Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
Elaine Dewar spent several days with Maurice Strong at the UN and concluded in her book The Cloak of Green that, “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.” Strong conjectured about a small group of world leaders who decided the rich countries were “the principle risk to the world.” These countries refused to reduce their environmental impact. The leaders decided the only hope for the planet was for collapse of the industrialized nations and it was their responsibility to bring that about. Strong knew what to do. Create a false problem with false science and use bureaucrats to bypass politicians to close industry down and make developed countries pay.
Compare the industrialized nation to an internal combustion engine running on fossil fuel. You can stop the engine in two ways; cut off the fuel supply or plug the exhaust. Cutting off fuel supply is a political minefield. People quickly notice as all prices, especially food, increase. It’s easier to show the exhaust is causing irreparable environmental damage. This is why CO2 became the exclusive focus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Process and method were orchestrated to single out CO2 and show it was causing runaway global warming.
In the 1980s I warned Environment Canada employee Henry Hengeveld that convincing a politician of an idea is a problem. Henry’s career involved promoting CO2 as a problem. I explained the bigger problem comes if you convince them and the claim is proved wrong. You either admit your error or hide the truth. Environment Canada and member nations of the IPCC chose to hide or obfuscate the truth.
1. IPCC Definition of Climate Change Was First Major Deception
People were deceived when the IPCC was created. Most believe it’s a government commission of inquiry studying all climate change. The actual definition from the United Nations Environment Program (article 1) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) limits them to only human causes.
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”
In another deception, they changed the definition used in the first three Reports (1990, 1995, 2001) in the 2007 Report. It’s a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
It was not used because Reports are cumulative and to include natural variability required starting over completely.
It is impossible to determine the human contribution to climate change if you don’t know or understand natural (non-human) climate change. Professor Murray Salby showed how the human CO2 portion is of no consequence, that variation in natural sources of CO2 explains almost all annual changes. He showed that a 5% variation in these sources is more than the total annual human production.
2. IPCC Infer And Prove Rather than Disprove a Hypothesis
To make the process appear scientific a hypothesis was inferred based on the assumptions that,
• CO2 was a greenhouse gas (GHG) that slowed the escape of heat from the Earth.
• the heat was back-radiated to raise the global temperature.
• if CO2 increased global temperature would rise.
• CO2 would increase because of expanding industrial activity.
• the global temperature rise was inevitable.
To further assure the predetermined outcome the IPCC set out to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis as scientific methodology requires. As Karl Popper said,
It is the rule which says that the other rules of scientific procedure must be designed in such a way that they do not protect any statement in science against falsification.
The consistent and overwhelming pattern of the IPCC reveal misrepresentations of CO2. When an issue was raised by scientists performing their role as skeptics, instead of considering and testing its validity and efficacy the IPCC worked to divert, even creating some false explanations. False answers succeeded because most people didn’t know they were false.
3. CO2 Facts Unknown to Most But Problematic to IPCC.
Some basic facts about CO2 are unknown to most people and illustrate the discrepancies and differences between IPCC claims and what science knows.
• Natural levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) are less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere and 0.4% of the total GHG. It is not the most important greenhouse gas.
• Water vapour is 95 percent of the GHG by volume. It is the most important greenhouse gas by far.
• Methane (CH4) is the other natural GHG demonized by the IPCC. It is only 0.000175 percent of atmospheric gases and 0.036 percent of GHG.
• Figure 1 from ABC news shows the false information. It’s achieved by considering a dry atmosphere.
Figure 1
• The percentages troubled the IPCC so they amplified the importance of CO2 by estimating the “contribution” per unit (Figure 2). The range of estimates effectively makes the measures meaningless, unless you have a political agenda. Wikipedia acknowledges “It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect.”
Figure 2 (Source Wikipedia)
4. Human CO2 production critical to IPCC objective so they control production of the information.
Here is their explanation.
What is the role of the IPCC in Greenhouse Gas inventories and reporting to the UNFCCC?
A: The IPCC has generated a number of methodology reports on national greenhouse gas inventories with a view to providing internationally acceptable inventory methodologies. The IPCC accepts the responsibility to provide scientific and technical advice on specific questions related to those inventory methods and practices that are contained in these reports, or at the request of the UNFCCC in accordance with established IPCC procedures. The IPCC has set up the Task Force on Inventories (TFI) to run the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Programme (NGGIP) to produce this methodological advice. Parties to the UNFCCC have agreed to use the IPCC Guidelines in reporting to the convention.
How does the IPCC produce its inventory Guidelines? Utilising IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC. This process ensures that the widest possible range of views are incorporated into the documents.
They control the entire process from methodology, designation of technical advice, establishment of task forces, guidelines for reporting, nomination of experts to produce the reports, to final report approval. The figure they produce is a gross calculation, but it is estimated humans remove 50% of that amount.
Regardless, if you don’t know natural sources and variabilities of CO2 you cannot know the human portion. It was claimed the portion in the atmosphere from combustion of fossil fuels was known from the ratio of carbon isotopes C13/C12. Roy Spencer showed this was not the case. In addition, they ignore natural burning of fossil fuels including forest fires, long-burning coal seams and peat; as Hans Erren noted, fossil coal is buried wood. Spencer concluded,
If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??
The answer is, it was done to prove the hypothesis and further the deception.
5. Pressure For Urgent Political Action
Early IPCC Reports claimed the length of time CO2 remains in the atmosphere as very long. This implied it would continue as a problem even with immediate cessation of CO2 production. However as Segalstad wrote,
Essenhigh (2009) points out that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their first report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years [as a “rough estimate”]. This estimate is confusingly given as an adjustment time for a scenario with a given anthropogenic CO2 input, and ignores natural (sea and vegetation) CO2 flux rates. Such estimates are analytically invalid; and they are in conflict with the more correct explanation given elsewhere in the same IPCC report: “This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean”.
6. Procedures to Hide Problems with IPCC Science And Heighten Alarmism.
IPCC procedures and mechanisms were established to deceive. IPCC has three Working Groups (WG). WGI produces the Physical Science Basis Report, which proves CO2 is the cause. WGII produces the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Report that is based on the result of WGI. WGIII produces the Mitigation of Climate Change Report. WGI and WGII accept WGI’s claim that warming is inevitable. They state,
Five criteria that should be met by climate scenarios if they are to be useful for impact researchers and policy makers are suggested: Criterion 1: Consistency with global projections. They should be consistent with a broad range of global warming projections based on increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. This range is variously cited as 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, or 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (otherwise known as the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”).
They knew few would read or understand the Science Report with its admission of serious limitations. They deliberately delayed its release until after the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). As David Wojick explained,
Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.
…
What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.
An example of this SPM deception occurred with the 1995 Report. The 1990 Report and the drafted 1995 Science Report said there was no evidence of a human effect. Benjamin Santer, as lead author of Chapter 8, changed the 1995 SPM for Chapter 8 drafted by his fellow authors that said,
“While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”
to read,
“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
The phrase “discernible human influence” became the headline as planned.
With AR5 (2013) they compounded the deception by releasing the SPM then releasing a correction. They got the headline they wanted. It is the same game as the difference between the exposure of problems in the WGI Science Report and the SPM. Media did not report the corrections, but the IPCC could now claim they detailed the inadequacy of their work. It’s not their fault that people don’t understand.
7. Climate Sensitivity
Initially it was assumed that constantly increasing atmospheric CO2 created constantly increasing temperature. Then it was determined that the first few parts per million achieved the greenhouse capacity of CO2. Eschenbach graphed the reality
 |
(Figure 3).
Figure 3
It is like black paint on a window. To block sunlight coming through a window the first coat of black paint achieves most of the reduction. Subsequent coats reduce fractionally less light.
There was immediate disagreement about the amount of climate sensitivity from double and triple atmospheric CO2. Milloy produced a graph comparing three different sensitivity estimates (Figure 4).
 |
Figure 4.
The IPCC created a positive feedback to keep temperatures rising. It claims CO2 causes temperature increase that increases evaporation and water vapour amplifies the temperature trend. Lindzen and Choi, discredited this in their 2011 paper which concluded “The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.”
Climate sensitivity has declined since and gradually approaches zero. A recent paper by Spencer claims “…climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed.”
8. The Ice Cores Were Critical, But Seriously Flawed.
The major assumption of the inferred IPCC hypothesis says a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. After publication in 1999 of Petit et al., the Antarctic ice core records appeared as evidence in the 2001 Report (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Antarctic core core record
Four years later research showed the reverse – temperature increase preceded CO2 increase contradicting the hypothesis. It was sidelined with the diversionary claim that the lag was between 80 and 800 years and insignificant. It was so troubling that Al Gore created a deceptive imagery in his movie. Only a few experts noticed.
Actually, temperature changes before CO2 change in every record for any period or duration. Figure 6 shows a shorter record (1958-2009) of the relationship. If CO2 change follows temperature change in every record, why are all computer models programmed with the opposite relationship?
Figure 6; Lag time for short record, 1958 to 2009.
IPCC Needed Low Pre-Industrial CO2 Levels
A pre-industrial CO2 level lower than today was critical to the IPCC hypothesis. It was like the need to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period because it showed the world was not warmer today than ever before.
Ice cores are not the only source of pre-industrial CO2 levels. There are thousands of 19th Century direct measures of atmospheric CO2 that began in 1812. Scientists took precise measurements with calibrated instruments as Ernst Beck thoroughly documented.
In a paper submitted to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski stated,
“The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”[1]
Of equal importance Jaworowski states,
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].
There are other problems with the ice core record. It takes years for air to be trapped in the ice, so what is actually trapped and measured? Meltwater moving through the ice especially when the ice is close to the surface can contaminate the bubble. Bacteria form in the ice, releasing gases even in 500,000-year-old ice at considerable depth. (“Detection, Recovery, Isolation and Characterization of Bacteria in Glacial Ice and Lake Vostok Accretion Ice.” Brent C. Christner, 2002 Dissertation. Ohio State University). Pressure of overlying ice, causes a change below 50m and brittle ice becomes plastic and begins to flow. The layers formed with each year of snowfall gradually disappear with increasing compression. It requires a considerable depth of ice over a long period to obtain a single reading at depth. Jaworowski identified the problems with contamination and losses during drilling and core recovery process.
Jaworowski’s claim that the modellers ignored the 19th century readings is incorrect. They knew about it because T.R.Wigley introduced information about the 19th century readings to the climate science community in 1983. (Wigley, T.M.L., 1983 “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level.” Climatic Change 5, 315-320). However, he cherry-picked from a wide range, eliminating only high readings and ‘creating’ the pre-industrial level as approximately 270 ppm. I suggest this is what influenced the modellers because Wigley was working with them as Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia. He preceded Phil Jones as Director and was the key person directing the machinations revealed by the leaked emails from the CRU.
Wigley was not the first to misuse the 19th century data, but he did reintroduce it to the climate community. Guy Stewart Callendar, a British Steam engineer, pushed the thesis that increasing CO2 was causing warming. He did what Wigley did by selecting only those readings that supported the hypothesis.
There are 90,000 samples from the 19th century and the graph shows those carefully selected by G. S. Callendar to achieve his estimate. It is clear he chose only low readings.
Figure 7. (After Jawaorowski Trend Lines added)
You can see changes that occur in the slope and trend by the selected data compared to the entire record.
Ernst-Georg Beck confirmed Jaworowski’s research. An article in Energy and Environment examined the readings in great detail and validated their findings. In his conclusion Beck states
Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel.
The pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level claimed.
Beck found,
“Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.”
The challenge for the IPCC was to create a smooth transition from the ice core CO2 levels to the Mauna Loa levels. Beck shows how this was done but also shows how the 19th century readings had to be cherry-picked to fit with ice core and Mauna Loa data (Figure 8).
Figure 8
Variability is extremely important because the ice core record shows an exceptionally smooth curve achieved by applying a 70-year smoothing average. Selecting and smoothing is also applied to the Mauna Loa data and all current atmospheric readings, which naturally vary up to 600 ppm in the course of a day. Smoothing done on the scale of the ice core record eliminates a great deal of information. Consider the variability of temperature data for the last 70 years. Statistician William Brigg’s says you never, ever, smooth a time-series. Elimination of high readings prior to the smoothing make the losses greater. Beck explains how Charles Keeling established the Mauna Loa readings by using the lowest readings of the afternoon and ignored natural sources. Beck presumes Keeling decided to avoid these low level natural sources by establishing the station at 4000 m up the volcano. As Beck notes
“Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2on different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude. (Beck, 2008, “50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2on Mauna Loa” Energy and Environment, Vol. 19, No.7.)
Keeling’s son operates Mauna Loa and as Beck notes, “owns the global monopoly of calibration of all CO2measurements.” He is a co-author of the IPCC reports, that accept Mauna Loa and all other readings as representative of global levels.
As a climatologist I know it is necessary to obtain as many independent verifications of data as possible. Stomata are small openings on leaves, which vary in size directly with the amount of atmospheric CO2. They underscore effects of smoothing and the artificially low readings of the ice cores. A comparison of a stomata record with the ice core record for a 2000-year period (9000 – 7000 BP) illustrates the issue (Figure 9).
Figure 9.
Stomata data show higher readings and variability than the excessively smoothed ice core record. They align quantitatively with the 19th century measurements as Jaworowski and Beck assert. The average level for the ice core record shown is approximately 265 ppm while it is approximately 300 ppm for the stomata record.
The pre-industrial CO2 level was marginally lower than current levels and likely within the error factor. Neither they, nor the present IPCC claims of 400 ppm are high relative to the geologic record. The entire output of computer climate models begins with the assumption that pre-industrial levels were measurably lower. Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Combine this with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase, when all records show the opposite, it is not surprising IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong.
The IPCC deception was premeditated under Maurice Strong’s guidance to prove CO2 was causing global warming as pretext for shutting down industrialized nations. They partially achieved their goal as alternate energies and green job economies attest. All this occurred as contradictory evidence mounts because Nature refused to play. CO2 increases as temperatures decline, which according to IPCC science cannot happen. Politicians must deal with facts and abandon all policies based on claims that CO2 is a problem, especially those already causing damage.
Source: The Global Warming Policy Foundation: CCNet 14/10/13
1. [1] “Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2” Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski March 19, 2004
Related articles
- IPCC ‘s Bogus Evidence for Global Warming (americanthinker.com)
- 2013 On Track to be Seventh Warmest Year Since 1850 (climatecentral.org)
- Another Reason Why IPCC Predictions (Projections) Fail. AR5 Continues to Let The End Justify the Unscrupulous Means (wattsupwiththat.com)
- UN climate panel corrects carbon numbers in influential report (trust.org)
- The IPCC’s muddled definitions of climate change (ipccreport.wordpress.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Brian H says:
November 22, 2013 at 4:31 pm
The NAS only wishes its position/pseudo-science was “incontrovertable”, because the controversy is drawing blood which it cannot afford to lose. It will shortly be a shrivelled husk.
========================
That word isn’t in the NAS letter or the dictionary. Instead of fantasizing about death, please consider the possibility that you’re making mistakes about the science that all 45 of those organizations, including NASA, AGU, APS, AIP, AMS, etc. agree about.
Take away the dumb one’s endless appeals to authorities, and what are we left with?
Answer: not much.
Correction: “indisputable”.
The NAS only wishes its position/pseudo-science was “indisputable”, because the dispute is drawing blood which it cannot afford to lose. It will shortly be a shrivelled husk.
My colleagues keep telling me not to waste my time here but I’m skeptical of their claims that many WUWT regulars are already lost to Morton’s demons. If I take time away from my research to respond in more detail to y’all’s latest claims, will y’all read my comments with open minds?
Rather than not wasting your time here, how about not wasting the taxpayers’ money? Haven’t you ever heard of time stamps?? You comment and blog 24/7, and I am sure that is not in your federal job description.
And speaking of an open mind, that is simply your own psychological projection. The fact is that your CO2=cAGW nonsense is being deconstructed by the ultimate Authority: planet earth.
All you have ever posted is lots of pal reviewed, model-based papers, and appeals to corrupt ‘authorities’. That is hardly following the Scientific Method or the Null Hypothesis.
And, your “colleague(s)”? We’re not stupid, we can see that you’re just looking for a face-saving way out, rather than being seen tucking tail and running. Maybe if you would stick to facts — if you can find any to support your position — you could put up a reasonable argument. But so far, you are very short on facts, and long on assertions.
dbstealy
A conjecture regarding global warming can neither be falsified nor validated until a conjecture referencing the underlying events is made. A conjecture is falsified if the predicted relative frequencies of the outcomes of events fail to match the observed relative frequencies. This conjecture is validated if the predicted relative frequencies of the outcomes of events match the observed relative frequencies. For modern global warming climatology, there are no events, hence a conjecture can neither be falsified nor validated. As a guide to policy making, modern global warming climatology is a complete failure.
dbstealey says:
November 22, 2013 at 11:11 am
… I have data going back 4.6 billion years, which surely trumps your “420 million years”. And I note that your comment is merely an assertion, with no other worthwhile value.
=============================
I linked to Royer et al. 2007 which showed that over at least the past 420 million years, CO2 has acted as a greenhouse gas which warmed the long-term climate by 1.5C to 6.2C per doubling of CO2.
I linked to the 2012 PALAEOSENS paper which showed that over the pastd 65 million years, CO2 has acted as a greenhouse gas which warmed the long-term climate by 2.2C to 4.8C per doubling of CO2.
I linked to Knutti and Hegerl 2008 which summarizes dozens of sensitivity studies.
Please link to a paper supporting your assertion that 4.6 Gyr of data disproves these conclusions.
=============================
Finally, if climate sensitivity was high, we would clearly see the result in rising global temperatures. But we don’t; we see flat to declining temperatures despite the steady rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2.
=============================
As I explained on November 18, 2013 at 12:49 pm, the Earth continues to gain heat.
Your claim of flat (surface, presumably?) temperatures is also uncited. Please calculate the trends and uncertainties for the period you think temperatures are “flat”, and do the same for an equal timespan before the beginning of the “flat” period. I’ve tried very hard to find a changepoint and dataset where the uncertainty bars don’t overlap, but I’ve failed. Can you succeed? If not, then it seems like there hasn’t been a statistically significant change in the surface warming rate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Dumb Scientist:
Please note that when a value is assigned to the equilibrium temperature sensitivity (TECS) this value is the result of an argument, one of whose premises is unproved. The unproved premise is the so-called “prior probability density function.”
@ur momisugly Terry Oldberg — Nicely stated. Dumb will either pretend not to understand you and or mischaracterize what you say and or be too choked with ego and or stupidity to comprehend your refutation, but, the rest of us can see…
that you just struck a fatal blow to Dumb’s sophistry.
Well done!
Samuel C Cogar says:
November 22, 2013 at 4:50 am
“On November 18, 2013 at 9:38 pm I explained that water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing:”
—————-
“Don’t be silly, you just claimed that it is “a feedback, not a forcing” but you did not provide a scientific explanation for you claim that H2O vapor only functions as a “feedback” mechanism of thermal energy.”
=============================
I provided a scientific explanation at the bottom of this comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/#comment-1478929
=============================
“GETTA CLUE, …. Dumb S, …. CO2 can not FORCE thermal energy onto anything. It absorbs and emits energy the same as H2O vapor. It absorbs IR energy radiated from the surface …. and FEEDSBACK part of it to the surface …. the same as H2O vapor does. CO2 ALSO absorbs energy via COLLISIONS with other gas molecules and it FEEDSBACK part of that energy to the surface …. the same as H2O vapor does. In collisions, the gas molecule that contains the most energy is the “feedback” molecule.”
=============================
The definitions of feedback and forcing in atmospheric physics are similar to the definitions in electrical engineering. For example, consider a sound amplifier. The forcing is the music; the feedback just multiplies the forcing to make it louder.
=============================
“First of all, the functioning of a greenhouse is NOT dependent upon the type or quantity of gases CONFINED within its structure. Therefore there is no such thing as a “greenhouse” gas. And the earth’s atmosphere DOES NOT function like a “greenhouse” because it is not confined.”
=============================
Actually, the atmosphere is confined by gravity which means the Earth can’t convect energy to space. It can only radiate energy to space, in much the same way that a greenhouse’s glass prevents convection with the outside air.
When scientists refer to greenhouse gases, they’re talking about gases that absorb and emit long-wave (>4um) infrared radiation. As scientists have known for over a century, these gases trap heat near the Earth’s surface. (See NAS video above.)
=============================
“Anyway, Dumb S, …. the other problem I have with your above quoted comment is, …. just why did you specifically state “In the absence of greenhouse gases”, ….. DUH?? … Your SELECTIVE inclusion of H2O vapor ONLY when it best suits your belief agenda is, IMHO, … disingenuous “junk science”.”
=============================
I tried to explain that the oceans are filled with liquid water, not liquid CO2 or methane. As a result, the equilibrium concentration of H2O in the atmosphere is predetermined by other forcings.
If I spent the time to find a reference which can explain this better than I can, would you read it with an open mind?
Janice Moore says:
November 22, 2013 at 10:05 pm
@ur momisugly Terry Oldberg — Nicely stated. Dumb will either pretend not to understand you…
========================
No, I genuinely don’t understand him.
Dumb scientist, I can only add two things to this “climategate emails, m manns’ hockey stick.
Explain these please. Game over.
Janice Moore:
Thanks for the kind words!
@ur momisugly John Piccirilli — YES! Heh, heh. You said it. Excellent argument.
GAME OVER, Dumbo — You lose. Get it?
(you haven’t understood anything you’ve been told so far,
this should be just about your speed…)
You’re welcome, Terry Oldberg, my pleasure!
dbstealey says at WUWT here: 2013/11/18/cowtan-and-ways-pausebuster-still-flat-compared-to-models/#comment-1479685
November 19, 2013 at 7:45 pm
Do an archive search here, and find out how easily the Venus argument has been deconstructed. Because teaching a newbie some basic facts is more than I care to do right now …unless challenged by said noob.
===========================
Ed_B says at WUWT here: 2013/11/06/public-relations-spin-doctors-deliberately-deceived-public-about-global-warming-and-climate-change/#comment-1468656
November 7, 2013 at 2:35 pm
… As the satellite probe decended into the Venus atmosphere, what was the temperatre when the pressure was equal to earths ground pressure? There is a lot of discussion of this fact in the reference I gave you.
===========================
In that thread I was comparing Venus to Mercury, not Earth. I also noted that the effective radiating level is at the surface for a planet without greenhouse gases. The greenhouse effect raises this effective radiating level, which warms the surface.
Everyone claiming we should compare temperatures at the surface of one planet to a point above the surface of another planet for some vague and verbose reason related to gas laws are inadvertently ignoring the greenhouse effect below that point. Conservation of energy determines the long-term equilibrium surface temperature, not pressure.
===========================
Ed_B says:
November 7, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Dumb Scientist: here is some physics for you:
by Harry Dale Huffman
Surprisingly to most, there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself. You can find the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere… So there is no greenhouse effect. You have just proved that climate science is utterly wrong to think otherwise. This is the scandal that so many “experts” in climate science, and all the scientific authorities, will not face. Listen to the physicists that tell you there is no greenhouse effect; they know without having to go to the Venus data — and I am one of them. The continuing incompetence on this vital point among so many scientists, for more than a century, is amazing, and tragic..
===========================
I asked “what about albedo?” but got no reply, so I read Huffman’s website:
===========================
“…as a logical fact… the two atmospheres must DIRECTLY absorb the SAME FRACTION of the incident solar radiation. … Any “expert”, upon seeing this amazing result, should quickly have realized it means both atmospheres must absorb the same fraction of the incident solar radiation, and be warmed only by that fraction. … the two atmospheres DO, factually, absorb the same fraction of the solar radiation incident upon them, there was, in reality, no physical reason to extend the analysis by ‘correcting for albedo’. But I seriously underestimated the level of determined ignorance–alias incompetence–of the “experts”, and dropped part way down to their level for a time.”
Harry Dale Huffman, 2010-11-22
http://archive.is/zdZKG
===========================
This seems to be his answer to my question about albedo. He claims it’s a logical fact that Venus and Earth reflect the same fraction of sunlight. This is wrong.
Huffman’s claim can be debunked by pointing a telescope at Venus and measuring its brightness to estimate Venus’s albedo. Then point that telescope at a New Moon and measure Earth shine to estimate Earth’s albedo. Venus really is whiter than the Earth; in fact its albedo is about twice that of Earth’s.
Since he gives no reasoning, why would his logical fact be restricted to Venus and Earth? If it’s a logical fact that Venus and Earth reflect the same fraction of sunlight, some of the sunlight reflected by Earth reflects off water, land, ice, buildings, roads, Oreo cookies, etc. His logical fact has to apply to all possible albedo comparisons. Isn’t Huffman claiming that all objects have the same albedo?
What does Huffman see when he looks at an Oreo cookie? Do the black cookies have a lower albedo than the white filling between them? Or does the logical fact that all objects have the same albedo mean that everything in Huffman’s world appears the same shade of gray?
When Morton’s demon has a grip this strong, all hope is lost.
Terry Oldberg says:
November 22, 2013 at 10:39 pm
… For modern global warming climatology, there are no events, hence a conjecture can neither be falsified nor validated. …
==================================
I’m too choked with ego and or stupidity to comprehend your fatal refutation of my sophistry, but you should also inform these people:
==================================
Hansen falsified: His extreme sea level rise projections are drowning in hubris
Posted on May 29, 2013 by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger
==================================
July hottest ever, but U.S. tornado count – lowest since 1951: ‘poisoned weather’ meme falsified by Nature
Posted on August 13, 2012 by Anthony Watts
==================================
Hockey stick falsification – so easy a caveman kid can do it
Posted on December 1, 2011 by Anthony Watts
==================================
Steig et al – falsified
Posted on May 29, 2009 by Anthony Watts
==================================
Global Warming theory has failed all tests, so alarmists return to the ‘97% consensus’ hoax
Posted on June 5, 2013 by Anthony Watts
==================================
ferd berple says:
November 20, 2013 at 7:14 am
… There were many climate scientists that predicted cycles of warming and cooling, before Hansen and Gore made their (now falsified) predictions of continued warming due to CO2.
==================================
NikFromNYC says:
July 26, 2013 at 8:42 pm
… Lots of us became skeptics for chance reasons when we ran into some devastating bit of data that falsified alarmist claims…
==================================
Ken Hall says:
July 25, 2013 at 11:37 am
… The models failed. the theory upon which those models were built, has been falsified.
==================================
milodonharlani says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:04 am
…The CACCA hypothesis was falsified in the 1960s & ’70s when temperatures fell (also requiring recent “adjustments” upwards), despite rising CO2, & has been falsified again since 1995, since when temperature flat-lined & has now turned down. …
==================================
milodonharlani says:
June 20, 2013 at 12:32 pm
Yes, reality is a lot more complicated than the repeatedly falsified doctrine of faith, “CO2 is the primary driver of climate change.” …
==================================
[Thank you for your comments, and the very clear separator lines between each of the above, but this moderator is unable to tell which of the above words are your responses, and which are you quoting the writers listed. Please use the site’s “convention” of using “blockquote” around a previous writer’s words, and plain text for one’s own words. Mod]
Dumb Scientist says:
November 22, 2013 at 10:22 pm
“I provided a scientific explanation at the bottom of this comment:”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/#comment-1478929
—————-
Yup, you provided this, …. which is an opinion, …. not a scientific explanation.
Dumb Scientist SAID ON:
November 18, 2013 at 9:38 pm
“Increasing the concentration of H2O by itself can’t warm the climate because the equilibrium concentration of H2O is essentially predetermined by all the other factors which determine sea surface temperatures. Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing, so it can’t possibly have caused the PETM.”
———————–
Dumb S, are these the “equilibrium concentrations” you are referring to?
Atmospheric concentrations and heat “trapping” ability of “greenhouse” gases
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 396 ppm — 0.0396% —– Specific Heat Capacity – 0.844 kJ/kg K
Water vapor (H2O) 10 to 40K ppm – 1% to 4% – Specific Heat Capacity – 1.930 kJ/kg K
Methane —— (CH4) 1.745 ppm – 0.0001745% — Specific Heat Capacity – 2.220 kJ/kg K
spe•cif•ic heat – noun – Physics – specific heat capacity
1. the heat required to raise the temperature of the unit mass of a given substance by a given amount (usually one degree).
——————
Dumb S, if the “near surface” air contains 396 ppm of CO2 and 10,000 ppm of H2O vapor, which is 25 times greater than the CO2 ….. and you measure the temperature of the air with a thermometer …. and it reads 70F ….. then there is no question to the FACT that the H2O vapor therein will contain the majority of thermal energy (25 x 2.3 = 57.5 times more heat energy than the CO2).
And Dumb S, one of the “factors” that determines sea surface temperatures is a “two-way-street”.
If the atmospheric H2O vapor (humidity, fog or rain water) is WARMER than the sea surface then thermal energy will be transferred into the sea surface from the atmosphere.
If the sea surface is WARMER than the atmospheric H2O vapor (humidity or fog) then thermal energy will be transferred into the atmosphere from the sea surface.
Dumb Scientist, cease with the PJE ….. and stick to the facts.
And atmospheric physics (climate scientists) shouldn’t be making up “new” definitions for the sole purpose to justify their “junk science” claims.
And gravity does not prevent the axial rotation of the earth, the winds or the air thermals from convecting energy throughout the atmosphere surrounding the earth …. thus constantly causing drastic changes in air temperature ….. depending on which way the wind blows. Like I once quipped, ….. “stadium waves = circular reasoning”.
And there is no equilibrium concentration of H2O in the atmosphere because there is no equilibrium concentration of thermal energy in the atmosphere, in the oceans or in the land masses. It is a chaotic system and you can’t “pin-it-down” just to prove “junk science” claims of CAGW.
And I always read with an open mind …. and if you can find a reference that doesn’t include words like ….. associate, correlate, estimate, consensus, opinion, likely, might, maybe, etc. ….. then my critique of it will be strictly professional and based on factual science as I know it.
As I explained, the strength of the greenhouse effect is determined by how far the effective radiating level is above the surface. This depends on the atmosphere’s opacity in long-wave IR, not specific heat. But thanks for the definition; if I were still in high school it might’ve been educational.
Water vapor. The most abundant greenhouse gas, but importantly, it acts as a feedback to the climate.
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes
… water vapor responds to climate – and therefore influences climate as a feedback. … It is quite difficult for humans to add water vapor to the atmosphere. The oceans are a vast source of water, and just above the surface of the ocean the atmosphere is saturated…
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/02/24/water-vapor-vs-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas/
Janice Moore says to Dumb:
“GAME OVER, Dumbo — You lose. Get it?
(you haven’t understood anything you’ve been told so far…”
That’s a fact. Dumbo says:
“I linked to Royer et al. 2007 which showed…”blah, blah, &etc.
Those are model-based, pal-reviewed papers. They are flatly CONTRADICTED by empirical [real world] evidence.
So who should we believe? Riders on the climate grant gravy train, or what Planet Earth is plainly telling us?
As I have shown before, from months to decades to hundreds of millennia, the ONLY correlation between CO2 and temperature is that CO2 follows temperature.
Only a really, really DUMB scientist would disregard empirical evidence in favor of papers based on always-wrong computer models. And make no mistake, climate models are always wrong. Some are merely far outside error bands, and some are preposterously wrong. But they are all wrong.
CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the past, with no adverse effects — and with no correlation to temperature.
Like most scientific skeptics, I prefer too listen to what our planet is clearly telling us, instead of tax-suckers like Dumb Scientist — who would rather blog all during the workday than do what he is paid to do.
Dumb Scientist:
I’ll take a stab at explaining to you what I mean.
Think back to when you learned about histograms. This happened, perhaps, when you were in 6th grade. In the period when you learned about histograms, perhaps you constructed one as a homework assignment.
The height of one of the bars in a histogram is a count of things. These things are events, aka occurrences. A count of the events of a particular description is called a “frequency.” Divide the frequency of events of a particular description by the frequency of events of all descriptions and you have the “relative frequency” of the events of that particular description. A relative frequency is the empirical counterpart of a probability.
The classical logic is a consequence from restricting the values of a probability to ‘0’ and ‘1’. In the terminology of the classical logic, ‘0’ is called ‘true’ and ‘1’ is called ‘false’. The empirical counterparts of ‘true’ and ‘false’ are relative frequencies of ‘1’ and ‘0’ respectively.
The folks who tried to create a science of global warming failed to identify the events that would underlie the models which would be built as a result of the research; this lapse leaves us with nothing to count in establishing frequencies and relative frequencies. A consequence is for the IPCC global warming models to be insusceptible to falsification. They can’t be falsified because there is no such thing as ‘false’.
This is not to say there is no such thing as error. The difference between the observed and projected global average surface temperature is the error. Many people confuse a model that can be in error with a model that can be falsified but these people are mistaken.
In science and in logic, models are empirically falsifiable. As the IPCC global warming models are not falsifiable, they are not a product of the scientific method of investigation. Additionally, with ‘true’ and ‘false’ eliminated as concepts, these models lie outside the strictures of logic. More generally, the conclusions that are reached by people on all sides of the debate over man-made global warming are not logical.
No matter how many times I explain that paleoclimate sensitivity estimates are more informative than model-based estimates, this refrain never gets old. See my comment on November 19, 2013 at 3:51 pm:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/#comment-1479543
Scientists are worried about our rapid increase in atmospheric CO2, not the absolute value. The ancient climate shows that extinction rates aren’t correlated with absolute CO2 values. They’re correlated with CO2 rates of change. If the climate changes too quickly for species to adapt by migrating or evolving, they go extinct. For example, atmospheric CO2 increased rapidly before the end-Permian extinction.
Honisch et al. 2012 shows that we’re dumping CO2 into the atmosphere ten times faster than the rate preceding the end-Permian extinction. Wiping out 90% of all species on Earth seems like an adverse effect to me, but as y’all keep saying I haven’t been educated at WUWT.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6072/1058.abstract
Thank you for your attempt to clarify by treating me like a 6th grader, but I still don’t understand anything you’ve written here or at your website. I take responsibility for this failure…
Dumb,
Actually, most scientists are not worried about the rise in CO2, which has a long way to go to get to where it was during the geologic past. I already provided a chart showing that CO2 levels were 20X higher in the past. During the current Holocene, CO2 shows no correlation to temperature. That is a scientific fact.
As another matter of fact, your fixation on your “carbon” Belief shows that you have not been educated here at the internet’s “Best Science” site. Your response is typical of climate alarmists, who only see what they want to see, and who disregard the real world. Your mind is closed tighter than a drumskin when it comes to scientific probity. Everything you write is based on Belief, not on real world evidence.
Finally, “faster” means nothing, unless you can produce empirical evidence showing global harm resulting from the rise in CO2. But FYI, more than 31,000 American scientists and engineers have co-signed an explicit statement saying that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
They certainly know more than you do.
Isn’t that an appeal to authority?
Apparently my previous comment didn’t sufficiently emphasize CO2’s rate of change (my emphasis):
This unprecedented rapidity is why most scientists are worried about the rise in CO2, as I’ve shown on November 18, 2013 at 12:49 pm, and here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/#comment-1478752
Why do contrarians lecture scientists about what scientists think?
Apparently dbstealey and WUWT call Cook et al. 2013 a “lie” and prefer the methodology of the OISM petition. Is that true?
And… isn’t that another appeal to authority?
Dumb says:
“Isn’t that an appeal to authority?”
No. It is a refutation of your claim.
The plain fact is that the “consensus” is simply a mirage. There are relatively few scientists — and even fewer engineers — who buy into the catastrophic AGW nonsense, which is what the “rate of change” scare is based upon.
One more time for the slow-witted: there is no empirical evidence showing any global harm resulting from the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2. The ‘rise’ is just a cherry-picked fright story that the alarmist crowd uses to try and scare the public. But as anyone sees who reads various science threads, the public is becoming jaded regarding the “carbon” scare. That is why the alarmist contingent is losing their grip on the narrative.
@ur momisugly D. B. Stealey (and Terry Oldberg — and lots of other great minds above) — Lucid, easily understandable, arguments. You are educating those silently reading along who CAN understand.
As for those who cannot understand what you write, except for using them for the: “Duh….., I don’t know? Why DID that happen? Hyuck, hyuck,” straight person to set up the wit of the brains of the operation, there is no point in talking to them.
Re: “Dumb Scientist,” he or she is either:
1. a sicko who loves quarrels for the mere sake of them;
or
2. is genuinely too stupid (or intellectually impaired by pride) to even comprehend what “GAME OVER. YOU LOSE.” means;
or
3. is an AGW profiteer and or control-freak who hopes that his or her smoke-blowing will at least confuse the Cult of Climatology dupes silently reading along enough to prevent them from finding the door out of their twisted-computer room into the invigorating air of reality.
Nice job, guys! #(:))