SS Myths debunked -2

See       Page 1  #1 to 85             SS myths debunked -1
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

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
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
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.

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.

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.
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
Pluto is warming
As per item 83. Anyway Pluto is only a dwarf planet
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 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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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 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 pressure review. But Ross McKitrick would know what is statistically significant and he agrees with Phil; the first time
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.
Dropped stations introduce warming bi
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
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
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
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
It’s soot.
Soot is aerosols. See items 48 and 53. As for CO2 allegedly hanging around for centuries see item 77
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.

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!