See Page 1 #1 to 85 SS myths debunked -1
Page 2 #86- to 110 SS Myths debunked -2
Page 2 #86- to 110 SS Myths debunked -2
THIS Page 3 #111 – 140 SS Myths debunked -3
111
|
Hansen’s 1988 prediction was wrong
|
|
112
|
It’s global brightening
|
Global dimming and
brightening are names given to periods from the 1980s onwards when, despite
TSI levels, radiation at the Earth’s surface seemed to fluctuate between
decreases, dimming, and increases, brightening. Whether this variation was
due to aerosols or clouds is still uncertain, although scientists like Pinker and her
team think it was due to clouds, in which
case all the modern warming can be put down to natural factors
|
113
|
Earth hasn’t warmed as much as expected
|
This is a
schizophrenic point. It’s true of course but the SKS boys seem to agree with
it and drag out aerosols again and something called the planet’s thermal inertia to explain it. The thermal inertia of course is all that
missing heat being stored in the oceans. Not, see item 31. How do they
reconcile that with their sustained argument that temperatures have risen in
accord with alarmist-in-chief Hansen’s predictions; see item 111. The only
inertia here is the inability of the alarmists to see reality
|
114
|
Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice
gain
|
Garbage. The IPCC
has consistently played down the expansion of sea ice at the Antarctic. The alarmists have also generated bizarre
explanations for the expansion of Antarctic sea ice such as increased
evaporation from a warming Southern ocean which then falls as ice. This is
clearly nonsense as both
atmospheric and sea temperatures in the Antarctic are trending down. Finally global
sea ice, that’s both the Arctic and Antarctic, has been increasing since 2012
|
115
|
It’s a climate regime shift
|
Yep. David Stockwell
and I looked at this and concluded the same. The breaks in temperature featuring a step up in 1976
and a step down in 1997 were both correlated with real physical events and
contradicted the basis of alarmism in respect of how CO2 effects temperature.
There are plenty of papers on the subject. Climate shifts associated with PDO cycles have
been around for a long time
|
116
|
Solar cycles cause global warming
|
Items 2, 28, 43, 81
and 89. It’s the Sun stupid
|
117
|
Less than half of published scientists endorse global
warming
|
It’s probably less.
See items 4 and 80. John Cook is the driver of the consensus. Here is a couple
more
refutations of his weird, unscientific
concept of consensus.
|
118
|
Over 31000 scientists signed the OISM petition project
|
The SKS boys reckon
only a few were climatologists. Yet many alarmist climate experts and
spokespersons did not train in climate; ie Flannery, Manne, Pachauri,
Steffen, Clive Hamilton, Cook, Lewandowsky, Oreskes. The qualification issue
has always been the default position of alarmists: as in, you’re not a
climate scientist, now go home and do what you’re told as Manne
exhorted in supporting the
Finkelstein report which was set up to censor
sceptics on the basis they could not comment on alarmism because they were
not qualified. Michael Ashley, an astronomer, kindly
offered the same advice to me. Alarmism is
really a position of moral superiority. The qualification barrier to sceptics
is a red herring. For alarmists sceptics are not good enough. This is why the alarmists are crawling all over the
Pope’s support for alarmism. What could be more moral than the Pope? But in
moral matters the Pope is an expert and the alarmists are not. How
ironic that alarmists who take the high ground on science credentials should
be revealed as lacking expertise in moral matters by an expert
|
119
|
Ice
isn’t melting.
|
Yep. See items 10,
29, 39, 40, 44, 74, 95, 97, 114.
|
120
|
IPCC
disappeared the medieval warm period (MWP).
|
Yep. Sort of. I say sort of because the
alarmists’ approach to the MWP is so confused it is hard to say what they
did. But you can be assured that disappearing
the MWP is consistent with alarmist adjustments which make the past
cooler and the present warmer. First some facts. The MWP was at least as warm
and probably warmer as today and global in extent. A good resource chock full
of peer reviewed papers confirming this is at CO2 Science. Plenty
of
papers confirm this. The history of the MWP illustrates the alarmists’
confusion. In the 1990 IPPC report, FAR, Figure
7.1 showed the MWP being clearly warmer than today with the Little Ice
Age (LIA) also clearly visible. The alarmists needed to get rid of Figure 7.1
and in tried and tested fashion began to denigrate it. Mike Hulme for
instance called it Lamb's sketch on the back of an envelope, and a
rather dodgy bit of hand-waving. Lamb drew the graph in his 1965 paper which was
subsequently referred to by Michael Mann who used the same graph, albeit to show that the MWP was
regional. Other studies have also produced a MWP similar to Lamb’s Figure 7.1 but with the MWP being global in
extent. However in the IPCC’s 2001 report, TAR, the Lamb graph had been
replaced by the Mann, Bradley Hughes (MBH) 1998 graph. The MBH graph clearly shows the hockey
stick with both the MWP and LIA now missing. Also in TAR was Figure 9.1b with its extraordinary suppression of
both the MWP and LIA. Another change occurred in the IPCC’s 2007 report, AR4,
where MBH’s graph was replaced with Figure 6.10 where in (c) it is plain that the margins of
error include a MWP warmer than today! If this wasn’t exhausting enough our
good friend Monckton entered the fray and was accused of producing a doctored comparison graph between Lamb’s original graph used in
1990 and the subsequent hockey stick graphs which had no MWP. I actually
think Monckton’s graph, which as it turns out wasn’t his graph, but a media
construct, is pretty good (and I’ve already used it a couple of times here)
and sums up the efforts by the alarmists to disappear the MWP. Monckton also likes it, so I’m in good company, not the
alarmists’
|
121
|
A drop in volcanic activity caused warming
|
It may have
contributed. But given the uncertainty with the climate effects of aerosols
(item 109) and how much CO2 volcanoes emit (item 72), who knows?
|
122
|
Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
|
. True.
Alarmists certainly can’t predict anything including the past as
Koutsoyiannis and his team found, see part 7 here
|
123
|
It’s ozone
|
Despite what
the SKS boys say ozone has a crucial effect. The alarmists as usual
are confused about ozone. The IPCC says AGW causes ozone problems by
cooling the Stratosphere. But the Stratosphere isn’t cooling (item 56). However there is a body
of science which says the variation in the ozone layer has been responsible for the recent warming. Conversely the science says the ozone depletion may have caused the
increase in Antarctic sea ice. Apparently variations in ozone can affect circulation with climate
consequences. As
to what causes variations in the ozone level a previous lot of alarmists blamed humans although there is now contradictory
evidence and the possibility that maligned (see item 21) cosmic rays may play a part. Unlike the simplicity of AGW where
human CO2 is the cause of climate the real world shows us that many factors
play a part
|
124
|
Freedom of information (FOI) requests were
ignored
|
Yep. No excuse.
Item 94. The SKS boys says the CRU is a very small outfit. So what? Their
excuses were pitiful. And yeah their credibility is in question.
|
125
|
Climate sceptics are like Galileo
|
Personally I prefer Copernicus
|
126
|
The IPCC consensus is phony
|
As per items 4,
80, 117. The SKS boys note nations sign up to the UN/IPCC agreements.
Hilarious, or it would be if you were living on a warming Mars. Look at the
China/US deal. China is laughing all the way to the bank; Obama commits the
US to cuts now while China does nothing until 2030 when its emissions will peak. That’s
how to wipe out your economic competitor 101. And look at Figueres who openly declares that the
UN’s mission is to rid the world of capitalism and that the Western nations must give $billions to the rest via the UN. Which 3rd world nation
wouldn’t sign up to that and with the alarmists running the Western nations
they’re locked in as well. There is no scientific consensus and the nation
consensus is a product of greed and guilt
|
127
|
Sea level is not rising
|
. No, the rate of sea level increase is
declining. See item, 25, 31, 68, 98. See also Cazenave et al 2014 who find a further 30% decline in the
rate of sea level rise. This decline is a major contradiction of alarmism
|
128
|
Tuvalu sea level isn’t rising
|
To which the
SKS boys add that Tuvalu is rising 3 times the global average. LOL. PSMSL gauge readings for Tuvalu. The 3 times comes from this Cazenave et al paper. Cazenave speaks of vertical ground motion. That is the island was sinking. If it was it no longer is and is
fact growing according to new
research. Even the alarmist
ABC has noted the growth of Tuvalu and other Pacific islands. So rising
and falling of the land apart what has the sea been doing around Tuvalu?
According to the BOM, Pacific
Sea Level Monitoring Project buggar all
|
129
|
Naomi
Oreskes study on consensus was flawed. But “Benny Peiser the critic had to retract his
criticism
|
”, the SKS boys crow. Sure. Poor Benny, he included one paper he should not
have done and the alarmists have been dredging this up since 2004. Now let’s
talk about Oreskes’s mistakes. She knows nothing
about Santer and the Tropical Hotspot; she
isn’t familiar with the pH scale, thinks Beryllium is a heavy metal,
mistakenly assumes that CO2 is trapped in the troposphere, and climate models
can predict forest fires and floods and doesn’t understand the difference
between reactive oxygen and radioactive oxygen. She is
a scientific dunce. She also favours communism. Oreskes is a
condescending, puritanical conspiracist
whose business is maligning and smearing hard working sceptics. She is the
ugly face of alarmism. See items 4, 80, 117, 126
|
130
|
Renewables
can’t provide baseload power.
|
They can’t and it’s despicable that
alarmists peddle this garbage. See items 37, 65 and 96. World-wide, according
to the IPCC, 13.8% of the world’s energy use is from renewables ( and nothing
is going to change in the future) with 10.2% coming from wood, Most of the rest is hydro; less
than 0.5% of the world's energy comes from wind, tide, wave, solar and
geothermal put together. Just think of that, the dominant renewable is wood.
And with idiotic governments in thrall to alarmism and trying to meet
renewable targets forests are now in danger of being cut
down. Renewables
are too unreliable to meet base-load power demand. Base load is the absolute
minimum power to keep modern civilization going. In Australia the minimum or
base power requirements are shown here. Compare that with typical wind power production figures. The only way renewables can
supply baseload is if that baseload is equal to nothing for long periods of
time. Renewables like most parts of alarmism are a lie
|
131
|
Trenberth can’t account for the lack of
warming
|
The
SKS boys try to fiddle the point by saying Trenberth meant energy flow not
warming but according to Hansen the energy flow isn’t there
either. Whatever fancy spin you put on it Trenberth’s missing heat is still
not in the ocean and has left the planet. See item 31
|
132
|
Ice sheet losses are overestimated
|
Of
course, alarmist and over-estimation, exaggeration and lying go hand in hand.
See items 10. 20 and 40
|
133
|
CRU tampered with temperature data
|
Yep.
See items 17, 85, 91, 94 and 104. Alarmism is their name, temperature
tampering is their game. Not just CRU but the BOM
|
134
|
Melting isn’t warming the Arctic
|
Not
much else is either. This is a typical misleading alarmist point. Seawater is
darker than ice so does not have a high albedo. The alarmists argue that
means more heat is going into the oceans. But it isn’t AGW heat through
backradiation because backradiation cannot heat the ocean (see items 63, 64).
It’s also unlikely albedo is playing a part either because Arctic albedo is
not declining recently (see item 107). Even if the Arctic is warming it’s probably natural. And in historical terms the Arctic temperature has been falling since
1950.
And you can compare the Arctic temperature year to year here from 1958. The alarmists will say there
has been a degree or slightly more warming from year to year and ignore the
relative effect of an increase from such a low temperature base in the Arctic
compared with a decline in the tropical temperature. This was looked at in a couple of papers about the errors in alarmist’s
temperatures. The Pielke et al paper is particularly
relevant. Pielke et al generate this formula: (A +
B)^4 > A^4 + B^4. What it means is deduced from the Stefan-Boltzmann
equation, E = sigma x T^4, where sigma = 5.67×10^-8, and T is temperature in
K; what this means is that temperature variations at particular sites
contradict the efficacy of a global average temperature [GMST], even if
homogenisation process has established a commonality of trend; the reason is
that the amount of the IR emission from a locality which is determined by the
SB equation can show no alteration in the Earth radiation [or energy] balance
[ERB] despite an alteration in GMST; what AGW does is (A + B)^4 or adds all
the site temps and then applies SB to that total; this does not take into
account the temp differences between the sites which is crucial to ERB rather
than the trends at those sites; the second part of the equation is crucial
for spatial difference A^4 + B^4 where each site has its SB emissions
determined before adding to other sites; you can see this is different by
just plugging some figures into the equation and seeing how they differ. On this basis an increase in temperature in
the Arctic will have less effect on the ERB than a lessor decrease in the
tropics. Microsite effects do count (see item 100).
|
135
|
Breathing
contributes to CO2 build up
|
It
does which is why alarmists are misanthropes (see item 56). If there are
less humans breathing than AGW will be reduced. It’s simple arithmetic.
Humans breathe in air which has 400PPM of CO2 and exhale air which has up to
6000PPM of CO2. So humans are increasing CO2, especially since human
population is increasing as well. Cow
farts, on the other hand are carbon neutral
|
136
|
Satellite
error inflated Great Lakes temperature
|
The SKS boys say the Great Lakes
temperature is not included in global temperature records. You can bet it
will be if the Great Lakes show any warming consistent with alarmism. And
guess what, that’s
what the alarmists did. That’s alarmism for you: never let an opportunity
to alarm go by. Anyway get all your Great Lakes weather information at Watts.
|
137
|
Soares
finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature
|
And he’s right. See items 45 and 46. A
review of Soares is here.
CO2 doesn’t seem to correlate well with temperature over any time span. If
there is a correlation it is CO2 following temperature which makes sense
because as temperature increases the ocean releases CO2. Attempts by the
alarmists Shakun and Parrenin to argue that CO2 doesn’t follow in a lagged
fashion behind temperature increase are critiqued here
at parts 7 and 8
|
138
|
We’re
heading into cooling
|
. Cooling
is about due according to well established interglacial
cycles. Solar cycle 24 is also shaping up as a reduced
one. Temperatures are not rising. The scientific basis for the imminent
cooling is that it has happened many times in the past and AGW is rubbish.
The only reason alarmists say we’re not is because they cling to their belief
in AGW. The SKS objection to the cooling point is ironic given their stance
at item 140
|
139
|
Murray
Salby finds CO2 rise is natural
|
He’s probably right. See items 45, 46,
77. Salby’s work on isotopes which the alarmists say prove the increase in
CO2 is due to humans in fact shows the opposite. As Jo
Nova notes : Salby points out that while fossil fuels are richer in C12 than
the atmosphere, so too is plant life on Earth, and there isn’t a lot of
difference (just 2.6%) in the ratios of C13 to C12 in plants versus fossil
fuels. (Fossil fuels are, after all, made in theory from plants, so it’s not
surprising that it’s hard to tell their “signatures” apart). So if the C13 to
C12 ratio is falling (as more C12 rich carbon is put into the air by burning
fossil fuels) then we can’t know if it’s due to man-made CO2 or natural CO2
from plants. Salby has been vindicated in a
number of ways as shown at item 45. In addition new satellite data shows the developed
nations are net absorbers of CO2 which contradicts the alarmist claim and
new
Swedish research supports Salby. Salby is a straight shooter. He has been
vilified by the alarmists and treated in the usual
alarmist/watermelon way at his job at Macquarie University. All because
he acted like a true scientist
|
140
|
CO2
emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentrations. See above
|
The SKS boys default to isotopes again.
As well as Salby’s work Tom
Quirk looks at hemispheric differences in isotopes which contradict the
alarmist claim that all the increase in CO2 concentration must be human in
origin. An overview
of possible plant and other natural isotopic sources for the increase in CO2
also contradicts the alarmist position, while Professor Segalstad’s work on
isotopes, noting section 10, shows how alarmists have fudged the figures.
Finally Professor
Gösta Pettersson’s work on the atom bomb test’s production of
CO2 C14 isotopes reduces the alarmist position to radioactive sludge
|
See More -SS Myths Debunked -4
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!