Thursday, 30 January 2014

AGW: Disproved Again

by Anthony Cox

Some recent papers and articles have shown again that man-made (or anthropogenic) global warming (AGW) is a theory bereft of proof or logic.

The first is by an AGW scientist who has been  ridiculed in the past for his hyperbole and gross alarmism; Steven Sherwood. Sherwood's latest paper deals with aerosols and the fact so little is known about their climatic impact that no predictions about AGW can be made with certainty. The problem with aerosols has been known for some time but it is good to see the AGW high-flyers catch up!

The second is a post by Professor Judith Curry who looks at the uncertainties surrounding the calculation of Ocean Heat Content [OHC].

As is well known the answer by AGW scientists, notably Trenberth, for the failure of temperature to rise for 17 years is because the heat is being stored in the bottom of the ocean. Trenberth’s paper is critiqued here but as Curry shows the conclusions of the recent studies about OHC shows no increase in OHC since 2003 [the crucial date of the introduction of ARGO] by a majority of the studies, Levitus, Ishii and Smith with the studies by Dominques and Palmer having such wide uncertainty bands that their findings of an increase are problematic:

Climate etc

What makes the Trenberth view about the missing heat being in the ocean even more suspect is a recent post by climate researcher Michael Hammer. Michael has looked at the data from NOAA which measures the amount of energy leaving the Top of the Atmosphere [TOA] which is called outgoing long-wave radiation [OLR].

Simply put if the amount of OLR is increasing then there is NO radiation left on Earth to heat the oceans. Michael found a good match between the increase in temperature over the last 30 years and the increase in OLR:

What this means is that when it warms the heat isn’t stored on Earth but, due to well known laws, such as Stefan-Boltzmann, the Earth increases emissions of radiation, reducing the effect of the warming.

A final article by specialist infrared astronomer, Dr Mike Sanicola, shows the warming isn’t even due to CO2. Sanicola shows that due to Stefan-Boltzmann the wavelengths of the radiation leaving the surface of the Earth are NOT wavelengths capable of being absorbed by CO2. In fact the relevant wavelengths are absorbed by H2O, water!

What Sanicola’s work shows is that the vast majority of back-radiation, the method by which AGW supposedly heats, is not done by CO2 but water. This fact has been noted by other researchers. Pierre Gosselin has looked at the MODTRAN system for measuring radiation in the atmosphere and found that back-radiation from CO2 only occurs when there is no water present such as in deserts:

As can be seen from the graph of the MODTRAN data CO2 only causes a slight amount of back-radiation when there is less than 1% of water in the atmosphere.

The question remains, how much longer can supporters of AGW pretend there is any scientific justification for their belief?


  1. There is NO Dr Mike Sanicola.
    He has been shown to be a fraud.
    The person person responsible has hijacked AT LEAST two identities.
    Mike Sanicola was a baseballer drafted by the Yankees in 1983.
    His other identity is Morgan Wright, an optometrist from New York.
    His fraud was discovered when he made the mistake of merging elements of both identities on a YouTube post.
    There is NO record of such an astronomer. He also claimed a number of inventions, but the patents of those inventions (searchable online) did not show his name.
    I strongly suggest you remove any reference to him.

  2. Thanks bob; background to the name is here: Do you have any comment about the substance of Sanicola's post?

  3. There is no background to his name at that link. Just someones words. I would be thrilled to find one scholarly article in the relevant fields from a mike sanicola. I've looked all over and haven't found them. As for his comments, it's true that H20 absorbs a larger part of the spectra than C02. But CO2 has a much more permanent cycle than water. We pump it in and it stays. It's the difference that makes a difference.

    1. The so-called long retention of CO2 is quite wrong:

  4. There is no background about Mike Sanicola at the provided link, just his comment. I have scoured the internet for scholarly articles in relevant from this guy and they don't seem to exist... As for the substance of his post, it is true that H2O accounts for a large part of the spectral absorption that keeps us warm. The water cycle is natural though. When we pump CO2 into the atmosphere it stays. And it does account for a good chunk of absorption. His comment also leads me to believe that he has no physics background: "but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole." This is a silly comment. Energy is energy. You absorb it, the temperature goes up.

  5. Let's forget about Mike Sanicola. He may be who he clains to be...or he may be using a nom-de-plume. We know that the shrill will attack scientists who don't subscribe to the falsified AGW hypothesis.

    So, forget the name. Can you find anything wrong in his science?

    If so, post that.....


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