/day changes, and Mars with very little atmosphere and large diurnal swings. The Earth’s atmosphere acts as a regulator and distributor of heat, based on pressure differences, but is nowhere near as effective as the Venusian atmosphere.

AJB

Tegiri Nenashi says:, November 20, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Look again. Same data, just presented differently.