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.
Mike J..
Every transfer rate of energy between 2 objects is related to the “difference” of energy between those 2 objects. Everything strives for equilibrium.
If the air around a warm object (A) is cool, the energy flows from the object (A) to the air.
If the air is not quite as cool, the energy transfer rate is less, hence the object (A) retains more energy.
I think this is what the climate bletheren mean, maybe, They really don’t explain themselves well, probably because they just don’t “get it “. They seem to think that this means that energy is transfering from the cold air to the warm object.
David You feel cold without the sweater because your body (which generates energy from your food) transfers heat to the surrounding air by conduction (molecular collision processes) and (mostly) to the walls of the room by radiation. The sweater slows the rate of heat transfer from your body but, being a little colder than your body, it does not transfer any heat back to your body. The oxygen and nitrogen making up nearly all the atmosphere do likewise when they slow the rate of heat lost by the surface by way of conduction. The adiabatic lapse rate ensures that the air adjoining the surface remains at a temperature close to that of the surface. That is why the Earth’s surface has not cooled more these last 4 billion years, and doesn’t get as cold at night (or as hot by day) as the Moon. That is also why the night side of the surface of Venus stays nearly as warm as the day side – which I hope you’ve now read about in Section 8 of the paper I referred you to. Speaking as one with over 50 years’ experience studying physics, it appears to me that you have a lot to learn about the physics of heat transfer.
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
“If someone wants to argue that putting the sweater on cools you instead of warming you, by all means, have at it.”
No, its stops your body from loosing heat as quickly, This is a totally different concept.
The jumper would NOT warm up a slab of frozen meat !!
If the sweater is initially at the same temperature as the room, then initially it makes no difference if you put it on or not. It is only as you transfer your energy to the sweater that is becomes able to SLOW DOWN the rate of energy loss, allowing your internal heat generation to operate more effectively.
Now wear that same jumpering in a sauna, where there is too much heat, your body would not last long, because the jumper SLOWS DOWN the energy loss.
The atmosphere DOES NOT operate this way.. It does ‘not much’ when the surface is cold, and it COOLS the surface when it gets too warm because it ENABLES energy transfer. !!
ps The sweater can only WARM you IF it is warmer than your body temperature.
which in the cold room, can never happen.
Mike:Jonas I know it’s all new stuff and I accept that you do not yet understand the process explained in the paper Computational Blackbody Radiation cited in the paper from which you quoted. But you have also ignored the rest of the argument therein which leads to the conclusion stated. You make assumptions that are countered in these papers which you obviously have not studied. It’s not that hard to understand if you take the time to read and think about it.
You (and others) need to rid yourself of the mistaken concept that radiation always transfers heat into every target it strikes, for that is not what empirical evidence demonstrates.
Briefly, to get you started, when radiation travels each way between a warm and cool body, that portion of the radiation which corresponds to the area under the Planck curve for the cooler body is also radiation which the warmer body can itself radiate. These frequencies, with corresponding intensities, merely resonate, and the effect is that the radiation is immediately re-emitted without any of its electro-magnetic energy ever being converted to thermal energy in the target. That is, it does not transfer heat. However, the warmer body radiates more intensely and in more frequencies, and its Planck curve is thus higher and broader, fully enveloping the Planck curve of the cooler body. That portion of the radiation from the warmer body which corresponds to the additional area between the Planck curves is that which transfers heat to the cooler body, as empirical evidence verifies.
rgbatduke says:
November 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm
says
”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.”
I find it hard to believe you consider solar variation to be miniscule – look at it this way; 0.1% of 1360 w/m2 is 1.36W/m2 is it not? The energy equivalent ‘forcings’ bandied around by GCM models, etc, for alleged forcings are often in the similar ball park – 1 or 2 W/m2. Ergo, how can the miniscule amount (your words) of total solar insolation NOT be considered significant?
I fully accept that correlation does not equal causation, but given the observed variations in the suns output (not just TSI, but EUV, CME’s, etc) – it is more probable (than not) that this must have some direct effect on the earths climate based solely on the fact that solar energy (or extra terrestial radiation, if you prefer) is what primarily drives the climate. Of course, we have to add in all the other things, gamma rays, blah, blah, blah – but the NET result (even though we Don’t actually know yet!) is that solar variation probably plays a major but probably ‘underlying’ part – no matter how miniscule it may seem at the moment?
It is important for these uncertainties to be explained, but as per my previous comment, it is perhaps not so vital for ‘soundbites’? If we were being completely truthful (which many alarmists and the MSM are not!) we would likely be adding the caveat ‘We’re not sure’ or ‘We just don’t know’ to virtually every aspect of climate science! – and whilst you and I and other real scientists can perhaps look at various published work (or even the MSM reports) and ‘see’ the errors and blatant misrepresentation/twisting of findings, etc, – Joe Average, usually cannot do this!
This discussion is kind of why I have dropped out of being a vocal skeptic/lukewarmer. Time is on my side with the actual measurements, but continually having to apologise for people who deny the greenhouse effect takes up too much emotional energy.
The skeptical viewpoint is totally valid, but some of the theories which fall under the popular banner of ‘skeptic’ are not scientific, and are easily made to look foolish, which tarnishes proper scientific skepticism in the process. I’m fed up being wounded by ‘friendly fire’ from well-meaning, but misinformed people.
On short time scales, there can be wiggles where this happens. On the more significant longer time scales (centuries), CO2 level follows the temperature.
Werner Brozek says:
November 20, 2012 at 7:37 pm
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?
Thanks Bob for your reply and Werner for the clarification, meticulous as always. I was indeed commenting on the disagreement between the value on the WUWT ENSO dial and the BOM Nino3.4 SST value shown at the top of the WUWT ENSO page. What is in fact the source of data form the ENSO dial? One would think it logical for the source to correspond to the ENSO graph shown prominently at the top of the ENSO data page. If it is a different source, this is illogical and confusing. If it is the same source, but someone is just being sloppy and haphazard in updating the dial, then do better.
Of course by the immutable Sods law, the moment I commented on the ENSO BOM value being 0.12 degrees, it promptly jumped up to 0.39 degrees. (But this is still less than 0.5, the value on the WUWT dial, which in response, jumped up to 0.7).
BTW the above posting and linked paper by DeFreitas are excellent and useful references.
Lets operate a tight blog-comment list here. To lie is to give false witness and report what you don’t believe you saw, heard or otherwised sensed (or concluded to be the case given your beliefs about the properties of things and their causal interdependence). Sometimes a deliberate lie happens to be true.
As regards the tale of the sweater the fact is that the sweater does not warm me up because it is actually the heat my body generates that warms up the sweater. The crucial additional fact is that the composite body that is me wearing a sweater has a different set of properties possessed by its outer surface, properties such that it loses less heat to the surrounding air and room, either by radiation, convection or conduction. The sweater, though warmer than the air in the room, is colder than my body and ‘Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body’.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
So which part of this multiple clause statement is supposed to be the myth? Surely no one is unaware of the Mauna Loa measurements that show that CO2 levels have increased over the last 100 years? Furthermore anyone scientifically literate knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and more of it will warm the surface of the Earth more. So is the basis of this so-called myth supposed to be that the increased C02 levels are not due to human activity? This is remotely possible but since no serious alternative is proposed and C02 concentration is higher now than at any time in the past 800,000 years it is probably due to the burning of fossil fuel. So Myth 3 is not a myth and the whole credibility of ‘Friends of Science’ is thereby jeopardised.
“Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001” is also a rather contentious statement. No evidence is offered to support this.
“In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft”. Again no evidence to support this. Credibility of ‘Friends of Science’ going down further.
I agree with rgbatduke, unsupported and unusual assertions need some reference to achieve credibility. Otherwise we end up like the Sky Dragon commentators here, just making up ‘facts’ to suit. It is even stranger that in the DeFreitas report, referenced in the article, we do have a useful quote from the IPCC 2001 scientific report itself (IPCC, 2001a, p.97)
Followed by an interesting comment from Richard Lindzen, lead author of Chapter 7 of the main IPCC scientific report
davidmhoffer says:
November 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm
“It [There is no GHE] has about as much to do with science as butterflies affect the orbit of asteroids in the next galaxy.”
IMO, your statement is in the same category as the Alarmists.
The “Science is settled” re the GHE. No it isn’t. Do some more reading at PSI.
You’re being arrogant, and that is something skeptics despise.
In AR4 (2007) they were able to hide the temp plateau for 1997-2005, since that was a miniscule segment on the right-hand end of their centerpiece (world temp trend for 1850-2005).
This time, in AR5 scheduled for 2013, and the data end year probably being 2011, will they be able again to hide the plateau over as long as 15 years on the same end of the graph? …Just wondering.
From davidmhoffer on November 20, 2012 at 10:27 pm:
If someone wants to argue that putting the sweater on cools you instead of warming you, by all means, have at it.
If I put on a sweater, and do just about anything physical, I sweat. (Was someone out there wondering why they got named sweat-ers?) The moisture causes heat loss by evaporation, leaving me cooler. I stay warmer wearing one or two work shirts left unbuttoned over a T-shirt, as long as it all stays dry. If however I stay just below when I start sweating, the clothing on my torso stays dry, I am warmer than without the sweater.
The equivalent for the Earth, increasing warmth past a threshold where evaporative cooling is initiated leading to cooling and less warmth, would be when the warmth retained by the GHE triggers thunderstorms. This is the mechanism described by Willis Eschenbach’s Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis, where warming triggers cooling, noting the GHE keeps the tropics in the temperature range that allows the thunderstorm cooling effect to operate:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/07/further-evidence-for-my-thunderstorm-thermostat-hypothesis/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/willis-publishes-his-thermostat-hypothesis-paper/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
(Is this legal to download? Paper was paywalled, this is full as-published version.)
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E%26E_Thunderstorm_Hypothesis_Eschenbach.pdf
So yes, under the right conditions, putting on a sweater will cool you instead of warming you, if you are warmed past the threshold where sweating begins. And the GHE of GHG’s can likewise trigger cooling that results in less remaining warmth.
If this could have its points referenced and backed up, it should be sent to every Government and Head of State on the planet.
Thanks Anthony, bookmarked and tabbed.
From AndyG55 on November 21, 2012 at 1:06 am:
Actually, the issue is the slowing of the rate of heat transfer.
As heard from my machining instructor who knew of steel mill work, foundry workers would wear thermal underwear, to keep the heat OUT. (Dated info, presumably these days they have better garments, refractory type.)
With a sauna at a higher temperature than normal human body temperature, which is normal, and with the dry heat quickly drying out clothing, the jumpering would allow your body to last longer than without it (within certain temporal limits of exposure, assuming there is insufficient hydration available, etc).
Hmmm – several comments to Davidmhoffer, but (so far) none have used the magic word: INSULATOR.
The sweater is an insulator. It slows the passage of thermal energy. My body is always radiating some heat, and a sweater slows the passage of that heat. More of my body’s natural heat stays closer to my body since the sweater is not allowing it to radiate away as quickly.
Incidentally I don’t wear sweaters, however I wear leather jackets. And I can assure you, when it’s cold outside (COLD, like -30C), the outside of the jacket is also cold (still, like -29.9C). The purpose of the jacket is to block the escape of body heat that would otherwise occur. The jacket is an insulator. It’s not warming up and re-radiation heat back toward me (at least, not a significant amount). The key factor in the entire clothing analogy is insulation.
There is no equivalent in the misty, dreamy world of “backradiation” and such. Atmospheres have mass. They get warmer from insolation (and maybe some tectonics, but not much). The thermal energy is redistributed to either higher altitudes or polar regions where it is easiest to radiate away to space. If small changes in CO2 alter the speed of this radiating, never fear: eventually the thermal energy will dissipate exactly as it has for billions of years.
The only way the clothing analogy can possibly hold is if the sweater or jacket has openings at the polar regions (which they do), or occasionally large holes open up to allow heat to escape (mimicking storms and such).
The temperature at the base of the atmosphere is set by the naturally occurring temperature gradient in that atmosphere, this being brought about by the adiabatic lapse rate, where the latter is a gradient determined for any planet by the mass of the atmosphere and the force of gravity – as is pressure. So that sets the gradient of the temperature plot, whilst its mean temperature is set by the Solar radiative flux. Hence the temperature at the base of the atmosphere is set by all these parameters, and that temperature will support the actual surface temperature.
But some readers may need to come to a better understanding of this “adiabatic lapse rate.” I know there are dry and moist values, but a mean will do for purposes of this discussion.
Consider a long radiation-proof and perfectly insulated cylinder full of air. Shake it well so that the internal temperature is uniform from top to bottom. Then stand it on end and wait for equilibrium. What happens is that, as molecules fall they lose potential energy and gain equivalent kinetic energy. But temperature is a measure of mean KE, so, if a region of air somehow loses height in the cylinder, it will end up with a higher temperature.
Now, when they are in free motion between collisions, molecules will respond to gravity and have a propensity to fall, even though this may mean, for example, that a horizontal path just acquires a slight downward curve. However, if too many populate lower regions, the air above will be less dense and so those that “bounce” in an upward direction will, on average, travel further than those that head downwards into the more populated region. So an equilibrium is established with more molecules per cubic whatever in the lower regions and less at the top. But this means that temperature measurements will be higher at the base of the column than at the top. When you apply this to the whole troposphere, you get significant differences which may be shown computationally to fully explain the observed temperatures at the base of the atmosphere, not only for Earth but also for Venus and other planets with atmospheres. (Note that you do not need to have an upward flow of air due to convection, or an input of energy at the base of the atmosphere.) The temperature at the base of the atmosphere sets the surface temperature primarily by conduction. It has nothing to do with any backradiation or Radiative GHE.
Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science.
With apologies to Arthur C Clarke, I quit the field and leave the magicians to continue torturing the facts to fit their theories.
Can someone please nail the one lie that’s always trotted out by the carbon dioxide religionists:
“98% of scientists agree that man-made CO2 is causing catastropic global warming”?
Be useful to show up another tedious lie:
All those disagreeing with the AGW theory are being funded by “Big Oil”.
davidmhoffer
I was paying attention until you came up with the old chestnut about the sweater.
If back radiation from the sweater added to your body heat is what is heating you then at what point do you spontaneously combust?
This is a lousy analogy which does nothing to explain the earth’s surface temperature and the greenhouse analogy is not much better. Why not go and read Postma’s paper instead of simply sneering?
Then when you have organised your thoughts into a proper rebuttal you can publish it and we all might learn something.
One of the major criticisms levelled at the “mainstream” climatologists is that they aren’t prepared to listen to other hypotheses than their own. The sceptics are beginning to look just as bad.
Very good! Could you send the list of these debunked myths to the freaking climatologist people then we could just call it this warming thing off once and for all and continue with our lives!