We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Donations:
Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469


All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynmann

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Man-Made Global Warming WRONG - The Ten Reasons.

10 Reasons why Man-Made Global Warming is Wrong.

by COHENITE

1 Temperature

CO2 emissions by humans are supposed to increase the temperature; that is the basic point of man-made global warming [AGW]. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the hotter it should get. That is a basic AGW prediction. It is isn’t happening. Walter Brozek analyses the official temperature data from all the main sources including the satellites. Brozek uses 2 criteria; the first from NOAA to test for flatness or zero warming; the second from Dr Phil Jones to test for no statistical warming; the 2 criteria overlap with the second allowing for some slight warming and the first for even cooling. The first shows zero temperature for 15 years; the second for up to 23 years. The first is climatically significant by NOAA standards, the second by Dr Santer’s standards. This means the temperature is not being caused by AGW. The only line going up is CO2:

Link available HERE,


2 Models. 

AGW science is based on modelling which in turn is based on certain assumptions about the effect on climate of various factors such as CO2. This effect is expressed as a forcing and can be seen at the IPCC website. Note how the forcing expected from CO2 is nearly 20 times greater than from the sun. Predictions about how these forcings will determine temperature have been around for a long time and can therefore be checked. Roy Spencer has checked the model predictions against the temperature in the Troposphere: 

Roy Spencer Graph.


Some will say Roy’s comparison only shows the models can’t predict the Troposphere. But as Bob Tisdale shows the models also can’t predict sea surface temperatures,  land and sea surface temperatures, or precipitation. Nor can they, as Koutsoyiannis showed, predict the past.



3 The sun (1).

 AGW science says the sun has little effect on temperature compared with CO2 forcing. Dr Ka-Kit Tung disagrees and has compared the long-term solar record with the longest temperature record on the planet, the Central England Temperature [CET]. The final image in Tung’s slide presentation is revealing and shows a remarkable correlation between the CET record and Total Solar Irradiation [TSI]. This correlation between temperature and TSI has also been derived in 2 other studies. The first is by Glassman at Figure 1 where he uses global HADCRUT3 data. The second is by Stockwell at Figures 4-7 where all the major land-based temperature indices are shown to correlate with TSI using his model. Stockwell’s model is simply that temperature responds to TSI mean with the rate of temperature increase/decline determined by the movement away from the mean.


4 The sun (2). 

A new study from Spain, the home of solar power and national bankruptcy, shows how variations in solar radiation correlate well with temperature without any need for AGW. The increase is due to cloud variation. Of course Monckton was on top of the role of clouds and temperature when he debated Tim Lambert  - and Lambert sprung that infamous ambush about Pinker being a woman not a man. What was overlooked was the fact that Monckton was correct. Pinker et al had found that solar forcing through cloud variation was sufficient to explain all the temperature increase from the 1980’s onwards. This should come as no surprise really because it is exactly what the IPCC in TAR had found too.


5 The sun (3). 

Hood et al’s 2013 paper shows how slight variations in TSI have an amplified effect on the ocean, land and stratosphere. This amplification occurs or begins regionally and can produce seemingly contradictory results such as the ‘warming’ Arctic and a freezing Europe which the AGW supporters are saying is merely how AGW works. Of course this is the complete opposite of what the AGW supporters used to say. Who can forget Dr Viner predicting an end to winter snow in the Northern Hemisphere generally and particularly in England? NASA’s Drew Shindell noticed this solar amplification back in 2002; Shindell said:
“In our simulations, we find that the reduced brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum causes global average surface temperature changes of only a few tenths of a degree, in line with the small change in solar output. However, regional cooling over Europe and North America is 5-10 times larger due to a shift in atmospheric winds."
And:
“So a reduction in the amount of sunlight reaching the planet leads to a weaker equator-to-pole heating difference, and therefore slower winds. The effect on surface temperatures is particularly large in winter. Because the oceans are relatively warm during the winter due to their large heat storage, the diminished flow creates a cold-land/warm-ocean pattern (Figure 3) by reducing the transport of warm oceanic air to the continents, and vice-versa.”


6 The Moon. 

In Tom Cruise’s latest movie, Oblivion, aliens conquer the Earth by destroying the Moon and creating climatic havoc. Ian Wilson is probably entitled to a script credit. Wilson and his co-author, Nikolay Sidorenkov’s latest paper looks at how the Lunar cycles have major impacts on the Earth’s climate. This is intuitive since the Moon has such a pronounced effect on the oceans; it is reasonable to suppose it has an equal effect on the atmosphere. Jo’s analysis reduces Wilson and Sidorenkov’s complex paper to a satisfying layman’s level.


7 Aerosols. 

These minute particles can be part of volcanic eruptions and be produced by industrial processes. Their effect on climate is complex and suspected of causing both warming and cooling. Their most spectacular effect was on the Ozone layer which protects the Earth from the sun’s worst radiation. Now professor Qing-Bin Lu, former Newcastle university student has done a comprehensive analysis of the effect of aerosols on climate.
Lu’s paper analyses the relative contributions of CO2 and various other factors including cosmic rays (CRs), total solar irradiance, sunspot number, halogenated gases (CFCs, CCl4 and HCFCs) and total O3.  Lu uses comprehensive measured datasets of quantities of all the factors and concludes: “For global climate change, in-depth analyses of the observed data clearly show that the solar effect and human-made halogenated gases played the dominant role in Earth's climate change prior to and after 1970, respectively.”
This is a remarkable repudiation of AGW. Equally remarkable was the response of leading AGW scientist David Karoly when interviewed on the ABC. It was plain Karoly had not even read the paper.


8 Water. 

Earth. Look at it. It’s all clouds, oceans and ice. In a neglected paper Ferguson and Veizer compared the water and CO2 cycle and found the CO2 cycle was a subordinate process. The AGW position is put by Lacis et al. who say that non-condensing gases, mainly CO2, are the Earth’s thermostat or “control knob”.  The reason for this is that CO2 stays longer in the atmosphere. This is a flawed view because CO2 is constrained by basic laws like Beer-Lambert which limit its radiative effect. In fact it is the condensation process which enables water to change its state from liquid/gas/ice which is the major contributor to atmospheric energy. A new paper by Makarieva et al finds this condensation process of water lowers atmospheric pressure. That atmospheric pressure should drop with condensation is contrary to AGW modelling. There are 2 issues flowing from this; the first is whether Makarieva is correct about condensation caused pressure drop and secondly whether that effect influences the impact of AGW. In respect of the first the issue is discussed between Makarieva and Stigter and Meesters. Useful discussions are also to be found at Jeff Condon and Jo Nova where the main protagonists, for and against, participate. Meesters main point is that is while condensation removes water from the vapor body the process of condensation heats the remaining vapor and causes a rise in pressure. This is wrong, as blogger voxUnius notes:

Condensation heats the air parcel and hence causes faster molecular motion, expansion of the air parcel, decreased density and a decrease in pressure. That's how convective clouds work. The air inside the cloud is hotter, hence less dense, hence has less pressure than the air at the same altitude immediately outside the cloud where condensation is not taking place. This causes the simple mechanics of atmospheric convection. So-called hot air rises.”
The significance of decreased pressure profoundly contradicts AGW; with decreased pressure there can be no THS, a vital prediction of AGW. The pressure drop also confirms that even if AGW exists it is a minor player of no consequence. The Lacis paper on behalf of AGW wants us to believe the non-condensing greenhouse gases control the earth’s temperature and disaster will occur because of a 3.7 W/m2 forcing over the next 100 years or so. But this minute forcing is dwarfed by evaporating/condensing water which generates energy fluxes from Ldq and PdV [equations 1 to 3] that well exceed 1000 W/m2 each and every day. Small variations in those fluxes, such as cloud cover or levels of humidity make AGW forcing, if it is right, insignificant.


9 Carbon Dioxide (CO2). 

The basic issue of whether humans are responsible for all the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been looked at before. If CO2 increase is not due to human emissions then it is irrelevant if the claimed effect of CO2 on climate is true or not. Professor Murray Salby has given a comprehensive presentation on why the increase in CO2 is most likely due to natural emissions. CO2 follows temperature and the sun has warmed the Earth from 1850 up to the end of the 20thC thus providing the temperature cause to a natural CO2 increase. Salby addresses the mass balance argument [MB] which supposedly proves the CO2 increase is due to human emissions because the increase in CO2 is less than the human emissions. The MB cannot be right because the highest concentrations of CO2 are in non-industrialised areas such as the Amazon, key elements of the MB such as natural sinks and emissions are unknown and the correlation between temperature [and therefore natural emissions] is very high while there is little correlation between CO2 increase and human emissions.


10 Angry summer. 

Some hot temperatures and some particular site records during the summer of 2012-2013 were hailed as proof of AGW. The defects of these claims has been looked at. One point remains to be made. The Bureau of Meteorology [BOM] temperature record was the basis of these claims of a record hot or “Angry summer”. The BOM’s record is ground based. A comparison of the satellite temperature record is instructive:


These facts speak for themselves and should be front page news. They are not. That fact should also be front page news.






24 comments:

  1. How do you have any legitimacy having a chiropractor on your party team? If you're going to challenge 'pseudoscience', challenge chiropractics too, or else you'll look silly to other skeptics. Being selective isn't good for your political agenda!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Four papers on line, that you may find of interest, provide some eye-opening insight on possible cause of change to average global temperature. The papers are straight-forward calculations using readily available data through up to May, 2013.

    The first one is 'Global warming made simple' at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/ . It shows, with simple thermal radiation calculations, how a tiny change in the amount of low altitude clouds could account for half of the average global temperature change in the 20th century, and what could have caused that tiny cloud change. (The other half of the temperature change is from net average natural ocean oscillation which is dominated by the PDO)

    The second paper is 'Natural Climate change has been hiding in plain sight' at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . This paper presents a simple equation that calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated trajectory overlaid on measurements.

    A third paper, ‘The End of Global Warming’ at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ expands recent (since 1996) measurements and includes a graph showing the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature.

    The fourth paper http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com/ exposes some of the mistakes that have been made by the ‘Consensus’ and the IPCC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Dan. In particular your sunspot calculation is consistent with a growing body of research.

      Can I direct your attention again to Glassman's and Stockwell's papers at paragraph 4 of the article where you will find similar graphs to yours.

      If you want to do a post here on one of your papers please contact the site moderators.

      Delete
    2. Sure. The 'climatechange90' paper would probably be most effective. Maybe tune it up a bit with links to or stuff from the others. How do I contact the moderators?

      Delete
    3. G'day Dan, email sceptic101ATmeDOTcom

      Geoff

      Delete
    4. Geoff - email sent OK but your server did not accept it. The system will retry for two more days.

      Perhaps the 'End of global warming' paper at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ with some enhancements will draw more interest.

      Delete
  3. As I see it:

    A) There is no paleoclimate evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate.

    B) There are sufficient negative feedbacks to the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere so as to negate any effect that CO2 could have on climate.

    CO2 is not a source of energy so it must act as a passive element. In terms of the greenhouse effect, CO2 acts as a radiative insulator that restricts LWIR radiative heat flow. As an insulator it operates to increase temperatures in the lower troposphere but to lower temperatures in the upper troposphere. The higher temperatures in the lower troposphere causes more water vapor to be created which causes more heat to be transported via the heat of vaporization and more clouds to form. Clouds reflect sunlight and radiate to space better then the gassious atmosphere alone. In the upper troposphere cooler temperatures cause more cloud formation and H2O levels to drop. All of these phenomena act as negative feedbacks to the addition of any non condensing greenhouse gas to the atmosphere. There is evidence that such climate stability has been going on ever since life began to evolve on earth. We are here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly; the metastability of Earth temperature over the last 600 million years which has featured a temperature range of just 15C, despite much greater variations in CO2 levels shows this is a water world.

      Miskolczi knew this and wrote about and was ridiculed for his efforts.

      Despite this the Lacis 'control knob' paper remains the official view of AGW.

      Delete
  4. In your REASON 1 the graph shows that the temps 2000-2012 are flat,

    while in your REASON 2 the graph shows the same temps as rising.

    Please make up your mind if the temps are rising or not for the last decade...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon; the first graph deals with the period of no warming or statistically insignificant warming.

      The second graph is a comparison of the models with trends.

      Both graphs are expressed with a linear slope but the difference is obviously to do with the starting points with the longer period still showing a slight increase post 2000 because its starting point is at a lower temperature and does include a period of warming which is averaged over the whole trend as is the case with all linear trend lines.

      However both graphs clearly prove their respective points; as I say the first shows that there has been no warming for a climatically significant period; the second shows the failure of the models.

      Delete
    2. Dear Cohenite,

      (hint) Please tell me who is the target audience of your article (post? essay?)? (/hint)

      Delete
    3. The target audience is anyone with an open mind.

      Delete
  5. Dear Anonymous,

    Well spotted, however.....

    Read the graphs more carfeully, temperatures in REASON 2 graph are recorded over a thirty years period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you probably wanted to say "linear trend over a thirty years period".

      However...

      one shouldn't use inconsistent data in one's arguments, especially when preaching to laypersons.

      I didn't notice the small print, but at least I understand the math. How many readers (voters!) would understand?

      If you really want people to vote for you, and if you choose position of reason and science (as opposed to FUD and mud-slinging), your arguments must be impeccable.

      Delete
  6. I have stumbled upon your blog today (thru "The Hockey Schtick").

    Did you really call your party "climate skeptics party"?
    Really? You guys must be crazy.

    Did you look up "skeptic" in a dictionary?
    Here:

    a sceptic is "a person who questions the validity ... of something purporting to be factual ... maintains a doubting attitude ... towards values, plans, statements, or the character of others ..."

    Synonym: "a doubter".

    Is it how you want voters to see you??!!

    "Denier" and "skeptic" are the labels which warmists put on people immune to their propaganda. We are not "skeptics", we are "realists", "common sense persons", "normals"!

    If you have started your party by accepting slanderous label put on you by fraudsters - you guys have ZERO CHANCE in politics!

    Analogy (a little extreme - to push my point):

    Imagine, the gay rights activists decided to start their own party and called it ... ta-da! ... "The Party of F*ggots".
    Guess if they succeed?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Excellent summation. Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cohenite,

    I linked to your post from Climatedepot. You are concise and spot on as usual!

    thanks for a great post!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Eddy; keep up the good work!

      Delete
  9. The "condensation adds heat" objection shows no comprehension of "dew point". In your weather forecast, or in a cloud, it's the temperature floor where RH maxes out, resisting any further decline. But the decline happens anyway, it just takes longer, as humidity has to be removed by condensation or congealing to accommodate the decline in water vapour carrying capacity of the air as it cools.

    But the air doesn't heat from condensation: if it did, the condensation would cease, by definition, as it is caused by cooling! The heat, as usual, ends up radiating into outer space, which is why frost or dew happens so much more readily and quicker on clear nights.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "But the air doesn't heat from condensation: if it did, the condensation would cease"

    Exactly and one of the big problems with AGW is that it double counts; it counts the energy needed to evaporate moisture and counts that energy again as predicted temperature in the atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Brian H. "The heat, as usual, ends up radiating into outer space". Can you explain to me the physical process behind this?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Can you explain to me the physical process behind this?"

    Any radiation which isn't blocked is emitted into space; there is a window of wavelength which is not blocked by any of the GHGs and radiation at that wavelength goes straight from the surface into space:

    http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-antarctica-walden-19981.png

    Radiation which is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere goes through a process of absorption and reemission until the characterictic emission layer where there is no absorption above. The height of the CEL can vary but is typically in the lower stratosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://enersavebiz.blogspot.com/2013/07/hydrocarbon-as-green-gas-for-air.html

    Hello. We need some help here. Your opinions or comments are highly appreciated. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!