(Note: this originally published on Dr. Spencer’s blog on April 25th, and I asked if I could reproduce it here. While I know some readers might argue the finer points of some items in the list, I think it is important to keep sight of these. – Anthony)
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
There are some very good arguments for being skeptical of global warming predictions. But the proliferation of bad arguments is becoming almost dizzying.
I understand and appreciate that many of the things we think we know in science end up being wrong. I get that. But some of the alternative explanations I’m seeing border on the ludicrous.
So, here’s my Top 10 list of stupid skeptic arguments. I’m sure there are more, and maybe I missed a couple important ones. Oh well.
My obvious goal here is not to change minds that are already made up, which is impossible (by definition), but to reach 1,000+ (mostly nasty) comments in response to this post. So, help me out here!
1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. I’ve blogged on this numerous times…maybe start here.
2. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. The second law can be stated in several ways, but one way is that the net flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is not violated by the greenhouse effect. The apparent violation of the 2nd Law seems to be traced to the fact that all bodies emit IR radiation…including cooler bodies toward warmer bodies. But the NET flow of thermal radiation is still from the warmer body to the cooler body. Even if you don’t believe there is 2-way flow, and only 1-way flow…the rate of flow depends upon the temperature of both bodies, and changing the cooler body’s temperature will change the cooling rate (and thus the temperature) of the warmer body. So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer still…as evidenced by putting your clothes on.
3. CO2 CANT CAUSE WARMING BECAUSE CO2 EMITS IR AS FAST AS IT ABSORBS. No. When a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon, the mean free path within the atmosphere is so short that the molecule gives up its energy to surrounding molecules before it can (on average) emit an IR photon in its temporarily excited state. See more here. Also important is the fact that the rate at which a CO2 molecule absorbs IR is mostly independent of temperature, but the rate at which it emits IR increases strongly with temperature. There is no requirement that a layer of air emits as much IR as it absorbs…in fact, in general, the the rates of IR emission and absorption are pretty far from equal.
4. CO2 COOLS, NOT WARMS, THE ATMOSPHERE. This one is a little more subtle because the net effect of greenhouse gases is to cool the upper atmosphere, and warm the lower atmosphere, compared to if no greenhouse gases were present. Since any IR absorber is also an IR emitter, a CO2 molecule can both cool and warm, because it both absorbs and emits IR photons.
5. ADDING CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE HAS NO EFFECT BECAUSE THE CO2 ABSORPTION BANDS ARE ALREADY 100% OPAQUE. First, no they are not, and that’s because of pressure broadening. Second, even if the atmosphere was 100% opaque, it doesn’t matter. Here’s why.
6. LOWER ATMOSPHERIC WARMTH IS DUE TO THE LAPSE RATE/ADIABATIC COMPRESSION. No, the lapse rate describes how the temperature of a parcel of air changes from adiabatic compression/expansion of air as it sinks/rises. So, it can explain how the temperature changes during convective overturning, but not what the absolute temperature is. Explaining absolute air temperature is an energy budget question. You cannot write a physics-based equation to obtain the average temperature at any altitude without using the energy budget. If adiabatic compression explains temperature, why is the atmospheric temperature at 100 mb is nearly the same as the temperature at 1 mb, despite 100x as much atmospheric pressure? More about all this here.
7. WARMING CAUSES CO2 TO RISE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2 200 times as fast! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in today’s temperature causing this CO2 rise? C’mon people, think. But not to worry…CO2 is the elixir of life…let’s embrace more of it!
8. THE IPCC MODELS ARE FOR A FLAT EARTH I have no explanation where this little tidbit of misinformation comes from. Climate models address a spherical, rotating, Earth with a day-night (diurnal) cycle in solar illumination and atmospheric Coriolis force (due to both Earth curvature and rotation). Yes, you can do a global average of energy flows and show them in a flat-earth cartoon, like the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget diagram which is a useful learning tool, but I hope most thinking people can distinguish between a handful of global-average average numbers in a conceptual diagram, and a full-blown 3D global climate model.
9. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE Really?! Is there an average temperature of your bathtub full of water? Or of a room in your house? Now, we might argue over how to do the averaging (Spatial? Mass-weighted?), but you can compute an average, and you can monitor it over time, and see if it changes. The exercise is only futile if your sampling isn’t good enough to realistically monitor changes over time. Just because we don’t know the average surface temperature of the Earth to better than, say 1 deg. C, doesn’t mean we can’t monitor changes in the average over time. We have never known exactly how many people are in the U.S., but we have useful estimates of how the number has increased in the last 50-100 years. Why is “temperature” so important? Because the thermal IR emission in response to temperature is what stabilizes the climate system….the hotter things get, the more energy is lost to outer space.
10. THE EARTH ISN’T A BLACK BODY. Well, duh. No one said it was. In the broadband IR, though, it’s close to a blackbody, with an average emissivity of around 0.95. But whether a climate model uses 0.95 or 1.0 for surface emissivity isn’t going to change the conclusions we make about the sensitivity of the climate system to increasing carbon dioxide.
I’m sure I could come up with a longer list than this, but these were the main issues that came to mind.
So why am I trying to stir up a hornets nest (again)? Because when skeptics embrace “science” that is worse that the IPCC’s science, we hurt our credibility.
NOTE: Because of the large number of negative comments this post will generate, please excuse me if I don’t respond to every one. Or even very many of them. But if I see a new point being made I haven’t addressed before, I’ll be more likely to respond.
thegriss says:
May 1, 2014 at 1:07 pm
[…]
Venus has a massive atmospheric gravity effect and basically retains the same temp over its whole surface even on the non-sunwards side.
Thanks. I just googled Venus atmosphere. It must be much heaviear than our atmospheredue to it’s composition because Venus and Earth are approx the same size and density. So it’s proven: CO2 is guilty 😉
Joseph
“The fact is its part of the far bigger blanket ( I think greenhouse is a non descriptive term.. its a blanket of gasses that are most dense near the earths surface and therefore the interaction is something that is up for constant debate. ”
The confusion continues.
The part of the atmosphere where the concentration is most important is much higher, above the ERL.
Next, The interaction is not “up for debate” the interaction is well understood. It’s beyond science. Its functioning engineering.
You cannot view earth from space in a broadband fashion without understanding the interaction.
The very weather forecast models you use day in and day out contain this physics. Without this physics they are horribly wrong. Without this physics you couldnt build a stealth airplane, a heat seeking missile, or anything that relies on the theory of EM transmission through the atmosphere.
@ur momisugly Dodgy.. “I want to start a “500 PPM” club, dedicated to the improvement of all growing plants…”
Bumper Sticker:
FREE the Carbon 12
Key thing in this thread is that radiation physics is not a good talking point for a sceptic. At the high school level the theory of warming is solid. You can warm 100% CO2 on pressurised container with a CO2 laser. Theory does not fall even though Al Gore failed in warming 400 ppm CO2 with sunlight. Real life with all the complications of the climate system is not a trivial case for university level physicists. Models fail, but why.
Instead we should be talking about the benefits of CO2 and alleged warming. We should look at the measurements and facts instead of ridiculous threats that alarmists talk about.
Thank you, Roy. Now, if we could only get the other side to demonstrate a similar degree of open-mindedness.
Joseph Bastardi says:
May 1, 2014 at 12:55 pm
, anyone wish to estimate exactly how much of disaster this causing
================
zippo…….nada…..zilch
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/how-the-earths-temperature-looks-on-a-mercury-thermometer/
“The only significant anthropogenic atmospheric effect happened on the Moon. Apollo doubled the mass of the lunar atmosphere. Six times.”
Apparently mass is not relevant, only the radiative capability of the material added 🙂
The question I cannot get answered is: “Why does CO2 not currently increase by more than 2 PPM per year? When considering it has been rising at this pace roughly unchanged for the last few decades. However the amount of CO2 humanity is generating has increased be several factors over the same time period.
lb says:
May 1, 2014 at 1:21 pm
Inconvenient truths ignored by Jim “Venus Express” Hansen:
The atmosphere of Venus has a mass of 4.8×10^20 kg, about 93 times the mass of earth’s total atmosphere. The density of air at its surface is 67 kg/m^3, or about 6.5% that of liquid water on earth.
Basilevsky, Alexandr T.; Head, James W. (2003). “The surface of Venus”. Rep. Prog. Phys. 66 (10): 1699–1734.
Pressure on Venus’ surface is so high that CO2 is technically not a gas there, but a supercritical fluid. This supercritical CO2 forms a “sea” covering the entire surface of Venus. The supercritical CO2 ocean transfers heat very efficiently, buffering temperature changes between night & day (which last 56 terrestrial days).
Fegley, B. et al. (1997). Geochemistry of Surface-Atmosphere Interactions on Venus (Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind Environment). University of Arizona Press.
Just a few of the differences between the two planets which render Hansen’s catastrophism ludicrous.
Stephen Rasey says:
May 1, 2014 at 1:23 pm
“Free the Carbon 12!” is funny.
My suggestions along the same line:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/25/results-of-my-poll-on-forming-a-skeptic-organization-plus-some-commentary/#comments
Another annoying falsehood for your list.
11. The greenhouse effect can’t heat the oceans because IR doesn’t penetrate into water and so you can’t heat water with IR from above.
LT says:
May 1, 2014 at 1:34 pm
The question I cannot get answered is: “Why does CO2 not currently increase by more than 2 PPM per year?
====
exactly….
The question is not why it increased…..the question should be how was it lowered to where it became limiting…..and why isn’t it doing the exact same thing again
Personally, I find it fascinating that the tiny amount of CO2 that we’ve added to the atmosphere didn’t immediately disappear
/snark
Don Easterbrook says:
May 1, 2014 at 12:26 pm
more recent short warming intervals from 1982-2012 that were followed by increased atmospheric CO2.
No, CO2 levels increased all the time thanks to human emissions. Only the sink rate changed with the temperature changes:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
The dynamic equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere increases with 17 microatm for 1 K temperature increase. Vegetation goes the other way out. Average over decades to multi-millennia: 8 ppmv/K.
Temperature increase since 1945: 0.4 K
CO2 increase due to temperature increase: 3.2 ppmv.
Measured CO2 increase since 1945: ~95 ppmv of which 85 ppmv accurate after 1959.
Short term variations (seasonal to 2-3 years) in CO2: 4-5 ppmv/K
Long term variations (multi-decadal to multi-millennia) in CO2: 8 ppmv/K
Current increase in CO2, if it was caused by temperature: > 100 ppmv/K
Temperature variations cause the variations around the rate of change trend, but temperature has zero contribution to the trend, see Wood for Trees.
The trend in rate of change of CO2 is entirely from the emissions, as these increase slightly quadratic over time, so do the sinks and thus the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is what gives the slope in the rate of change:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
As there is a pi/2 fase lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes, the derivatives of CO2 changes also lags pi/2 the derivative of temperature changes (and temperature changes exactly time up with the derivative of the CO2 changes, which may lead to false conclusions…).
Roy I’m happy to say I believe you’re right on 9 out of ten.
You’re wrong, however on item #7. The ice core record is subject to huge smoothing error by virtue of temporal sampling limitations an enormous attenuation by virtue of CO2 diffusion between ice layers. Everyone’s intuition says what you assert. The correct argument is below.
See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/an-engineers-take-on-major-climate-change/
@milodonharlani at 1:20 pm
5) Given an estimated total heating by the GHE of ~33 degrees C,
That is not a given. This is one of the CAGW arguments that I don’t think holds water…. because it was derived WITH water.
33 deg C is built from the assumption of 30% albedo. First, the albedo layer has two sides. If it is used to reflect energy away from the earth, it also must trap it. The albedo should not be used as a one-way mirror and it is to get to 33 deg C. Secondly, 30% albedo is largely due to water vapor condensed in the atmosphere. You cannot use a GHG to increase the albedo and decrease the temperature of the earth “without GHGs”.
If you didn’t have water as a GHG, then you wouldn’t have clouds, albedo would be lower than 33% and average surface temperatures would be higher than 255 deg C, and the implied GHG warming would be lower than 33 deg C.
Stephen Rasey says:
May 1, 2014 at 1:47 pm
I agree, but used the US government’s own figure as one of my simplifying assumptions, all of which are subject to challenge without, IMO, materially affecting the general conclusion, ie any CO2 increase since AD 1850 has had negligible effect on average global T (if measurable), which in any case would be beneficial.
Much as I respect Dr. Spencer, I cannot agree with many of his points.
First of all, if the effects of AGW are nugatory, as skeptics generally agree they are, the theory that man causes climate change is essentially wrong, because the effects can’t be separated from the noise in natural factors. While “statistically indistinguishable from zero” is not zero in strict mathematical terms, it is in practical terms.
No one, not even the hardest-line skeptic (and I’m pretty hard-line) claims that climate doesn’t change, or even that man has no effect on climate. Man certainly affects climate locally through the UHI and land use practices, but these effects are immaterial in global terms, and some land use practices (such as planting large areas with trees) probably contribute to cooling rather than warming.. So are the effects of CO2.
The fundamental problems with AGW are first, that is relies on empty assertions (models) and second, assumes a priori that what is actually one of the most minor, most de minimis factors in climate change is the universal driver of climate change. It is like saying a flood is caused when someone spits into a river. (Recalls the old Texas joke about how a flood occurs when three people spit in the street at the same time.)
We also mustn’t lose sight of the agendas of those who are pushing the AGW meme. That it is first and foremost a political, not a scientific, conception is evident in its adherents’ ready departure from the scientific method when evidence falsifying the hypothesis, and their search, often evidencing desperation, for some esoteric, and invariably wrong, explanation of, in effect, why the hypothesis fails (such as heat hidden in the ocean).
Finally, I still believe strongly that skeptics need concede nothing to the alarmists. To the extent that the evidence against AGW amassed by skeptics may not address every possible issue, or that there is disagreement among skeptics as to details, this is not enough to refute the firm conclusion that the AGW hypothesis is falsified and should not under any circumstances be driving public policy. This is the more important because policies driven by AGW are doing enormous harm, not merely economic harm but human suffering and death on a substantial scale.
I would hope that all skeptics explicitly accept responsibility to act to get a stop put to AGW and the policies it engenders.
Finally, from a strictly epistemological point of view, yes, we do know that the fundamental AGW hypothesis, that man’s production of CO2 will cause global catastrophe, is false. That is a hard truth, an absolute truth that will never be undone, regardless of what either we skeptics or the promoters of AGW might believe.
I personally don’t like the term “greenhouse effect” as in my greenhouse the heat effect is only in the day time.
My brother inlaw was working for a man in commercial tomato production in greenhouses.
One part of his job was to make sure the CO2 levels were keep high by pumping some into the greenhouses every so often.
This didn’t make the greenhouse hotter but made the tomato grow faster.
And even with all that CO2 in the greenhouse at night they still need to be heated.
Latitude says:
May 1, 2014 at 1:42 pm
The increase in the atmosphere varies with temperature and can change by +/- 2 ppmv around the trend (running 12-month average). The trend itself did go up from ~0.7 ppmv/year (1959) to ~2.1 ppmv/year (2013), around 50-55% of the emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em3.jpg
#7 Is rather poorly written and confusing and should be reworded. For example, change “rise” to “increase” since it took me a while to figure out that you weren’t talking about CO2 “rising” to the upper atmosphere. Also, does it not go without saying that a warming planet will cause CO2 to increase as a result of decreased solubility in the oceans?
For those of you saying that this post is pointless … why are you even here? Why come and read a blog like this, or participate in any related discussion, if you are not interested? Why post a comment when your only comment is “duh?” Pseudoscience is a horrible corrupting influence on arguments such as these, and it’s damn useful to have guys like Spencer periodically make posts such as this to correct things.
O2 and N2 which are some 99,7% of the atmospheric gases keeps the nights warm. They don’t absorb nor emit any ir-radiation. Mass of these gases are heated by conduction from sun heated earth, water etc. Atmosphere is very good isolation. I disagree most part of Roys arguments because I have done lot’s of reaserch work and practical testing in the area of thermodynamics. IR-radiation has very little to do in heat exchange systems in atmospheric tempratures. Only in upper part of the atmosphere it is only heat transfer method to radiate energy to space.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 1, 2014 at 1:59 pm
====
was talking biology Ferd………..
Now to cut the sceptics some slack here is Dr. James Hansen on the past major causes of the warming of the Earth. Heck if he can get it ‘wrong’ cut us some slack. Or maybe he was right in which case the debate is over!!
milodonharlani says:
May 1, 2014 at 1:36 pm
The atmosphere of Venus has a mass of 4.8×10^20 kg, about 93 times the mass of earth’s total atmosphere.
So it’s the mass of the atmosphere that defines the greenhouse effect?
I assume a change from 300ppm CO2 to 400ppm doesn’t affect the mass much.
And I like warm. warmer. I dread the next ice age. With a population of more than 7’000’000’000 humans, earth can’t afford another ice age.
“Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured”
IF from co2 at what point does the downward IR u-turn back upwards to be potentially re- absorbed by the co2 that first emitted it –
Very odd situation, Perpetual motion, I like it!