(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.
I have a radiator that has the power of 880 W and an area of one square meter. I try to warm my room but it does not seem to work. Thermometer at the middle of room that should measure the average temperature of the room, has not risen at all for a long while though I changed its setting to 1320 W.
Previously I had my radiator at 440 W and temperature was 0.8 C lower. So, I could say that the sensitivity of doubling the radiative power was 0.8 C – very low indeed.
I called the seller of the radiator to complain and he told me that this model has a thermostat. In addition to that I have a lot of water and plants in my room. I am not able to measure the changes of the humidity and growth of the vegetation in my room but how can I be sure that radiator is OK, if the thermostat is stealing my precious warming.
The seller told also that the heat escapes through my window. Am I a fool? I bought an expensive radiator that could not possibly work. Could I measure the escaped energy to convince myself that my radiator works as the seller says?
Its interesting that it takes a “skeptical” climate scientist to be willing to communicate the basics of climate physics to us lay people. The alarmists don’t think it is important for us to understand it at all — we’re apparently not smart enough to be able to grasp the deep, secret concepts. We’re supposed to just shut up and take their word for it. This post answered many questions I’ve had on my mind for years. Thanks Dr. Roy!
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 3, 2014 at 6:33 am
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2014 at 12:45 am
Richard, we have been there many times before…
The data simply show that nature can’t cope with human emissions, no matter the huge carbon cycle with its huge fluxes in and out over the seasons.
That is no matter of a changed setpoint, which is quite closely connected to temperature over the past 800 kyear and which for the current temperature is ~300 ppmv, not 400 ppmv.
Any other theoretical explanation beyond the human contribution violates one or more observations. That includes several of the explanations you and others have put forward and that includes the theory from Bart and Salby. Thus, indeed for me it is clear: the human emissions fit all observations, the alternatives don’t.
As usual Ferdinand Bart and Richard come back with their flawed beliefs! That the noise in the CO2 record correlates with the surface temperature fluctuations is expected from Henry’s Law, as you ( and I) have pointed out many times before the growth in CO2 (about 2ppm/year) can not be explained by temperature change. It’s rather inconsistent with the view that the temperature hasn’t risen for 17 years whereas during the same time the CO2 has increased by about 40ppm!
richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2014 at 2:09 pm
JohnWho:
At May 2, 2014 at 10:24 am you assert
While there may not be much agreement on exactly how much, it seems clear that fossil fuel combustion is adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
No, it is not “clear” and that is why there is such discussion of the matter as has happened in this thread.
The anthropogenic CO2 emission is a trivial addition to the CO2 circulating in the carbon cycle.
Wow, I see I’ve come in in the middle of a somewhat heated disagreement.
But, not so much with me: (bold mine) I did not say that the entire increase in CO2, or even most of the increase, since the end of the LIA is anthropogenic. All I’m saying is that we skeptics should accept that there is an anthropogenic CO2 emission contribution to atmospheric CO2. From what I understand, it is indeed minor or trivial.
Konrad, I think you badly underestimate the “Church of Radiative Climastology” (and badlyoverestimate what your “constrained solar pond in a cup” tells you).
The main problem is that your actual experiment is VERY different from the Atacama desert experiment you describe — which in turn is rather different from the calculations you are comparing to. Your experiment IS interesting; it just doesn’t show quite as much as you want to claim.
1) In your picture, there is probably 200-400 W/m^2 of DWLWIR helping to warm the system (depending greatly on local air temp, clouds, nearby warm walls, etc). Even in the high (6000 m) desert, there is still on the order of 100 W/m^2 of DWLWIR (http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/) (which, with 240 W/m^2 of average sunlight is already enough to keep the water from freezing solid). In space there is no DWLWIR– and THIS is what is required to get the -18 C number.
2) Your measurement in the picture is being made during the day (and relatively close to mid-day from the shadows) (and not when it is cloudy) (and with a very black surface). The -18 C number is a 24 hr average, and includes cloud cover and reflection from the surface. The high mountains in the Atacama desert — being relatively cloud-free and relatively near the equator — will get considerably more than the global average of 240 W/m^2 of average sunlight. Even with NO DWLWIR, water in your experiment there would stay above freezing on average (certainly thawed the summer; probably frozen in the winter).
3) Even if you ran your pictured experiment 24/7, the ambient ~ 20 C temperatures would keep your experiment from cooling much overnight — even in your insulated container. The desert experiment would be much better.
In the end, your little experiment is not going to be good for predicting the results of your big thought experiment high in the desert, and the results high in the desert will only be moderately good at predicting the results for a world with no DWLWIR.
Big Don says:
There are plenty of climate scientists who are willing to communicate the basics of climate physics to you. The real problem is that you are unwilling to listen to them.
REPLY: My goodness what condescension Joel. How is it that you know what is inside this man’s head, and that you can speak with such certainty for him? Are you psychic? If not you need an ego check, stat. – Anthony
Allan M.R. MacRae says:
May 3, 2014 at 3:24 am
JohnWho says: May 2, 2014 at 10:24 am
Dr Who, please read the following.
Regards, Allan
Thank you Allan.
As they said in “Pirates of the Carribean”:
We have an accord.
Oh, you seem to have me confused with my famous cousin who lords over me much of the time.
🙂
Ferdinand Engelbeen,
A simple question, are you maintaining that the increase in atm CO2 seen in the Mona Loa CO2 dataset for the past ~54 years (since its first data was taken) could have been seen in the resolution achievable in CO2 proxy dataset of Antarctic ice cores?
John
Henrik Sørensen @ur momisugly May 3, 2014 at 5:57 am
I noticed that too. It gives me a creepy sensation anytime somebody is telling others what to think, speak or do. I recognize the type of person who does this with no second thought.
Using his ‘personal embarassment’ as the rationale is just too typical. this man is not a friend of mine and is welcome to find a real job off the trough. his mannliness is just as ugly as mikey’s.
It’s rather inconsistent with the view that the temperature hasn’t risen for 17 years whereas during the same time the CO2 has increased by about 40ppm!
====
But Phil, it is consistent with the heat hiding in the deep oceans
John Whitman says:
May 3, 2014 at 8:04 am
A simple question, are you maintaining that the increase in atm CO2 seen in the Mona Loa CO2 dataset for the past ~54 years (since its first data was taken) could have been seen in the resolution achievable in CO2 proxy dataset of Antarctic ice cores?
The increase since 1959 is about 90 ppmv CO2, or average 45 ppmv over a period of 54 years. Even in de Dome C record with a resolution of 560 years, that would be measurable if it was a one-time peak: If spread over the full 560 years, that still is 4.4 ppmv, more than the accuracy of the ice core CO2 measurements (1.2 ppmv CO2 – 1 sigma).
If it is a part of a cycle – at least one quarter of a cycle, as the increase seems to be decreasing – then it wouldn’t be visible in ice cores with a resolution of over 216 years, but still visible in the Taylor Dome ice core which goes some 130,000 years back in time with a resolution of ~40 years.
Even so, the most recent data are at high resolution and show that the CO2 levels were increasing already since ~1850. That means that, if the current increase is caused by a cycle, the full cycle is over 600 years and the -smoothed- variability would be visible in all ice cores, even those with the lowest resolution.
Latitude says:
May 3, 2014 at 8:09 am
But Phil, it is consistent with the heat hiding in the deep oceans
The heat, or temperature in the (deep) oceans doesn’t change CO2 levels in the atmosphere, only the temperature of the surface does. Which did increase with 0.7°C since ~1850. Good for 12 ppmv increase in the atmosphere according to Henry’s Law (oceans only) or 6 ppmv, according to the land-ocean equilibrium over the past 800,000 years…
Ferd….I meant it’s equally as ludicrous
– – – – – – – –
Ferdinand Engelbeen,
I very much appreciate your last reply to me. Thank you.
Whenever I see you in a carbon cycle discourse, I always tune in and listen. I seldom achieve an agreement with you, but the understanding that I come away with due to the comments of yours and of your critics always increases my knowledge of the carbon cycle. And I must say again as I have said to you many times in the past, your even toned and civil approach impresses me very much.
As to your last comment to me, I see that we have an impasse between us. You use numbers representing land sources and sinks to show your position that fossil CO2 is the dominate signal seen in Mauna Loa data, whereas I maintain those numbers are simply inadequately representative of the land sources and sinks because the knowledge of them is too limited to reasonably use them is such a calculation as you have done.
I continue to value highly your presence on carbon cycle discussions because your stimulation of vigorously healthy dialogs does help to create a wonderful climate academe here. : )
John
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 3, 2014 at 1:02 am
“Bart, the scale factor is at least a factor 2 too small for the amplitude.”
No, it isn’t. Your constraint of fitting the linear least squares slope over a finite time interval is arbitrary. A more general fit, such as I have shown, is quite good, and enough to satisfy Occam’s razor in concluding that this is the driving force.
There is no constraint you can force on this which would be reasonable. These are bulk measurements. Teasing out the true relationship would require using gridded data, and determining the proper weightings to be applied to each region. But, if you were going to force a constraint on it, it would have to be that the amplitude of variation has to match. But, you have a problem there – the temperature effect should have created more CO2, not less. Before, under my interpretation, there was little to no room for human forcing. Now, you have to find a source which is actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere with a linear trend in rate.
This is foolish. With the data available to us, we cannot arrive at your conclusion. But, as I said before, Occam’s razor guides us to accept that a temperature dependent, natural process is responsible for essentially all of the atmospheric CO2.
“Empirical and measured evidence shows that the CO2 reaction on temperature changes is between 4 and 8 ppmv/K very short term (seasons) to multi-millennia. “
No, it does not. The Empirical evidence shows us that the sensitivity is in ppmv per K per unit-of-time. It is an integral relationship. You are trying to force a square peg into a round hole. You are trying to dictate how nature handles CO2, rather than looking at the evidence to see how it actually does handle it.
“But the latter will affect the residence time, the 13C/12C ratio…”
Merely an assertion, not a proven outcome.
“…, the 14C bomb spike decay,…”
The bomb spike decay does, in fact, imply that the sinks are very active.
“For which is not the slightest indication…”
Yes, there is. That is what this indicates.
“Sorry Bart, an increase in rate of change of CO2 is no proof for an increased circulation if there are several possible causes…”
The dependence on temperature is confirmed by it. Once you have the slope and the variation accounted for, there is nothing left for the other possible causes to contribute.
This is how feedback systems work. They track a reference, while suppressing disturbances which would tend to cause deviations from that reference. This is how nature works. Balances on the edge of a knife do not spontaneously appear, and persist for centuries at a time without significant feedback effects enforcing that balance. There are no knife edges. Balance appears because it is created by opposing forces which respond to one another by the one pushing back more powerfully when the system gets displaced in its direction from the equilibrium.
It’s a slam dunk. Humans are not responsible for the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. Nature is.
Phil. says:
May 3, 2014 at 7:46 am
” It’s rather inconsistent with the view that the temperature hasn’t risen for 17 years whereas during the same time the CO2 has increased by about 40ppm!”
It is perfectly consistent with it. The rate of change of CO2 has perfectly tracked the temperature. What it is NOT tracking is human emissions, and the disparity is rapidly increasing.
My reply to Ferdinand is being held up in moderation due to multiple links. So, in the meantime, I am going to repost the part of the reply to Phil above.
Phil. says:
May 3, 2014 at 7:46 am
” It’s rather inconsistent with the view that the temperature hasn’t risen for 17 years whereas during the same time the CO2 has increased by about 40ppm!”
It is perfectly consistent with it. The rate of change of CO2 has perfectly tracked the temperature. What it is NOT tracking is human emissions, and the disparity is rapidly increasing.
The argument seems to be that the co2 in the air trapping ir energy reflected from the ocean and redirecting the heat back into the ocean. This co2 is man made.
I still don,t see how energy absorb in the atmosphere and barely heating it can some how then heat an ocean that is 250 times its mass.
I say again the sun is heating the ocean and has been since the end of the little ice age. The oceans are emitting more co2 then they are sinking. Which explains the lag and the apparent jump in co2 during el ninos. The warming ocean is heating the atmosphere. Which explains why temps aren’t track co2 rise.
As the sun enters a more dormate state the oceans will start to stabiles and eventually cool. Then we will see what happens to co2 in the atmosphere like we have already seen in tempatures. This process will be much slower in the sinking phase as it has been through out historical record but it will happen. Co2 is an effect not the cause of this process and its influence on the tempatures is way over stated and in know way is it going to create any feed back loop. All of the arguments beyond that are purely scientific and of interest to us all but it is not a issue for public policy or a concern for the general public. But scaring people makes some rich and some powerful. It’s our job to stop this feed back loop and tell the truth.
Bob Boder says:
May 3, 2014 at 10:12 am
“I say again the sun is heating the ocean and has been since the end of the little ice age. The oceans are emitting more co2 then they are sinking.”
This is true, but not likely the whole story. Atmospheric CO2 is going to be driven by the partial pressure of CO2 at the oceanic boundary
CO2_atm(boundary) = Kh*CO2_Oceans(boundary)
The Kh factor will increase proportionately with temperature and that, as you say, will cause CO2_atm to increase with temperature if CO2_Oceans is constant. But, the observation has been that CO2_atm is increasing quadratically, not linearly, in time while temperatures have also been increasing linearly (with other cyclical components) with time. That requires that CO2_Oceans has been increasing, too. But, this is perfectly reasonable if the transport of CO2 through the THC varies over time, and in the last century, we have simply been experiencing the effects of increased concentration in upwelling waters.
The point being that atmospheric co2 is not driving the oceans to warm it is the warming of the ocean that drives co2 in the atmosphere. Co2 in the upper layers of the ocean is most defiantly not constant and there is certainly an upswell from deeper regimes causing a rise in acidification of the ocean an co2 increase in the atmosphere but it is the sun driving this process not greenhouse gases.
JohnWho:
re your post at May 3, 2014 at 7:50 am.
Please read my post and its links to other posts in this thread which you purport to be answering.
You have completely misunderstood perhaps because you are so certain of your opinion that you are unwilling to consider that the data does not support your view.
It is precisely this problem of assumed but mistaken ‘knowledge’ that Roy Spencer’s article attempts to address.
Richard
Bob Boder says:
May 3, 2014 at 10:42 am
Well, warming and THC transport, is my belief. Essentially, we have something like
CO2_atm = (k0 + k1*t) * (C0 + C1*t) = k0*C0 + (k0*C1+k1*C0)*t + k1*C1*t^2 = a + b*t + c*t^2
over a finite timeline, such as recent history. Eventually, temperatures will cease the upward trend, and the THC bubble will recede, and atmospheric CO2 will decline again.
And this is evidenced in historical record by rapid decrease in temperatures followed by a much slower decrease in atmospheric co2 during cooling phases. Thanks Bart
John Whitman says:
May 3, 2014 at 9:10 am
Thanks for your kind words!
I was hardened by a lot of discussions in the past on a different subject (dioxins…) on an activist blog (dioxin-l) against chlorine, PVC,… when I was working in a chlorine/PVC factory. Even the most heated discussion on WUWT pales against the “normal” insults on that blog. Thus no problem to maintain my manners…
About the carbon cycle: more and more details are researched in the field by an increasing amount of measurements: tall towers over land which register the in-out fluxes over large areas, more and more buoys and commercial seaships which measure pCO2 and other itmes from the ocean surface vs. CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Satellites which monitor CO2 levels and derived fluxes,…
So in the next years more knowledge will emerge and make a better understanding of what happens in the carbon cycle…
Phil.:
I take severe exception to your untrue propaganda at May 3, 2014 at 7:46 am which says
In this thread I have repeatedly refuted belief and asserted the limitations of the data, first at May 1, 2014 at 7:33 am where I wrote
That is NOT “belief”: it is report of published analysis.
And I addressed your specific points at May 1, 2014 at 2:37 pm where I wrote
Your misrepresentations do not change the fact that nobody (i.e. not you and not anybody else) knows the cause of the recent rise in in atmospheric CO2 because the available data does not indicate the cause.
Your type of misrepresentation is precisely why articles such as that of Roy Spencer (above) are needed.
Richard
Richard
The point is it doesn’t matter why co2 is rising. The issue is temperatures not co2. Temps in the ocean are not rising because of co2 so something else is driving the process and that something else is driving atmospheric temp increase as well. There is no feed back loop and our consumption of fossil fuels is not the cause. This makes it purely a discussion of mechanics which is fun but not a political or public issue. This is why these articles are at issue because people in this community who know better are driving people through fear to achieve profit and power and they don’t have the guts or integrity to say there is no major environmental issue they want feel important and powerful instead of enjoying honest scientific pursuit for its own sake.