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.
Ben D. says:
November 20, 2012 at 2:37 pm
No, Ben, the changes were made for political reasons. The IPCC participating scientists approved what they thought was the final draft of the report containing the two statements. The two statements were deleted after the scientists approved the report. The IPCC rules do not allow anyone to change a scientific report after it is approved and accepted by the panel of scientists, but that is what happened. See
http://www.sepp.org/science-editorials.cfm?whichcat=Organizations&whichsubcat=International%20Panel%20on%20Climate%20Change%20%28IPCC%29#A72
The first sentence of the FACT statement should be changed. I suggest:
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. See:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3
Why do so many on both sides accept that the atmospheric CO2 increase is almost entirely anthropogenic? Even the IPCC report shows that natural sources and sinks of CO2 are vastly greater than man’s contribution. As far as CO2 is concerned, it seems to me that the atmosphere is like a river in that the partial pressure of CO2 indicates the flow rate between sources and sinks. The higher the CO2 level, the faster plants grow which is analogous to a higher river’s height indicating a faster flow rate. To blame most of the CO2 increase on the burning of fossil fuel is like blaming most of the rise of a river on one small stream that is being monitored while ignoring all others. Climate scientists seem to argue that, as natural sinks for CO2, tree growth is constant, while at the same time, arguing that annual growth rate variations, as indicated by tree ring data, is a good proxy for certain climate variables – amazing.
John West wrote That’s exactly backwards; the sun heats the surface which then heats the atmosphere (lower).” Yes, it always looks that way on Earth, but this does not explain the level of surface temperatures and how they were reached over the life of the Earth.
It doesn’t happen on Venus, because only about 2.5% of Solar radiation gets through the atmosphere to the surface. So there is nowhere near enough energy coming out of the Venus surface to heat that atmosphere. Explain that any other way.
The adiabatic lapse rate sets the gradient. The mean Solar intensity above any particular point determines the level of the whole temperature plot for that region. So both these factors determine the temperature at any particular point. (Previously I was talking of means for a whole planet.) The mass of the atmosphere above a particular region will also vary, thus affecting the adiabatic lapse rate for that region. These are the reasons it’s colder in Iceland.
Re Adiabatic Lapse Rate
The following empirical evidence is put forward in support of my comment above which explains how the lapse rate does not depend on surface heating at the base or convection currents. The conclusion reached by Roderich Graeff reads …
In an isolated system the temperature of the walls depend on the speed of the impinging molecules. The average of their speed is lower at the top than at the bottom as each molecule gets accelerated on its way downwards and decelerated upwards. Through this energy is transported from the upper to the lower wall until equilibrium is reached.
This results in a temperature difference between the upper and lower wall, with the upper wall having a lower and the lower wall having a higher temperature .
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
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.” A quote usually attributed to Abraham Lincoln.
And, while it may come as a shock to some on this forum, not everything you read on the internet is true.
Including this!
“Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”
Proverbs 17:28
Modified in an newspaper article by Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) and quoted by Lincoln.
“””””…..Matt G says:
November 21, 2012 at 11:53 am
A clear night warms up when it clouds over, scientific evidence of back radiation. The above example scientific evidence it can’t warm a volume of water……”””””
You might be the first scientist to have observed it to warm up on a clear night after it clouds over.
Most people observe that the Temperature falls from its daytime high, after sunset, usually attributed to a lack of solar energy input, and an energy leakage to space. And as a result of this observed cooling, with sufficient humidity, it eventually gets down to the dew point at high altitudes (lapse rate) and THEN the clouds form (cloudover).
But the Temperature continues to fall. You may be the first to have seen it rise instead.
“””””…..Mike Jonas says:
November 21, 2012 at 12:26 am
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.<<<<<….."""""
Well Electromagnetic radiation knows nothing whatsoever about Temperature or "Heat" or "heating" , and in particular NO heat is conveyed by EM radiation.
"Heating" requires a physical mechanical contact between atoms and molecules of real materials; EM radiation needs NO SUCH medium for its transport.
So we can heat by conduction, in which atoms or molecules bang into each other and interchange mechanical energy which we call "heat", rather loosely instead of heating. Alternatively we can actually bulk transport the physical medium itself along with its mechanical "heat" energy, which is convection, and then there are the various phase change mechanisms which result in heating or cooling.
EM radiation transports no "Heating" effect at all. It is only when that EM energy is wasted by absorption in materials which cannot usefully utilize it, such as solar cells, which convert EM energy to electricity, that the energy is converted to waste "heat".
So we get NO heat from the sun; we make all our heat right here on earth. And "heat" energy cannot be 100% converted back into EM radiant energy; but EM radiant energy can be 100% converted to waste "heat".
So EM radiation falling on hot bodies, does not invoke the second law of thermodynamics, which relates to the macro process of energy flows in a cyclic machine, in which "heat" can flow back and forth between hot and cold bodies, but with the net flow being from hot to cold; absent any other effect, such as doing work on the system, as in a refrigerator.
Photons can go just about anywhere they darn well please. The same half degree or so solid angle of EM radiant energy emitted from earth can go to either the moon or the sun, with equal facility, and without violating any laws of Physics.
The greatest myth is that Man can in any way control the global climate. It is perpetuated by those who what to control the world.
Science_Author: If there is no greenhouse effect, please explain why the stratosphere has been cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming.
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. – Anthony
george e. smith says “… NO heat is conveyed by EM radiation … So we get NO heat from the sun; we make all our heat right here on earth“.
The sun is hot. Some of its heat energy is converted into radiation. Some of that radiation hits Earth, where some of it converts to heat.
Thus, heat is conveyed by radiation, and some of Earth’s heat comes from the sun. The fact that it is not physically in the form of heat while being conveyed seems rather irrelevant.
george e. smith says:
November 21, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Not a ground breaking observation any meteorologist will know about it, just like the temperature cools when it clouds over during the day time. Only need your own temperature instrument to observe this outcome.
Chris4692
Girma has done an interesting analysis of 10 year trends showing a strong 60 year cycle in that slope.
See Girma’s Ten year temperature trend graph
http://bit.ly/MkdC0k
That is strong evidence for natural oscillations rather than recent rapid anthropogenic acceleration.
The night will still cool once it becomes cloudy later after it has risen, but the rise from clear to cloudy is usually much bigger in a short period of time. The clouds just slow the loss of energy to the atmosphere, that’s why it still cools later during the night once it has become cloudy. The difference in minimum temperature with the same synoptic weather patterns between a cloudy night and a clear one can be huge.
Anthony;
just more CRAP from Doug Cotton
>>>>>>>>>>
I suspected that it was him. Tx for the confirmation. I thought it was just a newcomer who had been suckered by the site at first, but as the conversation went on, I started thinking…. I’ve seen this all before….
I like the suggestion upthread about keeping detailed rebuttals in a word document for easy cut and paste, but that takes time to build up. I still think sticking it on your blogroll under “unreliable” is worth a thought, though putting it there may result in “unintended consequences” 😉
David Hagen: 10-years is too short of a time period to say anything about climate. Once you include the effects of autocorrelation, that interval effectively has about 2-3 yrs of independent degrees of freedom.
David,
I’ve had it up to my Keester with these “slayers”. They badger me constantly behind the scenes to carry their stuff from the fake journal “Principia” and then try to throw guilt trips and belittlement when I tell them no. For the record, its not just no, but HELL NO. These folks are a scourge to other skeptics, because the warmers rightly point to them as examples of scientific quackery and then unjustly paint us with the same brush.
I’ve made it abundantly clear to Doug Cotton that his commentary is unwelcome, as are discussions on bigfoot, UFO’s, chemtrails, and other quackery.
There is plenty of room for skepticism in models, feedbacks, sensitivity, and amplifications. We don’t need to commit scientific hari-kari by denying the greenhouse effect exists…which is what Cotton and Slayers et al are doing. Some days I wonder if they aren’t a “plant” to damage climate skepticism, because they act with the same sort of zealotry that we’ve seen from some of the save the planet types.
I’m stepping up my moderation policy to delete this stuff on sight now that Cotton has pulled this back door stunt.
@rgbatduke
Relative sea level is just that: relative. To what? A rising continent, a subsiding continent? A rising sea bed, a subsiding sea bed? Evaporation, precipitation? Gravitational tides, wind, barometric pressure change all affect sea level (Hurricane Sandy anyone?) hence the term Mean Sea Level. How about a sea basin subject to sedimentation? (name one that is not). So many Known Unknowns, so few Known Knowns. This is the state of climate science.
see Photos at:
http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/photomrk.htm
“The 1841 sea level benchmark (centre) on the `Isle of the Dead’, Tasmania. According to Antarctic explorer, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross, it marked mean sea level in 1841. Photo taken at low tide 20 Jan 2004.
Mark is 50 cm across; tidal range is less than a metre. © John L. Daly.”
No apparent change at this site which is geologically stable and in a well sheltered cove.
To me the notion that we can meaningfully measure the surface of a restless, heaving, tossing ocean within the accuracy of millimeters, when there is a twice daily tide measured in meters that is never the same, and windblown waves in multiples of meters, is absurd. Almost as absurd as the notion of a global average temperature that has any real meaning.
The real myth is that we are some how driving this bus when no one can show me where the steering wheel is and there ain’t no breaks or gas petal. But we sure can waste an awful lot of time and money arguing over who gets to sit in the driver’s seat.
Enjoyed reading your thoughts, as is usual.
Does the law of Lambert and Beers have any bearing on the energy absorption of green house gasses such as CO2 or is atmospheric CO2 the only energy absorbing gas that is exempt from this law?!! According to chemists, 30ppm of CO2 is nearly as high as the energy absorption can become before the total energy absorbed will reach an asymptotic maxim against a horizontal line. …but then chemists are not climatologists!
I think that at the root of this debate over climate change (warming) is an insidious big government / socialist agenda to control how people live. Of course, we western nations are evil oppressors who are using up all of the worlds resources (sarcasm). We should all just start growing and wearing hemp, Birkenstocks, join the union, the democratic party, chill out and start installing our home windmills and solar panels. If we forget anything, we can just either use public mass transportation or just hop in our Prius or other electric car and buzz down to the local box store and pick up what we need. Lol. http://hogpredators.com Good website.
“If there is no greenhouse effect, please explain why the stratosphere has been cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming.”
If measured at a set height, this is exactly what you would expect. The warmer troposphere pushes the tropopause upward, and because the stratosphere gets warmer with distance above the tropopause, the set height point is now less distance above the tropopause, therefore cooler.
Interesting dialogues here. It would appear that global warming/cooling/climate change is, at the very least, NOT settled science, as our esteemed and science-uneducated POTUS said publicly. Geologically, which is the proof of the pudding, it would be surprising if climate was not changing. But the change does not portend the end of the species, as Al Gore and a host of other “Chicken Little” followers would have us believe. The climate system is so incredibly complex that one researcher can demonstrate a computer model which forecasts the end, while another model finds entirely the opposite. The facts are in the geological record; yes climate changes, no it doesn’t result in catastrophe for all. Our little event, if it is real, is not a game-changer, merely a minor change. I look forward to more discussions as I update my learning on this subject with your comments.
neasdenparade says:
Economics works on supply and demand, so if you restrict supply and keep the same demand the prices rise. So restricting all fossil fuel exploration and production will simply raise the prices of what they have and make it last a lot longer. Not to mention the subsidies to diversify into renewables and free carbon permits they sell for millions.
And more immediately, the regulatory assault on coal is providing a huge benefit to petroleum interests. The US switch from coal to natural gas for power generation is a big gift to “big oil”.
“Big oil” loves global warming politics.
(That was my suggestion.) Second best would be if WordPress did what some forum site software like Invision does and allow commenters to search for their own (and others?) past comments, for reposting.
PS: What I mean is note do just what a google site search does, but instead what Invision does, which is to allow searches within categories, to narrow the haystack down.
Bob Mueller says:
November 21, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Does the law of Lambert and Beers have any bearing on the energy absorption of green house gasses such as CO2 or is atmospheric CO2 the only energy absorbing gas that is exempt from this law?!! According to chemists, 30ppm of CO2 is nearly as high as the energy absorption can become before the total energy absorbed will reach an asymptotic maxim against a horizontal line. …but then chemists are not climatologists!
Indeed, but physical chemists know better than that, they know about line broadening and that at the conditions that pertain in our atmosphere it’s an approximately logarithmic dependence, at sufficiently higher concentration it would be square-root.
KA says: November 22, 2012 at 8:20 am
Our little event, if it is real, is not a game-changer, merely a minor change. I look forward to more discussions as I update my learning on this subject…
Hi KA. Have you read Mark Lynas “Six Degrees”? It describes possible outcomes for a global average temperature rise of 1C, 2C, 3C etc in a well researched and easily digestible format. As for updating learning please consider cross-indexing claims made on various sites both supporting and skeptical of AGW/CAGW. The “little event” of which you speak may not be so benign should climate sensitivity be +3C (see Knutti and Hegerl 2008 http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf).