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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

167 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bart
November 23, 2012 7:38 pm

Bart says:
November 21, 2012 at 10:20 am
In regard to the above post:
“The sweater inhibits that convection. Unless it has a specific IR reflecting layer, as in a mylar space blanket, I doubt significant thermal radiation is inhibited at all.”
Of course, mylar space blankets are used all the time in – you guessed it – space, to trap thermal radiation and balance temperatures on satellites. So, rather than something as mundane as a sweater, the argument works if one simply cites the nowadays commonplace application of these materials for just such a purpose.
Ken Gregory says:
November 21, 2012 at 11:42 am
“I also believe that the vast majority of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human caused emissions.”
It’s almost all due to temperature. Any hypothesis has to explain the data, and those which claim human attribution require appeals to faith in the existence of exotic, implausible, and unobserved mechanisms in order to be compatible with the above linked temperature/CO2 relationship.
Such way-out contortions are simply not necessary – atmospheric CO2 concentration is accurately obtainable from direct integration of the affine rate of change relationship.

Editor
November 23, 2012 8:28 pm

Bart – The graph you show looks very convincing, but I investigated it a while ago, and I’m sure that your interpretation is incorrect. The graph shows change in CO2 vs temperature, and there is a strong correlation. Strong enough to establish that there is a causal link. Temperature is clearly the driver not the driven, but it doesn’t mean that temperature drives all or most of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. It means that the oceans react quite quickly to temperature changes, absorbing more CO2 if temperature falls, less if temperature rises. So some of the “wiggles” on a CO2 graph are indeed caused by temperature. But the bulk of the CO2 increase over the last few decades is unescapably man-made.
I have applied Henry’s law to the oceans, subdivided into a number of regions, with various tweakable parameters, and no matter what I tweak the answer always comes out much the same: the oceans have been absorbing around half of man-made CO2 and continue to do so. Temperature changes affect the rate of absorption, but the bulk of the atmospheric CO2 increase over the last few decades is man-made.
Sorry I haven’t posted the calcs with this comment, but I would have to tidy them up a bit first, and I can’t now see much being done before the new year. Happy to go into them further if needed.

Bob Mueller
Reply to  Mike Jonas
November 27, 2012 6:25 pm

It seems that the confusion about CO2 increase following global warming is coming from unauthorized interpreters of the Vostok and Greenland ice cores…there should be a law enforced by East Anglia and NASA.

timmeh
November 24, 2012 2:48 am

FACT! A website that show ZERO scientific Data is not reputable.
MYTH: EVERYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE!

mitigatedsceptic
November 24, 2012 4:22 am

Come now! Only stuff written in Latin or Greek or Hebrew or etc.etc. was thought to be the Holy Word. And what scientific date does not contain some tweak inserted by the all too human scientist to make his/her case?

Bart
November 24, 2012 5:08 pm

Mike Jonas says:
November 23, 2012 at 8:28 pm
“But the bulk of the CO2 increase over the last few decades is unescapably man-made.”
That hypothesis requires an exotic process which seamlessly removes the low frequency portion of the temperature influence, which matches perfectly as it is, and replaces it with a precisely synchronized-in-phase anthropogenic component. That is epicyclic reasoning, and is not remotely plausible.

Editor
November 24, 2012 5:55 pm

Bart – Well,no. That may be one way of doing it, but it is a big leap to say it’s the only way. If you (or others) think it’s worthwhile, I’ll try to get the calcs tidied up, add proper explanations, and get it posted here. Unfortunately, as things look right now, it’s not going to happen before January. Not brilliantly satisfactory, but the best I can offer.

Bart
November 24, 2012 7:24 pm

Mike Jonas says:
November 24, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Well, no Mike. It isn’t a leap at all. It’s right here. The curvature of the accumulated CO2 matches nearly perfectly that induced by the slope of the temperature graph, after scaling it to match the “wiggles.” Since significant human effects would add additional curvature, for which there is little room left, they are necessarily insignificant. To a high degree of accuracy, all one needs to estimate CO2 levels is the starting point, and temperatures since. Human inputs are largely superfluous.

Bart
November 24, 2012 7:35 pm

Your only out is to hypothesize a distortionless high pass filtering process acting on the temperature sensitivity. There is no such thing as a distortionless analog filter – that’s why the world went digital. A high order Bessel-type transfer function might do the job, but the notion of such a process arising naturally is really grasping at very insubstantial straws. William of Ockham would have very cross words with you. The temperature-CO2 relationship exists seamlessly across the entire frequency range. There is no plausible alternative. There just isn’t.

Editor
November 25, 2012 12:34 am

Bart – Let’s look at some numbers.
World fossil fuel CO2 emissions rose relatively steadily from 18.5gt in 1980 to 29gt in 2006. I downloaded this data on 27/2/2012 from http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls
The data only went up to 2006.
1 ppm atmospheric CO2 is 7.8gt. Data downloaded 28/2/2012 from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html#3.
So man-made CO2 has contributed from 2.37ppm in 1980 to 3.74ppm in 2006.
Actual CO2 increases were mostly in the 1-2 ppm range from 1980 to 2006. Data downloaded 27/2/2012 from http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/flask_co2_and_isotopic/monthly_co2/monthly_mlf.csv and shown in the graph below “Temperature”.
The net amount of CO2 taken up by the land biosphere is very small by comparison – less than 0.5ppm over 18 years. http://www.impactlab.net/2008/06/09/scientists-surprised-to-find-earths-biosphere-booming/ (sorry, no download date)
Volcanoes are said to emit between 0.13 and 0.44gt p.a. (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/06/28/3255476.htm). I can’t find any annual figures, but at 0.02 to 0.06 ppm p.a. they aren’t very significant.
There doesn’t appear to be anywhere else of any significance for atmospheric CO2 to come from or go to, except the oceans. So the oceans must have been absorbing CO2 over the last 26 years at least.
Temperature:
Temperature clearly affects CO2, as you have noted.
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/deltaco2vstemp.jpg
In this graph the Y axis is ppm p.a. change in atmospheric CO2. Temperature (I think Hadcrut3) is scaled to match.
You assert that the atmospheric CO2 is “almost all due to temperature“. So the question now is: If mankind was not putting all that CO2 into the atmosphere, would atmospheric CO2 still have gone up by a similar amount?
If “yes”, then absent man-made CO2 the oceans would be pumping out lots of CO2, implying that they are ‘striving’ for a balance in which atmospheric CO2 would be higher than it is now. But the reality is that the oceans have been net absorbers of CO2, as per the above numbers, and therefore the oceans are actually ‘striving’ for a balance in which the atmospheric CO2 is lower than it is now.
It is pretty obvious that the answer to the question is “no”, so it wasn’t really necessary to do any detailed calcs on it. But I did, and they indicate that only something like 6-12% of the CO2 increase since 1980 is due to rising temperatures. ie, absent man-made CO2, the atmospheric CO2 would have gone up only 6-12% as much as it actually did.

Bart
November 25, 2012 7:54 am

Mike Jonas says:
November 25, 2012 at 12:34 am
“But the reality is that the oceans have been net absorbers of CO2…”
This is Ferdinand Englebeen’s “mass balance” fallacy. You have no idea if the oceans have been collectively absorber or emitter. The numbers you consider are circular – the estimates are based on the very conclusion you seek to draw from them. What has been done is that an underdetermined set of equations have been solved for an artificially restricted set of variables, but there is no actual unique solution for the full set of variables.
No handwaving or data manipulation you care to perform negates the fundamental inconsistency of the temperature-CO2 relationship with your conclusion. No matter how much evidence you amass in favor of your proposition, a single contradiction is all that is needed to disprove it. And, that contradiction is here.

Brian H
November 25, 2012 9:48 pm

Bart;
The consequence of your observations is that the human contribution is simply irrelevant in view of the volume of dissolved and buffered CO2 in the oceans. The atmosphere’s level is “set” by the temperature of the ocean, regardless of what we do. If all human emissions ceased tomorrow, the atmosphere’s content would not budge (noticeably).
Of course, even if it did that would have no net effect. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/wayne-jackson-new-identity-linking-meteorological-phenomena/

Neil
November 27, 2012 7:32 am

I guess the actual effects being observed such as later and shorter bird migrations, insect populations moving north and the loss of the arctic polar ice cap are not really happening because we don’t understand the exact cause(s). The world as we know it sure seems to be ending and we are having lively discussions on where to place the deck chairs of the Titanic.

MattS
November 27, 2012 6:51 pm

Neil,
“I guess the actual effects being observed such as later and shorter bird migrations, insect populations moving north and the loss of the arctic polar ice cap are not really happening because we don’t understand the exact cause(s).”
None of the effects you mention can be empirically proven to be detrimental to either the affected animal or human civilization.
Oh an on the insects moving north, from most of what I have read they aren’t moving north, they are expanding their habitat to the north. These insects still live in their “traditional” ranges. They now cover a larger range and that is good for them biologically.
“The world as we know it sure seems to be ending”
The world as we know it is always ending and always will be. The world is a dynamic system and it constantly changes. Tomorrow will be different than today. The world changes, get over it.
“and we are having lively discussions on where to place the deck chairs of the Titanic.”
No, we are having a calm discussion on where to place the deck chairs on Allure of The Seas on a bright calm day in the middle of the Caribbean sea and some lunatic is yelling “Iceberg!” at the top of his lungs.

November 27, 2012 8:09 pm

Bart says:
November 25, 2012 at 7:54 am
Mike Jonas says:
November 25, 2012 at 12:34 am
“But the reality is that the oceans have been net absorbers of CO2…”
This is Ferdinand Englebeen’s “mass balance” fallacy. You have no idea if the oceans have been collectively absorber or emitter. The numbers you consider are circular – the estimates are based on the very conclusion you seek to draw from them. What has been done is that an underdetermined set of equations have been solved for an artificially restricted set of variables, but there is no actual unique solution for the full set of variables.

Nothing wrong with the mass balance equations, what is wrong is the mumbo-jumbo you keep trotting out in your vain attempts to rebut it, relying on non-physical phenomena at variance with the observations. The oceans are observed to be an absorber, and in any case the Henry’s law coefficients are such that a much larger rise in temperature would be necessary to emit the quantity of CO2 which is accumulating in the atmosphere.
The reason your wiggle matching of T and CO2 works is because the absorption by the oceans is an inverse function of T.
d[CO2]/dt= Source + Fanthro – Sink( [CO2],1/T)
The observed d[CO2]/dt is approximately equal to Fanthro/2 so Source-Sink is also approximately Fanthro/2 but modulated by the 1/T contribution to the Sink. Therefore if T increases the sink decreases and [CO2] increases and vice versa, hence the correlation.

Editor
November 28, 2012 2:36 am

Bart says “The numbers you consider are circular – the estimates are based on the very conclusion you seek to draw from them.“.
I gave my sources, the main ones being the EIA for fossil fuel CO2 emissions and Scripps for atmospheric CO2 concentration. There is absolutely no way that any of the soources could be in any way whatsoever based on the conclusion that I drew from them. And I object to the inference in your “the very conclusion you seek to draw“. I analysed the data to try to find out, in as unbiased a manner as I could, whether the bulk of the atmospheric CO2 increase could have been natural. I found that it quite simply could not be. Phil has added a good explanation.

1 5 6 7