Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
Climate scientists are obsessed with carbon dioxide. The newly released Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that “radiative forcing” from human-emitted CO2 is the leading driver of climate change. Carbon dioxide is blamed for everything from causing more droughts, floods, and hurricanes, to endangering polar bears and acidifying the oceans. But Earth’s climate is dominated by water, not carbon dioxide.
Earth’s water cycle encompasses the salt water of the oceans, the fresh water of rivers and lakes, and frozen icecaps and glaciers. It includes water flows within and between the oceans, atmosphere, and land, in the form of evaporation, precipitation, storms and weather. The water cycle contains enormous energy flows that shape Earth’s climate, temperature trends, and surface features. Water effects are orders of magnitude larger than the feared effects of carbon dioxide.
Sunlight falls directly on the Tropics, where much energy is absorbed, and indirectly on the Polar Regions, where less energy is absorbed. All weather on Earth is driven by a redistribution of heat from the Tropics to the Polar Regions. Evaporation creates massive tropical storm systems, which move heat energy north to cooler latitudes. Upper level winds, along with the storm fronts, cyclones, and ocean currents of Earth’s water cycle, redistribute heat energy from the Tropics to the Polar Regions.
The Pacific Ocean is Earth’s largest surface feature, covering one-third of the globe and large enough to contain all of Earth’s land masses with area remaining. Oceans have 250 times the mass of the atmosphere and can hold over 1,000 times the heat energy. Oceans have a powerful, yet little understood effect on Earth’s climate.
Even the greenhouse effect itself is dominated by water. Between 75 percent and 90 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor and clouds.
Yet, the IPCC and today’s climate modelers propose that the “flea” wags “the dog.” The flea, of course, is carbon dioxide, and the dog, is the water cycle. The theory of man-made warming assumes a positive feedback from water vapor, forced by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
The argument is that, since warmer air can hold more moisture, atmospheric water vapor will increase as Earth warms. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, additional water vapor is presumed to add additional warming to that caused by CO2. In effect, the theory assumes that the carbon cycle is controlling the more powerful water cycle.
But for the last 15 years, Earth’s surface temperatures have failed to rise, despite rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. All climate models predicted a rapid rise in global temperatures, in conflict with actual measured data. Today’s models are often unable to predict weather conditions for a single season, let alone long-term climate trends.
An example is Atlantic hurricane prediction. In May, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued its 2013 hurricane forecast, calling for an “active or extremely active” hurricane season. At that time, NOAA predicted 7 to 11 Atlantic hurricanes (storms with sustained wind speeds of 74 mph or higher). In August NOAA revised their forecast down to 6 to 9 hurricanes. We entered October with a count of only two hurricane-strength storms. Computer models are unable to accurately forecast one season of Earth’s water cycle in just one region.
The IPCC and proponents of the theory of man-made warming are stumped by the 15-year halt in global surface temperature rise. Dr. Kevin Trenberth hypothesizes that the heat energy from greenhouse gas forcing has gone into the deep oceans. If so, score one for the power of the oceans on climate change.
Others have noted the prevalence of La Niña conditions in the Pacific Ocean since 1998. During 1975-1998, when global temperatures were rising, the Pacific experienced more frequent warm El Niño events than the cooler La Niñas. But the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a powerful temperature cycle in the North Pacific Ocean, moved into a cool phase about ten years ago. With the PDO in a cool phase, we now see more La Niña conditions. Maybe more La Niñas are the reason for the recent flat global temperatures. But if so, isn’t this evidence that ocean and water cycle effects are stronger than the effects of CO2?
Geologic evidence from past ice ages shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide increases follow, rather than precede, global temperature increases. As the oceans warm, they release CO2 into the atmosphere. Climate change is dominated by changes in the water cycle, driven by solar and gravitational forces, and carbon dioxide appears to play only a minor role.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Sisi says:
October 7, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Do you just make this stuff up as you go along, is someone even less well educated but more imaginative pulling your strings?
What possible impact could water vapor’s getting “washed out” have, since it’s replaced? In the tropics, CO2 can have little or no effect, due to the usually high concentration of water vapor in those latitudes, which completely swamps the effect of CO2. Only in the very driest air, ie above the cold polar deserts or over the very driest, lower latitude hot deserts, can CO2 have any effect.
In the tropics, which receive the most solar radiation, water vapor reaches 40,000 ppm, vs. CO2’s at most 400 ppm of dry air, obviously less of the actual (humid) atmospheric composition there.
@dbstealey
I read the following here:
I noticed that this resembles scientific explorations why surface warming might have plateaued and I gave links (yes! links to the Guardian, off all places! Heaven forbid!) that discuss the ocean-surface warming link.
You say:
Why do you feel the need to tell this to me? Why didn’t you tell Steve Goreham that you have fool-proof evidence that CO2 cannot warm the earth? Steve seems to think it might.
“Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth’s upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth’s lower atmosphere.
The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA’s own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth’s upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.
According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere. Without these necessary elements, in other words, the earth would be capable of absorbing potentially devastating amounts of solar energy that would truly melt the polar ice caps and destroy the planet.”
http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html##ixzz2h5gyciJm
By golly the comments in this post are confusing even for an old hillbilly engineer, I have lurked for several years and can generally follow everything but the post on the Carboniferous period threw me a curve ball and now the comment section of a relatively simple water cycle explanation does the same. At my age you hold up fingers and count them to make sure something in the brain didn’t go haywire.
All of this causes a person like me to reflect on simple concepts to make sure I don’t end up thinkin like some folks in climate religion.
The sun is very important in climate change. Remove the sun and the air will not heat any water. I go back to the concept that the sun is the source for 97% of the heat I am feeling and I doubt anyone in the general populace will believe anything that does not put the sun in proper focus,
I believe I understand how green house gases work but water vapor and CO2 have some unusual characteristics if I am not mistaken. Tuning water into water vapor takes a lot of heat and it must take that hear from near all of those ground weather stations as well as the ocean. Now heat rises and the water vapor condenses back to water due to lapse rate. Not all of it but a lot. That water vapor gives up a lot of heat but the lapse rate stays about the same. That heat sure as hell did not come back down so water vapor must be a net negative as far as heat goes at the temperature stations. Its more complicated than that but not to joe six pack. I think this was the jist behind many of the comments but I am not sure.
Now CO2 can be turned into a solid at relatively low pressures and higher (cold to me) temperatures. Seems to me about 233 deg K. That sounds way hotter than -40 degrees C or F. Seems to me that if there is heat being transported down (salinity? or them thar waves that T guy talked about) then CO2 would also go down like the Titanic. If the CO2 does not all react will it precipitate out below say 100 meters and some of it settle out on the bottom of the ocean? Seems to me some crazy sequestering schemes made big missile like objects out of frozen CO2 and dropped them over the side of a boat in deep water. They sank quick enough to get below a depth where they would stay a solid on the ocean floor supposedly. Isn’t this the principle behind methanhydrates not dissolving?
Anyway I want some of what them heat goes down by convection guys are smoking seein as I count all 10 fingers and after reading and typing want to count a different number of fingers every time..
“Brent Fewell says: October 7, 2013 at 5:16 pmBut, the main reason give precedence to CO2 over water vapour is that water vapour gets washed out of the atmosphere quickly while this is not the case for CO2”.
While water vapour gets washed out of the atmosphere quickly, it’s replace with water vapor just as fast. CO2 also gets washed out as well and replaced.
@milodonharlini
Nice way to start a discussion! Thanks! Much appreciated!
It is only replaced to the extent that it is because greenhouse gases like CO2 make sure that it is warm enough for the evaporation to happen. Figure the rest out for yourself. I am not interested in discussion with you any further.
“It is only replaced to the extent that it is because greenhouse gases like CO2 make sure that it is warm enough for the evaporation to happen”
See guys? It is just like I was saying. If it wasn’t for radiation from the atmosphere, from CO2, evaporation wouldn’t happen because sunshine at 168 W/m^2, or -40F, isn’t strong enough to evaporate water…or thus create the water cycle. It is heat from the atmosphere which creates the water cycle, and evaporates water, etc. This is climate science 101…standard, TRADITIONAL science.
Sisi says:
October 7, 2013 at 6:59 pm
Increasing CO2 in the tropics above a low level (less than 200 ppm) doesn’t make the air or surface any warmer, since the effect is swamped out by the water vapor, so you’ll have to try some other lame excuse.
@old construction worker
Who is Brent Fewell?
I have never seen CO2 been rained of the sky. If you have, please show me
Anomalatys says: @ur momisugly October 7, 2013 at 1:29 pm
@ur momisuglybones – but the air is obviously heating the water somehow…air is the main source of heat for the oceans….
No The ocean is warmed by the sun. The Shorter the wavelength the further the energy penetrates. GRAPH
I suggest you get a bit of basic understanding of the subject.
The Earth’s Energy Balance: Simple Overview
List of other Energy Balance articles
Radiative Heat Transfer: Simple Overview
Radiative Heat Transfer: Medium Overview, Part 1 of 2.
Radiative Heat Transfer: Medium Overview, Part 2 of 2.
Anomalatys says:
October 7, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Sisi says:
October 7, 2013 at 6:59 pm
CO2 in the tropics has very little effect on heating the atmosphere, & in any case, the tropics & earth haven’t warmed for going on 20 years, despite increasing CO2 (allegedly).
Why not educate yourselves in actual, observational science, not GIGO models, instead of getting taken in by the IPCC’s & Guardian’s rent-seeking, ideologically-driven lies? For starters:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/if-there-was-no-co2-how-much-would-the-tropics-cool/
Sisi,
There has never been any data showing that CO2 causes global warming.
It might — but if it does, the effect is too small to measure at current concentrations. Almost all of the effect from CO2 happens in the first 20 ppm. But at current concentrations [around 400 ppm], raising CO2 even 30 – 40 ppm makes no measurable difference.
Stop reading the Guardian They are about as scientific as a witch doctor, and they are not telling you the truth. Read this site for a while, and you will begin to understand that there is nothing either unusual or unprecednted happening. What we are observing today has happened repeatedly in the past. So relax. It’s OK. Runaway global warming is a fairy tale.
Climate alarmists have ulterior motives in trying to scare you. They are self-serving. But real scientists will tell you that there is nothing wrong with the climate. It will be the same long after we’re all gone.
You also say: “I have never seen CO2 been rained of the sky. If you have, please show me.”
Rain drops contain a high concentration of CO2.
Sisi says:
October 7, 2013 at 7:06 pm
In that case, then you’ve never seen rain at all.
Distilled water (from which the CO2 has been removed) has a neutral pH of 7. Normal, unpolluted rain has an acidic pH, down to about 5.7, because CO2 & water in the air react to form the weak acid, carbonic acid.
Boy, you have a lot of elementary facts about the world to learn.
@dbstealey
The story above the line is lacking. (I consider the story above the line to better than what is usually presented here 😀 ). So Long!
@ur momisugly Stephen Wilde says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:44 pm
Not new:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/our-saviour-the-hydrological-cycle/
Published by Stephen Wilde July 17, 2009
Agreed— And if memory serves, the subject was also thoroughly discussed in Professor Ian Plimer’s tour-de-force, “Heaven and Earth.” I have to say, however, I completely agree with
@ur momisuglyGlenn THompson
that your article was the most concise, cogent, accessible description I’ve read to date of the Water Cycle, and I loved your answers to the alarmists. Unfortunately, your efforts were completely lost on one who seems never to have heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and insists that the air heats the sea 2-3 times greater than the sun, because some “energy budget” that the IPCC came up with says so, and because the sun heated the ocean which heated the air which then turned around and heated the sea again (2-3 times more intensely than the sea heated the air the first go-round, it appears), and various other circular arguments that appear to be based upon a terrible misunderstanding of even the incorrect theories the alarmists toss about. If you never saw an example of brainwashing before, well…
I was reminded of a woman we encountered while diving at Cayman Brac, my brother and I, 25 years ago. We encountered a huge spiny lobster, and we weren’t the only ones to see it, from the discussion at the bar following the dive. One of the other divers pointed out that spiny lobsters aren’t really lobsters, and that they’re more closely related to crawdads and shrimp (quite true). But this woman kept insisting, “But it was an Arthopod!” as if to suggest that calling it anything else was wrong, or perhaps to disagree that it was related to crawdads or shrimp. Several of us agreed, “Yes, it’s an Arthopod, but…” and she started to get more shrill. The whole taxonomy thing that Linnaeus came up with, you know, starts with kingdom, has phyla in there somewhere, ends with genus and species? was totally lost on this woman—we couldn’t begin to make a dent in her certainty that we were WRONG, it was an arthopod (even though we AGREED with her), and NOT a lobster of ANY sort (and there we all disagreed with her).
You can lead the gal to knowledge, but you can’t make her drink. Or maybe that was the problem? One rum punch too many?
Thanks again to Stephen Wilde for two excellent articles, and yet ANOTHER site on which to lurk… Thank you, sir!
Anomalatys says:
Anomalatys, you do know, don’t you, that the 168 W/m^2 is but an average globally and over all times, day and night, and most places on this Earth between 40N and 40S latitudes receive some ~1000 W/m² when the sun is high, PLENTY to evaporate water. Even up to the arctics this occurs but to a lower wattage per area. You really fell for the IPCC storyline didn’t you? I mean, you are really screwed up in the real physics of planetary atmopsheres.
I just want to say that some of the comments on this post are the worst I’ve ever read on this blog, and I’ve read quite a few.
There are several commenters with different names posting nonsense tonight. I don’t recognize the names: but, I have seen similar verbose posts, especially on Dr Spenser’s website. This type of behavior reminds me of a post on another website that I read. The post identified 22 items. I am listing three of the items for your consideration.
22. Distracting or Absurd Statistics. With this technique, the writer attempts to drag the reader into a debate about what the reader is even seeing. This is usually used when the propagandist is falling behind and must hurry to destroy correct understanding of events.
There are many other techniques, as the last century has been a golden age for this sort of duplicity. The Internet has accelerated the development of new techniques because the web tends to shorten the useful life of these media scams.
15. Fogging an Issue/Total Nonsense. Sometimes certain groups have an interest in making sure that as few people pay attention to an issue as possible. A good propagandist can write a long, nonsensical article for the purpose of confusing the majority of readers, who themselves work hard all day. It doesn’t take much for them to see a catchy headline, then begin to dig into a long rambling article, then throw their hands up and say “I don’t have the extra energy to decipher this!” The reader is correct, the fault is with the propagandist.
7. Unproven “Facts”. This is used when you are frantic to prove a position that is weak (or outright false). Cite impressive sounding “studies”, “reports”, and “experts” as “proving” your point. The key here is to never mention the study’s name, location, where copies can be found, or the conditions specific to the experiments. Again, the Internet cuts both ways and this technique is short term. In the past you could get a lot farther with convincing but false facts.
The entire list can be found here:http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20130826.aspx
@SRV
No drinking while posting.
Rered Engineer John,
That was a fascinating link. Thanx for posting. Bookmarked.
==============================
Anomalatys, Sisi, S.R.V.: you folks are new here. You have a lot to learn.
“What does the CO2 cycle have to do with the water cycle and the gist of this article?” (CD at 4:41pm)
1. Great place to start learning (for those who are genuinely seeking science truth) is Dr. Murry Salby’s April 18, 2013 Hamburg, Germany lecture. As a non-scientist, I highly recommend this. Do as I did, take notes as if you are sitting in Dr. Salby’s lecture hall — it will help you to remember what you are hearing.
You will learn a lot!
Watch this more than once as I did; it was much easier to understand the second time.
2. @ur momisugly CD — you may find the above lecture especially helpful at 36:30 and from about 54:10 to 57:30 (my truncated Salby lecture notes follow to help you decide if watching the video might answer your above Q — Note: the underlying, more important issue (rather than the “intertwining” of CO2 and water) is the relatively weak influence of total (net) CO2 (much less of human CO2) on energy transfer on earth):
[36:30] CO2 Carbon Cycle Estimated Budget
[54:10] Global-Mean Energy Budget
[55:35] … ALL the other GHG’s (methane and CO2 included) absorb only 4 W/m2 or 1% of the absorption) – atmosphere, turn, also emits LW radiation, 322 W/m2 (94% GCG’s of water vapor/clouds), offsetting the cooling emitting of LW by earth.
[57:00] Earth also mechanically (conduction and convection – depends on ocean circulation) transfers energy away from surface (balancing input): 106 W/m2 (=heat transfer by NON-CO2 GHG’s, i.e., 2 orders of magnitude greater than what CO2 (<4W/m2) could possibly do).
dbstealey says:
October 7, 2013 at 8:16 pm
“Anomalatys, Sisi, S.R.V.: you folks are new here. You have a lot to learn.”
D.B., Learning has nothing to do with it. They are Drones, in the Ant or Bee sense, performing a function for the collective. Facts, truth and knowledge are irrelevant to them, they have their mission.
What is hilarious is that they would attempt to peddle their perpetual motion schemes at a convention of Physicists, or weight-loss wonder ills at a convention of personal trainers.
‘ills’ = ‘pills’
Sure, take the word of a guy who misspells “precedence” on the front page of the website dedicated to his hack science group.
REPLY: Hmmm let’s see… take the word of somebody who uses their real name but makes an alleged (no citation given) simple spelling mistake, or take the word of an angry person who hides behind a fake pseudo-name. Gosh, tough choice – Anthony
“Bill says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:03 pm”
Water has been taxed for decades, especially in countries like Australia and the UK.
Janice Moore says:
October 7, 2013 at 9:33 pm
1. Great place to start learning (for those who are genuinely seeking science truth) is Dr. Murry Salby’s April 18, 2013 Hamburg, Germany lecture.
Except that Dr. Salby is completely wrong on several counts, including the cause of the increase of CO2 (which are humans, not temperature or vegetation) and about the diffusion of CO2 in ice cores… See my comment at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/nzclimate-truth-newsletter-no-313/#comment-1346717
and following comments.