A MUST read op/ed written by Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT and CFACT President David Rothbard.
THIS excellent piece focuses on an important part of the climate debate often overlooked – the heat absorption ability of the carbon dioxide molecule as its concentration increases in the atmosphere.
THE article received “coast to coast” attention via a media usually dismissive of sceptical arguments to the supposed “climate crisis”…
RUCKER’s forward received via email …
“Newspapers coast to coast”
Media bias against climate realism is rampant – especially on the national level. Some major publications, like the Los Angeles Times, have actually positioned themselves in opposition to free speech by imposing bans on opinions running counter to the Al Gore narrative.
Fortunately that is not the case with many local media outlets.
I’d like to call your attention, for a couple reasons, to a recent op/ed I co-wrote with CFACT President David Rothbard.
First, as we’ve discussed so often before, the contents of our article reveal that the hysterical case for global warming doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. There are good reasons, scientifically speaking, why those who are skeptical of climate alarmism have their doubts.
Secondly, and most encouragingly, our op/ed hasn’t been circular filed – as it might have been by the establishment media. In fact, it appeared in a host of local newspapers from one end of the United States to the other!
Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming
Many people are actively worried about global warming. And it frustrates them that skeptics and “deniers” refuse to acknowledge the “science” of such an urgent, manmade problem.
But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn’t so clearcut, here’s a basic climate question to ponder:
As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease or remain the same?
Most people will assume the answer is “increase.” After all, CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being “trapped.”
The correct answer, however, is decrease.
How do we know this? Because the U.N.’s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The IPCC explains that CO2 follows a “logarithmic dependence,” which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the IPCC recognizes that the middle of this band is already “saturated.”
People who fret about manmade warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 actually loses “heat-trapping” ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned IPCC admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear manmade warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.
This begs the question … are they right? The answer is “No.”
Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere — and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. In order to make their case, the IPCC theorizes that any additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this “feedback loop” that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.
It’s an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the IPCC admits that “an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.”
One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.
The IPCC rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar “irradiance” (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun’s output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind — which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.
As the IPCC observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia “has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more.” It’s very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of manmade climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue.
CO2 Related :
- CO2 In The Atmosphere Is Not Pollution | Climatism
- THE Carbon Dioxide Word Game | Climatism
- WORDS Of Wisdom To A Disciple Of The Church Of Climatology | Climatism
- GLOBAL Cooling A Reality But Technology And CO2 Will Help Earth Survive | Climatism
CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :
- CSIRO Censoring Their Own Climate Research | Climatism
- The global dance of carbon dioxide and spreading green flora « JoNova
- Greening the Planet and how Fossil Fuels protect world’s Flora & Fauna | Dr. Matt Ridley | Climatism
- Good News! We Have Lots More Forest Than We Thought | Climatism
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is the federal government agency for scientific research in Australia. It was founded in 1926 originally as the Advisory Council of Science and Industry.
In the field of climate science, the CSIRO leans staunchly towards the alarmist side of the climate debate. One example shows the CSIRO using sea level rise figures far in excess of even the (warmist) IPCC.
In its 2012 report, State of the Climate, the CSIRO says that since 1993 sea levels have risen up to 10mm a year in the north and west. That means that somewhere has had a 19cm-rise in sea level since 1993. Where is this place? The European satellite says that sea levels have been constant for the past eight years.
In its latest 2016, State of the Climate report, the CSIRO indulges in a blatant cherry-picking exercise to further push their agenda that human emissions are causing the climate to change.
They fail, however, to inform you of their chronic list of failed predictions from previous SOC reports.
This is why scientific organisations like CSIRO and BoM have – tragically – become almost the last places to hear the truth about the
global warming climate change. Too many reputations are now at stake.
Andrew Bolt, yet again, sets their record straight from their own records! …
The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology this week published their latest State of the Climate report:
Observations and climate modelling paint a consistent picture of ongoing, long-term climate change interacting with underlying natural variability.
Strangely, the report fails to explain why past predictions by the Bureau and the CSIRO of a permanent drought turned out so wrong.
IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.
“Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones….
“There is a debate in the climate community, after … close to 12 years of drought, whether this is something permanent…”
As Jones wrote to the University of East Anglia the year before: “Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse…”
A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change…
”It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,” said the bureau’s Bertrand Timbal. ‘
‘In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.”
Yet, with floods and rains and filling dams is so many states, an author of this latest report gets a very soft interview from the ABC’s Fran Kelly, who also fails to note an astonishing bit of cherry-picking that discredits the whole report.
The report’s authors present this alleged evidence of man-made climate change hurting us:
Observations also show that atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere have led to an average reduction in rainfall across parts of southern Australia.
In particular, May–July rainfall has reduced by around 19% since 1970 in the southwest of Australia. There has been a decline of around 11% since the mid-1990s in April–October rainfall in the continental southeast. Southeast Australia has had below-average rainfall in 16 of the April–October periods since 1997.
Note the strange decision, given our rainfall records go back more than a century, to pick apparently random and inconsistent dates – 1970 and 1997 and “mid 1990s” – as a base point from which to measure declines in rainfall. Note further that this decline is curiously only in patches of the country, and then only in – again – inconsistent periods, “May–July ” and “April–October”.
These are classic tell-tales of cherry picking – tricking to find some arbitrary period that can produce a statistical and scary decline which you can then present as troubling evidence that global warming is drying up our rains. (Even then, none of this comes even close to showing the “permanent” drought the agencies once claimed were leaving our cities desperately short of drinking water.)
This trickery becomes even clearer when you check the Bureau’s rainfall records for the whole past century or more. Amazingly, the impact of man-made warming becomes impossible to detect.
Here, again, is what the State of the Climate report says:
Observations also show that atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere have led to an average reduction in rainfall across parts of southern Australia.
But here is the Bureau’s own record of rainfall for southern Australia:
Judged over the century, then, there is no evidence at all of rainfall decline.
Again, from the Bureau’s report:
In particular, May–July rainfall has reduced by around 19% since 1970 in the southwest of Australia.
Rainfall in the south-west is indeed declining, and has done for most of the past 120 years, the first half of which almost no scientist would blame on man’s emissions, which even the IPCC says only had a real effect after World War 11:
State of the Climate’s authors also claim that “Southeast Australia has had below-average rainfall in 16 of the April–October periods since 1997”.
But the longer record for the south-east again shows no historic change:
Once again, a decline from the unusually wet 1970s, but little sign of change over more than a century.
And for the continent as a whole, more rain, not less – and certainly no permanent drought:
And as for the Murray Darling, that the Bureau once said was on “the verge of collapse”:
This is disgraceful. The Bureau and the CSIRO must explain why they have fed us such scares.
CSIRO / BoM Related :
- CSIRO Censoring Their Own Climate Research | Climatism
- Wash-out: Warmist Bureau’s Drought Prediction Fail | Climatism
- The Science is Settled : “Children Just Aren’t Going To Know What Snow Is” | Climatism
- Shock News 1923 : Meteorological Office Exists as a Corrective to Scare Mongering | Climatism
- How they tried to fool you about the rain | Herald Sun
- It’s Time To Declare War On Global Warming Extremists | Climatism
See Also :
- YES! The Climate Changes | Climatism
- Understanding The “Hottest Year Evah” | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
A two-minute MUST READ.
Guest essay by Dr. Neil Frank, former Director, National Hurrricane Center
As former Director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–1987), I was appalled when, in a campaign rally at Miami-Dade College October 11, Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said, “Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change.”
That is false.
We were extremely fortunate that Matthew—category 5 through much of the Caribbean—weakened to category 2 before landfall in South Carolina. It could have been much worse.
In 1893 a much stronger hurricane followed nearly the same track. When its eye reached the Georgia and South Carolina coasts, a 15–20 ft. storm surge inundated the coastal islands. Though population was a small fraction of today’s, between 2,000 and 3,000 died, making that the second deadliest hurricane in U.S. history. The same year another major hurricane killed 2,000 in Louisiana.
All together five hurricanes hit the U.S. in 1893, something that’s happened…
View original post 539 more words
“Why doesn’t peer-review catch these blatant errors?”
Further merit to the term “pal-review” which has sadly become common-speak in reference to the corrupt world of anthropogenic climate science.
Check out yesterday’s mind-blowing peer-reviewed Arctic fraud from NOAA’s chief scientist – Rick Spinrad
The US weather Bureau reported exactly the same thing in 1922. Seals disappearing and fish being forced northwards. However, in 1922 the reported warming was much larger than 2.3 degrees.
In 1947, scientists reported 10 degrees Arctic warming, much more than the 2.3 degrees reported by Rick Spinrad.
Glaciers were disappearing from Alaska to Norway.
The sea ice maximum occurred at the end of March, not February 25 as Spinrad claimed, and extent is the highest since at least 2004, not the “lowest on record”
Satellites show that recent Arctic temperatures peaked…
View original post 219 more words
When measuring the temperature of the atmosphere, NASA and the climate crisis industry refuse to acknowledge the much more comprehensive and accurate satellite data sets, UAH and RSS, as both show no global warming at all over the past 20 years. Instead they opt for the UHI effected and massively tampered with, GISStemp land-based data set.
Yet to measure sea-level rise, they are more than happy to use satellite data, over (land-based) tidal gauge data, when a glitch in the system fits their warming bias.
Shameless cherry picking and the biggest wilful scientific scandal in history.
NASA shows 3.24 mm/year sea level rise on their web site. They call it “Facts” – when in fact it is blatant fraud.
Until early December 2015, NOAA had this web page up showing about half that much sea level rise. NOAA just made it disappear ahead of COP 21.
the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year.
Here is the web archive link from September 10, 2015
September 10, 2015 : Sea Level Trends – Global Regional Trends
So let’s look at how NASA committed their fraud. The first thing they did was to add in a 0.3 mm/year “Global Isostatic Adjustment” (GIA) to their satellite data. This is a completely fraudulent adjustment based on theoretical sea floor sinking – which should be used to calculate the sea floor height…
View original post 319 more words
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
It’s official, the past 12 months have been the hottest in Australia for more than a hundred years.
Temperatures averaged across Australia between September 2012 and August 2013 were hotter than any year since good records began in 1910. The previous record was held by the 12-month period from February 2005 to January 2006.
The new record follows a suite of broken records following last year’s “angry summer”, including the hottest summer since records began.
Dr Sophie Lewis is from the University of Melbourne and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Systems Science. David Karoly is a Professor of Atmospheric Science in the School of Earth Sciences and the ARC at the University of Melbourne and is a member of the Science Advisory Panel to the Australian Government’s Climate Commission.
The Climate Commission was setup by the Australian Labor Government in 2011 as an ‘independent’ body communicating on climate change. Rather than behaving independently, it has acted as a literal climate propaganda unit to promote the Governments sweeping climate reform agenda, with the controversial carbon (dioxide) tax as it’s centrepiece.
In the Sydney Morning Herald article, Karoly and Lewis claim “It’s official, the past 12 months have been the hottest in Australia for more than a hundred years.” and “The link between global warming and human causes has been firmly established over the last two decades.”
To push the man-made global warming narrative, Karoly and Lewis consistently cherry-pick ‘heat records’ from Australia’s 21st century climate. The Climate Commission’s alarmist report, “The Angry Summer” was another case in point.
What’s immediately telling in Karoly, Lewis and the Climate Commission’s work is the lack of any reference to satellite temperature data, which would be pertinent to assessing Australia’s short and long-term climatic trends.
See for yourself
Use the ‘find’ function in your browser (ctrl F) and see if you can find a reference to “satellite” or “UAH” temperature in Karoly and Lewis’ pal-reviewed study or the Climate Commission’s report:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 40, 3705 – 3709, doi:10.1002/grl.50673, 2013
Anthropogenic contributions to Australia’s record summer temperatures of 2013Sophie C. Lewis and David J. KarolyReceived 15 May 2013; revised 13 June 2013; accepted 16 June 2013; published 23 July 2013
If the satellites showed that the last Australian summer was hot, would Lewis and Karoly have left them off the paper?
Climate Commission Report – “The Angry Summer“
There is a perfectly good reason why Karoly, Lewis and the Climate Commission do not include satellite data in any of their reporting ~ because the data does not fit their alarmist ‘extreme’ heat narrative. In fact the satellite data shows a trend in the opposite direction.
The latest UAH satellite temperature dataset shows Australia’s near surface temperature (0-5km) has been cooling at -0.927°C per decade over the last 5 years and cooling at -0.291°C per decade over the last 10 years.
UAH satellite data below from John Christy, University of Alabama at Huntsville shows no rise in land or ocean temperature for the Southern Hemisphere region and no rise in Australia’s mean temperature since the beginning of the century:
The Climate Commissions reported “Angry Summer” was in fact not-so-angry or unusual at all. UAH satellite data shows in fact the 2012/13 mean summer temperature was in fact cooler than when satellite measurements began in 1979:
This is what the RSS and the MSU satellite records for the lower troposphere have to say about Australia:
Both satellite datasets agree that there was nothing at all unusual about the 2012 summer. Did Karoly and the Climate Commission researches notice this fact? Or perhaps they just thought it wasn’t important for their report?
Jo Nova makes a sound assessment of the state of climate science over at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science :
The peer reviewed, comprehensive, Lewis and Karoly paper does not contain the words “satellite”, or “UAH”. Lewis and Karoly apparently do not know about the UAH satellite program yet, otherwise they surely would have emailed John Christy or Roy Spencer (as we did) to ask for the data. We can only hope that they get enough government support, more funding, and better education in future so that they may discover what unpaid volunteers figured out on the Internet for free 3 months ago. Frankly it is shameful that the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science is not connected to the world wide web and has not trained staff to use “google”.
Real Scientific Questions For David Karoly, Sophie Lewis & The Climate Commission:
- If humans are making a substantial addition to a ‘warming’ climate, then why has the temperature of the globe not changed in 15-17 years despite a massive increase in human CO² emissions over the same period?
- Why has Australia’s mean summer surface temperature not changed since 1979?
- Why has Australia’s mean surface temperature been falling since 2007 and globally since 1998, despite record human greenhouse gas emissions output? Nature Study Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago
- How do the researchers reconcile human induced climate change (warming) based on Australian ‘weather’ over a few months of a year? Isn’t global warming a global ‘climate’ (30-year-cycle) issue?
These are mere basic scientific questions the Climate Commission should be using taxpayer funds to answer, not cherry-picking often UHI (Urban Heat Island) affected temp station data and suspect Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) temperature calculations to promote a Government climate agenda and massage an ideological climate bent.
Mammalogist Tim Flannery is the head of Australia’s Climate Commission. For his $180,000, three day, part-time working week, he gets to make decisions that affect billions of dollars of Australian taxpayer’s hard-earned money:
- Tim Flannery sacked, Climate Commission dismantled by Coalition | Herald Sun
- A win for Australia! Government scraps Climate Commission. « JoNova
- Flannery sacked | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
- Australia’s Angry Hot Summer was hot angry hype – satellites show it was average
- Australia’s record hottest 12 month period? Junk science say the Satellites | CACA
- Mystery black-box method used to make *all new* Australian “hottest” ever records
- Our ‘Angry Summer’ was no worse than miffed
- Climate queries? Ask a paleontologist
- The very model of a modern climate scientist
- Climate Commission’s latest report slammed as ‘environmental activism’
- Australia’s Angry Summer Of 1924
- Extreme heat in 1896: Panic stricken people fled the outback on special trains as hundreds die.
- Be angry instead at the angry summer scaremongers
- Tony Jones lets Bill McKibben get away with barking nonsense “Really one degree is utter catastrophe”
H/t to Sunshine Hours