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.
David There is no creation of energy involved.* There is, instead, merely a conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy. I know it may be hard to comprehend by people without a lengthy background in this area of physics. But, even in a lab, a column of air in a tall sealed container will exhibit a small temperature difference between top and bottom, even without apparent air movement.** It’s all to do with pressure differences, and the calculations based on gravity agree with empirical results. So, sorry, you can’t dispute the proven physics. There is no way that any atmosphere not containing radiating gases is going to have an equal temperature from top to bottom, even if there is no addition of energy, such as in a hypothetical atmosphere of totally non-radiating gases.
* adiabatic means occurring without gain or loss of energy. When a gas is compressed under adiabatic conditions, its pressure increases and its temperature rises without the gain or loss of any energy. Conversely, when a gas expands under adiabatic conditions, its pressure and temperature both decrease without the gain or loss of energy.
** I have read other experiments confirming this, but here is one I just found in a few seconds on Google.
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
Friends of Science wrote in part:
“At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere
would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.”
I seem to think there is great uncertainty as to how much water vapor
contributes, because of wide ranges of percentage of “greenhouse effect”
shown in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Impact_of_a_
given_gas_on_the_overall_greenhouse_effect
Meanwhile, Dr. Roy Spencer (on the skeptical side of the climate change
debate) goes along with a 2x change of CO2 causing a 3.7 W/m^2 forcing.
And, water vapor responding to temperature change caused by that is a
positive feedback.
However, I suspect the amount of positive feedback here considered by
IPCC is on the high side, by being close to values predicted by a simple
model assuming unchanged relative humidity. While, positivity of the cloud
albedo feedback (where I also think IPCC considers overestimated values
greater than the surface albedo feedback) reduces overall atmospheric
relative humidity when increase of greenhouse gases causes warming.
Science_Author – “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“.
Because the 2nd law refers to net transfer. There would still be a net transfer from the warmer to the cooler, but there would be less of it.
rgbatduke said in part on November 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm:
“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.”
Climate sensitivity to a solar variation forcing is greater than climate
sensitivity to a greenhouse gas forcing. An increase of greenhouse gas
level increases the lapse rate, and a decreaseof greenhouse gas level
decreases the lapse rate. Therefore, the magnitude of the lapse rate
feedback (which is a significant negative one) is greater for a greenhouse
gas forcing than a solar variation forcing.
Also, solar variation is suspected of causing cloud formation shifts due to
changes of cosmic ray bombardment, especially when lower levels of solar
activity are occurring. This is suspected as a local positive feedback
mechanism in northwestern Europe and northeastern USA, reinforced by the
surface albedo positive feedback. Have you heard of “Hale winters”?
Mike: Please read the last paragraph in that comment. (This could happen on a warm sunny morning when net energy is into the surface.) Then read the first 5 sections of this paper in which this very issue of “net” transfers is discussed in detail. The first process is a complete and independent process, well and truly finished before any of the other processes start. The subsequent processes have no memory of how the water was warmed. If my roof guttering has three downpipes, water will not flow up one pipe just because more water flows down the other two.
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
Oops – I left out the link to this paper.
Myth three is not presented clearly and myth six is dated so these are not convincing.
Science_Author;
Please keep any discussion relevant to the above numbered points, or in response to the two questions in my earlier comment above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I see. Now science is limited to the points you wish to discuss. Anything outside of the points you have raised is not permitted. You want to define the physics and then argue from within your definition. Unfortunately, your definition lives inside your head and physics doesn’t pay much attention to it.
BTW your point 3 above about averaging 4th power directly contradicts your assertion of temperature being related only to atmospheric mass. If you are going to invent definitions to argue from, at least be consistent. You may also want to do the math on that. What you will discover is that by applying the average of the 4th power, the greenhouse effect is even BIGGER than what gets calculated by doing a straight average.
There’s very little point in answering your two questions because as constructed the questions are imprecise and actually have no answer. You’ve asked “how long is a piece of string?” and demanded a yes/no answer.
Thank you for the link to Prof de Frietas. That paper is the most comprehensive and measured coverage of the issue that I have read.
Chris4692 said, on November 20, 2012 at 4:07 pm:
“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?”
How about HadCRUT3?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
There is a strong periodic component there. The warmest individual year so
far is 1998. After their smoothing algorhythm, it was warmest at 2004-2005
and since slightly cooled.
Both the UAH and RSS satellite indices of lower troposphere temperature
have their warmest individual year being 1998, and smoothing by anywhere
from 5 to 15 years peaks around 2004-2005.
And, the GISS index, as shown by Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif
shows most of the periodicity that HadCRUT3 shows, and smoothed version
not warming after a 2005 peak, athough they say the warmest year so far
was 2011, with 2nd place being 2005 and 3rd place was 1998.
The periodic factor could be the Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation, which could
be related to a possibly similar-period Pacific item (affecting ratio of El Ninos
to La Ninas) and/or a known, somewhat-irregular solar cycle that has varying
amplitude and period varying from 40’s of years to 60’s of years.
AndyG55;
umm, IIRC, on Venus, it is. The atmosphere governs the surface temperature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I wouldn’t put it quite like that. The atmosphere being very thick, temperature variation at surface is minimized by the atmosphere moving energy from hot places to cold places and tending to even things out. Plus, the thicker the atmosphere, the less sunlight penetrates to the surface to directly raise temperatures. But, if you think of the planet as a system, the day side would absolutely be considerably warmer than the night side, because the atmosphere is directly heated by the sun. The temperature variation is still there, just where it is most pronounced changes. But it most certainly does change and without any sun at all, Venus would absolutely cool, and saying that no energy input is required to maintain itz temperature is ludicrous.
next up. chemtrails.
Forget the planets and the atmosphere, let’s explain this with a cold room and a sweater.
I’m in a cold room. I’m cold. There is a sweater in the room. It is at room temperature, so it is cold too. I put the sweater on. Pretty soon I am warm. Why? Where did the heat come from? The sweater was the same temperature as the room, cold. How could it make me warm?
Now let’s follow the logic of those who insist that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. Suppose we measured the temperature of the sweater before I put it on, and after. The after temperature of the sweater is higher. Now let’s convert, using Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the temperature before and after to w/m2. What we see is that the sweater is radiating more watts/m2 after I put it on than before.
Now, if we were to consider this fact in isolation, we would conclude that the sweater is making us colder. It is in fact, radiating more watts/m2 after we put it on than before. It must, obviously, be having a cooling effect. This is the logic of the people who are convinced that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist.
But in fact, by only looking at the w/m2 that the sweater is radiating, we’ve fooled ourselves. We’ve only looked at a piece of the system, and drawn (incorrect) conclusions about the system as a whole. Unless you’ve never been in a cold room and put on a sweater to warm up, you know from experience that the sweater doesn’t increase your cooling, it warms you up.
Your body heat warms the sweater. The sweater, now warmer than room temperature, radiates heat according to SB Law, but it does it in two directions. Outward, toward the room, and inward, toward your body. So yes, it is radiating more w/m2 than it was before, because it is warmer than before you put it on, but some of the w/m2 are sent back where they came from (you) instead of just escaping.
If someone wants to argue that putting the sweater on cools you instead of warming you, by all means, have at it.
@S-A.
Another way of looking at it is that the atmospheric pressure gradient allows a particular altutude in the atmosphere to hold a maximum amount of heat, if it is available. On Earth, the Sun’s energy reaches the surface, so in many cases, the pressure gradient cannot hold the heat, so the energy migrates upward, in a cooling action we call convection. In cases like at the poles, there is not enough energy heating the surface, so there is less energy than the potential of the atmosphere, hence very little convection.
Of course, adding H2O really makes things much more chaotic. 3 possible phases within the atmosphere. ! But the “models” don’t do H2O very well, do they. 😉
Dave, I’m wording badly as usual 🙁
What I am trying to say is that on Venus, the enregy is more “trapped” at lower altitudes and therefore tends to move sideways (so to speak) rather than as convection.. The pressure gradient and the absorption of energy in the atmosphere forces the lower altitudes to distribute the energy more evenly at the surface, day or night, rather than moving that heat upwards like in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Earth is sort of somewhere between Mars, with near zero atmosphere, and therefore no energy balancing at the surface, and Venus.
Yes, of course the Sun energy is important, but it is the pressure gradient that allows that energy to be retained and regulated.
Steven Mosher says:
November 20, 2012 at 10:14 pm
next up. chemtrails.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, but Steven, chemtrails are real. If you experience enough of them, you are much more likely to discover irrefutable evidence of Sasquatch, Loch Ness Monster, and alien abductions.
Finally, a voice of reason.
This is a beautiful compilation of facts, ready to use in one place – only to be ignored in toto by the MSM.
“Boy, do I hate being right all the time!” – Dr. Ian Malcolm, alias Jeff Goldblum, in “Jurassic Park”.
From FoS text “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”
They are actually understating the problem here because 4% per year is an EXPONENTIAL INCREASE. It is very misleading to think of it as constant.
The fact that an exponential increase in CO2 has continued along side 16 years of essentially level temperature records ought to put an end to that failed hypothesis once and for all.
@davidmhoffer
I normally just read without commenting, but the sweater story is so convoluted and just wrong that I cannot resist. You were joking, right? LOL is the only answer….
Surely the biggest myth to be dispelled is “97% of all the world’s scientists believe …”
piers.d.s says:
November 21, 2012 at 12:04 am
Surely the biggest myth to be dispelled is “97% of all the world’s scientists believe …”
Surely the biggest myth to be dispelled is that ‘scientific truth’ depends on the number of scientists who believe anything. Evidence is what matters – not belief!
S-A says “that rate depending upon the mass of the atmosphere and the force of gravity.”
No, It is dependent on the “specific energy” of the atmosphere, and the force of gravity.
Davidmhoffer
There is no reason why I should not be able to ask those two questions about the backradiation striking warmer water. They are very relevant questions which nobody has been able to answer satisfactorily here yet.
My numbered points set out a cogent argument based on valid physics, none of which you have been able to refute with physics by a long shot. For example, you say BTW your point 3 above about averaging 4th power directly contradicts your assertion of temperature being related only to atmospheric mass. No it doesn’t. The temperature (for a given amount of Solar radiation on any given planet) at any particular altitude does depend on the pressure at that altitude, which in turn is related to the atmospheric mass. Yes, for the Earth the calculated radiating temperature using calculus is in fact well below 255 K – some calculations show around 200 K – if one assumes typical surface emissivity. But, as I said, most of the radiation comes from the atmosphere which has lower emissivity, so the mean weighted temperature would be higher than 200 K.
.
Then you say when referring to Venus “the day side would absolutely be considerably warmer than the night side” – well it might be if there were really a radiative GHE, but there isn’t and the night side of Venus remains at a similar temperature to the day side during the 117-Earth-day-long Venus night.
You need to read more widely, David, starting with the three pages about Venus in Section 8 of this paper, to which I have already referred in an earlier comment. Furthermore, the concept of a radiative GHE is based on backradiation, and there is very little backradiation on Venus.
Being so totally incorrect about empirical facts such as the temperature on the night side of Venus, I suspect all those silent readers will not have much confidence in your guesswork.
Science_Author – by “Mike” I assume you meant me. The document you gave a link to says “It may be deduced that none of the radiation from a cooler body (and only a portion of the radiation from a warmer body) has any thermodynamic effect on the other body. All such radiation from a cooler source is rejected in some way, and it can be deduced that resonance and scattering occurs without any conversion to thermal energy. The radiation continues in another direction until it strikes a cooler target, which could be in space.“.
Hmmm. When radiation leaves a body, it does not know what lies ahead of it, so it cannot choose to avoid a hotter object in its path. By the time it reaches the hotter object, it cannot remember what temperature it had when it started, so it doesn’t know whether it is supposed to convert to thermal energy or to run away. Equally, the hotter object wasn’t watching when the radiation set off on its journey, so it doesn’t know whether to accept or reject it. The point of the 2nd law is that the amount of heat delivered by radiation from the hotter body to the cooler body cannot be less than that going the other way.
Wow, this must have been posted just as I retired to the land of Nod. I have read through some of the comments and found the usual nitpicks and complaints. FWIW, I think there has to be soundbites of information, though I agree with rgb in that they at least should be scientifically and factually correct. So his example re the SLr is perfectly valid criticism.
However, if we just stop and consider the objective of the exercise, which is to impart general facts (and presumably to a non scientific audience previously bombarded with Gores snippets?) in a manner which can easily be grasped – I don’t think the effort is too bad! The bullet points are esentially there, are they not?
As a scientist, I don’t like the cherry picking and brief explanations – but the general public probably do! – how many Joe Averages have actually sat down and worked through the AGW meme? The important thing is that in the world of ‘awareness issues’ – Joe Average is the one that the alarmists are targetting – and the skeptic side really does need to do the same – even if it does seem difficult at times!
ps, Earth;s atmosphere has a SE of approximately=1, CO2 is about .87 (from memory)
Since the lapse rate is inverse to the SE, adding a tiny tiny amount (ie 100 ppm) extra CO2 actually INCREASES the lapse rate (transfer of energy upwards) by a tiny tiny amount.. EXACTLY compensating the addition CO2