See Page 1 #1 to 85 SS myths debunked -1
THIS Page 2 #86- to 110 SS Myths debunked -2
THIS Page 2 #86- to 110 SS Myths debunked -2
Page 3 #111 – 140 SS Myths debunked -3
Pag3 4 #141-176 SS Myths debunked -4
86
|
CO2
is increasing
|
No one in their right mind would dispute
that so I don’t know why this point is made. The pertinent points are:
firstly are current levels exceptional and item 78 says no; and secondly are
humans causing all or most of the current increase and item 45 says probably
not
|
87
|
Record
snowfall disproves alarmism
|
Typical alarmist junk science. The
alarmists say increased snow is because AGW causes increased evaporation
which produces more snow and rain; which is odd since they also predict
more droughts with AGW. But the alarmists are also wrong to say more snow
is evidence of AGW. Rising temperatures actually reduce evaporation as Professor
Franks and Professor
Roderick explain. Peer
reviewed papers
confirm this. Here’s a thought, snow is because it it’s cold
|
88
|
They
changed the name from global warming to climate change
|
Alarmists are sneaky, aren’t they? When
global warming didn’t occur it was changed to climate change. Who can argue
against that? But alarmists can’t help being alarming which is why we still
have runaway
global warming and catastrophic
climate change. But there’s always something worse such as catastrophic
climate breakdown and the ever present carbon
time bomb which threatens catastrophic climate change. Alarmists are
nuts.
|
89
|
Solar
cycle length proves it’s the sun
|
Item 2.The SKS jokers say the sun has not
warmed since 1970. Item 81. It’s the Sun stupid.
|
90
|
CO2
is coming from the ocean. And the ocean is becoming acidic
|
The ocean is a big emitter of CO2 as IPCC
Figure 7.3 shows. No doubt the ocean also absorbs a lot too. Henrys Law
governs that. Henrys law is a well-established physical law of chemistry and
governs the solubility of gases in liquid. Henrys Law is p=kc where, "p" is
the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere (in units called atmospheres),
"c" is the concentration of CO2 in the ocean (in moles per liter),
and "k" is Henry's universal constant (29.4 atmospheres per (mole
per liter) for CO2). At a temperature if 288K (the
Earth’s current average surface temperature) Henry’s law sets a fixed
partitioning ratio of 1:50 between atmospheric CO2 and oceanic Dissolved Inorganic
Carbon respectively (Segalstad 1998, Skirrow 1975, Revelle and Suess 1957).
This partitioning ratio implies that for every tonne of CO2 that gets
released into the atmosphere by humans only about 1/50th (or 2%) will remain
in the atmosphere as a permanent addition and the rest (98%) will be absorbed
by the oceans as so to maintain equilibrium in the partitioning ratio. So far
it sounds as though the ocean can’t be contributing to the increase in
atmospheric CO2. But “k” in the Henrys Law formula changes when temperature
increases. This in turn increases the partial pressure of CO2 in the
atmosphere and as a consequence the atmosphere can hold more CO2 as it is outgassed
from the ocean because temperature has increased. This is why CO2 lags
temperature increase (see item 137); because temperature has to rise first
then CO2 outgassing from the ocean occurs. The ocean has been heated by the
Sun from the beginning of the 20thC and CO2 has risen. Why is CO2 still rising
when the Sun is declining? Because the ocean still has stored heat even
though there does not appear to be more heating occurring (see item 31). As
for acidification not happening as ex-Greenpeace boss Patrick
Moore explains. And for those who like something a bit more technical but
still short and punchy why alarmist’s claims of ocean acidification are wrong
see here.
|
91
|
IPCC
overestimate temperature rise.
|
See items 7, 30, 34, 73 and 110. And the
SKS boys blame poor old Monckton. The IPCC and its alarmists are conducting
an auction to see who can bid the highest: Rahmstorf 4C,
Sally Brown,
Hamilton, Karoly 4C+, Romm
6C, Sally
Brown again 7C, and the winner is Steven
Sherwood with 12C. There is nothing abnormal about today’s temperature.
The predictions of the IPCC and its alarmists are simply
wrong by a long way
|
92
|
Pluto
is warming
|
As per item 83. Anyway Pluto is only a dwarf
planet
|
93
|
CO2
is not the only driver of climate
|
To which alarmists chant it is the main
one. See items 2, 12, 30, 33 35, 45, for starters. Alarmism is a disproven
theory
|
94
|
94 Peer
review process was corrupted
|
The SKS boys scurry under the big rock of
the independent review. See item
17. In addition to that, just consider the freedom of Information (FOI) case
brought against the University East Anglia (UAE), where the emails were
released, for their data which they used to produce their temperature record,
CRUTEM. They
lost that case and would have faced criminal
charges except limitation periods applied. But after they lost the FOI
case UAE
still refused to release the data. These
are the people who control the peer review process in climate science.
Read it and weep
|
95
|
Arctic
was warmer in 1940. See items 29, 44
|
See items 29, 44. The
warming in the Arctic from 1910-1940 proceeded at a faster rate than the
modern warming. A further list of peer reviewed papers are here.
The historical
temperature records also show the Arctic was warmer in the first half of
the 20thC. Arctic temperature peaked
before 1950
|
96
|
Renewable energy is too expensive
|
Horrendously
so. Renewables would
not exist without
subsidies.
Renewable energy doesn’t work. See items 37 and 65. The so-called cost of
fossils and nuclear, the externalities, are based on alarmist science which
has been refuted. Nor do fossils get the
direct subsidies renewables get. If alarmists were fair dinkum they would
be all over Thorium, large hydro and geostationary solar while fusion, cold
or otherwise, gets going. Alarmists are not fair dinkum.
|
97
|
Southern
sea ice is increasing
|
No dispute there. But saying the
Antarctic has warmed is nonsense as both
atmosphere and sea temperatures show. Frankly I’m surprised this item is
here after the Turney
debacle.
|
98
|
Sea
level rise is decelerating
|
Yes, see items 25, 31 and 68. Sea level
rise is based on steric or warming factors, which is not happening (item 35)
or eustatic factors, or runoff from the melting Antarctic and Greenland which
are also not happening (see items, 10, 20 and 40). The alarmists will no
doubt point to the Western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP), which has warmed and
seen some calving of ice lately. But historically the
WAP has increased its ice cover since 1850 and is geologically
separated from the rest of the Antarctic anyway
|
99
|
CO2 limits will make little difference
|
Precisely because CO2 is not the dominant
climate factor. See item 93. But measures to reduce CO2 will have a
profoundly negative effect. See items 37 and 65
|
100
|
I’ts
microsite influences
|
The SKS crew say good and bad sites show
the same trend. See item 7. Some technical papers say microsite influences
are important: Runnalls and
Oke. Stockwell
and Stewart. So good and bad sites do not share the same trend. This is
nonsense as the papers show. And it is the reason why adjustments in raw
temperature data has become so unreliable. Temperature data should never be
adjusted for climate reasons at particular sites. Adjustment should only
occur if there is a gap in the data, a site move or a change in
instrumentation. When these artificial reasons occur a comparison can be made
with neighbouring stations but only if there is similar trends in the raw
data. When there is not problems like Rutherglen
occur. This site has had its raw data which showed slight cooling adjusted
(for no apparent reason) to show large warming. When
a comparison is made with neighbouring sites no similarity is present and the
final BOM ACORN temperature record is different from all sites. It is
microsite influences and the mysterious adjustment methodology of alarmism;
as Ken
Stewart explains only 2 sites badly adjusted by the BOM cause nearly all
of Australia’s so-called warming. Also see item 134
|
101
|
Lindzen
and Chow find low climate sensitivity
|
Not only L&C (see
figure 8). And their paper stands the test as discussed
here at part 1. See also item 13
|
102
|
102 Phil
Jones says no global warming since 1995
|
Who cares; we know climate scientists say
one thing in public and another in private as the emails showed (items 17 and
94). And Phil
Jones can’t plot a trend on excel. So how would he know whether a trend
was statistically significant or not? Anyway he’s
changed his mind. It must have been peer
|
103
|
Humans
are too insignificant to affect global climate
|
True. It must be galling to the egos of
the alarmists to realise they’re puny. To show how powerful they are the
alarmists have invented the Hiro,
short for Hiroshima to reflect the power humans have on the climate. Jo
does a comparison with the Sun. Alarmists are nuts.
|
104
|
Dropped
stations introduce warming bi
|
|
105
|
It’s
too hard
|
It’s too dumb. See items 37 and 65. The
cost of preventing an increase in temperature, if you believe CO2 causes the temperature increase, is listed by Lomborg
on page 41 of Cool It, figure 11.
To keep temperature to an increase of only 1.5C would cost $85trillion and
have benefits of $11trillion. Any way you look at a cost/benefit
approach
to solving AGW the
costs outweigh the benefits. If you believe in AGW then a business as
normal approach is better. That is, if you believe in AGW. But AGW is a
disproved theory backed up by deceit. See items 85 and 94
|
106
|
It’s
not urgent
|
. It doesn’t exist. The alarmists talk
about tipping points. See item 110. They
say we only have 5 years, or
less or more, to prevent catastrophe. It’s like dealing with a used car
salesman: Buy now or you’ll miss the bargain of a lifetime! Or a religious
zealot talking about the rapture. There have been tipping points called Dansgaard-Oeschger
events which are sudden warming periods, combined with Heinrich events which
are sudden cooling periods. Since the beginning of the interglacial we are
now enjoying there have been milder
but still very unpleasant cold climate changes called Bond events.
The point is these climate events happen rapidly. But CO2
had nothing to do with any of them. One thing is for sure, if humanity
wants to be able to deal with another Younger Dryas
which took hold in perhaps just a
year, we need all the energy sources which work up and running. We don’t
need millions of acres of useless solar and wind farms
|
107
|
It’s
albedo
|
. Before
2000 albedo declined. After 2000
some regional differences but overall barely a positive increase, which
even SKS grudgingly
acknowledges. So albedo may have played a part in the warming up to about
1998 but has been neutral since. The claim that the Arctic’s loss of albedo
is causing global warming is at
best problematic and based on cherry picking and the usual alarmist selective
presentation of evidence. Another shot in the foot for the alarmists
|
108
|
Tree
rings diverge from temperature after 1960.
|
The SKS boys say it is not relevant,
local and too complex for the punters. It is certainly local as the
tree-rings selected for the hockey stick are based on ONE
tree. You can’t get much more local than
one tree. Just one
tree cost the world trillions. And the alarmists keep
doing the same cherry picking of data to suit their alarmism. See also item
85. As much as anything the divergence
and hide the decline indict
alarmism as the rotten thing it is
|
109
|
It’s
soot.
|
Soot is aerosols. See items 48 and 53. As
for CO2 allegedly hanging around for centuries see item 77
|
110
|
Roy
Spencer finds negative feedback
|
See item 67. And the smarties at SKS say
Roy’s model is too simple. Spencer has done amazing work in the area of
distinguishing forcings and feedbacks and what clouds are in the scheme of
things. His work is empirically based, that is based on real evidence. Like
all good scientists his theory fits the data not as with the alarmists the
data is adjusted to fit the theory. A short synopsis of Spencer’s paper is here
at part 2. Roy replies to his detractors here.
SKS goes technical here
and my reply to that is: Climate sensitivity, feedback and tipping points are
all part of the AGW lexicon and are stated to be high, increasing and
imminent respectively. There is no evidence for this. The IPCC attributes
ACO2 as being the forcing agent, F, for this scenario, with water vapour the
feedback, f, and temperature, t, the parameter for the change; the
interaction of these variables is measured by the state vector, S, which
would itself change if F has the effect the IPCC alleges. IPCC represents
this dynamic thus: dS/dt=S/f+F. The
IPCC assumes that f is +ve so if we integrate by dividing both sides by fS+F,
and multiplying both sides by f*dt we get: (S2+F/f)/(S1+F/f)=exp(f*(t2-t1)). The problem with this is
because it predicts that as the final value of t, t2, approaches infinity, the
value of S2 becomes infinite, which means temperature could rise for ever or runaway, as Hansen
thought with Earth ending up like Venus! This is wrong because if there
is a climate forcing in operation, at infinite time, the temperature anomaly
should approach its finite equilibrium value even if there is positive
feedback. This is shown by Venus which is paraded by AGW supporters as being
the inevitable result of AGW; but, if there was any greenhouse effect on
Venus it has now stopped despite high levels of CO2 and obviously its
equilibrium was less than infinity. The correct formula for measuring
feedback is done by Spencer and
Braswell(S&B): Their equation 2 is: Cp*T/*t=-^T+N+f+S. The difference with S&B’s equation is that
it introduces a term for the stochastic properties of clouds, N and breaks F
into -^T and f; f is ACO2 and -^T is a total feedback term which must be
negative so that an infinite equilibrium is impossible. S&B ran their
equation using observed variations in radiative flux related to random cloud
movements; their model is therefore much more realistic than the IPCC’s
formula which is limited to temperature and ACO2 forcing which is estimated.
S&B found that in the real world, even assuming a +ve forcing from ACO2,
climate sensitivity and feedback were much smaller than that relied on for
AGW. Given this a tipping point
based on ACO2 forcing is not possible (see item 106).
Whew. Basically Roy is in the real world, the alarmists are not so
constrained and when they insult Roy as being simple they really mean real.
|
See more at SS Myths debunked -3 HERE
No comments:
Post a comment
All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!