Guest essay by S. Fred Singer
(originally published on American Thinker reprinted here with permission of the author. I endorse this opinion, though not the personal labels. We can all do with less labeling and name calling but for this piece I’m making an exception as it helps to illustrate the point – Anthony)
Gallia omnia est divisa in partes tres — This phrase from Julius Gaius Caesar about the division of Gaul nicely illustrates the universe of climate scientists — also divided into three parts. On the one side are the “warmistas,” with fixed views about apocalyptic manmade global warming; at the other extreme are the “deniers.” Somewhere in the middle are climate skeptics.
In principle, every true scientist must be a skeptic:
That’s how we’re trained; we question experiments, we question theories. We try to repeat or derive independently what we read in publications — just to make sure that no mistakes have been made.
In my view, “warmistas” and “deniers” are very similar in some respects — at least their extremists are. They have fixed ideas about climate, its change and its cause. They both ignore “inconvenient truths” and select data and facts that support their preconceived views. Many of them are also quite intolerant and unwilling to discuss or debate these views — and quite willing to think the worst of their opponents.
Of course, these three categories do not have sharp boundaries; there are gradations. For example, many “skeptics” go along with the general conclusion of the “warmistas” but simply claim the human contribution is not as large as indicated by climate models. But at the same time, they join with “deniers” in opposing drastic efforts to mitigate greenhouse (GH) gas emissions.
I am going to resist the temptation to name names. But everyone working in the field knows who is a “warmista”, “skeptic”, or “denier”. The “warmistas”, generally speaking, populate the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and subscribe to its conclusion that most of the temperature increase of the last century is due to carbon-dioxide emissions produced by the use of fossil fuels. At any rate, this is the conclusion of the most recent IPCC report, the fifth in a series. Since I was an Expert Reviewer of IPCC, I’ve had an opportunity to review part of the 5th Assessment Report. AR5 published in 2013 uses essentially the same argument and evidence as AR4 from 2007; so let me discuss this “evidence” in some detail.
IPCC-AR4 uses only the global surface temperature (GST) record (shown in fig. 9.5 on page 648).
It exhibits a rapid rise in 1910-1940, a slight decline in 1940-1975, a sharp ‘jump’ around 1976-77 — and then a steady increase up to 2000 (except for the temperature ‘spike’ of the 1998 Super-El-Nino). No increase is seen after about 2001.
Most everyone seems to agree that this earlier increase (1910-1940) is caused by natural forces whose nature the IPCC does not specify. Clearly, the decline of 1940-1975 does not fit the picture of an increasing level of carbon dioxide; nor do the ‘jump’ and ‘spike.’ So, the IPCC uses the increase between 1978 and 2000 as evidence for human (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW).
Their argument is somewhat strained and their evidence is questionable. They claim that their models simulating the temperature history of the 20th century show no warming between 1970 and 2000 – when they omit the warming effect of the steady, slow CO2 increase. But once they add the CO2 increase into the models, they claim good agreement with the reported global surface temperature record. Ergo – evidence for AGW.
There are three things wrong with the IPCC argument: It depends very much on detailed and somewhat arbitrary choices of model inputs, e.g., the properties and effects of atmospheric aerosols, and their temporal and geographic distribution. It also makes arbitrary assumptions about clouds and water vapor, which produce the most important greenhouse forcings. One might therefore say that IPCC’ evidence is nothing more than an exercise in curve fitting. According to physicist Freeman Dyson, the famous mathematician John von Neumann stated: “Give me four adjustable parameters and I can fit an elephant. Give me one more, and I can make his trunk wiggle.”
The second question: Can IPCC fit other climate records of importance besides the reported global surface record? For example, can they fit northern and southern hemisphere temperatures using the same assumptions in their models about aerosols, clouds and water vapor? Can they fit the atmospheric temperature record as obtained from satellites, and also from radiosondes carried in weather balloons? The IPCC report does not show such results, and one therefore suspects that their curve-fitting exercise may not work, except for the global surface record.
The third problem may be the most important and likely also the most contested one. But first let me parse the IPCC conclusion, which depends crucially on the reported global surface warming between 1978 and 2000. As stated in their Summary for Policymakers (IPCC-AR4, vol 1, page 10): “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
But what if there is little to no warming between 1978 and 2000? What if the data from thousands of poorly distributed weather stations do not represent a true global warming? The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn’t show a warming. Neither does the ocean. And even the so-called proxy record — from tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, corals, stalagmites, etc. — shows mostly no warming during the same period.
Now let me turn to the “deniers”. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all — because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics; i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.
Then there is another group of deniers who accept the existence of the greenhouse effect but argue about the cause and effect of the observed increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. One subgroup holds that CO2 levels were much higher in the 19th century; so, there really hasn’t been a long-term increase from human activities. They even believe in a conspiracy to suppress these facts. Another subgroup accepts that CO2 levels are increasing in the 20th century but claims that the source is release of dissolved CO2 from the warming ocean. In other words, they argue that oceans warm first, which then causes the CO2 increase. In fact, such a phenomenon is observed in the ice-core record, where sudden temperature increases precede increases in CO2. While this fact is a good argument against the story put forth by Al Gore, it does not apply to the 20th century: Isotopic and other evidence destroys their caset.
Another subgroup simply says that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is so small, they can’t see how it could possibly change global temperature. But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly. Another subgroup says that natural annual additions to atmospheric CO2 are many times greater than any human source; they ignore the natural sinks that have kept CO2 reasonably constant before humans started burning fossil fuels. Finally, there are the claims that major volcanic eruptions produce the equivalent of many years of human emission from fossil-fuel burning. To which I reply: OK, but show me a step increase in measured atmospheric CO2 related to a volcanic eruption.
I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced “warmistas” and probably even less with true “deniers”. So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out.
Quotes:
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” — …Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” — …Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” — …Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” — …Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” — ..Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, specializing in climate science and energy policy. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committeeon Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and of the Independent Institute. In 2007, he founded and chaired NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change). For recent writings see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and Google Scholar.
‘laboratory data show ‘
If in the lab you do not replicate honestly that which is seen in reality they any ‘data’ you get has issues .
And it does not matter what your actually measuring,
Otherwise we back to square chicken vacuum situation, where you try to side step your lack of knowledge of reality by claiming ‘it works in the lab so most be OK’
There is good reason why weather forecasts are so often wrong , despite the many teraflops of computing power throw at it and despite the fact its area that has been studied for hundreds of years .
There is nothing ‘magical ‘ about climate ‘science’ that makes these problems go away because of wishful thinking .
To Anthony and the Moderators:
Kudos to all of you for your patience in reading the large number of posts that this article rightly encourages that trigger moderation.
The only problem I have with the GHE analogy is that water vapor creates and controls it not CO2.
In a nut shell: 1) SWIR warms the earth, 2) the earth emits LWIR, 3) LWIR excites CO2 molecule, 4) excited CO2 molecules cannot “down well” aka emit LWIR without violating entropy. Per Einstein’s photoelectric relationship, CO2 emits “every welling” lower energy, longer wavelength, i.e, microwaves. And we know what microwaves do to water.
Water vapor is 2,500 ppm compared to CO2 400 ppm. Guess which one rules? How effective is 400 ppm at warming 2,500 ppm?
CO2 helps plants grow, but pull the water vapor out of the GHE and what’s left is a solar oven.
nickreality65 April 16, 2015 at 6:52 am
In a nut shell: 1) SWIR warms the earth, 2) the earth emits LWIR, 3) LWIR excites CO2 molecule, 4) excited CO2 molecules cannot “down well” aka emit LWIR without violating entropy. Per Einstein’s photoelectric relationship, CO2 emits “every welling” lower energy, longer wavelength, i.e, microwaves. And we know what microwaves do to water.
This has nothing to do with the photoelectron effect! When a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon it is vibrationally and rotationally excited, making it very high in the Boltzmann distribution for that temperature. Consequently it will lose that excess energy, at high pressure (1bar) predominantly by collisions and as pressure drops loss via radiation increases (both IR and microwave). That’s the proper thermodynamics, no ‘violation of entropy’.
In my opinion, the article attempts to redefine acceptable skepticism to the warmest side of center, while defining all other skepticism as unacceptable and applies the term deniers to prejudice the reader. To make it seem reasonable he sacrifices only the most extreme faction of the warmest spectrum.
What dbs44 said
SR
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
I am back in familiar territory once again ( standing against the consensus ). I had high hopes for the skeptic side. The bullies are everywhere, even here. Legal threats will also encourage one to change ones views. “Multiple forcings”, one might say, in the climate change game.
Release the third batch. Risks must be taken.
As a non scientist I am actually fascinated by how the whole argument has ever arisen . If man did not exist and the world did ,what would the climate have looked like over the last 100 years? I suspect very much like it does now. I think that sceptics have been too ready to concede certain linkages. Mans activity has added to CO 2 . The world has warmed because of that but not dangerously. Why concede that linkage.? How do we know that the natural cycles ( perhaps influenced by the sun) would vary by even a fraction of a degree ie as close to zero as possible if CO2 hadn’t increased. I do wonder if without the great explosion in financial remunerative incentives that have been available to various alarmists since Al Gores movie that the global warming scare would have died before it was born. I don’t believe I have read about or seen evidence to show that weather is anything but natural. The only concession I would make in relation to mans influence is the UHI effect where it is obvious that buildings and infrastructure generate heat above what would be experienced otherwise.
“The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn’t show a warming.” I’m not sure about this statement. When I plot a trend line of the UAH satellite data from 1979 to 2000 I get a slope of 0.105 C/Decade.
S. Fred Singer builds a straw man. I am disappointed.
RSS and UAT do show warming between 1978 and 2000 (I even removed the 1998 El Nino spike to be sure).
Saying the 1978 – 2000 surface measurements MIGHT be wrong is a red-herring and speculation.
Anthropogenic Global Warming can be deduced without using climate models – so AGW is not dependent on climate models.
I am also puzzled by the references to the IPCC AR4 report, that report has been superceded by the IPCC AR5 report.
And lets not mention the quote-mining. A “sceptical” scientist does not resort to quote-mining.
This is also an old article from 2012. I can see the bits that were edited to obscure that fact. The IPCC AR5 report was not finished in 2012.
I did the same thing (removed 1998), only you got 1978-2000 right
He should have noted that this entire issue has turned into a purely political dispute – and we should note that it has become a political dispute BECAUSE the warmistas have chosen to use Governmental powers to enforce their agenda, without the need for any broad based support.
When something enters the political arena, it becomes a binary problem. There are those who are for it, those who are against it, and those who try to stay in the middle and who end up having no effect on anything but who take a great deal of personal abuse from both sides. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, I’m just saying that is now the nature of this fight, and nothing we can do can change that.
Quantifying the water vapor as the metric to determine climatic effect is something that no one seems to want to do. I watch the tropics, not always because of cyclones, but because my father who is a degreed meteorologist taught me the interaction between the tropics and the temperate regions was the source region for much of the global weather pattern. It should be intuitive when one looks at mixing ratios. Look at the mixing ratios of the a parcel of air at an 80 wet bulb vs -20 wet bulb. A slight movement at 80 has a much greater effect on the mixing ratios than a much larger one at -20! One can look at the drop of the mixing ratios over the tropics since the PDO flip, and the blowing away of the trapping hot spot theory, as well as the diminishing of the global ace. Given the heat capacity of the ocean vs, the air, the result is seen in mixing ratios. But no one wishes to quantify these, instead we are fed global temperatures and their movements which are much greater where its cold and dry, where even if it warms 5 degrees, its still cold and dry, vs the oceans and the result over top of them. Hence the idea that the tropics push around the temperate regions. We live further north and scream look at this or that, but the fact remains that in this eternal cycle the unmoved mover, and this Grays idea with his outstanding paper http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
I think co2 is boxed in by all around it. I think the term “Greenhouse Effect” is a misnomer, conjuring up improper ideas on how the blanket of gasses, most dense near the earths surface, not a “trapping pane” that inhibits circulations, work. No one “denies” the affect of this wonderful blanket that make life as we know it possible, its that it seems to me alot of study into this is missing the main aspect to measure. I would hope someone would take the bull by the horns and attempt to quantify global mixing ratios in the satellite era, perhaps starting at 400 mb, above the density mid point, and aim first over the tropics, to see what kind of relationship is there. Generally the big muscles in the weather will produce the biggest effects on the weather and over the longer run, the climate
Yeah, sorry, this is a lot of crap. It looks to me like a subtle attempt a positioning with a little backspin thrown in to get a dig at people who’s theories don’t agree with the author’s.
+1
I’m sorry people like myself are making you look bad. Actually no Im not. Your so called proof of a greenhouse effect shows nothing more than a change in the frequencies of radiation as energy passes through different mediums not a redirection of heat flow.
Atmospheric pressure is what causes the surface of our planet to have a higher mean temperature than that of our moon. If you find people like me to be insulting, well, tough luck on that too. Quite frankly us deniers get kind of fed up trying to open the eyes of warmists and skeptics to something that should be blaringly obvious to anyone who hasn’t had them sewn shut!
It occurs to me upon reading the post that we might some day determine what was happening with global temperature in the latter 20th century. It occurs more readily that such conditions will change yet again and temperatures and weather along with them. Then, they will all change again.
“The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn’t show a warming. Neither does the ocean.”
That is the worst possible denial, as it concerns the period of warming that the whole attribution debate is about.
I cant figure out why more people aren’t pointing that out.
Probably because they are not paying attention, and also loyalty.
“John Eggert April 16, 2015 at 4:59 am
Yes. Deniers. There are some who deny that CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation and hence a whole slew of thermodynamic effects that follow, including a surface temperature that is warmer with a CO2 containing atmosphere than without. Effects that have been documented and carefully measured in great detail by many researchers, most of whom don’t really care a whit …”
Reply
Are there? I haven’t seen any here and if that is the basis for Singer’s argument (and I think it is when you peel back the covers) then see my earlier post.
Anthony, I am surprised that you gave this article your seal of approval.
There is a one hell of a difference. There are no deniers in any position of power. Therefore which group is much more dangerous?
Thanks for the Richard Feynman clip, may I play another?
I think the second half of this clip is an excellent perspective stretcher as to why some of the misunderstandings occur on this blog.
https://youtu.be/Cj4y0EUlU-Y
S. Fred Singer said: “The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn’t show a warming.” But have a look at:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2000/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2000/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2000/trend
I was disappointed with the article.
Using the video of Feynman was great, I’ve used that very same video in an attempt to get people to not get caught up in their beliefs and simply follow the evidence. I don’t think Singer takes Feynman’s message to heart.
Ground-based temperatures are obviously crap – siting issues and poorly reasoned adjustments make their value so questionable they’re essentially worthless. I’ve stopped considering them entirely. Satellite measurements seem to be of higher quality but their records are so short it’s difficult to gauge a proper perspecitive of their worth. But I do know that temperatures have flatlined (as well as sea ice being above avergae) despite CO2 continuing to go up so that should be raising alarm bells in all those who unquestioning believe that atmospheric CO2 at the levels today cause warming. Feynman had a famous quote – “Don’t fool yourself because you are the easiest person to fool” – basically he’s saying don’t fall in love with your hypotheses, if actual observations contradict your hypothesis then you need to move on and form a new one. The willingness to move on from a failed hypothesis doesn’t make a person a denier, it makes them a realist.
I have no idea what controls the climate but due to observed evidence I believe it highly unlikely that atmospheric CO2 is the “control knob”.
As someone who practices law and understands how rules of evidence works, I can tell you that the maxim “just follow the evidence” is easier said than done. So many lawyers have bleached their bones white on the beach by following evidence in the wrong direction, because they neither know nor care how to interpret evidence and make it useful and understandable. The idea of knowing HOW TO INTERPRET is the most important, because there are plenty of times where a piece of evidence can show you multiple different possibilities for interpretation or use, or can prove more than one separate proposition. Do not take this as a criticism of yourself or Professor Feynman (God rest his soul, I admired him as a brilliant thinker and scientist), just as a caveat about where following evidence can lead you.
Larry in Texas on April 17, 2015 at 4:22 pm
– – – – – – – –
Larry in Texas,
If there was a ‘comment of the week’ feature here at WUWT then I would nominate your comment.
Thank you for your clear thinking.
John
We bought a “Soda Stream” for Christmas that lets you make your own carbonated drinks. Based on my experience with that, it really is true that warm water holds less CO2. With a Soda Stream it’s very noticeable how much better the CO2 works when you start with cold water.
Thanks, Dr. Singer. A good article.
The D word seems to have been accepted as a label by some labeled with it.
No by me, because denying something implies that something is real and I just don’t accept that it is real. I cannot deny what is not real, I just reject it as wrong.
But sometimes it’s not only wrong, but an intentional deception. In this “liars” category I place the IPCC.
There is definitely a problem in that the cranks on each side of the argument cast discredit on their side, but only in the eyes of the other side. Unfortunately, Fred Singer is a poor choice to make this argument since he so often sounds like a crank himself.
For example, he wrote: “But what if there is little to no warming between 1978 and 2000? What if the data from thousands of poorly distributed weather stations do not represent a true global warming? The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn’t show a warming. Neither does the ocean. And even the so-called proxy record — from tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, corals, stalagmites, etc. — shows mostly no warming during the same period.”
The surface temperature record is certainly imperfect. But by 1978 we had pretty much global coverage, so to say that the surface trend is entirely spurious is to sound like the people Singer labels with the d-word. Claiming that the satellites show no trend is simply contrary to the facts. Think about it: periodically WUWT posts updates on the “pause” in the RSS data, which extends back to the mid-90’s, not 1978. Then Singer cites the radiosondes; I don’t know if they show a trend or not, but they are surely more poorly distributed than the surface measurements. Then he claims, contrary to fact, that the ocean shows no warming. Then he cites proxies, which are both much more poorly distributed and much less reliable than surface stations. This sort of stuff gives skeptics a bad name.
But Singer is one of our cranks, so its OK.
Actually the radiosonde data since 1958 are global:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/weather-balloon/radiosonde-atmospheric-temperature-products-accessing-climate
milodonharlani,
Thanks for the link, I think I’ll take a look at the data. But that link if is a total of 85 stations, not all of which are available for the whole time period. That can hardly be truly global. There is a much more extensive network available, a map is at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/weather-balloon/integrated-global-radiosonde-archive
milodonharlani
I took a quick look at the radiosonde data and the lower altitude data, up to 250 mbar show an upward trend (stronger at 500 mbar and below), intermediate altitudes (200 and 150 mbar) look pretty flat, and higher altitudes (100 mbar to 30 bar) show a downward trend. I think that is what mainstream theory predicts.
I have not tried any trend fitting or statistical tests. It might be that the period 1978-2000 is too short to get a statistically significant slope. But that would not provide any evidence against mainstream theory.
So I repeat my charge of Singer acting like one of the cranks who discredit skeptics.
If you think that a few dozen sites in Africa and one or two in Antartica make the system “pretty much global”, then you and I have a different definition of “global”. And let’s not get into the fact that about 70% of the planet that is covered by water was virtually unmeasured.
I read the essay by Dr. Singer but only few comments..
I couldn’t find myself in any of the sub-groups. I do not care what CO2 does, I just look at data and present what I find relating to natural variability inputs: solar, geodynamics, tectonics, geomagnetism etc .
Often there is a bit left unaccounted for, it could be CO2, water vapour or other internal feedbacks.
Here is an example from geodynamics where CO2 came strongly:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GLT-CO2a.gif
Am I warmist? definitely no.
Am I sceptic, definitely yes but foremost of my own findings and mostly ignoring of anyone’s else. That makes me an ignorant sceptic.
So Dr. Singer if you are around, perhaps you may wish to add yet another sub-group – ignorant sceptics – but you may not find many volunteers for the membership.
vukcevic
April 16, 2015 at 9:15 am .
I do not care what CO2 does, I just look at data and present what I find relating to natural variability inputs: solar, geodynamics, tectonics, geomagnetism etc .
———————————
Hello vuk..
Please allow me to offer you a little advice……you do not have to take it or accept it.
Please do let go and drop the albedo and the “Sun is doing it” ……
As far as I can tell, you can be better of with your skepticism with the rest there (geodinamics, tectonics and even with geomagnetism)/
In the second graph at your above post albedo is considered by putting the cart infront of the horse, so to speak.
And for as long as surface warming is higher than the atmospheric warming you lose your lovely Sun as a cause of warming and climate change…..
cheers
I never saw it as “three” camps, a spectrum but not really three identifiable positions.
First-off, I don’t think “deniers” exist in nature, so to speak; but then again, I guess I am a denier-denier. I have never heard anyone state that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist for whatever reason or some such nonsense, nor have I heard any one argue that the climate does not change. On a completely intuitive level, the words of George Carlin should have set people straight some time ago:
“…there is nothing wrong with the planet, nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are f*cked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doin’ great! It’s been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here, what? A hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand and we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the conceit to think that somehow we’re a threat? That somehow we’re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a floatin’ around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids, and meteors, world-wide floods, tidal waves, world-wide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages, and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference?”
Of course to some it will sound like that’s an excuse to to pollute and not care for the environment, but I don’t think that’s what Carlin was suggesting. He simply was telling people to stop falling for the the bullsh*t ideas that are based on panic and fear mongering from an arrogant crowd of people who are seemingly disconnected from the reality of the natural world which they live in.
Across the spectrum of thought in regards to climate change, we have unsoundness on one end and soundness on the other, with graduations in between. I’m being overly generous with the “unsoundness” label because I truly suspect that some individuals are just intellectually dishonest and politically motivated; which technically is “sound” reasoning in that narrow sense.
Come on. In this very thread, some deny CO2 could warm ground. Their line goes since air up is colder than air down, air up, with or without Co2, can’t warm air down. Then some bubbling on lapse rate and downwelling IR.
Usually they explain that the effect is against thermodynamics. Boring. I try to skip.
That’s not quite the same as “denying” the mechanic of the greenhouse effect. The C02 radiative forcing factor is more a marginal disagreement on one tributary while rightfully debatable, it’s tertiary.
One side seeks to give as much weight to CO2’s role as a warmer, while the counter is to suggest that CO2 isn’t all that and a bag of chips, especially at the levels we are talking about.
It’s always easy to find people arguing about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin; but such debates often only adds to the noise which drowns out the more obvious inquiries like, “Do angels even sit on pins?”
In this case, we start mulling over CO2 at the expense of everything else and serving up the ludicrous notion that there is one thing on earth that drives our climate.
But, as I said in my original post, it’s a spectrum, there’s enough room for “wrong” on any side of a debate, I just don’t think the conclusion of overall debate will revolve around such minutia even though science (rightfully) thrives on such details.
Surely it is necessary to specify a hypothesis before it can be “denied”. What am I denying? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? No. That man is adding to the amount of C02 in the atmosphere? No. That this small addition may have an affect on global temperatures? No. That CO2 released by man can override other temperature changes resulting from other natural phenomena? Dubious. That any mathematical model has yet been created which can, with any degree of accuracy, foretell global temperatures decades into the future? This I deny utterly. As a one-time mathematician I am doubtful if any such model could ever be created since there are too many unknowns and there will always be too many variables. I therefore proudly lay claim to being a “DENIER”.
Tiny random variations of the average temperature, a very difficult to compile accurately statistic, are most likely a combination of inaccurate measurements, random variations with no relationship to CO2, “adjustments” to the data that make it less accurate, and economic growth affecting the environment near thermometers.
.
More CO2 greens the earth with little or no effect on the average temperature.
.
There is no scientific proof CO2 caused the slight warming in the past 135 years since CO2 levels and average temperature do not correlate.
.
There is no accurate experimental evidence that CO2 increasing from 400 to 500 PPMV would cause enough warming to be measurable with current margins of era … or ANY more warming at all.
.
Another 100 PPMV of CO2 in the air is equivalent to putting a fifth opaque window shade over a window that already has four window shades over each window — will the fifth shade really make the room darker?
.
Will 500 ppmv of CO2 absorb any more radiation than 400 ppmv?
.
Most of the so called “greenhouse effect” is from the first 20 ppmv of CO2 in the air!
.
The coming global warming catastrophe is nothing more than a false boogeyman used by leftists to increase the power of their beloved central governments — all leftists issues, from DDT to acid rain to the hole in the ozone layer — have BIGGER GOVERNMENT as the “solution”.
.
More Co2 in the air is good news for green plants and good news for green plants is good news for humans.
Slight warming is also good news for humans — especially warming during winter nights in the northern half of the northern hemisphere — which describes most of the warming measured by satellites so far.
.
Leave it to leftists to take good news about the climate in the past 135 years and turn it around into a “coming climate catastrophe” that only BIG GOVERNMENT can solve!
They have been doing that scam since DDT the 1960’s, and I’ve watched long enough so they can’t fool me.