Friday, 10 July 2015

Skeptical Science disingenuous re the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’

Cartoons by Josh

Anthony Cox debunks another of UNSkeptical UNScience's supposed climate change myths. No.63.

"Greenhouse effect has been falsified"The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations.

 and they follow with:
Some climate change skeptics dispute the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’, which keeps the surface temperature of the Earth approximately 33 degrees C warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In other words, without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be largely uninhabitable.
Anthony writes:

Greenhouse effect has been falsified. This is disingenuous. The word greenhouse is misleading and was not used until the 1980s. Greenhouses warm by stopping convection not by trapping infra-red radiation (IR) by glass , the greenhouse effect is a radiative based effect as Roy Spencer notes. Like all great lies alarmism has a scintilla of truth in it. That truth is CO2 has radiative properties under Earth conditions. Those properties are constrained by the Beers Law, log effect (see item 30) and dominated by the radiative properties of water, in all its forms (see item 35). 

There have been numerous explanations as to why alarmism and the greenhouse effect is possibly wrong: Wood, Nasif Nahle, Casey, Rancourt, Chilingar et al, Jinan Cao and David Evans, Kramm and Dlugi, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Claes Johnson, Science of Doom, Joseph Postma and the Dragon Slayers, who discuss the greenhouse here

Most sceptics disagree with the Slayers on certain key points. But obviously the process by which Earth retains heat and how Earth temperature is reached and maintained is NOT settled science as the alarmists assert. AGW supposedly works by backradiation whereby extra CO2 traps IR and isotropically sends 50% of the trapped IR back to Earth. 

This is seriously problematic given the measurement problems of backradiation (see here. See also page 176, section 7.42 onwards Guide to Meteorological Instruments and Methods of Observations), that backradiated IR cannot heat the oceans, Leckner/Hottel show CO2 cannot emit after about 200PPM which means levels above 200PPM cannot trap IR under current atmospheric concentrations (see Nahle’s article on Hottel and the following comments!) and basically Arrhenius mistook CO2 for water in his experiments plus many other fundamental mistakes

Arrhenius’ experiments are the basis for the alarmist greenhouse concept and they are wrong. The fact is alarmism has some great slogans and terms, greenhouse is one of them. But that’s all it is, a slogan, just like alarmism generally.

= = = = = = = = = = 

In his Book  "The Global Warming Scam and the Climate Change Superscam" Dr Vincent Gray wrote:
The replacement of the accumulated discoveries of meteorology described in Chapter 1 by global climate models based on atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide was motivated by an environmentalist delusion that human activity was exclusively responsible for the climate. 

The presumed pioneers, Fourier and Pouillet, were only concerned with water vapour. Tyndall showed that water vapour was far more important than carbon dioxide. Yet the wrong greenhouse gas has been chosen, purely because its concentration can be blamed on human activity.  

Arrhenius ignored the advice of these pioneers and failed to realise that Langley’s measurements which he used did not include carbon dioxide absorption; so his results were for water vapour instead. All subsequent advocates for an important role for carbon dioxide have failed to realise this.

Neptune IS Warming

UNSkeptical UNScience in their list of supposed climate change myths, have at #81

81"Neptune is warming"And the sun is cooling.

Anthony Cox writes:

The major TSI datasets all agree there has been a large fall since 2003, in terms of 11 year smoothing (which is obviously required to remove the sunspot cycle and reveal the underlying trend). The SORCE/TIM reconstruction shows the fall starting in 1994. The “composite TSI” is that used by David to drive the model, averaging Lean 2000 (to the end of 2008), PMOD, and ACRIM (from the start of 1992).  Source Jo Nova

Neptune is warming. (see items 28 and 43) That should give real estate prices a boost. And the Sun is not cooling as the alarmists chant; it’s still above the average and has declined since about 2003; let’s look at TSI, again, and read David Stockwell, again. What TSI is doing explains temperature, no doubt about that. On Earth and Neptune.   

= = = = = = = =
1000frolly writes

The climate changes or global warming observed on the planet Neptune correlate with those seen on Earth over the same time period; 1920 - 2002.

The common factor in the causation of the observed planetary changes are the simultaneous documented changes in the Sun.

Lockwood & Thompson 1991;
Sromovsky et al 2003;

The Sromovsky paper is surprised by the strength of the changes, 1990-2002; 
"From 1972 to 1980 Neptune's reflectivity appeared to correlate well with solar UV variations during the 11-year solar cycle (Lockwood and Thompson, 2002, 1986; Baines and Smith, 1990). But from 1980 to 2000, Neptune brightened continuously, by 11% at 472 nm, with most of the increase coming after 1990".

The nature of Neptune’s increasing brightness: evidence for a seasonal response  
L.A. Sromovsky, P.M. Fry, S.S. Limaye, and K.H. Bainesb

Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations in August 2002 show that Neptune’s disk-averaged reflectivity increased significantly since 1996, by 3.2 ± 0.3% at 467 nm, 5.6 ± 0.6% at 673 nm, and 40 ± 4% in the 850–1000 nm band, which mainly results from dramatic brightness increases in restricted latitude bands. When 467-nm HST observations from 1994 to 2002 are added to the 472-nm ground-based results of Lockwood and Thompson (2002, Icarus 56, 37–51), the combined disk-averaged variation from 1972 to 2002 is consistent with a simple seasonal model having a hemispheric response delay relative to solar forcing of 30 years (73% of a full season).

© 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Slam Dunk - UNSkeptical UNScience debunked again.