Monday, July 11, 2016

Man Made Global Warming Disproved

Man Made Global Warming Disproved 

Man Made Global Warming Disproved

 Joanne Nova and Anthony Cox

The theory that failed

It takes only one experiment to disprove a theory. The climate models are predicting a global disaster, but the empirical evidence disagrees. The theory of catastrophic man-made global warming has been tested from many independent angles.

The heat is missing from oceans; it’s missing from the upper troposphere. The clouds are not behaving as predicted. The models can’t predict the short term, the regional, or the long term. They don’t predict the past. How could they predict the future?
The models didn’t correctly predict changes in outgoing radiation, or the humidity and temperature trends of the upper troposphere.  The single most important fact, dominating everything else, is that the ocean heat content has barely increased since 2003 (and quite possibly decreased) counter to the simulations. In a best case scenario, any increase reported is not enough. Models can’t predict local and regional patterns or seasonal effects, yet modelers add up all the erroneous micro-estimates and claim to produce an accurate macro global forecast. Most of the warming happened in a step change in 1977, yet CO2 has been rising annually.

Observations from every angle point to a similar conclusion

Studies involving 28 million weather balloons, thousands of satellite recordings, 3,000 ocean buoys, temperature recordings from 50 sites in the US and a 1,000 years of temperature proxies suggest that the Global Climate Models overestimate positive feedback and are based on poor assumptions. Observations suggest lower values for climate sensitivity whether we study long-term humidity, upper tropospheric temperature trends, outgoing long wave radiation, cloud cover changes, or the changes in the heat content of the vast oceans.

Continued faith in flawed models breaks central tenets of science

The two things which make science different from religion are that nothing in science is sacred, and everything in science must ultimately fit with observations of the real world. While a theory may never be 100% proven, it can be disproven. The pieces of the climate jigsaw are coming together. The observations suggest that the warming effect of man-made emissions of CO2 has been exaggerated by a factor of 3 – 7 in computer simulations.

Observations show major flaws

  1. The missing heat is not in the ocean 8 – 14
  2. Satellites show a warmer Earth is releasing extra energy to space 15 -17
  3. The models get core assumptions wrong – the hot spot is missing 22 – 26, 28 – 31
  4. Clouds cool the planet as it warms 38 – 56
  5. The models are wrong on a local, regional, or continental scale. 63- 64
  6. Eight different methods suggest a climate sensitivity of 0.4°C 66
  7. Has CO2 warmed the planet at all in the last 50 years? It’s harder to tell than you think. 70
  8. Even if we assume it’s warmed since 1979, and assume that it was all CO2, if so, feedbacks are zero — disaster averted. 71
  9. It was as warm or warmer 1000 years ago. Models can’t explain that. It wasn’t CO2.  The models can’t predict past episodes of warming, so why would they predict future ones?
Graph: climate sensitivity, climate models, observations, empirical estimates.
Figure 1 Climate Sensitivity Comparison (empirical methods versus models, for a doubling of the CO2 level).

The direct effect of CO2 is only 1.2C

The IPCC estimates that carbon dioxide’s direct effect is 1.2 °C1 of warming (that is, before feedbacks are taken into account) for each doubling of the carbon dioxide level. Models amplify that warming with assumptions about positive feedback (see the blue region of model estimates in the graph below). But observations show that net feedback is probably negative, which would instead reduce the direct effect of the extra carbon dioxide.
While independent scientists point to the empirical evidence, government funded scientists argue that a majority of scientists, a consensus, support the theory that a man-made catastrophe is coming.2 This is plainly unscientific and a logical fallacy. The test of scientific knowledge is through experiment and observation. The only evidence the government scientists provide on the key points of attribution (the cause of the warming) come from simulations of the climate done with computers. Those models are unverified, and when tested, have “no skill” at predicting the climate. Scientists may claim otherwise, but no single model is proficient, rather a selection of models has “success” with a few parameters.
A multitude of observations are in rough agreement that any increase in global average temperature caused by a doubling of CO2 is more likely to be about half a degree than the 3.3 degrees determined by the IPCC3.

The major problem for models: Feedbacks

Our climate changes because of outside effects, called forcings: the sun grows brighter, or its magnetic field changes, ocean currents shift, vegetation changes, or continents move. The Earth is a ball of magma, is a 12,000 km thick, with a thin crust about 12 km of rock on top, who knows what effects come from within? The IPCC recognizes only two types of forcings: greenhouse gases and solar luminosity.
Forcings are difficult to unravel. Harder still are feedbacks, as systems all over the planet simultaneously adjust to changing conditions. In a warmer world, for instance, less ice and more plant-life means less sunlight is reflected to space, which creates more warming. The oceans release carbon dioxide, more water evaporates, humidity changes, sea-levels rise, and all of those consequent changes further affect temperatures.
The feedbacks are not just icing on the cake, but in the IPCC’s view, collectively more powerful than any forcing due directly to CO2. Indeed while CO2 may cause one degree of warming, the feedbacks amplify this – theoretically anyway – by up to three degrees. The major agent of feedback, according to the IPCC, is water vapor (ie. humidity).4 The IPCC could be right about one hundred factors, but if they are using the wrong assumptions about the way clouds and humidity behave, the forecast of an alarming three degrees could be reduced to a forecast of a mere half-a-degree. Some details matter more than others.
Not only is it hard to put a value on all the feedbacks, it’s difficult to know if some changes are a feedback or a forcing5 or even both at once — for example, clouds. Clouds’ impact on climate would obviously change as the world warms (a feedback) but, if solar-magnetic effects change clouds, as now seems likely, clouds could also drive climate change (a forcing).6, 7
The references here independently show that core model assumptions are wrong. Models assume that relative humidity will stay the same over the tropics as the world warms, that clouds are a positive feedback and not a negative one, and that cloud changes are a feedback and not a forcing in their own right. These are three critical and demonstrable errors.

Conclusion

Every which way we measure it, the models predictions don’t match the observations.
The warming we’ve had in the last thirty years implies that at best, we could expect 1°C  from a doubling of CO2, but observations from eight natural experiments around the globe, and even on Mars and Venus suggest that 0.4°C  is the upper bound of climate sensitivity to any cause. In addition, if Miscolscki is right, and an increase in carbon dioxide leads to a decrease in water vapor, then the sensitivity due to CO2 could be close to zero.
The global warming predictions are contradicted by the data. The vast funding which is now being directed to ‘solving’ global warming should be redirected to researching hypotheses which are consistent with empirical data and confirmed by observable evidence.
The exception proves that the rule is wrong. That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.
Richard Feynman, according to The Meaning of it All, 1999 ­­­



 REFERENCES

Combined references from the linked articles.
  1. Hansen J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy and J. Lerner, (1984) Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, pp. 130-163 [Abstract]
  2. Anderegg, William R. L., James W. Prall,Jacob Haroldand Stephen H. Schneider(2010). Expert credibility in climate change, PNAS, 10.1073 [PDF]
  3. IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 10 Box 10.2 p798 [PDF]
  4. IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Fig 8.14, p631 [PDF] see also Page 632.
  5. Andrews, T. and Forster, P.M. (2008) CO2 forcing induces semi-direct effects with consequences for climate feedback interpretations , GeoPhys Res Letter, 35. [abstract]
  6. Svensmark, H., Bondo, T. and Svensmark, J. 2009. Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL038429.
  7. Kirkby, J. et al. (2011) Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation, Nature 476, 429-433 (2011). [Article]
  8. Pielke Sr., R.A., (2003): Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.
  9. Chapter 1 of the: Annual Report on the State of the Ocean and the Ocean Observing System for Climate. OCO, NOAA. [HTML]
  10. Loehle, C., (2009) “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003,” Energy and Environment, Vol. 20, 101–104.
  11. Douglass, D.H. and Knox, S.R. (2009) “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 373, pp3296–3300.
  12. Pielke, R. A.., (2008)“A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system,” Physics Today Vol. 61, no. 11, 2008, pp. 54-55.
  13. von Schuckmann, K., F. Gaillard and P.-Y. Le Traon [2009] Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003-2008. J. Geophys. Res., 114, C09007, doi:10.1029/2008JC005237 [Abstract] [discussion] [other PDF]
  14. Knox, R. S. and D. H. Douglass [2010] Recent energy balance of Earth International Journal of Geosciences, 2010, vol. 1, no. 3 (November) – In press Published Online 2010 [PDF]
  15. Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705 [abstract, PDF]
  16. Lindzen, R. & Yong-Sang Choi, Y, (2011) On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications, Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011 [PDF]
  17. Wielicki, Bruce A, Takmeng Wong, Richard P Allan, Anthony Slingo, Heffery T Kiehl, Brian J Soden, C T Gordon, Alvin J Miller, Shi-Keng Yang, David A Randall, Franklin Robertson, Joel Susskind, Herbert Jacobowitz [2002] Evidence for Large Decadal Variability in the Tropical Mean Radiative Energy Budget, Science, Vol 295 no. 5556 pp 841-844, [Abstract] [Discussion]
  18. Chen, J., B.E. Carlson, and A.D. Del Genio, (2002): Evidence for strengthening of the tropical general circulation in the 1990s. Science, 295, 838-841.
  19. Cess, R.D. and P.M. Udelhofen, (2003): Climate change during 1985–1999: Cloud interactions determined from satellite measurements. Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 30, No. 1, 1019, doi:10.1029/2002GL016128.
  20. Hatzidimitriou, D., I. Vardavas, K. G. Pavlakis, N. Hatzianastassiou, C. Matsoukas, and E. Drakakis (2004) On the decadal increase in the tropical mean outgoing longwave radiation for the period 1984–2000. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 1419–1425.
  21. Clement, A.C. and B. Soden (2005) The sensitivity of the tropical-mean radiation budget. J. Clim., 18, 3189-3203.
  22. IPCC, Assessment Report 4, (2007), Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Fig 8.14 [PDF] Page 631
  23. NOAA Satellite and Information Service, Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive, Data Coverage. June 8th 2010. [Link]
  24. Karl et al (2006), Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2006 Report, Chapter 1, 1958-1999. Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP, Chapter 1, p 25, based on Santer et al. 2000; [PDF]
  25. Karl et al (2006) Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2006 Report, Chapter 5, part E of Figure 5.7 in section 5.5 on page 116 [PDF]
  26. Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. (2007). A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007. [Abstract] [PDF]
  27. Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E Taylor, T. M Wigley,. L. Lanzante, J. R. Solomon, M. Free, P. J Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood and F. J. Wentz (2008), Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology, 28: 1703–1722. doi: 10.1002/joc.1756 [Abstract] [PDF]
  28. McKitrick, R., S. McIntyre, and C. Herman, (2010), Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series. Atmospheric Science Letters, 11: 270–277. doi: 10.1002/asl.290 [PDF]
  29. McKitrick, R., McIntyre, S., and Herman, C. (2011) Corrigendum to Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series, Atmospheric Science Letters, Vol. 11, Issue 4, 270–277. [Abstract]
  30. Christy J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr., R, 3, Klotzbach, P., McNide, R.T., Hnilo J.J., Spencer R.W., Chase, T. and Douglass, D: (2010) What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148 [PDF]
  31. Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 2011 [PDF] [Discussion]
  32. McKitrick, R. and Vogelsang, T. J. (2011), Multivariate trend comparisons between autocorrelated climate series with general trend regressors, Department of Economics, University of Guelph. [ PDF]
  33. Stockwell, David R. B. and Cox, A. (2009), Structural break models of climatic regime-shifts: claims and forecasts, Cornell University Library, arXiv10907.1650 [PDF]
  34.  Miskolczi, Ferenc M. and Mlynczak, M. (2004) The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial adiation. Idojaras Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 108, No. 4, October–December 2004, pp. 209–251 [PDF]
  35. Miskolczi, Ferenc M. (2007) Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. Idojaras Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40 [PDF]
  36.  Miskolczi, Ferenc M. (2010), The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth’s Global Average Atmospheric Planck-Weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness. Energy & Environment Vol. 21, No. 4, 2010 pp 243-263 [PDF and Discussion]
  37.  Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35). [PDF]
  38.  IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. [PDF] Page 610 8.3.1.1.2 “The balance of radiation at the top of the atmosphere”
  39.  IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. [PDF] Page 636 8.6.3.2 “Clouds”
  40.  Zhang, M.H., Lin, W.Y., Klein, S.A., Bacmeister, J.T., Bony, S., Cederwall, R.T., Del Genio, A.D., Hack, J.J., Loeb, N.G., Lohmann, U., Minnis, P., Musat, I., Pincus, R., Stier, P., Suarez, M.J., Webb, M.J., Wu, J.B., Xie, S.C., Yao, M.-S. and Yang, J.H. 2005. Comparing clouds and their seasonal variations in 10 atmospheric general circulation models with satellite measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research 110: D15S02,
  41.  Randall, D., Khairoutdinov, M., Arakawa, A. and Grabowski, W. 2003. Breaking the cloud parameterization deadlock. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 84: 1547-1564.
  42.  Allan, R [2011] Combining satellite data and models to estimate cloud radiative effects at the surface and in the atmosphere. University of Reading [Abstract] [Discussion]
  43.  Croke, M.S., Cess, R.D. and Hameed, S. 1999. Regional cloud cover change associated with global climate change: Case studies for three regions of the United States. Journal of Climate 12: 2128-2134
  44.  Herman, J.R., Larko, D., Celarier, E. and Ziemke, J. 2001. Changes in the Earth’s UV reflectivity from the surface, clouds, and aerosols. Journal of Geophysical Research 106: 5353-5368
  45.  Spencer, R.W., Braswell, W.D., Christy, J.R., Hnilo, J. (2007). Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007/GL029698. [PDF]
  46.  IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. (see 8.6.3.2) [PDF]
  47.  Kirkby, J. et al. (2011) Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation, Nature 476, 429-433 (2011). | Article
  48.  Svensmark, H. 1998. Influence of cosmic rays on earth’s climate. Physical Review Letters 81: 5027-5030. [Discussion CO2Science]
  49.  Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E.: Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage – a missing link in solar-climate relationships, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 59, 1225–1232, 1997.
  50.  Mauas, P., Flamenco, E., Buccino, A. (2008) “Solar Forcing of the Stream Flow of a Continental Scale South American River”, Instituto de Astronomı´a y Fı´sica del Espacio, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Physical Review Letters 101 [http://www.iafe.uba.ar/httpdocs/reprint_parana.pdf])
  51.  Alexander, W., Bailey, F., Bredenkamp, B., van der Merwe, A., and Willemse, N. (2007) Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Vol. 49 No 2 [PDF]
  52.  Shaviv, N.J. (2008) Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing. Journal of Geophysical Research 113: 10.1029/2007JA012989. [CO2 Science discussion]
  53.  Herschel, W. 1801, in Philosphical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, 265 and 354. (See here, and here)
  54.  Spencer, R., and W.D. Braswell. (2008). Potential biases in feedback diagnosis from observations data: a simple model demonstration. Journal of Climate, 21, 5624-5628.
  55.  Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, (2010), On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res, 115, D16109
  56.  Spencer, R. W.; Braswell, W.D. (2011) On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance, Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613. [PDF]
  57.  Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.
  58.  Chapter 1 of the: Annual Report on the State of the Ocean and the Ocean Observing System for Climate. OCO, NOAA. [HTML]
  59.  C. Loehle, “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003,” Energy and Environment, Vol. 20, 2009, 101–104.
  60.  D. H. Douglass and R. S. Knox, “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 373, 2009, 3296–3300.
  61.  R. Pielke Sr., “A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system,” Physics Today Vol. 61, no. 11, 2008, pp. 54-55.
  62.  von Schuckmann, K., F. Gaillard and P.-Y. Le Traon [2009] Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003-2008. J. Geophys. Res., 114, C09007, doi:10.1029/2008JC005237 [Abstract] [discussion] [other PDF]
  63. Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]
  64.  Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, A., Mamassis, N. & Christofides, A.
    (2008) On the credibility of climate predictions. Hydrol. Sci. J.
    53(4), 671–684. changes [PDF]
  65.  Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/hypothesis-testing-and-long-term-memory/langswitch_lang/th/
  66.  Idso, S.B. 1998. CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change. Climate Research 10: 69-82. [abstract] [Discussion]
  67.  Idso SB (1982) A surface air temperature response function for earth’s atmosphere. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 22:227–232
  68.  Quirk, T. (2009). The Australian temperature anomaly, 1910 – 2000. Energy & Environment, 20 (1-2), 97 – 100. [PDF]
  69.  Stockwell, David R. B. and Anthony Cox, [2009], Structural break models of climatic regime-shifts: claims and forecasts, Cornell University Library, arXiv10907.1650 [2009] [PDF] [Discussion]
  70.  McKitrick, R. and Vogelsang, T. J. (2011), Multivariate trend comparisons between autocorrelated climate series with general trend regressors, Department of Economics, University of Guelph. [Discussion paper PDF]
  71.  Douglass, D.H., and J.R. Christy (2008): Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth. Energy and Environment, Vol 20, No 1. [Abstract] [Discussion]
  72. Loehle, C. and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy and Environment, 19, 93-100. [Discussion WCR]
  73. Ljungqvist, Fredrik Charpentier, 2010, A New Reconstruction Of Temperature Variability In The Extra-Tropical Northern Hemisphere During The Last Two Millennia , Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, Volume 92, Number 3, pp. 339-351(13) [abstract]
  74.  Zu, L., et al (2012) An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula, Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters, Volumes 325–326, 1 April 2012, Pages 108–115
  75. IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, Chapter 9. section 9.4 [IPCC site] Page 684
  76.  Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. (1998) Global scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392: 779-787
  77.  McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2003. Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy database and Northern Hemispheric average temperature series. Energy & Environment,14, 751-771 [PDF].
  78. McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2005. Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, doi:10.1029/2004GL021750. [discussion]
  79. McShane, Blakely B. and Abraham J. Wyner [2010] A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable? The Annals of Applied Statistics 2011, Vol. 5, No. 1, 5–44 [PDF]
FOOTNOTES
“Climate Sensitivity” refers to the warming produced by a doubling of CO2 levels.
Forcing is a factor external to or introduced to the climate system which affects, for a period, the radiative balance at the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere).
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)