Saturday, August 23, 2014
External Factors
These things, tidal waves, heat and electricity, are all important in our ecosystem here on Earth and in many applications of which we employ every day. But they are not dictated solely by what we do or what happens here. Same could be said about the climate. While it is evident that a large portion of the impact is caused by environmental conditions in our ecosystem, it is indefinite which factors and objects of interest may be caused by something from outside our planet. In many cases, you'll note that the amount of outlying change and outstanding conditions is very few. These are conditions that we claim the ability to track through our experimentation, but are not able to confirm solely because we cannot disprove their reliance upon outside factors.
For instance, when you notice the temperature is 2 degrees above what it should be according to the existing factors. You may come to the conclusion that this is due to a certain gaseous chemical in the air, or an excess in electrical currents in the air. But there is some chance that somewhere out there, there is a small percentage of radiation caused by the explosion of a star, that had the luck of traveling through space to our planet and causing this condition that we are exhibiting.
My point is, no matter how preposterous it may seem, there could be something out there that is causing it, and until we can prove global warming or disprove every other possibility there is no way to have a definite answer.
So I am choosing to disprove global warming based off the idea of such hypothetical external factors. The universe is much more vast than that of what we know, and I'd find there a greater possibility that something near or far is causing the conditions you call proof rather than some chain reaction that we don't have the full story on.
Response:
This is an interesting idea and we are actually engaged in studying just such a factor - cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are extremely high energy particles coming from the universe. It is believed they are created when a star goes supernova. These particles actually have so much energy, and there are so many of them, they are capable of making changes in the cloud cover.
The research has indicated that the amount of effects due to cosmic rays is responsible for only small fraction of the observed warming. So, your premise is interesting and has scientific merit to it, but it is not the cause of global warming. I had a previous submission on cosmic rays that I responded to here.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
Reduced Transpiration
James PadgettJune 29, 2014 at 10:37 PM
I propose the following:
1. Increased carbon dioxide levels reduce transpiration
2. Reduced transpiration means less atmospheric water vapor
3. Less water vapor means a smaller greenhouse effect
Now can you prove that this effect is smaller than the logarithmic warming carbon dioxide would cause by itself? If you can't then I've provided sufficient doubt that carbon dioxide will warm the planet (i.e. carbon dioxide having a net warming effect is thus not proved and should be considered false until such evidence comes in).
Thank you, the money will go towards a very good cause.
Response:
This one is rather strange and I'm not sure if it was really meant as a submission.
Transpiration is the process of movement and evaporation of water from plants. Mr. Padgett gives no reason to believe that increased CO2 levels would reduce transpiration. Certainly, he is unable to make a connection between reduced transpiration and reduced atmospheric water vapor. Even if his claim was correct, he disregards the fact that there are many ways to put water vapor in the air. But, even if he was correct on all of those things, his third point is still invalid because we don't see the world cooling, we see it warming.
So, he was wrong on all three points.
Mr. Padgett did not prove man made global warming is not real.
1. Increased carbon dioxide levels reduce transpiration
2. Reduced transpiration means less atmospheric water vapor
3. Less water vapor means a smaller greenhouse effect
Now can you prove that this effect is smaller than the logarithmic warming carbon dioxide would cause by itself? If you can't then I've provided sufficient doubt that carbon dioxide will warm the planet (i.e. carbon dioxide having a net warming effect is thus not proved and should be considered false until such evidence comes in).
Thank you, the money will go towards a very good cause.
Response:
This one is rather strange and I'm not sure if it was really meant as a submission.
Transpiration is the process of movement and evaporation of water from plants. Mr. Padgett gives no reason to believe that increased CO2 levels would reduce transpiration. Certainly, he is unable to make a connection between reduced transpiration and reduced atmospheric water vapor. Even if his claim was correct, he disregards the fact that there are many ways to put water vapor in the air. But, even if he was correct on all of those things, his third point is still invalid because we don't see the world cooling, we see it warming.
So, he was wrong on all three points.
Mr. Padgett did not prove man made global warming is not real.
CO2 Doesn't Trap Heat
I’ll take up your challenge. But I don’t want your money, I want good science.
It will be a three pronged approach: (1) changing climate is not evidence: evidence is found in the repetition of the claim – heat trapping CO2 does not repeat (at least to be special or measurable); (2) oddities in carbon climate science – it is not at all like other science; and (3) a refutation of the 1859 Tyndall experiment and the derived special GHG’s – it is the instrument that is special not he gases. All gases are.
1. For heat trapping CO2 to have any credibility it would have to stand as a similar law of science, that is be repetitive – like all the other laws of science. This is what makes science science.
If it weren’t for telescopes we’d (likely) still be in the geocentric paradigm as it is very difficult to prove without the aid of a telescope that we are not at the centre. The telescope reveals the repetition of a (Copernican) theory. Even with the telescope, Galileo had to prove extra the the world rotated and that a geocentric universe is an illusion. I argue that CO2 or for that matter manmade climate change is a similar illusion to geo-centricity.
If CO2 traps heat as it is said to do it should co-explain the likes of:
• plate tectonics, CO2 is there in both high concentrations and high temperatures – it doesn’t, water does;
• respiration, why our breath is warm, again water does, but CO2 is there at around 45,000 ppmv. No animal uses CO2 to warm its breath ;
• why meteorologists don’t measure CO2 to make predictions or explain cloud formation, and no one does, not pilots whose lives would depend on such knowledge – but they do measure and understand the physics of water;
• avalanche (continuing from the above) and general snow pack stability. It doesn’t figure in any literature I have. We measure all other variables that effect temperature change in the snow pack, but not CO2. Not even on volcanos – it sinks, it’s heavy, it must be there. Our lives would depend on this!
• utility: no one, nothing uses it for its said claim of trapping heat. I don’t buy CO2; there is not market for it. Wouldn’t it be used to trap heat in my house – as we do water? It should be in between our double glazed windows, and be part of the solution to the problem it is said to cause – as a heat trapper? No, it is not.
This was from my blog entry: http://www.fractalnomics.com/2013/03/5-fractal-record-of-heat-trapping-co2.html
2. Carbon climate science is odd, not at all like other areas of science.
• Where is the complexity – the deep physics? It’s all too simple! It is explained to school children in school books as it is to adults in adult university science books. It not hard to understand and this is odd. Science is hard! It gets harder. We can all read about quantum weirdness in popular science, but to study quantum mechanics in depth is extremely challenging – this goes for all science, but not CO2 climate change.
• Where are the experiments, the research, and the multibillion dollar budgets? The Kepler and Hubble telescope / LHC like experiments. All it has it computer models. That is not science.
• Where are the PhD’s on understanding the physics of CO2 – this extreme threat? If have found none! This is not like the stuff of viruses, asteroids or volcanos or any other areas of science. The PhD’s are going to studying future effects and engineering green tech. They are parasitic on other areas of knowledge, and this is fallacy.
• Where are the typical science statements from scientists at the top of their field: ‘We still have much to learn’; ‘we don’t yet have a full understanding....’;’.. the more we dig, the more questions we discover..’?
• Carbon climate scientist’s claim to know – to have consensus – and this is odd. Other sciences never say such things, and if they do, it is not for long.
Response:
Why in the world would you say CO2 trapping heat would explain all of those things you listed?
Your argument on this point is there are other things in the world, therefore CO2 doesn't trap heat. That line of argument is totally invalid. CO2 doesn't have anything to do with plate tectonics (solid plates moving due to currents in the mantle); warm breath (warmed by our body heat); cloud formation (due to water vapor); or avalanches (due to gravity). (CO2 is used in industrial applications.) Somehow, in your mind, this means CO2 doesn't trap heat. I'm sorry, but there is a long history of scientific experiments and engineering applications of this property of CO2 to show that, yes, it really does absorb IR radiation.
Your next argument is equally invalid. The science behind how and why CO2 absorbs specific wavelengths of light is extremely complicated. It is called quantum mechanics. The explanation given to school children is merely a simplified version of an extremely complicated subject. Yes, lots of money has been spent on quantum mechanics to explore it so that we can understand it better. But, that argument is totally invalid. Are you really saying the only way something can be a science is if no one can understand it and we spend billions of dollars on it?
And, you are wrong. When something is explored as much as CO2 has been, there is a consensus. An example would be that Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun. Is there more to learn about all of that? Sure. But, there is a consensus among scientists that this is the basic situation and anything new we learn is merely details. Same thing with CO2. There is a consensus that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. We may learn more about this in the future, but that will just be more details.
I am not sure what you are saying about the Tyndall experiments. O2 and N2 are transparent to IR because the molecules are too small to absorb the large waves of IR radiation. You even admitted that in your submission. Tyndall measured the intensity of light at different wavelengths as it passed through different gases. He found many things, but one of them was that CO2 absorbed light at IR wavelengths. Based on your submission I don't think you understood that. It sounds as if you think he just held a thermometer up and measured the temperature in a CO2 atmosphere. No, that is not what he did. And, his experiments have been repeated and verified many times.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
It will be a three pronged approach: (1) changing climate is not evidence: evidence is found in the repetition of the claim – heat trapping CO2 does not repeat (at least to be special or measurable); (2) oddities in carbon climate science – it is not at all like other science; and (3) a refutation of the 1859 Tyndall experiment and the derived special GHG’s – it is the instrument that is special not he gases. All gases are.
1. For heat trapping CO2 to have any credibility it would have to stand as a similar law of science, that is be repetitive – like all the other laws of science. This is what makes science science.
If it weren’t for telescopes we’d (likely) still be in the geocentric paradigm as it is very difficult to prove without the aid of a telescope that we are not at the centre. The telescope reveals the repetition of a (Copernican) theory. Even with the telescope, Galileo had to prove extra the the world rotated and that a geocentric universe is an illusion. I argue that CO2 or for that matter manmade climate change is a similar illusion to geo-centricity.
If CO2 traps heat as it is said to do it should co-explain the likes of:
• plate tectonics, CO2 is there in both high concentrations and high temperatures – it doesn’t, water does;
• respiration, why our breath is warm, again water does, but CO2 is there at around 45,000 ppmv. No animal uses CO2 to warm its breath ;
• why meteorologists don’t measure CO2 to make predictions or explain cloud formation, and no one does, not pilots whose lives would depend on such knowledge – but they do measure and understand the physics of water;
• avalanche (continuing from the above) and general snow pack stability. It doesn’t figure in any literature I have. We measure all other variables that effect temperature change in the snow pack, but not CO2. Not even on volcanos – it sinks, it’s heavy, it must be there. Our lives would depend on this!
• utility: no one, nothing uses it for its said claim of trapping heat. I don’t buy CO2; there is not market for it. Wouldn’t it be used to trap heat in my house – as we do water? It should be in between our double glazed windows, and be part of the solution to the problem it is said to cause – as a heat trapper? No, it is not.
This was from my blog entry: http://www.fractalnomics.com/2013/03/5-fractal-record-of-heat-trapping-co2.html
2. Carbon climate science is odd, not at all like other areas of science.
• Where is the complexity – the deep physics? It’s all too simple! It is explained to school children in school books as it is to adults in adult university science books. It not hard to understand and this is odd. Science is hard! It gets harder. We can all read about quantum weirdness in popular science, but to study quantum mechanics in depth is extremely challenging – this goes for all science, but not CO2 climate change.
• Where are the experiments, the research, and the multibillion dollar budgets? The Kepler and Hubble telescope / LHC like experiments. All it has it computer models. That is not science.
• Where are the PhD’s on understanding the physics of CO2 – this extreme threat? If have found none! This is not like the stuff of viruses, asteroids or volcanos or any other areas of science. The PhD’s are going to studying future effects and engineering green tech. They are parasitic on other areas of knowledge, and this is fallacy.
• Where are the typical science statements from scientists at the top of their field: ‘We still have much to learn’; ‘we don’t yet have a full understanding....’;’.. the more we dig, the more questions we discover..’?
• Carbon climate scientist’s claim to know – to have consensus – and this is odd. Other sciences never say such things, and if they do, it is not for long.
3.
The 1859 John Tyndall experiment is flawed. It is 18th Century electric
trickery, and has lead us to believe in (possibly) the most nonsense
scientific premise in the history of science: that only the ‘GHGs’ (2%
of gases in the atmosphere) trap heat, and that the remaining N2 and O2
(98%) are not GHG’s because they don’t. Infrared (IR) – sensed by us as
heat – thermopile detectors (the same used in the Tyndall experiment
deriving the GHG’s) are easily and cheaply available today and are used
in noncontact infrared thermometers, thermal imaging cameras and
importantly IR spectroscopy. They are all related through electric
thermopile. Application of these thermopile IR detector instruments
(their operation manuals) reveals they don’t measure temperature of all
substances or see all substances – N2 and O2 are such substances,
germanium is another. These substances are transparent to the
instruments (in the IR frequency range). It is the instrument that is
special and not the gases. It is all to do with the atomic vibration: N2
and O2 have only symmetric vibrations and so are IR inactive, and so
transparent, but they are not Raman inactive (Raman Spectroscopy is a
complimentary instrument to IR spectroscopy). IR thermometers are said
to be no substitute for traditional thermometers and must be used with
caution especially with these special substances. Imagine a sauna made
with walls of (IR transparent) germanium, and heated to sauna
temperature. To a regular traditional thermometer it would register hot;
to a noncontact IR thermometer it would read not the inside temperature
of the sauna, but the same temperature as the outside of the sauna. It
would ‘see’ right through walls (apart of course for the water vapor and
other trace gases). It would be useless. N2 and O2 are stealth gases:
they are to IR thermopile thermometer instruments as stealth bombers are
to radar. This was from my blog entry:
http://www.fractalnomics.com/2013/12/the-gassy-messenger-magic-of-ir.html
CO2 has no heat trapping specialty (it does trap heat, only as much as it’s specific heat capacity allows; its science appears no more than an agenda; and the science is all based on a false premise, one that can be refuted by simple application of a 30US$ noncontact IR thermometer.
CO2 has no heat trapping specialty (it does trap heat, only as much as it’s specific heat capacity allows; its science appears no more than an agenda; and the science is all based on a false premise, one that can be refuted by simple application of a 30US$ noncontact IR thermometer.
Response:
Why in the world would you say CO2 trapping heat would explain all of those things you listed?
Your argument on this point is there are other things in the world, therefore CO2 doesn't trap heat. That line of argument is totally invalid. CO2 doesn't have anything to do with plate tectonics (solid plates moving due to currents in the mantle); warm breath (warmed by our body heat); cloud formation (due to water vapor); or avalanches (due to gravity). (CO2 is used in industrial applications.) Somehow, in your mind, this means CO2 doesn't trap heat. I'm sorry, but there is a long history of scientific experiments and engineering applications of this property of CO2 to show that, yes, it really does absorb IR radiation.
Your next argument is equally invalid. The science behind how and why CO2 absorbs specific wavelengths of light is extremely complicated. It is called quantum mechanics. The explanation given to school children is merely a simplified version of an extremely complicated subject. Yes, lots of money has been spent on quantum mechanics to explore it so that we can understand it better. But, that argument is totally invalid. Are you really saying the only way something can be a science is if no one can understand it and we spend billions of dollars on it?
And, you are wrong. When something is explored as much as CO2 has been, there is a consensus. An example would be that Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun. Is there more to learn about all of that? Sure. But, there is a consensus among scientists that this is the basic situation and anything new we learn is merely details. Same thing with CO2. There is a consensus that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. We may learn more about this in the future, but that will just be more details.
I am not sure what you are saying about the Tyndall experiments. O2 and N2 are transparent to IR because the molecules are too small to absorb the large waves of IR radiation. You even admitted that in your submission. Tyndall measured the intensity of light at different wavelengths as it passed through different gases. He found many things, but one of them was that CO2 absorbed light at IR wavelengths. Based on your submission I don't think you understood that. It sounds as if you think he just held a thermometer up and measured the temperature in a CO2 atmosphere. No, that is not what he did. And, his experiments have been repeated and verified many times.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
Moon Gets Hotter
Hello Mr. Keating,
I did read through your response. Its so wonderful that you actually responded. The seeming emergency stemmed from having to endure further of Paul's 'expert' comments. Also, your marked presence in every other thread and absence in mine left me somewhat alienated and self conscious.
We all know the purpose of a blanket. We all understand its material structure.
A blanket has a purpose in that it can shield or insulate our bodies from the elements without. However, its structure is in no way comparable with that of fluid mixture of gasses in our atmosphere.
And that 'questions link' must have been some such attempt at a joke. How amusing. I would definitely say keep to the occupation of physicist in place of comedian, but I hesitate because I think your true calling has yet to reveal itself.
A blanket cannot raise one's body temperature. It can only slow heat loss. The earth is not generating its own heat. It is dependent upon another body for that function. The source of this IR energy escaping the earth is outside the blanket, not neatly contained within it. So you have a bit of a problem.
Secondly, the atmosphere's function is not to trap heat, but rather to carry it away from the surface of the earth. I posed to you the problem of the moon possessing daytime temperatures far greater than those found on earth with its GHG laden atmosphere. How can there be such a result when AGW theories lead us to the opposite outcome. Very strange.
Perhaps there is within you an ability or artfulness in enlightening us on this seeming absurdity, but I really doubt it.
Just to let you know that I gambled away the $30,000, so my bookie is expecting prompt payment. I thought the soccer team would make the final 8. I should stay with football.
Regards,
Gary Marshall
I did read through your response. Its so wonderful that you actually responded. The seeming emergency stemmed from having to endure further of Paul's 'expert' comments. Also, your marked presence in every other thread and absence in mine left me somewhat alienated and self conscious.
We all know the purpose of a blanket. We all understand its material structure.
A blanket has a purpose in that it can shield or insulate our bodies from the elements without. However, its structure is in no way comparable with that of fluid mixture of gasses in our atmosphere.
And that 'questions link' must have been some such attempt at a joke. How amusing. I would definitely say keep to the occupation of physicist in place of comedian, but I hesitate because I think your true calling has yet to reveal itself.
A blanket cannot raise one's body temperature. It can only slow heat loss. The earth is not generating its own heat. It is dependent upon another body for that function. The source of this IR energy escaping the earth is outside the blanket, not neatly contained within it. So you have a bit of a problem.
Secondly, the atmosphere's function is not to trap heat, but rather to carry it away from the surface of the earth. I posed to you the problem of the moon possessing daytime temperatures far greater than those found on earth with its GHG laden atmosphere. How can there be such a result when AGW theories lead us to the opposite outcome. Very strange.
Perhaps there is within you an ability or artfulness in enlightening us on this seeming absurdity, but I really doubt it.
Just to let you know that I gambled away the $30,000, so my bookie is expecting prompt payment. I thought the soccer team would make the final 8. I should stay with football.
Regards,
Gary Marshall
The
moon gets so hot because there is no atmosphere, or no atmosphere to
blunt the full force of the sun's rays. The earth has an atmosphere with
which it avoids the incineration disaster of the day that the moon
endures. That is half the story.
Now do you agree with this half of the story or not? If so, then a thicker atmosphere will further blunt the incoming sun's rays leaving the earth cooler in daylight than it otherwise would have been. Agree or disagree?
Regards,
Gary Marshall
Now do you agree with this half of the story or not? If so, then a thicker atmosphere will further blunt the incoming sun's rays leaving the earth cooler in daylight than it otherwise would have been. Agree or disagree?
Regards,
Gary Marshall
Response:
The basis of this submission is that the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere, and yet it gets much hotter in the daylight than Earth does. Since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, the warming there is not caused by any atmosphere. Therefore, the warming on Earth is not caused by an atmosphere and global warming is not real.
This is a false argument of the same variety as the claim that the current warming trend is a naturally occurring event. The natural cycle claim is that there were warming cycles in the past that were natural, therefore today's warming is just a natural event. The fallacy is that the second does not follow from the first. There is no evidence presented that just because there were natural cycles in the past, what we see today is a naturally occurring cycle.
The same thing with this argument. The Moon is heated to very high temperatures. Earth is heated to a high temperature. The Moon's heating is not due to an atmosphere. Therefore, Earth's heating is not due to an atmosphere.
Let's look at this one a different way. A fire in the fireplace keeps a person warm. A coat keeps a person warm. If you get to close to the fire you will get burned. Therefore, if you get too close to a coat you will get burned.
See? The second does not follow from the first. They are both keeping you warm, but they are using different methods. You cannot assume that just because they have some similar result that they are using the same method.
Same thing with the Moon and Earth. They are both being heated by direct sunlight, but they are using different methods to retain the heat - the Moon not at all and Earth with greenhouse gases. The results are very different. Daylight temperatures on the Moon in direct sunlight can get into the hundreds of degrees, much higher than Earth's. Likewise, nighttime temperatures on the Moon will fall hundreds of degrees while they drop only a few tens of degrees on Earth. The daytime difference in temperature between the two bodies is due to Earth's atmosphere, which provides protection. Then, the nighttime difference is because Earth's atmosphere retains some heat while the Moon, with no atmosphere, will radiate its heat straight out into space.
The
Earth's surface is not a heat source, but it is an IR source. The short
waves of sunlight pass through the atmosphere and are absorbed by the
surface, heating it up. That is the ultimate source of heat. (I can make
the same analogy with the human body. It does not generate heat, it merely
releases energy stored in the food eaten.) This IR radiation would then
go straight out into space and away from the surface. IR radiation is
just light, almost the same as what we see with our eyes, but longer
wavelength. This is why the Moon gets so cold at night. The heat source
(the Sun) has been removed and any energy stored in the rocks generates
IR radiation that goes straight into space, so the temperature drops
dramatically. On Earth, the atmosphere absorbs this energy by means of
greenhouse gases. This is neither new nor controversial. If not for the
greenhouse effect, the average temperature on Earth would be about -20
degrees Celsius. What has changed is the amount of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere. As we add more GHGs, more energy is trapped in the
atmosphere and it takes it longer to get out to space, raising the
average temperature.
And, yes, that is very similar to the way a blanket or coat works. Energy is absorbed by the blanket or coat, is reradiated in random directions, and slows the flow of energy from your body to the outside environment.
And, yes, that is very similar to the way a blanket or coat works. Energy is absorbed by the blanket or coat, is reradiated in random directions, and slows the flow of energy from your body to the outside environment.
The argument that a thicker atmosphere will actually lead to global cooling is another false argument because CO2 does not absorb visible light. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will not decrease the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. Basically, 30% of
incoming sunlight gets reflected back into space, 19% gets absorbed by
the atmosphere and 51% gets absorbed by the surface. Take a look at this graphic.
The argument that a thicker atmosphere "will further blunt the incoming sun's rays" is not a valid argument unless you can show that the thicker atmosphere reflects sunlight more efficiently. This is particularly true if it is more effective at retaining heat than reflecting it. In that case, any cooling that might occur due to increased reflectivity is offset by the increased efficiency of storing heat.
You did not prove manmade global warming is not real.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Thermal Emissions
Hey, I sent you a PM but I will post a modified version here:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle#section-3
Any thermal combustion will contribute to a release of thermal energy. You argument, no matter how you twist it, will always be positive as thermal emissions contribute to the heating of the surroundings. It's basic thermodynamics.
The extent in which global warming is "man-made", however, doesn't quite make any sense. The world has continued to go through natural cycles of heating and cooling long before our proposed existence. If ice-ages have occurred long before man-kind, what factors would have caused the periodic flux of global temperatures? Could not have been man-kind.
As the good old saying states, "correlation does not mean causation". As said, combustion of fuels will release thermal energy. The more thermal energy we produce will heat the surroundings. But as CO2 emissions arise, which have a lower specific heat than air [1], thermal energy cannot be trapped as effectively as air. These emissions are the cause of global warming. They may even result in a global cooling. You will need CO2 to be as "thick as glass" in order to trap heat it deflects solar rays to the Earth. Furthermore, we prefer air, copper, and other materials with a higher specific heat to cool our electronics.
Although we see a correlation between CO2 emissions and global change in these periodic cycles, current changes to our CO2 concentrates do not follow the trend. CO2, and other greenhouse gases are not significant variables to these periodic cycles.
Anyways, as your question states "cause of Global-Warming", there are hundreds of alternatives available that will release thermal energy, and thus, as stated here and above, man-kind is not the "cause" of global warming. You’re asking a trick question. Man-kind did not exist prior to these cycles that resorted in "global warming". However, if you want to point out simple thermodynamics, sure, you're right on the grounds that man-kind, when we combust materials/fuel, it will expel thermal energy into the environment. Good on yeah.
Alternative Sources:
[1]http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html
Cheers
The more conversations we have over this topic will help bring some light. It’s merely beneficial; but it would be appreciated, given the ethical conduct of your discipline, that you uphold to your disciplines standards in its discussion.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle#section-3
Any thermal combustion will contribute to a release of thermal energy. You argument, no matter how you twist it, will always be positive as thermal emissions contribute to the heating of the surroundings. It's basic thermodynamics.
The extent in which global warming is "man-made", however, doesn't quite make any sense. The world has continued to go through natural cycles of heating and cooling long before our proposed existence. If ice-ages have occurred long before man-kind, what factors would have caused the periodic flux of global temperatures? Could not have been man-kind.
As the good old saying states, "correlation does not mean causation". As said, combustion of fuels will release thermal energy. The more thermal energy we produce will heat the surroundings. But as CO2 emissions arise, which have a lower specific heat than air [1], thermal energy cannot be trapped as effectively as air. These emissions are the cause of global warming. They may even result in a global cooling. You will need CO2 to be as "thick as glass" in order to trap heat it deflects solar rays to the Earth. Furthermore, we prefer air, copper, and other materials with a higher specific heat to cool our electronics.
Although we see a correlation between CO2 emissions and global change in these periodic cycles, current changes to our CO2 concentrates do not follow the trend. CO2, and other greenhouse gases are not significant variables to these periodic cycles.
Anyways, as your question states "cause of Global-Warming", there are hundreds of alternatives available that will release thermal energy, and thus, as stated here and above, man-kind is not the "cause" of global warming. You’re asking a trick question. Man-kind did not exist prior to these cycles that resorted in "global warming". However, if you want to point out simple thermodynamics, sure, you're right on the grounds that man-kind, when we combust materials/fuel, it will expel thermal energy into the environment. Good on yeah.
Alternative Sources:
[1]http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html
Cheers
The more conversations we have over this topic will help bring some light. It’s merely beneficial; but it would be appreciated, given the ethical conduct of your discipline, that you uphold to your disciplines standards in its discussion.
Response:
Your submission illustrates the issue of so many misconceptions on global warming.
It is not the heat of emissions that is causing global warming. What is causing global warming is the atmosphere is becoming more efficient at trapping heat that would normally be radiated out into space. The amount of energy added to the atmosphere by all of humanity's activities is trivial in comparison to the amount of energy coming in from the Sun. We have increased the efficiency of the atmosphere to trap heat by about 1%. That amount of extra solar energy trapped every day is equal to about 100 years of energy released by man.
You really didn't even address the question, so, no, you did not prove man made global warming is not real.
Agenda 21
AnonymousJune 22, 2014 at 11:46 AM
rosa koire agenda 21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ykELwj1Ta8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ykELwj1Ta8
Response:
I will admit I did not watch this whole video and really, I don't need to. Agenda 21 is a conspiracy claim that the U.N. is using a clause in the Rio de Janeiro Agreement to take over the world and to deprive American citizens of their freedoms. Getting into any kind of discussion about government conspiracies is a total waste of time because people who believe in them are convinced they know 'the truth' and anyone that disagrees with them is a fool. I had a friend that was a huge believer in conspiracies and it was amazing how he always knew the single person that had the key piece of information to prove it right.
If you believe in this conspiracy theory, that is your business. But, there is no scientific proof presented that man made climate change is not real. In fact, in all of the presentations on Agenda 21 that I have ever seen, I don't remember them even claiming it isn't real.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
Rising Sea Level Leads To More Nuisance Flooding
Nuisance flooding is defined as small-scale flooding that does not cause widespread damage but does lead to local problems such as road closures and damage to infrastructures. A recent report by NOAA, Sea Level Rise and Nuisance Flooding Frequency Changes Around the United States, studied nuisance flooding in eight major cities on all three coasts and found they have seen nuisance flooding increases between 300% and 925% since the 1960s due to rising sea levels.
The lead author, William Sweet, a NOAA oceanographer, stated,
There are a number of reasons leading to the increased flooding. As Dr. Sweet noted, land subsidence and loss of natural barriers also play a role in this increase. As we drain the water table, the land sinks and that makes it lower relative to sea level. Also, destroying barriers, especially salt water marshes, makes it easier for flood waters to get in. But, manmade global warming has also resulted in the sea level going up and this is leading to an increase in the nuisance flooding.
The focus of the study was nuisance flooding, but it also noted,
In other words, if it is getting easier for nuisance flooding to occur, then it is also getting easier for the severe flooding to occur.
Something to think about if you are planning on purchasing some property in low-lying areas near the coast because we sure aren't doing anything to address the problem.
The lead author, William Sweet, a NOAA oceanographer, stated,
As relative sea level increases, it no longer takes a strong storm or a hurricane to cause flooding.
Flooding now occurs with high tides in many locations due to climate-related sea level rise, land subsidence, and the loss of natural barriers.
There are a number of reasons leading to the increased flooding. As Dr. Sweet noted, land subsidence and loss of natural barriers also play a role in this increase. As we drain the water table, the land sinks and that makes it lower relative to sea level. Also, destroying barriers, especially salt water marshes, makes it easier for flood waters to get in. But, manmade global warming has also resulted in the sea level going up and this is leading to an increase in the nuisance flooding.
The focus of the study was nuisance flooding, but it also noted,
Direct consequences of rising sea level against fixed elevations such as today’s built infrastructure also include increased inundation during extreme events both spatially and temporally. Not only are extreme flooding events reaching higher grounds and covering larger areas due to SLRrel, the frequency and duration of these extreme flood events are increasing.
In other words, if it is getting easier for nuisance flooding to occur, then it is also getting easier for the severe flooding to occur.
Something to think about if you are planning on purchasing some property in low-lying areas near the coast because we sure aren't doing anything to address the problem.
AGW Causing A Rise In Water Vapor
Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and satellite observations over the last 30 years has shown the level of atmospheric water vapor to be going up. But, is that rise due to natural causes or is it due to man made global warming?
A recent paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America addressed this question. The paper, Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming, by Chung et al. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1409659111) examined this question to determine the source of the rising water vapor. What they did was to take the observed changes in water vapor and compared that record to projected changes due to various causes. In their conclusion, they state,
One of the coauthors, Brian Soden, a professor at the University of Miami, was quoted by Eos as saying,
The amount of atmospheric water vapor is critically important. As noted above, it is a potent greenhouse gas and is much more efficient at trapping IR radiation than CO2. The level of atmospheric water vapor has been increasing because CO2 is trapping IR radiation and warming the planet and a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor. But, then that increased water vapor will lead to an increase in the global temperature and will result in even more atmospheric water vapor, and so on.
Ultimately, this all goes back to burning fossil fuels and is one more piece of evidence that we need to change our way of doing business.
A recent paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America addressed this question. The paper, Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming, by Chung et al. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1409659111) examined this question to determine the source of the rising water vapor. What they did was to take the observed changes in water vapor and compared that record to projected changes due to various causes. In their conclusion, they state,
Note that the observational estimate for the period 2000 – 2010 lies within the distribution of model simulations only when anthropogenic forcing is included, further indicating that the observed changes in upper-tropospheric water vapor are a direct result of anthropogenic warming.
One of the coauthors, Brian Soden, a professor at the University of Miami, was quoted by Eos as saying,
"If we consider natural variations plus CO2 plus fossil fuels, the only tenable explanation we can come up with is that the increase in water vapor is due to manmade burning of fossil fuels."
The amount of atmospheric water vapor is critically important. As noted above, it is a potent greenhouse gas and is much more efficient at trapping IR radiation than CO2. The level of atmospheric water vapor has been increasing because CO2 is trapping IR radiation and warming the planet and a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor. But, then that increased water vapor will lead to an increase in the global temperature and will result in even more atmospheric water vapor, and so on.
Ultimately, this all goes back to burning fossil fuels and is one more piece of evidence that we need to change our way of doing business.
Monday, August 18, 2014
The Temperature Continues to Rise Through July
The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) released its Global State of the Climate report for July 2014 today (it released the U.S. report earlier). The state of the climate for July was not good.
Let's review the tally for the year so far:
June 2014 was the hottest June since we started keeping modern records in 1880;
May was the hottest May ever recorded;
April tied 2010 as the hottest April ever recorded;
March was the fourth hottest March ever recorded;
We got a break in February. It was only the 21st hottest February ever recorded;
But, that break followed the hottest January since 2007 and the fourth hottest January on record.
So, let's see what the score is so far for 2014: one 21st hottest month, three 4th hottest months, and three hottest months ever.
What was that the deniers keep saying about how the temperature rise has stopped?
- The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2014 was the fourth highest on record for July, at 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F).
- The global land surface temperature was 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.3°C (57.8°F), marking the 10th warmest July on record.
- For the ocean, the July global sea surface temperature was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), tying with 2009 as the warmest July on record.
- The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–July period (year-to-date) was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), tying with 2002 as the third warmest such period on record.
Let's review the tally for the year so far:
June 2014 was the hottest June since we started keeping modern records in 1880;
May was the hottest May ever recorded;
April tied 2010 as the hottest April ever recorded;
March was the fourth hottest March ever recorded;
We got a break in February. It was only the 21st hottest February ever recorded;
But, that break followed the hottest January since 2007 and the fourth hottest January on record.
So, let's see what the score is so far for 2014: one 21st hottest month, three 4th hottest months, and three hottest months ever.
What was that the deniers keep saying about how the temperature rise has stopped?
Friday, August 15, 2014
Man or Nature?
Keating's Global Warming Skeptic Challenge: Do humans or nature dominate climate?
Submission by David L. Hagen
Keating's Challenge as Stated: $30,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge III, Christopher Keating
http://dialoguesonglobalwarmin...
Challenge Context – Keating's Press Release:
Climate Change Deniers Using Same Methods as Tobacco Industry, Says
Physicist PR Web.com
Testable: Since Keating appeals as a scientist with a PhD in Physics to the scientific method, his offer is interpreted as necessarily being logically and quantitatively testable under the scientific method. (Consequently, Keating is understood to not be asking to prove a nullity, nor an untestably small value, nor a rhetorical redefinition. See Appendix.)
“Man-made global climate change”: In the context, Keating states that there is:
The IPCC further defined:
“extremely likely: 95–100%” page 4
IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, US.
Keating's use of “Man-made global climate change” is thus interpreted as referring to this strong statement of the 2013 IPCC hypothesis, that: Since 1951, more than 50% of global warming is due to anthroprogenic
causes
Objective model validation: As Keating is a physicist, I interpret his appeal to “Scientific Method” to be that taught by Physics Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman
If the model prediction disagrees with the experiment (observations o nature), it is wrong.
The scientific method tests a hypothesis (model) against a null hypothesis (base case) against objective observations to a statistical probability. Nobel Laureate Feynman describes the “scientific integrity” of “utter honesty” necessary to uphold this positive burden of proof in his 1974 Caltech commencement address “Cargo Cult Science”. http://calteches.library.calte...
By the scientific method, those proposing a model bear the burden of proof.
i.e., the IPCC and Keating bear the primary burden of proof. Those testing such models first need to show that the claim is unsupported by the evidence as claimed and thus “unproven”. They may further show alternative models which better fit the evidence. See: Einstein Razor “Everything should be as simple as it can be but not simpler!”
Degree of Probability:
Keating standard:
“Keating says the results of climate change science are so overwhelming that the only way you can deny global warming is to deny science.” Keating's "overwhelming" confidence suggests he wishes to use the highest standard of proof in physics. i.e. that used to prove the Higgs Boson. See: CERN now 99.999999999% sure it has found the Higgs boson
We assume testing Keating's "overwhelming" as > 3 sigma or > 99.7%.
IPCC standard:
with a probability of at least 95%.
This is the common test in science and physics – 95% confidence
(two Sigma) of rejecting the null hypothesis, or 5% (p=0.05) that do
not reject the null hypothesis.
By the scientific method, Keating's challenge to show “that man-made global climate change is not occurring” is thus interpreted as first showing that the IPCC's model is unsupported to the probability as inferred by Keating, e.g., to greater than three sigma.
“There is less than 99.7% probability that more than 50% of of global climate change is due to anthroprogenic causes.”
Then we test for the probability as claimed by the IPCC. i.e. that:
“There is less than 95% probability that more than 50% of global climate change is due to anthroprogenic causes.”
A third test of Keating's challenge is to show that the IPCC's hypothesis it is not even likely. Stated positively this test is to show that the converse null hypothesis:
It is likely (>50%) that since 1950, 50% or more of global climate change is due to natural causes.
Tropical Tropospheric Temperature Test:
See: Ross R. McKitrick and Timothy J. Vogelsang, HAC robust trend comparisons among climate series with possible level shifts. Environmetrics, 14 Jul. 2014 online. DOI: 10.1002/env.2294
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
McKitrick discusses this at: New Paper by McKitrick and Vogelsang comparing models and observations in the tropical troposphere at ClimateAudit.org
McKitrick posted the data and code.
http://www.weebly.com/uploads/...
McKitrick observes:
10.3.2 Patterns of Change in the 21st Century and Figure 10.7 Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
McKitrick summarizes that:
1958.
Anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have been
increasing. Consequently, a global climate model assuming majority
anthropogenic global warming will have greater sensitivity over the
period 1958-2012 than the IPCC's period 1950 to 2013. McKitrick and
Vogelsang's later 54 year analysis thus tests over a period that should
have greater warming than the IPCC's 63 year period from 1950.
McKitrick and Vogelsang (2014) thus show that the Keating's “overwhelming” confidence is rejected. They further show that IPCC's 95% confidence in all the global climate models showing majority global warming is also rejected. McKitrick and Vogelsang further show that the models fundamentally misrepresent the tropospheric temperatures. Consequently, even the 50% anthropogenic warming is not likely.
Further Evidence
STATEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE
Roy W. Spencer, PhD 18 July 2013
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...
Data: Spencer and Christy show the average of the internationally recognized four balloon global data sets and two satellite global data sets from 1979 to 2012 for mid tropospheric temperatures. They further compare predictions from 1979 for 73 global climate models for the same 1979 temperature intercept.
For a 95% accurate model, one would expect the models to be normally distributed about the data. However, ALL 73 global climate model predictions from 1979 to 2012 exceed the actual mesotropic temperatures through 2012. This indicates a major Type B bias error. The models are NOT within +/- 2 sigma of this data. Not even half the models are within +/- 2 sigma of the experimental variations.
Thus the IPCC's 95% confidence is not supported (null not rejected).
Surface Temperature Evidence
Lucia Liljegren shows similar analyses for surface temperatures from 2000 to 2014 etc. e.g. see How would AR4 have looked this month?
http://rankexploits.com/musing...
How are AR5 models doing? (End of 2013)
Liljegren further analyzes 23 year trends since 1990Cowtan & Way Trends compared to AR5 model trends. Liljegren shows that the AR5 models are NOT tracking the surface temperatures within 95% confidence of the surface temperature trends over the periods examined.
Summary
These data do NOT support Keating's "overwhelming" confidence.
These data do NOT support the IPCC's 95% confidence. The Keating/IPCC claim of >95% confidence in majority anthropogenic global warming is thus NOT PROVEN.
Consequently, “There is less than 95% probability that more than 50% of global climate change is due to anthroprogenic causes.”
With the Keating/IPCC hypothesis NOT PROVEN, these data indicate that under the scientific method, the converse null hypothesis still stands:
It is likely (>50%) that since 1950, 50% or more of global climate change is due to natural causes - not majority anthropogenic warming.
Or in Keating's popular terms "(majority) man-made global climate change is not occurring".
Appendix
Not a nullity:
One cannot prove a nullity - that something does not exist -without universal knowledge over all space over all time. Since human's lack omniscience, Keating's test must logically be interpreted to be objectively testable and not an impossible attempt to prove a nullity.
Not unquantifiably small: The scientific method can only test a quantified hypothesis against a null hypothesis based on objective data. No small testable bound is prescribed against which to test for “man-made global climate change” by the scientific method.
Under What the Challenge Is About, on July 7, 2014, Keeting stated:
Thus, I interpret the test to not refer to the colloquial interpretation of some
unquantified small man-made impact.
Not UNFCCC “climate change”: The UNFCCC defined:
This UNFCCC definition excludes all natural variations from “climate change”. This redefinition does not appear to be a scientific definition and
thus is not what the challenge refers to.
Submission by David L. Hagen
Keating's Challenge as Stated: $30,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge III, Christopher Keating
Challenge: “I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring; . . .If someone can provide a proof that I can't refute, using scientific evidence, then I will write them a check. The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming and no one can prove otherwise.”
"challenge deadline of midnight (CDT) July 31, 2014”
http://dialoguesonglobalwarmin...
Challenge Context – Keating's Press Release:
Climate Change Deniers Using Same Methods as Tobacco Industry, Says
Physicist PR Web.com
Dr. Christopher Keating, author of Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming, . . .Keating has been involved, at some level, with climate change for 30 years. He has been a professor of physics for over 20 years and has taught at the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. . . .Terms & Definitions: Where the challenge terms are not explicitly defined internally, recourse is taken to the methodology used by the US Patent office to interpret terms as would be understood by one of “Ordinary Skill in the Art”. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure Section 2141. In context, Keating's challenge is interpreted as understandable by a scientist with a post graduate degree, ordinary skill in the scientific method, statistical analysis, and the scientific literature relating to anthropogenic global climate change.
Keating says the results of climate change science are so overwhelming that the only way you can deny global warming is to deny science. “Greenhouse gases are on the rise and the effects are evident: The earth is getting warmer, weather everywhere is changing, the oceans are warming at an alarming rate and ice caps are melting. Every where you look you see evidence of global warming. This isn’t something that is only going to occur in the future, it is happening right now.” . . .
“There is simply no science to support the claims of the deniers, but massive amounts of science proving man made global warming is real. All that anyone needs to do is a little homework. Everything is available to the public,” said Keating.
Testable: Since Keating appeals as a scientist with a PhD in Physics to the scientific method, his offer is interpreted as necessarily being logically and quantitatively testable under the scientific method. (Consequently, Keating is understood to not be asking to prove a nullity, nor an untestably small value, nor a rhetorical redefinition. See Appendix.)
“Man-made global climate change”: In the context, Keating states that there is:
“massive amounts of science proving man made global warming is real. All that anyone needs to do is a little homework. Everything is available to the public”.The greatest global effort on summarizing and publicly reviewing scientific information on climate has been conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In the 2013 Summary for Policy Makers IPCC WG1AR5 the IPCC stated:
D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change
It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9} page 17 It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthroprogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3} page 17
The IPCC further defined:
“extremely likely: 95–100%” page 4
IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, US.
Keating's use of “Man-made global climate change” is thus interpreted as referring to this strong statement of the 2013 IPCC hypothesis, that: Since 1951, more than 50% of global warming is due to anthroprogenic
causes
Objective model validation: As Keating is a physicist, I interpret his appeal to “Scientific Method” to be that taught by Physics Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman
If the model prediction disagrees with the experiment (observations o nature), it is wrong.
The scientific method tests a hypothesis (model) against a null hypothesis (base case) against objective observations to a statistical probability. Nobel Laureate Feynman describes the “scientific integrity” of “utter honesty” necessary to uphold this positive burden of proof in his 1974 Caltech commencement address “Cargo Cult Science”. http://calteches.library.calte...
i.e., the IPCC and Keating bear the primary burden of proof. Those testing such models first need to show that the claim is unsupported by the evidence as claimed and thus “unproven”. They may further show alternative models which better fit the evidence. See: Einstein Razor “Everything should be as simple as it can be but not simpler!”
Degree of Probability:
Keating standard:
“Keating says the results of climate change science are so overwhelming that the only way you can deny global warming is to deny science.” Keating's "overwhelming" confidence suggests he wishes to use the highest standard of proof in physics. i.e. that used to prove the Higgs Boson. See: CERN now 99.999999999% sure it has found the Higgs boson
CERN has announced that its observation of the Higgs boson (or a particle that is Higgs-like) is now approaching 7 sigma certainty.
5 sigma —99.9999% certainty, or more correctly a 0.00001% chance that you have made a faulty observation — is the threshold for an observation to be labeled a scientific discovery. CERN crossed the 5 sigma threshold this summer. At 7 sigma, both the CMS and ATLAS teams are reporting that
there’s only a 0.0000000001% chance that they haven’t found a Higgs-like particle.
We assume testing Keating's "overwhelming" as > 3 sigma or > 99.7%.
IPCC standard:
with a probability of at least 95%.
This is the common test in science and physics – 95% confidence
(two Sigma) of rejecting the null hypothesis, or 5% (p=0.05) that do
not reject the null hypothesis.
By the scientific method, Keating's challenge to show “that man-made global climate change is not occurring” is thus interpreted as first showing that the IPCC's model is unsupported to the probability as inferred by Keating, e.g., to greater than three sigma.
“There is less than 99.7% probability that more than 50% of of global climate change is due to anthroprogenic causes.”
Then we test for the probability as claimed by the IPCC. i.e. that:
“There is less than 95% probability that more than 50% of global climate change is due to anthroprogenic causes.”
A third test of Keating's challenge is to show that the IPCC's hypothesis it is not even likely. Stated positively this test is to show that the converse null hypothesis:
It is likely (>50%) that since 1950, 50% or more of global climate change is due to natural causes.
Tropical Tropospheric Temperature Test:
See: Ross R. McKitrick and Timothy J. Vogelsang, HAC robust trend comparisons among climate series with possible level shifts. Environmetrics, 14 Jul. 2014 online. DOI: 10.1002/env.2294
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
McKitrick discusses this at: New Paper by McKitrick and Vogelsang comparing models and observations in the tropical troposphere at ClimateAudit.org
McKitrick posted the data and code.
http://www.weebly.com/uploads/...
McKitrick observes:
All climate models (GCMs) predict that in response to rising CO2 levels, warming will occur rapidly and with amplified strength in the troposphere over the tropics. See AR4 Figure 9.1 and accompanying discussion; also see AR4 text accompanying Figure 10.7.
10.3.2 Patterns of Change in the 21st Century and Figure 10.7 Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
McKitrick summarizes that:
“In simplified models, in response to uniform warming with constant relative humidity, about 55% of the total warming amplification occurs in the tropical troposphere, compared to 10% in the surface layer and 35% in the troposphere outside the tropics. And within the tropics, about two-thirds of the extra warming is in the upper layer and one-third in the lower layer. (Soden & Heldp. 464).Balloon Record Data: McKitrick uses the longest modern data record for this most thermally sensitive region – the weather balloon record since
1958.
All climate models but one characterize the 1958-2012 interval as having a significant upward trend in temperatures. Allowing for a late-1970s step change has basically no effect in model-generated series. Half the climate models yield a small positive step and half a small negative step, but all except two still report a large, positive and significant trend around it. Indeed in half the cases the trend becomes even larger once we
allow for the step change. In the GCM ensemble mean there is no step-change in the late 1970s, just a large, uninterrupted and significant upward trend. . . .
Results:
All climate models but one characterize the 1958-2012 interval as having
a significant upward trend in temperatures. . . .
Climate models project much more warming over the 1958-2012 interval than was observed in either the LT or MT layer, and the inconsistency is statistically significant whether or not we allow for a step-change, but when we allow for a shift term the models are rejected at smaller significance levels. . . .
As the Thorne et al. review noted, a lack of tropospheric warming “would
have fundamental and far-reaching implications for understanding of the climate system.” . . .
Table 7 summarizes the main test scores on which our conclusions are drawn .
The first column indicates the data series being tested. The second column lists the null hypothesis. The third column gives the VF score, but note that this statistic follows a non-standard distribution and critical values must either be simulated or bootstrapped (as discussed in the paper). The last column gives the p-value. . . .
The first 6 rows shows the 3 LT trends (with the trend coefficient in
C/decade in brackets) followed by the 3 MT trends. The test of a zero trend strongly rejects in each case (in this case the 5% critical value is 41.53 and 1% is 83.96). The next two rows report tests of average model trend = average observed trend. These too reject, even ignoring the shift term.
The second block repeats these results with a level shift at 1977:12. Here you can see the dramatic effect of controlling for the Pacific Climate Shift. The VF scores for the zero-trend test collapse and the p-values soar; in other words the trends disappear and become practically and statistically insignificant. The model/obs trend equivalence tests strongly reject again. . . .
Bottom Line
Over the 55-years from 1958 to 2012, climate models not only significantly over-predict observed warming in the tropical troposphere, but they represent it in a fundamentally different way than is observed. Models represent the interval as a smooth upward trend with no step change. The observations, however, assign all the warming to a single step-change in the late 1970s coinciding with a known event (the Pacific Climate Shift), and identify no significant trend before or after. In my opinion the simplest and most likely interpretation of these results is that climate models, on average, fail to replicate whatever process yielded the step-change in the late 1970s and they significantly overstate the overall atmospheric response to rising CO2 levels.
McKitrick and Vogelsang (2014) thus show that the Keating's “overwhelming” confidence is rejected. They further show that IPCC's 95% confidence in all the global climate models showing majority global warming is also rejected. McKitrick and Vogelsang further show that the models fundamentally misrepresent the tropospheric temperatures. Consequently, even the 50% anthropogenic warming is not likely.
Further Evidence
STATEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE
Roy W. Spencer, PhD 18 July 2013
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...
Data: Spencer and Christy show the average of the internationally recognized four balloon global data sets and two satellite global data sets from 1979 to 2012 for mid tropospheric temperatures. They further compare predictions from 1979 for 73 global climate models for the same 1979 temperature intercept.
For a 95% accurate model, one would expect the models to be normally distributed about the data. However, ALL 73 global climate model predictions from 1979 to 2012 exceed the actual mesotropic temperatures through 2012. This indicates a major Type B bias error. The models are NOT within +/- 2 sigma of this data. Not even half the models are within +/- 2 sigma of the experimental variations.
Thus the IPCC's 95% confidence is not supported (null not rejected).
Surface Temperature Evidence
Lucia Liljegren shows similar analyses for surface temperatures from 2000 to 2014 etc. e.g. see How would AR4 have looked this month?
http://rankexploits.com/musing...
How are AR5 models doing? (End of 2013)
Liljegren further analyzes 23 year trends since 1990Cowtan & Way Trends compared to AR5 model trends. Liljegren shows that the AR5 models are NOT tracking the surface temperatures within 95% confidence of the surface temperature trends over the periods examined.
Summary
These data do NOT support Keating's "overwhelming" confidence.
These data do NOT support the IPCC's 95% confidence. The Keating/IPCC claim of >95% confidence in majority anthropogenic global warming is thus NOT PROVEN.
Consequently, “There is less than 95% probability that more than 50% of global climate change is due to anthroprogenic causes.”
With the Keating/IPCC hypothesis NOT PROVEN, these data indicate that under the scientific method, the converse null hypothesis still stands:
It is likely (>50%) that since 1950, 50% or more of global climate change is due to natural causes - not majority anthropogenic warming.
Or in Keating's popular terms "(majority) man-made global climate change is not occurring".
Appendix
Not a nullity:
One cannot prove a nullity - that something does not exist -without universal knowledge over all space over all time. Since human's lack omniscience, Keating's test must logically be interpreted to be objectively testable and not an impossible attempt to prove a nullity.
Not unquantifiably small: The scientific method can only test a quantified hypothesis against a null hypothesis based on objective data. No small testable bound is prescribed against which to test for “man-made global climate change” by the scientific method.
Under What the Challenge Is About, on July 7, 2014, Keeting stated:
But, the real fallacy here is that I am not asking anyone to prove a negative. I am merely asking them to back up their statements.
Thus, I interpret the test to not refer to the colloquial interpretation of some
unquantified small man-made impact.
Not UNFCCC “climate change”: The UNFCCC defined:
"Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate
variability observed over comparable time periods.”
This UNFCCC definition excludes all natural variations from “climate change”. This redefinition does not appear to be a scientific definition and
thus is not what the challenge refers to.
Supporting References on Microwave Scanning Radiometer temperature measurements Selected from Roy Spencer's posted climate articles
Spencer, R.W., W.D. Braswell, J.R. Christy, and J. Hnilo, 2007: Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. J. Geophys. Res., 9 August.
Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, R.W. Spencer, and J.J. Hnilo, 2007: Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D06102, 16 pp.
Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, W.D. Braswell, and W.B. Norris, 2006: Estimation of tropospheric temperature trends from MSU channels 2 and 4. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech, 23, 417-423.
Ohring, G., B. Wielicki, R. Spencer, B. Emery, and R. Datla, 2005: Satellite instrument calibration for measuring global climate change. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 1303-1313.
Lobl, E.E., and R.W. Spencer, 2004: The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) and its products. Italian Journal of Remote Sensing, 30/31, 9-18.
Kawanishi, T., T. Sezai, Y. Ito, K. Imaoka, T. Takeshima, Y. Ishido, A. Shibata, M. Miura, H. Inahata, and R.W. Spencer, 2003: The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System (AMSR-E), NASDA’s contribution to the EOS for Global Energy and Water Cycle Studies. IEEE Trans. Geosys. Rem. Sens., 41, 184-194.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, W.B. Norris, W.D. Braswell and D.E. Parker, 2003: Error Estimates of Version 5.0 of MSU-AMSU Bulk Atmospheric Temperatures. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology: 20, pp. 613-629.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and W. D. Braswell, 2000: MSU tropospheric temperatures: Dataset construction and radiosonde comparisons. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 17, 1153-1170.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and E.S. Lobl, 1998: Analysis of the merging procedure for the MSU daily temperature time series. J. Climate, 11, 2016-2041.
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 1997: How dry is the tropical free troposphere? Implications for global warming theory. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 1097-1106.
Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, and N.C. Grody, 1996: Analysis of “Examination of Global atmospheric temperature monitoring with satellite microwave measurements”. Climatic Change, 33, 477-489.
Spencer, R.W., 1994: Global temperature monitoring from space. Adv. Space Res., 14, (1)69-(1)75.
Spencer, R.W., 1993: Monitoring of global tropospheric and stratospheric temperature trends. Atlas of Satellite Observations Related to Global Change, Cambridge University Press.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1993: Precision lower stratospheric temperature monitoring with the MSU: Technique, validation, and results 1979-91. J. Climate, 6, 1301-1326.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1992a: Precision and radiosonde validation of satellite gridpoint temperature anomalies, Part I: MSU channel 2. J. Climate, 5, 847-857.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1992b: Precision and radiosonde validation of satellite gridpoint temperature anomalies, Part II: A tropospheric retrieval and trends during 1979-90. J. Climate, 5, 858-866.
Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, and N.C. Grody, 1990: Global atmospheric temperature monitoring with satellite microwave measurements: Method and results, 1979-84. J. Climate, 3, 1111-1128.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1990: Precise monitoring of global temperature trends from satellites. Science, 247, 1558-1562.
Google Scholar: Roy W. Spencer Satellite Temperature
John R. Christy satellite temperature
NASA Aqua Project Science Team Member Profile: Roy Spencer extracts:
* John R. Christy 1,*, Benjamin Herman 2, Roger Pielke, Sr. 3, Philip Klotzbach 4, Richard T. McNider 1, Justin J. Hnilo 1, Roy W. Spencer 1, Thomas Chase 3 and David Douglass 5, 2010. What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing ISSN 2072-429. (pdf)
* Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, 2009: Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth. Energy & Environment, 20, 178-189 (Invited paper, reviewed by Editor.) (pdf)
* JOHN R. CHRISTY AND WILLIAM B. NORRIS, 2008: Discontinuity Issues with Radiosonde and Satellite Temperatures in the Australian Region 1979–2006. (Manuscript received 13 February 2008, in final form 26 August 2008) (pdf)
* JOHN R. CHRISTY, WILLIAM B. NORRIS, AND RICHARD T. MCNIDER, 2008. Surface Temperature Variations in East Africa and Possible Causes. (Manuscript received 16 July 2008, in final form 1 December 2008) (pdf)
JOHN R. CHRISTY and MASAMI SAKAMOTO, 2008. The Influences of TOVS Radiance Assimilation on Temperature and Moisture Tendencies in JRA-25 and ERA-40. Manuscript received 26 June 2008, in final form 18 December 2008). (pdf)
* Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson and S.F. Singer, 2007: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International J. Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651. (pdf)
* Christy, J.R. and W.B. Norris, 2006: Satellite and VIZ-Radiosonde intercomparisons for diagnosis on non-climatic influences. J. Atmos. Oc. Tech., 23, 1181 – 1194.
* Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, W.D. Braswell and W.B. Norris, 2006: Estimation of tropospheric temperature trends from MSU channels 2 and 4. J. Atmos. Oc. Tech., 23, 417-423.
* Christy, J.R., 2006: The ever-changing climate system. Cumberland Law Review, 36 No. 3, 493-504,
* Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond and K. Gallo, 2006: Methodology and results of calculating central California surface temperature trends: Evidence of human-induced climate change? J. Climate, 19, 548-563.
* Christy, J.R. and R.W.Spencer, 2005: Correcting temperature data sets. Science, 310, 972.
* Christy, J.R. and W.B. Norris, 2004: What may we conclude about tropospheric temperature trends? Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, No. 6, L0621.
* Christy, J.R. and R.W. Spencer, 2003: Reliability of satellite data sets. Science, 301, 1046-1047.
* Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, W.B. Norris, W.D. Braswell and D.E. Parker, 2003: Error estimates of Version 5.0 of MSU/AMSU bulk atmospheric temperatures. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech. 20, 613-629.
* Christy, J.R., D.E. Parker, S.J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel and W.B. Norris, 2001: Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 183-186.
* Hurrell, J., S.J. Brown, K.E. Trenberth and J.R. Christy, 2000: Comparison of tropospheric temperatures from radiosondes and satellites: 1979-1998. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 81, 2165-2177.
* Gaffen, D.J., B.D. Santer, J.S. Boyle, J.R. Christy, N.E. Graham, R.J. Ross, 2000: Multidecadal changes in the vertical structure of the tropical troposphere. Science, 287, 1242-1245.
* Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and W.D. Braswell, 2000: MSU Tropospheric temperatures: Data set construction and radiosonde comparisons. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech. 17,1153-1170.
* Stendel, M., J.R. Christy and L. Bengtsson, 2000: Assessing levels of uncertainty in recent temperature time series. Climate Dynamics, 16(8), 587-601.
* Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and E. Lobl, 1998 Analysis of the merging procedure for the MSU daily temperature time series. J. Climate, 11, 2016-2041.
* Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and D. Braswell, 1997 How accurate are satellite 'thermometers'?, Nature, 389, 342-3.
* Christy, J.R. , 1995 Temperature above the surface layer. Climatic Change , 30, 455-474.
* Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer and R.T. McNider, 1995 Reducing noise in the MSU daily lower tropospheric global temperature data set. J Climate , 8, 888-896.
* Christy, J.R. and J. Goodridge, 1995 Precision global temperatures from satellites and urban warming effects of non-satellite data. Atmos. Env. 29, 1957-1961.
* Christy, J.R. and R. T. McNider, 1994 Satellite greenhouse signal. Nature, 367, 325.
* Christy, J.R. and S.J. Drouilhet, 1994 Variability in daily, zonal mean lower-stratospheric temperatures. J. Climate, 7, 106-120.
KE Trenberth, JR Christy, JW Hurrell - Monitoring global monthly mean surface temperatures, Journal of climate, 1992 – journals.ametsoc.org
Spencer, R.W., W.D. Braswell, J.R. Christy, and J. Hnilo, 2007: Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. J. Geophys. Res., 9 August.
Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, R.W. Spencer, and J.J. Hnilo, 2007: Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D06102, 16 pp.
Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, W.D. Braswell, and W.B. Norris, 2006: Estimation of tropospheric temperature trends from MSU channels 2 and 4. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech, 23, 417-423.
Ohring, G., B. Wielicki, R. Spencer, B. Emery, and R. Datla, 2005: Satellite instrument calibration for measuring global climate change. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 1303-1313.
Lobl, E.E., and R.W. Spencer, 2004: The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) and its products. Italian Journal of Remote Sensing, 30/31, 9-18.
Kawanishi, T., T. Sezai, Y. Ito, K. Imaoka, T. Takeshima, Y. Ishido, A. Shibata, M. Miura, H. Inahata, and R.W. Spencer, 2003: The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System (AMSR-E), NASDA’s contribution to the EOS for Global Energy and Water Cycle Studies. IEEE Trans. Geosys. Rem. Sens., 41, 184-194.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, W.B. Norris, W.D. Braswell and D.E. Parker, 2003: Error Estimates of Version 5.0 of MSU-AMSU Bulk Atmospheric Temperatures. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology: 20, pp. 613-629.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and W. D. Braswell, 2000: MSU tropospheric temperatures: Dataset construction and radiosonde comparisons. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 17, 1153-1170.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and E.S. Lobl, 1998: Analysis of the merging procedure for the MSU daily temperature time series. J. Climate, 11, 2016-2041.
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 1997: How dry is the tropical free troposphere? Implications for global warming theory. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 1097-1106.
Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, and N.C. Grody, 1996: Analysis of “Examination of Global atmospheric temperature monitoring with satellite microwave measurements”. Climatic Change, 33, 477-489.
Spencer, R.W., 1994: Global temperature monitoring from space. Adv. Space Res., 14, (1)69-(1)75.
Spencer, R.W., 1993: Monitoring of global tropospheric and stratospheric temperature trends. Atlas of Satellite Observations Related to Global Change, Cambridge University Press.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1993: Precision lower stratospheric temperature monitoring with the MSU: Technique, validation, and results 1979-91. J. Climate, 6, 1301-1326.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1992a: Precision and radiosonde validation of satellite gridpoint temperature anomalies, Part I: MSU channel 2. J. Climate, 5, 847-857.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1992b: Precision and radiosonde validation of satellite gridpoint temperature anomalies, Part II: A tropospheric retrieval and trends during 1979-90. J. Climate, 5, 858-866.
Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, and N.C. Grody, 1990: Global atmospheric temperature monitoring with satellite microwave measurements: Method and results, 1979-84. J. Climate, 3, 1111-1128.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1990: Precise monitoring of global temperature trends from satellites. Science, 247, 1558-1562.
Google Scholar: Roy W. Spencer Satellite Temperature
John R. Christy satellite temperature
NASA Aqua Project Science Team Member Profile: Roy Spencer extracts:
Since 1992 Dr. Spencer has been the U.S. Team Leader for the Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) team and the follow-on AMSR-E team. In 1994 he became the AMSR-E Science Team leader.John R. Christy Selected Publications on Temperature
He received the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal in
1991, the MSFC Center Director’s Commendation in 1989, and the
American Meteorological Society’s Special Award in 1996.
* John R. Christy 1,*, Benjamin Herman 2, Roger Pielke, Sr. 3, Philip Klotzbach 4, Richard T. McNider 1, Justin J. Hnilo 1, Roy W. Spencer 1, Thomas Chase 3 and David Douglass 5, 2010. What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing ISSN 2072-429. (pdf)
* Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, 2009: Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth. Energy & Environment, 20, 178-189 (Invited paper, reviewed by Editor.) (pdf)
* JOHN R. CHRISTY AND WILLIAM B. NORRIS, 2008: Discontinuity Issues with Radiosonde and Satellite Temperatures in the Australian Region 1979–2006. (Manuscript received 13 February 2008, in final form 26 August 2008) (pdf)
* JOHN R. CHRISTY, WILLIAM B. NORRIS, AND RICHARD T. MCNIDER, 2008. Surface Temperature Variations in East Africa and Possible Causes. (Manuscript received 16 July 2008, in final form 1 December 2008) (pdf)
JOHN R. CHRISTY and MASAMI SAKAMOTO, 2008. The Influences of TOVS Radiance Assimilation on Temperature and Moisture Tendencies in JRA-25 and ERA-40. Manuscript received 26 June 2008, in final form 18 December 2008). (pdf)
* Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson and S.F. Singer, 2007: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International J. Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651. (pdf)
* Christy, J.R. and W.B. Norris, 2006: Satellite and VIZ-Radiosonde intercomparisons for diagnosis on non-climatic influences. J. Atmos. Oc. Tech., 23, 1181 – 1194.
* Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, W.D. Braswell and W.B. Norris, 2006: Estimation of tropospheric temperature trends from MSU channels 2 and 4. J. Atmos. Oc. Tech., 23, 417-423.
* Christy, J.R., 2006: The ever-changing climate system. Cumberland Law Review, 36 No. 3, 493-504,
* Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond and K. Gallo, 2006: Methodology and results of calculating central California surface temperature trends: Evidence of human-induced climate change? J. Climate, 19, 548-563.
* Christy, J.R. and R.W.Spencer, 2005: Correcting temperature data sets. Science, 310, 972.
* Christy, J.R. and W.B. Norris, 2004: What may we conclude about tropospheric temperature trends? Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, No. 6, L0621.
* Christy, J.R. and R.W. Spencer, 2003: Reliability of satellite data sets. Science, 301, 1046-1047.
* Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, W.B. Norris, W.D. Braswell and D.E. Parker, 2003: Error estimates of Version 5.0 of MSU/AMSU bulk atmospheric temperatures. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech. 20, 613-629.
* Christy, J.R., D.E. Parker, S.J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel and W.B. Norris, 2001: Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 183-186.
* Hurrell, J., S.J. Brown, K.E. Trenberth and J.R. Christy, 2000: Comparison of tropospheric temperatures from radiosondes and satellites: 1979-1998. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 81, 2165-2177.
* Gaffen, D.J., B.D. Santer, J.S. Boyle, J.R. Christy, N.E. Graham, R.J. Ross, 2000: Multidecadal changes in the vertical structure of the tropical troposphere. Science, 287, 1242-1245.
* Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and W.D. Braswell, 2000: MSU Tropospheric temperatures: Data set construction and radiosonde comparisons. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech. 17,1153-1170.
* Stendel, M., J.R. Christy and L. Bengtsson, 2000: Assessing levels of uncertainty in recent temperature time series. Climate Dynamics, 16(8), 587-601.
* Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and E. Lobl, 1998 Analysis of the merging procedure for the MSU daily temperature time series. J. Climate, 11, 2016-2041.
* Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and D. Braswell, 1997 How accurate are satellite 'thermometers'?, Nature, 389, 342-3.
* Christy, J.R. , 1995 Temperature above the surface layer. Climatic Change , 30, 455-474.
* Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer and R.T. McNider, 1995 Reducing noise in the MSU daily lower tropospheric global temperature data set. J Climate , 8, 888-896.
* Christy, J.R. and J. Goodridge, 1995 Precision global temperatures from satellites and urban warming effects of non-satellite data. Atmos. Env. 29, 1957-1961.
* Christy, J.R. and R. T. McNider, 1994 Satellite greenhouse signal. Nature, 367, 325.
* Christy, J.R. and S.J. Drouilhet, 1994 Variability in daily, zonal mean lower-stratospheric temperatures. J. Climate, 7, 106-120.
KE Trenberth, JR Christy, JW Hurrell - Monitoring global monthly mean surface temperatures, Journal of climate, 1992 – journals.ametsoc.org
Context and further comments on “Human based global warming is not happening”
In 1991, I wrote a 330 page report report on how to reduce greenhouse gases using solar thermal technologies, relying on the 1990 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. I began:
Hagen, D.L. & Kaneff, S. "Application of Solar Thermal Technologies in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Opportunities and Benefits for Australian industry" for Anutech Pty Ltd to Dept. Arts, Sports, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Canberra, Australia, June 1991 330 pp
Yet today I read:
See Figure 2
Furthermore,
Figure 1.
Source: Global Temperature Update – Still no global warming for 17 years 10 months Christopher Monckton, Watts Up With That August 2, 2014.
Dr. Christopher Keating stated
Any conversion of forests to fields, roads or cities obviously has an impact on the local microclimate and by inference on the global climate. The issue is the magnitude of the impact of humans on climate.
Under What the Challenge Is About, on July 7, 2014, Keeting stated:
I assume Keating’s “overwhelming confidence” in “man-made climate change” first to mean greater than 99.7% probability that more than 50% of global warming is due to anthropogenic causes since 1950. I then assume the popular use of “man-made global warming” to mean the IPCC's use that more than 50% of global warming is due to anthropogenic causes since 1950 to a 95% probability.
Under the scientific method, those proposing these models bear burden of proof while skeptics need only show that the models are unfounded based on available evidence.
The IPCC’s 1990 mean prediction of 2.8 K/century based on majority anthropogenic global warming is clearly outside the 95% confidence limits of the actual global lower-troposphere temperature trend since 1990 based on the satellite microwave temperature measurements. One expects model predictions to be normally distributed about the data and vice versa. The extremely warm skew of the IPCC models shows severe Type B uncertainty. Even the IPCC has been forced to recognize this. It very markedly reduced is predictions in AR5. Using expert judgement it set the lower temperature trend bounds below the 5-95% extremes of the AR5 models. e.g, see:
IPCC silently slashes its global warming predictions in AR5 Final Draft
and The IPCC discards its models
The IPCC itself now states that its AR5 global climate models do NOT meet the 5-95% AR5 model range.
In the popular terms Keating uses, “majority man-made climate change” (aka majority anthropogenic global warming) “has not been happening since 1990" based on these global temperature records. With more atmospheric carbon dioxide, the period since 1990 should show higher trends by IPCC models than since 1950. Thus I hold “majority man-made climate change” has probably not happened since 1950 based on the scientific method. I.e., the IPCC models are “wrong” (per Physics Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman).
I still expect solar thermal technologies can be deployed to
provide energy cheaper than fossil fuels without subsidies. Abundant low
cost energy will be essential to provide commercially driven
replacement fuels as we transition from our endowment of “geologically
stored solar energy” to energy systems that can be sustained for a
thousand years.
Our urgent priority now needs to be providing replacement fuels and transitioning to hybrid electric/flex fuel vehicles.
Response:
The premise of this challenge is that they want to change the challenge to something they can prove. Poor job. The challenge was to prove man made global warming isn't real. It is directed at people who make that statement and then say they can prove it. Fine! I provided a venue for them to do that. What Mr. Hagen did was to change the challenge to proving the majority of climate change is not man made. Sorry, that is not the challenge and you don't get to change my challenge. Besides, you were wrong anyway.
Mr. Hagen spent an awful lot of time on lawyer talk instead of discussing the scientific issues. And, as is usually the case with lawyers, he spends his time on semantics rather than substance. I don't know if Mr. Hagen is a lawyer, and I'm not saying he is one. I'm just saying he is certainly acting like one. As in the following quote:
This submission is not only bad, but they actually went out of their way to prove that man made global warming is REAL! So, their submission consists of proving AGW is not real by proving it is real. Beautiful.
Please note, again, the challenge was not to prove that man made emissions are responsible for the MAJORITY of warming. The challenge was for anyone claiming they could prove man made global warming is not real to step forward and do it. You cannot rewrite my challenge to suit your needs. My challenge stands they way it was given - prove that man made global warming is not real. What you did was to prove that global warming is real and that humans are responsible for at least some of it. In other words, AGW is real.
Then, he filled his submission with statements like this:
"In simplified models..." What, he is going to criticize some of the most complicated models we have ever developed by referring to simplified ones? Why didn't he go to the big ones? The code for many of these, and certainly the review of them, is available to the public. Could it be that he doesn't understand what is going on because he isn't a scientists, just plays one in denier blogs? Or, is it because the more advanced ones don't give the results he wants?
"...with constant relative humidity..." Who is saying relative humidity will stay the same?
" ...about 55% of the total warming amplification occurs in the tropical troposphere.." If this is the case, why is it we have seen the greatest amount of change in the Arctic areas and the least amount of change in the equatorial regions? Here is a plot of temperature change worldwide.
Now, if the challenge was to debate the amount that humans are responsible, then that would be something else. I dispute your claim that we are responsible for less than half of the warming and the science is overwhelmingly in favor of the conclusion that the current warming trend is mostly due to man made emissions. You relied heavily on the work of McKittrick, Christy and Roy Spencer. All of these individuals have such bad records that I can only conclude they have deliberately falsified their research with the intent to undermine climate science. I have commented extensively on Spencer and have also discussed McKittrick and Christy. In short, if you are using them as your reference - you are wrong. Take a look at this post to see just how bad Spencer can get.
This is a very honest statement, if you ever want to be taken seriously by anyone outside of the contrarian blog community, don't cite the work of these individuals. That is just a friendly tip.
Most of what you have produced has already been debunked in previous submissions. In short, nothing new here. One in particular is so bad, and is produced so often, that I have concluded it is a deliberate lie anytime anyone produces it. The reason is because it has been so thoroughly debunked that there is no way any denier can't know it is a false statement. But, just for the fun of it, let's do it again. The lie in question is the graph Mr. Hagen showed with the claim that there has been no warming for 17 years. Really, Mr. Hagan? You show, with that one graphic, that your entire submission is false. Let me show, again, just why I say that.
Of course, this graphic comes from Watts Up With That?, a denier blog in the same category as Spencer, Christy and McKittrick. In other words, someone with serious credibility problems. But, let's look at the graphic:
What we have here is a classic example of what is called cherry-picking, choosing the data that confirms your preconceived conclusion. They are using the period of time starting with the large peak (1998) and going to the end (2011) to get their average. Why? Why not start with 1997, just one year earlier? Or, why not start with 1999, just one year later? Let's look at the numbers and you'll see why.
During the 1997 - 2011 period the temperature went from an anomaly of -.1 degrees C (they conveniently omitted that, but you can find it on other graphs) and went to +.36 degrees C in 2011. That is a change of over .45 degrees C over a period of 14 years, more than .03 degrees C per year. That is not even close to the "no global warming" they loudly proclaim. What's up with that?
During the 1999 - 2011 period the temperature went from -.12 to +.35, a change of .47 degrees C and an annual average change of almost .04 degrees. Again, what's up with that?
Why did they pick their starting point and not 1997 or 1999? Because they wanted to lie to you. That is why. They know exactly what they are doing and I cannot possibly believe it is done accidentally.
So, would it be more accurate to pick 1997 or 1999 as the starting point? No! That would also be cherry-picking. What you have to do is take an average baseline and compare what is going on - cherry-picking your data does not give an accurate depiction of the reality. But, the reality is the last thing deniers want you to ever know about. It does not fit their agenda. Here is an excellent article on how they cook the books on this subject of no warming. Here is another one.
But, there is a much bigger lie here. And, yes, it is a lie. Look at the graph again and the statement on it, "No global warming...." Where I come from the word 'global' means the globe. What they are showing is merely the average global surface temperature. But, 93% of all warming goes into the oceans. THEY OMITTED 93% OF GLOBAL WARMING! And, they know it! What's up with that?
Take a look at the global heat content and then tell me there has been no global warming in 17 years:
Funny how the picture changes when you include ALL of the data, and not just the data you want people to see.
The overriding question in this is - What are they trying to hide by omitting all of this data?
Maybe, what they are trying to hide is the fact that the data, and the science, does not support their claims. Just like the scientists bought by the tobacco industry kept saying smoking was harmless, these guys bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry will keep saying there is no global warming or that it is harmless for as long as there are people gullible enough to believe it.
Mr. Hagan seemed to have been critical of my claim that the only way you can deny man made global warming is by rejecting science. For someone that was so critical, I found it very nice of him to prove my point. He has truly rejected science in this submission.
I'm sorry Mr. Hagan, you did not prove man made global warming is not real.
In 1991, I wrote a 330 page report report on how to reduce greenhouse gases using solar thermal technologies, relying on the 1990 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. I began:
“We are now carrying on activities and making decisions which will have have lasting, often irreversible effects on the well being of ourselves, our environment and of our descendants. . . .
Present CO2 emissions must be reduced by over 60% to stabilise greenhouse gases at present concentrations.
International recommendations are for industrialised countries to reduce CO2 and methane emissions by over 80% of 1987 levels by 2050 to allow for some expansion in developing countries (Enquete-Kommission 1990). . . .
Necessary: Large scale introductions of solar thermal technologies are required to stabilise the greenhouse effect. Stabilization cannot be met just by improving fossil fuel technologies and demand management.”
Hagen, D.L. & Kaneff, S. "Application of Solar Thermal Technologies in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Opportunities and Benefits for Australian industry" for Anutech Pty Ltd to Dept. Arts, Sports, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Canberra, Australia, June 1991 330 pp
Yet today I read:
A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).
See Figure 2
“Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to June 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at 1.4 K/century equivalent. Mean of the three terrestrial surface-temperature anomalies (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC).”
Furthermore,
Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 214 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. . . .
The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from October 1996 to July 2014. That is more than half the 427-month satellite record. . . .
Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century. . . .
Figure 1.
RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to July 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.
Source: Global Temperature Update – Still no global warming for 17 years 10 months Christopher Monckton, Watts Up With That August 2, 2014.
Dr. Christopher Keating stated
I have heard global warming skeptics make all sorts of statements about how the science doesn't support claims of man-made climate change. I have found all of those statements to be empty and without any kind of supporting evidence. I have, in turn, stated that it is not possible for the skeptics to prove their claims.”
Any conversion of forests to fields, roads or cities obviously has an impact on the local microclimate and by inference on the global climate. The issue is the magnitude of the impact of humans on climate.
Under What the Challenge Is About, on July 7, 2014, Keeting stated:
I am merely asking them to back up their statements.
I assume Keating’s “overwhelming confidence” in “man-made climate change” first to mean greater than 99.7% probability that more than 50% of global warming is due to anthropogenic causes since 1950. I then assume the popular use of “man-made global warming” to mean the IPCC's use that more than 50% of global warming is due to anthropogenic causes since 1950 to a 95% probability.
Under the scientific method, those proposing these models bear burden of proof while skeptics need only show that the models are unfounded based on available evidence.
The IPCC’s 1990 mean prediction of 2.8 K/century based on majority anthropogenic global warming is clearly outside the 95% confidence limits of the actual global lower-troposphere temperature trend since 1990 based on the satellite microwave temperature measurements. One expects model predictions to be normally distributed about the data and vice versa. The extremely warm skew of the IPCC models shows severe Type B uncertainty. Even the IPCC has been forced to recognize this. It very markedly reduced is predictions in AR5. Using expert judgement it set the lower temperature trend bounds below the 5-95% extremes of the AR5 models. e.g, see:
IPCC silently slashes its global warming predictions in AR5 Final Draft
and The IPCC discards its models
The IPCC itself now states that its AR5 global climate models do NOT meet the 5-95% AR5 model range.
Note "(iv) SPM.2 (Note (c)) . . .the “assessed range for near-term (2016-2035) temperature change is lower than the 5-95% model range”"Thus, based on the scientific method, as a necessarily “skeptic” scientist and research engineer, I find that "majority anthropogenic global warming" since 1990 is not supported to a 95% probability. Thus (majority) “man-made climate change” by the IPCC's definition is “Unproven”. I find my confidence and reliance on the IPCC 1990 as shown in my 1991 report was scientifically unfounded. I hereby withdraw that reliance.
In the popular terms Keating uses, “majority man-made climate change” (aka majority anthropogenic global warming) “has not been happening since 1990" based on these global temperature records. With more atmospheric carbon dioxide, the period since 1990 should show higher trends by IPCC models than since 1950. Thus I hold “majority man-made climate change” has probably not happened since 1950 based on the scientific method. I.e., the IPCC models are “wrong” (per Physics Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman).
Our urgent priority now needs to be providing replacement fuels and transitioning to hybrid electric/flex fuel vehicles.
Response:
The premise of this challenge is that they want to change the challenge to something they can prove. Poor job. The challenge was to prove man made global warming isn't real. It is directed at people who make that statement and then say they can prove it. Fine! I provided a venue for them to do that. What Mr. Hagen did was to change the challenge to proving the majority of climate change is not man made. Sorry, that is not the challenge and you don't get to change my challenge. Besides, you were wrong anyway.
Mr. Hagen spent an awful lot of time on lawyer talk instead of discussing the scientific issues. And, as is usually the case with lawyers, he spends his time on semantics rather than substance. I don't know if Mr. Hagen is a lawyer, and I'm not saying he is one. I'm just saying he is certainly acting like one. As in the following quote:
By the scientific method, those proposing a model bear the burden of proof. i.e., the IPCC and Keating bear the primary burden of proof.No, I do not bear the burden of proof and you would know this if you had bothered spending as much time on the issues as you did on semantics. I have been abundantly clear, and have stated many, many times, that the challenge is to people claiming they can prove man made global warming is not real. The challenge is an invitation for these people to do what they claimed they can do. It is actually irrelevant to the challenge what my personal position on AGW is. I could support it or deny it and the challenge would be unaffected. If you do not say, or believe, you can prove AGW is not real, then this challenge is not to you. So, no, there is no burden on me.
This submission is not only bad, but they actually went out of their way to prove that man made global warming is REAL! So, their submission consists of proving AGW is not real by proving it is real. Beautiful.
Please note, again, the challenge was not to prove that man made emissions are responsible for the MAJORITY of warming. The challenge was for anyone claiming they could prove man made global warming is not real to step forward and do it. You cannot rewrite my challenge to suit your needs. My challenge stands they way it was given - prove that man made global warming is not real. What you did was to prove that global warming is real and that humans are responsible for at least some of it. In other words, AGW is real.
Then, he filled his submission with statements like this:
McKitrick summarizes that:Ross McKitrick is an economist, not a climate scientists or even any other kind of scientists. Tim Vogelsang is another economist. So, two economist, with no science background, get together and decide they are smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined. And, this statement demonstrates just how bad McKitrick is.
“In simplified models, in response to uniform warming with constant relative humidity, about 55% of the total warming amplification occurs in the tropical troposphere, compared to 10% in the surface layer and 35% in the troposphere outside the tropics. And within the tropics, about two-thirds of the extra warming is in the upper layer and one-third in the lower layer. (Soden & Heldp. 464).
"In simplified models..." What, he is going to criticize some of the most complicated models we have ever developed by referring to simplified ones? Why didn't he go to the big ones? The code for many of these, and certainly the review of them, is available to the public. Could it be that he doesn't understand what is going on because he isn't a scientists, just plays one in denier blogs? Or, is it because the more advanced ones don't give the results he wants?
"...with constant relative humidity..." Who is saying relative humidity will stay the same?
" ...about 55% of the total warming amplification occurs in the tropical troposphere.." If this is the case, why is it we have seen the greatest amount of change in the Arctic areas and the least amount of change in the equatorial regions? Here is a plot of temperature change worldwide.
Now, if the challenge was to debate the amount that humans are responsible, then that would be something else. I dispute your claim that we are responsible for less than half of the warming and the science is overwhelmingly in favor of the conclusion that the current warming trend is mostly due to man made emissions. You relied heavily on the work of McKittrick, Christy and Roy Spencer. All of these individuals have such bad records that I can only conclude they have deliberately falsified their research with the intent to undermine climate science. I have commented extensively on Spencer and have also discussed McKittrick and Christy. In short, if you are using them as your reference - you are wrong. Take a look at this post to see just how bad Spencer can get.
This is a very honest statement, if you ever want to be taken seriously by anyone outside of the contrarian blog community, don't cite the work of these individuals. That is just a friendly tip.
Most of what you have produced has already been debunked in previous submissions. In short, nothing new here. One in particular is so bad, and is produced so often, that I have concluded it is a deliberate lie anytime anyone produces it. The reason is because it has been so thoroughly debunked that there is no way any denier can't know it is a false statement. But, just for the fun of it, let's do it again. The lie in question is the graph Mr. Hagen showed with the claim that there has been no warming for 17 years. Really, Mr. Hagan? You show, with that one graphic, that your entire submission is false. Let me show, again, just why I say that.
Of course, this graphic comes from Watts Up With That?, a denier blog in the same category as Spencer, Christy and McKittrick. In other words, someone with serious credibility problems. But, let's look at the graphic:
|
| Source: WUWT? |
What we have here is a classic example of what is called cherry-picking, choosing the data that confirms your preconceived conclusion. They are using the period of time starting with the large peak (1998) and going to the end (2011) to get their average. Why? Why not start with 1997, just one year earlier? Or, why not start with 1999, just one year later? Let's look at the numbers and you'll see why.
During the 1997 - 2011 period the temperature went from an anomaly of -.1 degrees C (they conveniently omitted that, but you can find it on other graphs) and went to +.36 degrees C in 2011. That is a change of over .45 degrees C over a period of 14 years, more than .03 degrees C per year. That is not even close to the "no global warming" they loudly proclaim. What's up with that?
During the 1999 - 2011 period the temperature went from -.12 to +.35, a change of .47 degrees C and an annual average change of almost .04 degrees. Again, what's up with that?
Why did they pick their starting point and not 1997 or 1999? Because they wanted to lie to you. That is why. They know exactly what they are doing and I cannot possibly believe it is done accidentally.
So, would it be more accurate to pick 1997 or 1999 as the starting point? No! That would also be cherry-picking. What you have to do is take an average baseline and compare what is going on - cherry-picking your data does not give an accurate depiction of the reality. But, the reality is the last thing deniers want you to ever know about. It does not fit their agenda. Here is an excellent article on how they cook the books on this subject of no warming. Here is another one.
But, there is a much bigger lie here. And, yes, it is a lie. Look at the graph again and the statement on it, "No global warming...." Where I come from the word 'global' means the globe. What they are showing is merely the average global surface temperature. But, 93% of all warming goes into the oceans. THEY OMITTED 93% OF GLOBAL WARMING! And, they know it! What's up with that?
Take a look at the global heat content and then tell me there has been no global warming in 17 years:
 |
| Source: NOAA |
Funny how the picture changes when you include ALL of the data, and not just the data you want people to see.
The overriding question in this is - What are they trying to hide by omitting all of this data?
Maybe, what they are trying to hide is the fact that the data, and the science, does not support their claims. Just like the scientists bought by the tobacco industry kept saying smoking was harmless, these guys bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry will keep saying there is no global warming or that it is harmless for as long as there are people gullible enough to believe it.
Mr. Hagan seemed to have been critical of my claim that the only way you can deny man made global warming is by rejecting science. For someone that was so critical, I found it very nice of him to prove my point. He has truly rejected science in this submission.
I'm sorry Mr. Hagan, you did not prove man made global warming is not real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)