Image: Budget to combat climate change (They mean “Man Made Global Warming,” which doesn’t exist)
Originally by Climate Change Dispatch
Smoking Gun #1: Al Gore’s Ice Core CO2 Temperature Chart
Ironically, some of the most damning evidence again the AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory comes from Al Gore himself.
This post has been updated and reformatted since being published.
- Climate change is the norm. Never in the 800,000-year ice core record is climate not changing.
- Four Temperature Peaks in the last 400,000 years were all above today’s temperatures and occurred at lower CO2 levels.
- Every ice-age began when CO2 was at or near peak levels, in other words, high CO2 levels were not enough to prevent ice ages.
- The current record high level of 400 parts per million(ppm) CO2, a full 33% above any previous level on the chart, has failed to carry temperatures to a record high.
- For any cause and effect relationship, the cause MUST lead the effect. CO2 does not lead Temperature, it follows it by 800 to 1,500 years. This video does an exhaustive review of the research. The AGW Theory is similar to claiming that lung cancer causes smoking. (Must Watch Video Clip)
- There is no mechanism defined that explains how or why CO2 would lead temperatures to pull the globe out of an ice age.
- There is no mechanism defined to explain how or why high levels of CO2 would trigger an ice age.
- The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can cause climate change is by trapping outgoing long-wave infrared (LWIR) radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns. CO2 can only result in warming, there is no mechanism by which it can result in cooling. CO2 can only trap outgoing radiation, that is it.
- In the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” Al Gore discusses how his classmate challenged the “consensus” of the continents never having been joined. The teacher mocked Al’s friend for challenging the “consensus.” The arrogant and close-minded teacher spouting the “consensus” view was wrong. Today, Al Gore and his fellow climate alarmists are acting like the closed-minded and very wrong Teacher. Albert Einstein, Christopher Columbus, Michelangelo, and Galileo aren’t remembered for agreeing with the “consensus,” they are remembered for shattering the “consensus.”
Smoking Gun #2: 600 Million Year Geologic Record
- The current CO2 level of 400 ppm is at the extreme low end of the past 600 million years. Plants and therefore most life will die if CO2 falls below 180ppm.
- CO2 has been as high at 7,000 ppm, or 17.5x today’s level and the earth has NEVER in 600 million years experienced catastrophic global warming, NEVER.
- The earth fell into an ice age when the CO2 level was at 4,000 ppm, or 10x the level of today.
- Modern reefs and sea life developed over the past 220 million years when CO2 and temperatures were much higher than today. Coral Reefs only exist in the warm parts of the oceans and rely on dissolved CO2 to form their CaCO3 shells.
- There is no defined mechanism by which CO2 can allow the globe to cool, the only defined mechanism it to trap outgoing radiation between 13 and 18 microns.
- Over the past 600 million years, CO2 and Temperature simply aren’t correlated, and regardless of the level of CO2, temperatures cap out around 22 Degrees C.
- CO2 caused ocean acidification is simply not a possibility due to the huge buffering capabilities of the ocean, once again, the coral reefs developed during periods of much higher CO2 levels.
Smoking Gun #3: The IPCC Climate Models Fail…Miserably
- Climate “science” is a “model” based science, its entire credibility is dependent upon the accuracy of its computer models. The very precise climate models are very inaccurate.
- The confidence of the climate science “consensus” increased as the climate models increasingly deviated from observations.
- 100% of IPCC Climate Models overestimated the expected increase in global temperatures, 100%. A 100% overestimation rate involving that many models represent a systemic bias, not a random error.
- The climate models assume a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature. That relationship does not exist and will be covered in a later smoking gun.
- Real science relies on the scientific method, and reaches a conclusion through falsification (rejecting the null), experimentation, data collection, data analysis and reproduciblity. Climate “science” relies on none of the classical scientific practices, and relies on computer models, peer review and consensus. Albert Einstein isn’t remembered because he agreed with the “consensus,” he is remembered because he shattered the existing consensus.
- The extreme failure of the IPCC Climate Models to accurately model global temperatures means that the IPCC Modelers failed to include significant variables, failed to properly model CO2 or both. Regardless of which is true, the IPCC has failed on an epic scale to make the case that CO2 is the cause of the recent warming.
- If climate “science” was a “settled science,” the climate models would be able to accurately predict the climate. They don’t even come close.
- In real science if something is understood it can be modeled with great accuracy. Things fall at 9.8 m/sec^2 in a vacuum can be tested over and over and over again and the results will always be the same. If something isn’t understood, it can’t be modeled with any accuracy. If something really isn’t understood, the experts won’t even be able to agree on what is wrong with the models. The vast number of different and unique excuses (52 documented here) to explain why the models have performed so poorly proves just how little the expert climate “scientists” truly know.
- How can any real “science” have a “consensus” on something that they can’t even remotely model, and whose conclusions aren’t supported by empirical evidence/natural observation? Additionally, all these models passed “peer review,” and helped solidify the “consensus.”
- If this “science” is truly “settled” why are there so many different models with widely different results? The only thing that all the models seem to agree upon is that they are all wrong. I imagine that is because the most significant factors used in these models is CO2. To properly cure an illness, one must first properly diagnose it. Prescribing eyeglasses for headaches caused by a brain tumor will only lead to the death of the patient. Climate “scientists” can model CO2 and temperature all they want, the models will never be accurate.
- The climate models ignore significant factors like the Sun, Clouds and Water Vapor.
- Scott Adams of Dilbert fame even weighed in on this one.
Smoking Gun #4: There simply isn’t enough Anthropocentric CO2 to make a difference
- OSU Stadium holds 100,000 Buckeye Fans and atmospheric CO2 is 400 ppm. If every Buckeye Fan represents one atmospheric molecule, then 40 Buckeye Fans would represent atmospheric CO2. Man however is not responsible for all the atmospheric CO2, and is responsible for at most 15 of those 40 molecules of CO2. Man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is the equivalent of 15 Buckeye Fans in OSU Stadium.
- CO2 is a trace gas at 400 ppm, and its contribution to global warming is to trap a very narrow band of outgoing radiation between 13 and 18 microns. Those wavelengths are consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degrees Celsius. More on this topic is covered in a later smoking gun.
- CO2 is 0.00004 or 0.04% of the atmosphere. Is it plausible that “activating” 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere can actually result in a material temperature change?
- Unfortunately, simple experiments to demonstrate even the basics of this “science” haven’t been properly run or even tried. What efforts have been attempted are complete jokes from the perspective of real science. Anthony Watts shows no mercy when he “peer reviews” Al Gore’s and Bill Nye’s effort to demonstrate the GHG effect of CO2. It is truly alarming how such foundational figures can’t even demonstrate even the basics of the “science” that they have manufactured and promoted at great tax-payer expense.
- Does it seem plausible that “thermalizing” 1 out of every 2,500 molecules can make a material difference upon the remaining 2,499? Especially when its energy if consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degrees Celsius?
Smoking Gun #5: Water Vapor is by far the most significant Green House Gas (GHG)
When discussing global warming with a climate alarmist, be sure to always tie things back to how CO2 could be the cause. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is by trapping outgoing radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns.
- Incoming visible radiation has a wavelength between 0.4 and 0.7 microns and is consistent with a black body with a temperature around 5,200 degrees C (the Sun). CO2 is transparent to these wavelengths. (The importance of this will be addressed in a later Smoking Gun)
- The earth emits IR mostly between 6.5 and 12.5 microns, with a peak near 9.5 microns. 9.5 microns is consistent with a black body of temperature 18 degrees Celsius. CO2 is mostly transparent to those wavelengths.
- CO2’s absorbs between 13 and 18 microns, with a peak near 15 microns. Those wavelengths are consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degrees Celsius. CO2’s signature would be to cause warming in Antarctica, which is addressed in a later Smoking Gun.
- H2O is by far the most significant GHG, and absorbs across the IR Spectrum. Where there is water vapor in the atmosphere, there is warmth. The same can’t be said about CO2.
- CO2 absorbs a small fraction of the IR Spectrum having 3 narrow peaks at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns, all of which largely miss the peak outgoing IR radiance of the earth at 9.5 microns.
- H2O largely absorbs the same IR spectrum as CO2, and is at much higher concentrations in the atmosphere. H2O IR absorption usually makes CO2 contribution to warming inconsequential.
- CO2 has changed from 0.0003 to 0.0004 over the past 100 years and absorbs a very very very small % of the outgoing radiation. H2O can change from 0.001 to 0.04 in a day and absorbs a vast majority of the outgoing IR spectrum. Neither H20 or CO2 have ever caused catastrophic warming of the globe.
- Given that the GHG effect only slows cooling, and can never actually “warm” the atmosphere, the dynamics of the GHG effect is to put in a temperature floor. If you notice from the above graphic, as the earth warms, it enters what is called an “atmospheric window” where little energy is trapped. As the earth cools, more and more of the outgoing wavelengths are trapped (note the near solid black to the right of 13 microns)
Smoking Gun #6: Antarctica isn’t warming
If there is anyplace on earth that is a natural control for the impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 it is Antarctica. Antarctica’s average winter temperature is -60 degrees Celsius which is close to the peak absorption of CO2 of -80 degree Celsius. Most importantly however is that the Antarctica air is very very very dry, so there is no impact from water vapor. The only significant GHG in the South Pole Troposphere is CO2.
- Satellite measurements show no South Pole warming over the past 36 years. During this time CO2 increased from 330 ppm to 404 ppm.
- Ground measurements show no South Pole warming over the past 59 years. During that time CO2 increased from 315 ppm to 405 ppm.
- Increasing CO2 nearly 30% had no impact on temperatures in the region most likely to be impacted by an increase if CO2.
- The North Pole is not a “control” for CO2 because its temperature is largely influenced by ocean currents. BTW, an ice free North Pole is nothing new or anything to be alarmed about. The graphic is of the USS Skate SSN-578.
- What efforts to prove Antarctica has been warming with the rest of the globe have failed.
Smoking Gun #7: Antarctica isn’t warming, but the Oceans are warming
Once again, when discussing CO2 caused climate change or global warming, the question that needs to be asked is how does CO2 cause the observation. CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is to absorb IR radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns, that is it. CO2 can only cause warming by “trapping” outgoing radiation.
- Only incoming visible and ultraviolet light penetrates and warms the oceans. IR radiation does not penetrate the oceans, has very little energy and most likely results in cooling the oceans through surface evaporation.
- The oceans hold over 1,000x more energy than the atmosphere. There simply isn’t enough energy in the entire atmosphere to warm the oceans. The oceans are warmed by incoming radiation and geothermal sources.
- Warming oceans also outgas CO2 into the atmosphere. That is why CO2 lags temperature. It takes time to warm the oceans, and as the oceans warm they release CO2. That is also why CO2 falls during ice ages. Cold water absorbs more CO2. This is due to Henry’s law and can be observed by warming a glass of Coke.
- The fact that the oceans are warming is evidence of more incoming high energy visible radiation reaching the earth’s surface, not evidence of CO2 trapping outgoing low energy IR.
- Climate models almost exclusively focus on CO2 levels and ignore incoming high energy visible radiation and atmospheric H20 levels which likely explains why they are so inaccurate.
- What is warming the oceans is also most likely what is warming the atmosphere.
- Either there are two distinct phenomena occurring, one caused by man and one caused by nature, or there is only one natural phenomenon causing both (which has been the case throughout all of history). Either something natural is warming the oceans and man’s CO2 is warming the atmosphere, or the same natural cause is warming both the oceans and the atmosphere above it.
Smoking Gun #8: Atmospheric Temperatures follow ocean temperatures, not atmospheric CO2.
- The increase in atmospheric CO2 is near linear, atmospheric temperatures are not.
- Atmospheric CO2 and Atmospheric Temperatures simply aren’t correlated, and their certainly isn’t the linear relationship that exists in the IPCC Models.
- In reality, atmospheric temperatures follow the ocean temperatures, not atmospheric CO2. Ocean temperatures are dependent upon the amount of incoming solar radiation that reaches them combined with ocean cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO/El Nino/El Nina) and others. The balance of incoming and outgoing radiation is why the atmospheric temperature forms spikes and steps instead of a smooth linear increase.
Smoking Gun #9: Atmospheric CO2 follows ocean temperatures, not man’s combustion.
- Man’s rate of CO2 creation is increasing, yet the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is highly variable.
- The rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is highly correlated with atmospheric temperatures, which are highly correlated with ocean temperatures and cycles.
- Man’s production of CO2 can not explain the large variation is either the atmospheric CO2 or atmospheric temperatures. Ocean temperatures can explain both.
- There is no mechanism by which CO2 would allow global temperatures to cool, CO2 only increases, and it only absorbs more and more energy. CO2 can’t explain the large rapid coolings which frequently occur.
Smoking Gun #10: Record High Day Time Temperatures is NOT evidence of AGW
Once again, when discussing AGW you always have to tie the observation back to CO2, and its lone mechanism to affect climate change through absorbing long-wave IR between 13 and 18 microns. CO2 traps outgoing radiation from an already warmed earth, CO2 and IR doesn’t warm the earth. CO2 is transparent to incoming warming visible and UV radiation.
- Daytime temperatures are determined by the amount of incoming radiation that reaches the earth’s surface and have nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.
- CO2 traps outgoing radiation, record high temperatures require new energy to be added to the system. CO2 does not add energy to the system.
- During a hot summer day you can fry an egg on the hood of a car, but that has nothing to do with AGW or CO2 and everything to do with incoming radiation.
- If AGW and CO2 was the true cause of the warming, you would be able to fry an egg on a hot day in the shade of a tree using only the back radiation from the atmosphere.
- True evidence of AGW and CO2 caused warming would be that the spread between day and night temperatures would be narrowing in the very dry deserts. I’ve found no evidence of that happening, in fact the South Pole proves otherwise.
- Water vapor dominates the heat trapping in the lower atmosphere, and is why you can sleep naked in a rain forest, but not in a dry desert.
- The fact that record daytime temperatures are being set is evidence that more energy is being added to the system. That alone can explain the warming, and CO2 has nothing to do with it.
Smoking Gun #11: The Scientific Method is Ignored, The Null is not Rejected
Classical science is done through the “Scientific Method.” An observation is made, a hypothesis is formed, experiments are designed, data is collected, the data is analyzed and the hypothesis is either accepted or rejected. In most fields of science the “null hypothesis” is the status quo or the accepted explanation. If in that rare case the null hypothesis is in fact rejected, the research is published and others will rush to “replicate” the experiments to validate the findings. True science is based upon skepticism and the “belief in the ignorance of experts.” Science progresses through falcification, over-turning the apple cart, proving the experts wrong, angering one’s “peers” and defying the “consensus.” Classical science is not done by following the bandwagon, agreeing with the consensus and being welcomed, accepted and celebrated by like-minded “peers.” Real science is done by proclaiming that “the earth is not flat dammit, and I’m going to prove it, and I don’t care what anyone else thinks.” How then would the scientific method be applied to the field of climate science? An observation is made that both temperatures and CO2 have been increasing since the dawn of the industrial age. A hypothesis is made that man-made CO2 must be causing the increase in temperatures, the commonly accepted/status quo belief is that climate change is natural. Experiments would be designed and data would be collected and then analyzed. For this smoking gun we will ignore the design experiments part because the field of climate science doesn’t rely on experiments, it is almost completely dependent upon data samples and computer models. I’ll address some experiments in a later smoking gun, this smoking gun will focus on the ice core data to determine if the temperature variation during the period when man has been producing CO2 (the past 150 and 50 years) is statistically different from the previous 12,000 years of the Holocene.
- Using the scientific method and applying it to the available ice core data, the null hypothesis that climate change is natural IS NOT REJECTED.
- The relevant data is the temperature and CO2 data for the “Holocene.” Download any ice core data set and test the hypothesis yourself. I have yet to find a single ice core data set that shows the temperature variation over the past 150 and/or 50 years is statistically different from the previous 12 to 15,000 years of the Holocene. Note, you have to use surface temperatures for the most recent 50 years.
- There have been many previous temperature peaks during the Holocene, all of which reached temperatures above today’s level. The Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods were all warmer than today. Archaeological evidence of a warmer past are Roman vineyards in Northern England and the Vikings inhabited and farmed Greenland.
- I have yet to find a single ice core data set demonstrating that current temperatures are at a peak for the Holocene. It is important to note that when NASA/NOAA, the Main Stream Media or Al Gore report that “we are experiencing the hottest year on record,” they are referring only to the past 156 years of instrumental records, not the ice core data or the entire Holocene. Those data set begin right when an unusually cold period called the “Little Ice Age” was ending. Much of the warming since 1860 is nothing more than the earth rebounding from an unusually cold period.
Smoking Gun #12: Doubling CO2 has NO MEASURABLE IMPACT on the lower atmosphere temperature, none
The main data sources used to support the AGW Theory are ground level surface and ocean thermometers. There are all sorts of problems with this approach such as the “Urban Heat Island Effect,” and the non-transparent process of “adjustments.” Those issues aside, once again, the warming has to be tied to CO2 and trapping outgoing radiation between 13 and 18 microns. Fortunately, NASA has a program to define and answer many climate-related questions. MODTRAN is a wonderful tool to use when discussing global warming with a climate alarmist, it will save you countless headaches.
- Looking down from 1 km (the atmospheric layer where all thermometers are located) the Upward IR Flux when CO2 if 400 ppm is 407.572 W/M^2.
- Ceteris paribus, doubling CO2 to 800 ppm results in an Upward IR Flux of 407.572 W/M^2.
- According to MODTRAN, doubling CO2 has no measurable impact on the energy balance is the lower 1 km of the atmosphere that contains all the ground/surface/ocean temperature measurements. The net change to the energy balance is 0.000 W/M^2.
- Simply cutting the humidity in half changes the UpWard IR Flux to 409.456 W/M^2.
- Adding a simple stratus cloud base will change it to 396.896 W/M^2, in other words, when clouds and water vapor are considered, CO2 becomes irrelevant.
- For the entire atmosphere (looking down from 70 km), changing CO2 from pre-industrial 280 ppm to the current 400 ppm changed the Upward IR Flux from 282.600 to 280.999 W/M^2, or less than 2 W/M^2 throughout the entire atmosphere. A simple cloud layer alters the balance by over 10 W/M^2.
Smoking Gun #13: The ground measurement data supporting the AGW Theory is very suspect
- Ground measurements are continually subject to opaque “adjustments.”
- Ground measurements do not correlate well with Satellite and Balloon measurements.
- Satellite data shows no significant warming since 1997, and much of the warming is clearly due to El Nino caused temperature spikes.
- CO2 has substantially increased during this period that is referred to as “the pause.”
- The data adjustments aren’t similar to adjustments for random errors, where the adjustments are also random in nature. Temperature “adjustments” almost universally increase the slope of the temperature graph, lowering distal and elevating proximal data. The result is to suspiciously make the temperature increase more linear and in line with the CO2 increase. This issue will be addressed in a later smoking gun.