“The climate is changing, and we are the cause.” That is a statement that is so often-repeated and affirmed that it goes way beyond mere conventional wisdom. Probably, you encounter some version or another of that statement multiple times per week; maybe dozens of times. Everybody knows that it is true! And to express disagreement with that statement, probably more so than with any other element of current progressive orthodoxy, is a sure way to get yourself labeled a “science denier,” fired from an academic job, or even banished from the internet.
The UN IPCC’s recent Sixth Assessment Report on the climate is chock full of one version after another of the iconic statement, in each instance of course emphasizing that the human-caused climate changes are deleterious and even catastrophic. Examples:
- Human influence has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events since the 1950s. This includes increases in the frequency of concurrent heatwaves and droughts on the global scale (high confidence); fire weather in some regions of all inhabited continents (medium confidence); and compound flooding in some locations (medium confidence). (Page A.3.5)
- Event attribution studies and physical understanding indicate that human-induced climate change increases heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones (high confidence) but data limitations inhibit clear detection of past trends on the global scale. (Page A.3.4, Box TS.10)
- Some recent hot extreme events would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system. (Page A.3.4, Box TX.10)
So, over and over, it’s that we have “high confidence” that human influence is the cause, or that events would have been “extremely unlikely” without human influence. But how, really, do we know that? What is the proof?
This seems to me to be rather an important question. After all, various world leaders are proposing to spend some tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars to undo what are viewed as the most important human influences on the climate (use of fossil fuels). Billions of people are to be kept in, or cast into, energy poverty to appease the climate change gods. Political leaders from every country in the world are about to convene in Scotland to agree to a set of mandates that will transform most everyone’s life. You would think that nobody would even start down this road without definitive proof that we know the cause of the problem and that the proposed solutions are sure to work.
If you address my question — what is the proof? — to the UN, they seem at first glance to have an answer. Their answer is “detection and attribution studies.” These are “scientific” papers that purport to look at evidence and come to the conclusion that the events under examination, whether temperature rise, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, or whatever, have been determined to be “attributed” to human influences. But the reason I put the word “scientific” in quotes is that just because a particular paper appears in a “scientific” journal does not mean that it has followed the scientific method.
The UN IPCC’s latest report, known as “Assessment Report 6” or “AR6,” came out in early August, loaded up, as already noted, with one statement after another about “high confidence” in attribution of climate changes and disasters to human influences. In the couple of months since, a few statisticians who actually know what they are doing have responded. On August 10, right on the heels of the IPCC, Ross McKitrick — an economist and statistician at the University of Guelph in Canada — came out with a paper in Climate Dynamics titled “Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting: a comment.” On October 22, the Global Warming Policy Foundation then published two Reports on the same topic, the first by McKitrick titled “Suboptimal Fingerprinting?”, and the second by statistician William Briggs titled “How the IPCC Sees What Isn’t There.” (Full disclosure: I am on the Board of the American affiliate of the GWPF.).
The three cited papers are of varying degrees of technical difficulty, with McKitrick’s August paper in Climate Dynamics being highly technical and not for the faint of heart. (Although I studied this stuff myself in college, that was 50 years ago, and I can’t claim to follow all of the detail today.). But both the McKitrick and Briggs October papers are accessible to the layman. And in any event, the fundamental flaw of all of the IPCC’s efforts at claimed “attribution” is not difficult to understand. In simple terms, they have assumed the conclusion, and then attempted to bury that fact in a blizzard of highly technical statistical mumbo jumbo.
First, let me express the flaw in my own language; and then I’ll discuss the approaches of the other two authors. Here’s the way I would put it: in real science, causation is established by disproof of a null hypothesis. It follows that the extent to which you may have proved some level of causation depends entirely on the significance of the particular null hypothesis that you have disproved, and the definiteness of your disproof; and it further follows that no proof of causation is ever completely definitive, and your claim of causation could require modification at any time if another null hypothesis emerges that cannot be excluded. The UN’s “attribution” studies universally deal with consideration of null hypotheses that are contrived and meaningless, and whose disproof (even if validly demonstrated) therefore establishes nothing.
Of the three linked papers, Briggs’s is the easiest for a layman to understand, and if you are going to read one of the three, it is the one I would recommend. Here is how Briggs expresses the same concept I have just described:
All attribution studies work around the same basic theme. . . . A model of the climate as it does not exist, but which is claimed to represent what the climate would look like had mankind not ‘interfered’ with it, is run many times. The outputs from these runs is examined for some ‘bad’ or ‘extreme’ event, such as higher temperatures or increased numbers of hurricanes making landfall, or rainfall exceeding some amount. The frequency with which these bad events occur in the model is noted. Next, a model of the climate as it is said to now exist is run many times. This model represents global warming. The frequencies from the same bad events in the model are again noted. The frequencies between the models are then compared. If the model of the current climate has a greater frequency of the bad event than the imaginary (called ‘counterfactual’) climate, the event is said to be caused by global warming, in whole or in part.
In other words, the “attribution” study consists of invalidating a null hypothesis that is itself a counterfactual model with no demonstrated connection to the real world as it would have existed in the absence of human influences. The people who create these counterfactual models can of course build into them any characteristics they want in order that the result of their study will come out to be an “attribution” of the real world data to human influences. Why anyone would give any credence to any of this is beyond me.
By the way, there are hundreds upon hundreds of these “attribution” studies, all following the same useless formula. Could it really be that the hundreds of “scientists” who produce these things are unaware of and/or can’t perceive the fundamental logical flaw?
Ross McKitrick’s August 10 paper is, as noted, highly technical. If you are unfamiliar with the jargon and notation of econometric studies, it may make no sense to you at all. But his October paper for the GWPF puts the main points in terms much more accessible to the layman. I would summarize the main points as follows. The first is that the methodology of these many, many “attribution” studies always goes back to a seminal 1999 paper by Allen and Tett, referred to as AT99. The second is that the AT99 methodology would only be valid in a particular study if it could be demonstrated that a series of conditions for something known as the Gauss-Markov Theorem has been fulfilled. And the third is that the fulfillment of the conditions of the Gauss-Markov Theorem cannot be demonstrated in any of the climate “attribution” studies. Indeed, the climate “attribution” studies make no attempt to identify or deal with this problem. Thus, they are all meaningless.
The final step of the methodology of AT99 that supposedly supports “attribution” is something called the “Residual Consistency Test,” or “RCT.” From McKitrick’s August paper:
AT99 provided no formal null hypothesis of the RCT nor did they prove its asymptotic distribution, making non-rejection against 𝜒2 critical values uninformative for the purpose of model specification testing.
I think that McKitrick is making there basically the same point about meaningless, straw-man null hypotheses that I am making here; but then I can’t claim to fully comprehend all the jargon.
Anyway, when you read, for example, that scientists have demonstrated that the severity of the past year’s hurricane season is due to human greenhouse gas emissions, you may find that you are asking yourself, how could they possibly know that? After all, there is no way they could possibly know how many and how severe the hurricanes would have been absent the GHG emissions. Well, now you know how it is done, They just make up the counterfactual world in order to create a straw man null hypothesis that will get the result they want from the AT99 “attribution” methodology.
From the article: “And in any event, the fundamental flaw of all of the IPCC’s efforts at claimed “attribution” is not difficult to understand. In simple terms, they have assumed the conclusion, and then attempted to bury that fact in a blizzard of highly technical statistical mumbo jumbo.”
Oh, yes! That’s exactly what they are doing. They are substituting assumptions for facts and hoping nobody notices.
Well, some people notice.
Climate is changing, just as it always has and always will. Humans are not causing it to change and can not stop it from changing. Period. Full stop. 33
1Vote
1Day
Here is a good way to test the strawman null hypothesis. Probably McKittrick or Briggs could have fun with it. Go back a decade and a half ago to when ‘Gulibal Warming’ was causing rapid recession of the snow on Kilimanjaro. Do the analysis to see if the mountain would succumb to G.W. then fast-forward several years to find the ‘snows of Kilimanjaro’ have remarkably returned and the warming went away.
Do the same with the parching drought in the sahel with a shrinking Lake Chad, which today is full of water again and CO2 greening is encroaching on the Sahara.
There are many others readers could think of.
Even if the global climate models really worked well, there is wise spread agreement, from experience, that they can not do anything useful on regional levels i.e. they cannot conclude anything about any particular place.
“The Climate Is Changing, And Human Activities Are The Cause”: How, Exactly, Do We Know That? Point one the climate is always changing with or without humans. Point two we don’t even know which way. It has been warming for the last 200 and yet it been dropping for the last 8000 and we no where near the high of the last 8000. Is just one of the upticks that happen many time in the last 8000 or is it because something we are doing. God only know and if he does not exist no one knows.
The climate has always changed and in the past CO2 has been an effect rather than a cause of warming as seen in the ice core record.
However the GHG hypothesis has it that increases in the GHG concentration will cause warming all else being equal.
The fact that the climate can change through natural processes does not logically exclude a possible human-caused effect.
That is the logical fallacy of affirming a disjunct, just because two possibilities exist and one is proven to be true it doesn’t follow that the other possibility must be false.
both might apply but the new one, based on much historical and physical evidence, cannot cancel the older one
The warmunists have their models, but they cannot provide experimental or empirical data to support their hypotheses of cause and effect, and to disprove the null hypothesis.
Ironically, in the early days of the warmunist crusade, the warmunists always pointed to the “precautionary principle”, which held that since the null hypotheses to warmunism could not be proven true, and given the potentially catastrophic consequences to mankind if warmunism was actually real, then the conservative approach is to assume that warmunism is real and act accordingly. But warmunists gave up on that message decades ago because it didn’t sufficiently scare the bejeesus out of enough people to get them to kowtow to warmunism. Instead warmunists changed their tune to “catestrophic global warming is now a certainty, and precaution no longer applies.”
But even the claimed certainty of impending doom turned out to be insufficient to motivate public surrender to warmunism … so consequently warmunists have kept cranking up the hysteria day by day, leaning on the certainty of imminent doom ever more shrilly with each new increment of hysteria. That tactic, of course, is also doomed to fail, in accordance with the “cry wolf” principle … eventually the people tune you out when doom does not actually materialize.
“That tactic, of course, is also doomed to fail, in accordance with the “cry wolf” principle … eventually the people tune you out when doom does not actually materialize.”
I think this is why most people don’t get too exercised over a climate crisis. They look around and everything seems normal to them. And it is normal. There is no visible crisis, so what is there to fear? The crisis is only in the heads of those who believe in this climate change hoax. That amounts to a lot of people, but it doesn’t make the hoax true, and apparently, judging by the polls, most people are not believing in the hoax.
OK, I think I understand how this works: it’s a movie script or a TV episode script. You create the “world” you want to put the characters into and it has always been “this way” and won’t change because that will upset something called “The Balance” (whatever that is) and Hoomans will have caused The Planet to flop over so that it is off its axis, rotating sideways. The odd part is that the script ignores the Chaos Factor present in planetary construction. Even Jupiter has a chaos factor, and astronomers get upset when the Great Red Spot appears to be having the hiccups or maybe shrinking, as if they think they can make it go back to its original configuration.
Got it. I’m trying to remember which Star Trek episode that was.
So this article tells us that the chaos factor – which runs this and (so far) other planets is something that scares the heebie-jeebies out of the climate science crowd, because they can’t control the planet’s agenda or write the script/formula to make it into a steady-state thing.
They can’t control it. That frightens them. So they create The Straw Man argument (GHG, etc.) and ignore reality because the Truth is that They can’t handle or control Reality, and They can’t handle the Truth: that they have no control of this planet at all, never have had it, and never will. Scares them the way the Closet Monster used to scare them, along with those funny noises when the house creaked in the wind at night.
The last major climate change was around 130,000 years ago for Australia, a different land mass then to what is here today above water. During the last Ice Age many of the small population of tribes gathered to live around a lake that is now the Gulf of Carpentaria in Northern Australia not far from Papua New Guinea that was on then far Northern other side of the lake.
Before the gradual change of climate and weather conditions the land that is now called Australia was covered in Rainforests, they died out as conditions became drier and hotter and were replaced by Eucalypts, Rainforests today amount to about 3 per cent of forest.
Since the Little Ice ended during the 1700s warmer conditions returned, naturally.
What’s next, indications are that a new cooling cycle is underway?
Climate hoax is all about politics and redistribution of the wealth of developed nations.
The social, political, economic, and religious climate, yes. We are not pleased.
Man-made climate attribution studies are wrong. Mário Barbosa Villas Boas explained the reasoning and why it’s wrong. Email him for an RVP to watch his presentation if my links does not work.
My summary of his basic argument is:
The assumption of AWG involves 5 steps. Each step must be shown to be the case, in order to progress to the next. The steps are dependent. One can’t take the next step unless the previous was valid. The 5 steps were:
(1) Atmospheric [CO2] has been increasing
(2) Burning carbon fossil fuel makes CO2 increase
(3) Mean temperature of earth has recently increased
(4) Atmospheric [CO2] increase causes global temperature increase
(5) An increase in earth’s mean temperature will cause climate catastrophes
Villas Boas used the same data as the AGW advocates. He shows that only assumptions (1) and (3) are valid.
His disproves (2), (4), (50 are along the lines of:
(2) The increase in Atmospheric [CO2] is stepwise. During one season, it falls. Humanity burns fossil fuel all year round. The total carbon in the atmosphere is 800 bn. tons, and the total in the ocean is 38,000 bn tons. Each year 120 bn tons of carbon are emitted as [CO2] due to respiration from all life on earth. In 2010 6bn tones of carbon were emitted (as CO2). So although burning carbon does make CO2, the amount made by man is insignificant and cannot be the cause of (1). There’s no clear proof that [CO2] increase seen at Mauna Loa is man-made.
(4) Look in the earth’s temperature history and atmospheric [CO2] history. The relationship between the two correlates best when there’s a gap of 800 years between each. It shows atmospheric [CO2] changes follow global temperature changes with an 800 year lag. Temperature changes cause atmospheric [CO2] to change; not the other way around. Although he doesn’t say it: As oceans cool, the solubility of CO2, in water, increases. But sea/ocean water is not well mixed; it’s layered. It clearly takes 800 years for it to mix properly, and for the temperature change beginning at the surface to propagate evenly throughout the oceans, including the bottom.
(5) According to warmist data, the warmest period in the last 1000 years was about 1600, 421 years ago, when, they say, it was warmer than now. Looking at historical records show no catastrophes back then. Yet beginning 15 years into the 17th century, as global temperatures began to cool, we find the first reports of persistent bad weather in the last, and most extreme period of the Little Ice Age. [Citation: “Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century“, 2014, by Geoffrey Parker]. The further the historian goes into the 17th century, the cooler average surface temperatures got, the worse the reports of bad weather and climate catastrophe. Cooling cause climate crisis; not warming.
Well let’s see: there’s an increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the isotopic signature on that tells us it came from human activity i.e burning fossil fuel.
The physics of how CO2 works in the atmosphere is well documented.
Physical observation of heat in the atmosphere, temperatures and radiation into space, etc confirms the atmosphere is warming.
Multiple long term observations of weather, ice, temperature confirm a warming planet.
Other drivers of climate change known from the past can be shown not to be driving temperature.
Science shows us humans are heating the planet.
“The physics of how CO2 works in the atmosphere is well documented.”
Dang! You got two up votes, Griff! That must be a first.
We know how CO2 works, it absorbs and emits energy, but we don’t know how that interaction affects the Earth’s atmosphere. At the present time, there is no detectable effect on the Earth’s atmosphere from CO2, including increases in temperatures which could be caused by other things besides CO2. Increasing CO2 has not prevented the globe from cooling 0.4C since the 2016 highpoint. CO2 and temperatures don’t seem to be correlating.
Oh, really?
https://scc.klimarealistene.com/2021/10/new-papers-on-control-of-atmospheric-co2/
See Figures 5 and 9 in Part 2.
Looks like Griff’s favorite talking point is finally SOL.
“Other drivers of climate change known from the past can be shown not to be driving temperature.”
1) Demonstrably false, for instance, cloud coverage has a much stronger correlation to temperature than CO2 ever did;
2) That assumes every single possible driver of temperature is known to us, which is total hubris;
3) The almost total lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature on a geological scale (see the Ordovician Ice Age happening when CO2 was spiking, or the ice core records showing CO2 lagging temperature) disproves CO2 as a significant temperature driver in the past (at invariably much higher concentrations) and makes it unlikely to be one in the present;
4) We ought to want to heat the planet. If only the AGW hypothesis were true so in addition to improving human wealth and refilling Earth’s dangerously depleted stockpiles of atmospheric CO2 we could also make the climate more agreeable for every living thing… Well, as Meat Loaf sang, two out of three ain’t bad.
Dear Mr. Griff, and are you sure, that the “other drivers of climate change known from the past” are ALL the drivers of climate change? Would be the list of “other drivers of climate change known from the past” exhaustive? Your argumentation is eventually equals to the statement: “What I don´t know doesn´t exist”. Or the argumentation of a criminal in a trial: “I it was not known for me that robbery would be a crime, soe I felt to be free to do robbery, and I am unguilty”. Or what about the “unknown unknowns”? What if there or other drivers of climate change which are currently unknown?
“the isotopic signature on that tells us it came from human activity i.e burning fossil fuel”
It is a simple isotopic mass balance calculation to show that the incremental atmospheric CO2 since the start of observations has had an average net δ13C of -13 per mil, whereas burning fossil fuels is estimated to generate CO2 with a δ13C of -28 per mil; i.e. a much lower 13C/12C ratio. In addition, the Law Dome ice core data also shows a δ13C of the incremental atmospheric CO2 since 1750 (or thereabouts) to be -13 per mil. I find this remarkable and yet it does not appear to be discussed anywhere in the literature. Of course, the explanation might be complex, but I can find no recent published models that are able to replicate both the general (average) trend and, simultaneously, the short-term fluctuations in δ13C that appear to be driven by ENSO and Pinatubo, which must form part of any explanatory model.
So, griff, please share with us your isotopic mass balance model.
Rather radiation transfer physics is well documented.
Validated models, very useful for engineering, show that increasing atmosphere CO2 can have only very limited temperature results. AGW depends on the idea that those limited results will be multiplied by other factors. That multiplication is not established and seems either not to exist, is very limited, or may be negative.
“The physics of how CO2 works in the atmosphere is well documented.”
Show us a paper that details how CO2 works in the 2/3 of the atmosphere that is cloudy.
The article misses the last point that was in the full version, which I find interesting. It posed the question of how all these scientists can just take this logically flawed attribution study methodology without realising the flaws? But how many scientists would actually think about the methodology they have been handed? Many were probably given this “tool” in undergraduate class, and told that it was good. Then they just use it uncritically.
But that is the problem with science. It is so specialised that no scientist will take the time to understand the “tools” they have been given that were developed by somebody else.
A video made for the COP26 meeting is going viral with a Velociraptor talking (with a female voice) to the UN assembly, saying that humans should avoid extinction… It is so ridiculous and at a kindergarten level. They could have just as well taken Big Bird from Sesame street to do the job.
And do you know what? They made a capital mistake: a Velociraptor is a predatory dinosaur and eats meat !!! They didn’t even think about taking a plant eating (uh.. vegan) dinosaur !
The teeth should give some huge clues…
You mean like those of grandma in little red riding hood ? …
Consensus is not scientific fact. Moreover, according to satellite empirical data, the change in the earth’s temperature has been negligible for the last 21 years. Who started the “global warming” hoax?
“The common enemy of humanity is man.”
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
-Club of Rome -1993
Premier Environmental Think-Tank
Consultants to the United Nation.
Everything is taken as proof that global warming is happening, and the repeated failure of sophisticated climate models to predict the actual, observed results is hardly noticed. Even the name of the phenomenon itself has been changed from “global warming” to “climate change” to fit the contradictory outcomes ascribed to it.
Since real time data doesn’t fit into their theories, climate alarmists now claim that there is a “Climate Pause” that wasn’t foreseen in the original global warming “models” conceived in the 1990’s.
Philosopher Karl Popper described the essence of a scientific theory as “falsifiability”–i.e., it must be possible to conceive of a way to disprove the theory, so that its validity can be demonstrated and defended.
Climate change, at least in popular discourse, is not falsifiable.
If Global Warming was scientific fact, then it would behave like… boiling water. We know generally (based on altitude, temperature, barometric pressure, water purity and other specifics at the location) that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius or 212 degrees Fahrenheit. It happens on every test
.
Boiling water has 100% predictability. The falsifiable proof is that if you heat water to 180 degrees Fahrenheit or 70 degrees Celsius then water will not boil.
Global Warming advocates cannot say that about their theory. Proponents have not presented a theory where it is possible to conceive of a way to disprove the theory, so that its validity can be demonstrated and defended.
Lacking this characteristic, the theory remains a probability that allows for “randomness.”
The global warming movement has a cult like character. You have to believe it to see it. Probability cannot control randomness. It cannot “settle” the issue.
Climate change proponents cloak themselves in a zealotry that they condemn in the religious. They berate and belittle “climate deniers” as if the unbeliever ignores the obvious at his own peril. That smug arrogance built on a flimsy platform of rickety computer models would be laughable if they weren’t so convinced of global warming’s virtue.
Carbon DIOXIDE is plant food. It is a necessary ingredient when plant life use sunlight to synthesize foods from carbon dioxide and water to convert it into OXYGEN through a process called photosynthesis. Eliminate it and we can’t breathe. Or is that the goal?
Carbon MONOXIDE is poisonous and is emitted from burning carbon-based fuels. Taken in sufficient quantity it is lethal. These are the emissions that must be reduced.
Do these people understand what they are for and against?
I don’t think so.
Discredited “Hockey Stick” computer models are not the stuff of scientific fact.
“Computer models do a good job of helping us understand climate but they do a very poor job of predicting it.”
That is according to the late mathematical physicist Freeman Dyson of the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey who spent 37 years studying the problem.
Dyson said, “As measured from space, the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide, so it’s increasing agricultural yields, it’s increasing the forests and it’s increasing growth in the biological world, and that’s more important and more certain than the effects on climate.”
He acknowledged that human activity has an effect on climate but claims it is much less than is claimed. He stresses the non-climate benefits of carbon are overwhelmingly favorable.
The essential truth is that climate change theory is sophistry at its base core. It is barren of physical support and relies on the adherent to “buy in” that man is the root of all ecological damage to the environment. If man’s activity were curtailed, the effects would go away. Taken to its extreme by irrational believers and the Club of Rome, the elimination of the human species would be the best solution to climate change.
It adds up that climate change is not fact or theory. It is a cult that requires its acolytes to suspend belief and accept a narrow and illogical screed.
Presenting the “chicken little” fable to children is a life lesson. Living it and promoting it as an adult is a pathology that requires psychiatric treatment.
Water will boil at less than 70 centigrade at the top of Everest.
I’ll remember that the next time I’m up there. Know any good restaurants that have opened recently?
Because the Sun told us.
Reminds me of the Dylan song, The Climes, They Are A-Changin’:
Come gather ’round people, wherever you roam
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept it that soon you’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth saving
Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
For the climes, they are a-changin’
Yes, of course the climate is changing. How do we know? Because it is always changing. But of course, that isn’t what they mean, is it? No, they are talking about human-made change, implying that we know that that “is happening”. Er, no, we don’t know anything of the sort.But, but, they say, “it’s unprecedented!” Pure, grade-A bollocks. But, but, “look at the weather – it’s extreme!” Again, pure, grade-A bollocks.
Earth got hammered by a mid sized Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) Saturday afternoon. I haven’t heard any results from it but, it points out, that the big yellow ball in the day sky has an effect on weather.
if the science is solid, why constantly get caught gaming the numbers? GW is about Power, control & taxation. A watermelon – Green on the outside but commie red on the inside
If variations in climate were not naturally occurring then we’d still be up to our hips with snow, ice and the Wooly Mammoths here in North America. Not many humans around back then to change that and it’s not reasonable to believe that Mammoth flatulence was the cause. Of course that won’t stop the Dimocrats from pushing their climate change hoax in support of their real globalist agenda. Don’t fall for the BS.
The basic key to this is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. It is assumed to be 33C. After years of my challenging ppl to show any published research that supports this assumption, nobody has. All that exists is radiative spectra that show that it exists. I don’t dispute that.
FWIW, As far back as 2011 Nahle (Biological Cabinet Online??) calculated it to be less than 1% of the assumed value. My calculations agree, but it’s not up to us. Science requires the alarmists to make a case for their assumption, which can then be directly critiqued.
A direct local measurement of the GHE is possible. Why has it not been performed or published?
But the AGW conjecture is clearly false. The AGW at first sounds quite plausible but upon closer examination I find that it is a conjecture based on only partial science. For example, molecule per molecule, H2O is a stronger IR absorber than is CO2 and on average there is roughly 50 times more H2O in the Earth’s atmosphere than is CO2. So H2O is the primary greenhouse gas. So according to the AGW conjecture, adding more H2O to the atmosphere should cause warming. So one would expect that the adding of H2O to the atmosphere must cause the lapse rate to increase yet the opposite is true. Because the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere adding H2O must cause cooling and not warming. Any CO2 based warming would cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere but that additional H2O must act to reduce any warming that CO2 might cause. Also consider the whole process where H2O evaporates at the Earth’s surface and then condenses into clouds. The entire process moves heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form and where that energy is more radially radiated to space. so instead of the primary greenhouse gas causing warming it really causes cooling. So because of that problem alone there must be something very wrong with the AGW conjecture. And the problem with H2O is not even the biggest problem that the AGW conjecture actually has. Am I saying anything that is wrong here? I guess that a lot of would be scientists just assume that the AGW conjecture is correct but it is not.
Can anyone explain why the mainstream theory, which I understand as follows, is wrong? Is it actually wrong or is it right but other things are compensating?
Using the above theory I get circa 3 degrees per doubling of CO2, right in the middle of traditional claims.