Greenhouse effect is a myth, scientists say

[B. Max]

B.Max you really need to stop using Junkscience website to bolster your argument using surface temperature data.They have been shown to be biased and compromised.

Stephen Milloy no longer consider them reliable or valid.There are simply too many problems with the data.

Biased and compromised by who.

[sunsettommy]

About those weather stations,

Watts Up With That?

Bad Paint Job = Rising Surface Temperatures?

By Anthony Watts

SNIP:

In a nutshell, nobody seems to have experimentally investigated this issue I raised. Last year I posted an essay on the subject of paint and weather stations shelters at www.globalwarmingindex.com but the idea I've had goes back to the early 1990's, and I haven't experimentally investigated it either. It seems that weather stations shelters known as Stevenson Screens (the white chicken coop like boxes on stilts housing thermometers outdoors) were originally painted with whitewash, which is a lime based paint, and reflective of infra-red radiation, but its no longer available, and newer paints have been used that much different IR characteristics.

Why is this important? Well, paints that appear "white" and reflective in visible light have different properties in infrared. Some paints can even appear nearly "black" and absorb a LOT of infrared, and thus biases the thermometer. So the repainting of thousands of Stevenson screens worldwide with paints of uncertain infrared characteristics was another bias that has crept into the instrumental temperature records. Read here a report from the Arizona State University department of Physics and Astronomy of the response of paint pigments to infrared:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/r...ratures_ba.html

Read the whole link.

This is just one of the problems with these stations.

[Electric Monk]

SCIENCE MAGAZINE

Science 14 March 2003:

Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731

DOI: 10.1126/science.1078758

Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III

Nicolas Caillon,12* Jeffrey P. Severinghaus,2 Jean Jouzel,1 Jean-Marc Barnola,3 Jiancheng Kang,4 Volodya Y. Lipenkov5

The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age-ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (~240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

emphasis mine

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728

This would appear to rule out the Milankovich cycle as the cause of the 800 year lag.

I don't understand, the Antarctic warmed, then C02 started to increase 200-800yrs later, then the northern hemisphere warmed. The Milankovitch cycle causes the initial Antarctic warming...and has nothing to do with the lag.

[Electric Monk]

Thanks for the link.

Edit: Now that I've read the post, it certainly does sound like it could present a problem for data accuracy, good point. I wonder if a bias would present itself as a one time shift in the temperatures starting with the repainting, or if it would just affect daytime temps. I wonder what kind of records they are supposed to keep as far as maintenance, and environmental changes.

[Electric Monk]

And remember, we're talking about global climate change here, not just North America, so we really need to see average temps for the whole world. (Which I believe Jones, Mann, and those 9 other reconstructions attempt to provide us with.)

The idea of an average temperature of the world is no longer a good one.The data for it are not reliable or consistent.The stations themselves has been compromised by paint and by location.

Dr. Jones large 1986 study has been recently shown to be worthless because the data behind it are not available.They have not been available for many years either.No way to know if his research was any good.

Warwick Hughes has been vidicated.

Dr Mann and his "Hockey Stick" paper is no longer worthy since it has been statistically debunked.

The NSF had reduced it to just the last 400 years of confidence and stated that the MWP and the LIA existed as shown for a few decades now.The Wegman report invalidated it.

The "other 9 reconstructions are mostly in camp.True independence from the camp are hard to find and not only that.They base a large portion of their conclusions on SECONDARY PROXY data.

Do you have any links? I'd like to read them.

It is truly sad when you put so much interest in questionable studies and overlook the solid ones published the last few decades clearly establishing the existence of the LIA and MWP.

Whaa? I don't doubt either of those existed.

The Satellite data coupled with weather balloon data are the only reasonably accurate temperature data we have and they go back to 1979 and 1958 respectively.They both show far less warming trend than those compromised surface temperature data show.

In all fairness, I haven't seen any evidence showing that they are compromised, or not. I'd like to see some evidence either way before I discard them completely. I do agree that the satellite and weather balloon data should be more accurate though.

[Electric Monk]

Here's a good explanation of why Co2 is important, it absorbs radiation from a band that water vapour does not, effectively "closing" that radiative window at higher concentrations.

A reply to Augie Auer

You do realize that no references were provided in the link?

Meanwhile you just talked about CO2 lag with temperature!

Again how did we get so much warming when CO2 was not a player and that Water Vapor was essentially unchanged?

Here is a link that will help clear your confusion:

Does Carbon Dioxide Really Affect Temperatures?

October 9, 2003

by Dennis T. Avery

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction...ubType=HI_Opeds

I see you did not read this article that I posted earlier.

Article

[gc1765]

What's happening is scientists who disagree with the Global Warming theory are bullied into changing their views, while anyone questioning pro Global Warming research is labelled a witch hunter:

Bullied by who? Other scientists? Wouldn't that imply that those other scientists who believe that global warming is true are in the majority?

[B. Max]

About those weather stations,

Watts Up With That?

Bad Paint Job = Rising Surface Temperatures?

By Anthony Watts

But those data sets, at least up to 05 which I have checked don't show rising temperatures. I have seen the paint job article before and if true and to what degree it only means temperatures are not as high as people believe and could explain the difference between ground temperatures atmospheric temperatures.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I have a questino: why is it that everytime someone talks about how cold it's been, global warming fanatics tell us how we need to learn to differentiate between CLIMATE and WEATHER, yet everytime there is a tornado, or a hurricane, Al Gore et. al. run aruond like ninnies saying "I told you so" - referring to the very same WEATHER (as opposed to climate) that we're all supposed to ignore when it gets cold out?

[B. Max]

I have a questino: why is it that everytime someone talks about how cold it's been, global warming fanatics tell us how we need to learn to differentiate between CLIMATE and WEATHER, yet everytime there is a tornado, or a hurricane, Al Gore et. al. run aruond like ninnies saying "I told you so" - referring to the very same WEATHER (as opposed to climate) that we're all supposed to ignore when it gets cold out?

It's all part of the man made global warming hoax. It's meant for people who have to have government do everything for them. Including their thinking.

[sunsettommy]

About those weather stations,

Watts Up With That?

Bad Paint Job = Rising Surface Temperatures?

By Anthony Watts

But those data sets, at least up to 05 which I have checked don't show rising temperatures. I have seen the paint job article before and if true and to what degree it only means temperatures are not as high as people believe and could explain the difference between ground temperatures atmospheric temperatures.

Try this then.From a forum I administrate:

Sunsettommy writes:

This is a continuation of the topic about those weather reporting stations.I refer to this that just came off this homapage: Bad Paint Job = Rising Surface Temperatures? that was written by Anthony Watts.

Surface temperature data are increasingly shown to be of limited value due to its biased data gathering methods and the condition and location of the equipment used.

CLIMATE AUDIT

By Steve McIntyre

Saturday, May 26th, 2007 at 1:48 pm

EXCERPT:

Anthony Watts has an excellent post showing the calibre of the quality control carried out by Phil Jones and Jim Hansen and the quality of Phil Jones’ “proof” that the “overall urban bias …is greater than 0.05 deg in the 20th century”. Marysville CA (425745000030), GISS population 12,000, is in the USHCN network and is used in the GISS, CRU and NOAA calculations of global temperature. Here’s one of Anthony’s pictures; go to his site for more sickening pictures.

Charts and Text here

Surface temperature data are suspect because there are a NUMBER of biases to overcome.

[sunsettommy]

Here's a good explanation of why Co2 is important, it absorbs radiation from a band that water vapour does not, effectively "closing" that radiative window at higher concentrations.

A reply to Augie Auer

You do realize that no references were provided in the link?

Meanwhile you just talked about CO2 lag with temperature!

Again how did we get so much warming when CO2 was not a player and that Water Vapor was essentially unchanged?

Here is a link that will help clear your confusion:

Does Carbon Dioxide Really Affect Temperatures?

October 9, 2003

by Dennis T. Avery

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction...ubType=HI_Opeds

I see you did not read this article that I posted earlier.

Article

I did read that embarrasing link.

They still do not explain why it warmed for at least 400 years before CO2 levels would finally start increasing.

Then too the ocean acidic angle ignores the fact that for over a 100,000,000 million years the atmospheric CO2 levels exceeded 1000 ppm and commonly over 2000 ppm.Does this mean that the oceans then had little CO2 left in it?

Meanwhile,

Where is the CO2 charts reference!!! ?

I asked you at post #73 and again now.

Post no more Realclimate stuff.It is increasingly a laughingstock in the science world.

Nir Shaviv went in circles around them a while ago.They have refused to even submit a guest post at Climate Science along with M and M guys over the Hockey Stick paper excitement.

Gavin chickenly avoids tangling with Dr. Glassman over his paper: The aquittal of CO2.Making snide remarks on Realclimate website about Glassman personally and steering a reader to look up some links amazingly found only on Realclimate!

Dr. Glassman gets those very links Gavin posted and showed how bad they were.

I posted Dr. Glassman at a forum filled with scientists and they mocked his paper without any rational rebuttals.It was a revealing experience especially when Dr. Glassman talked about the SOLUBILITY PUMP.They avoided that part!

They also could not deal with the VOSTOCK ICE CORES and its findings.Just like realclimate they rather make stupid ad hoc explanations.

Sad.

[buffycat]

What ticks me off most about GW is how it totally distracts from far more dangerous problems that we actually CAN DO something about.

Climate change is the NORMAL state of things on this planet. Our influence is debatable - meanwhile - our waters are being polluted by a myriad of nasty things (estrogens, drugs, dioxins, mercury etc etc), our oceans are adrift in plastic, our home are making us sick, our food supply is beyond questionable.

But ohhhhhhh! The Global Warming Demon is going to destroy us all - so we all better ante up all our dollars for increased taxes to to to.. yeah uh control an aspect of the planet we know NOTHING about.

Great! Sign me up

[speaker]

Sunsettommy

I had a look at the Hudson Institute op ed you are refferring to above that was written in 2003, kind of a collection of results from studies but not realy providing analysis of it. Here's another reference from the Hudson Institute from 2006 that might help to clear things up on the current understanding.

http://cffss.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseacti...details&id=4917

[speaker]

buffycat, I understand that there are a lot of different problems facing us. Sustainability is the key. If we can control our excess use of our resources which by itself causes problems, then through that reduction we should have a better chance of cleaning up pollution, less of it around, and maintaining food supplies. If we proceed to blow our fossil fuels we make those problems worse and we bring on global warming which worsens it again.

[buffycat]

buffycat, I understand that there are a lot of different problems facing us. Sustainability is the key. If we can control our excess use of our resources which by itself causes problems, then through that reduction we should have a better chance of cleaning up pollution, less of it around, and maintaining food supplies. If we proceed to blow our fossil fuels we make those problems worse and we bring on global warming which worsens it again.

I agree that reduction is key, just not for the same reasons ie global warming. I am no advocate of the over use of fossil feuls as the problems associated with them and the oil industry as a whole are not limited to GW. I would actually argue that the oil industry's sideline products, such as plastics etc., are FAR more worrisome to our ecology - which we all share with every other life form on this planet.

I am not a GW supporter, but I am a keen environmentalist - they are not mutually exclusive. I stand by my assertion that GW Hysteria is a diversion for political and financial reasons. However, that is not saying that we need to address our reliance on the fossil feul and petroleum market all round. I think that point is very important to keep in mind - just because one doesn't jump onto the bandwagon of the GW machine does not mean they don't see problems and want sustainable solutions!

[speaker]

Fortunately a good part of the solution to a lot of our problems in bringing about lower usage of our diminishing and increasingly costly fossil fuels. If we can avoid the worst effects of global warming in the process, so much the better.

[shoggoth]

Does Carbon Dioxide Really Affect Temperatures?

Yeah it does. Carbon dioxide is the second most powerful greenhouse gas behind water vapor. Being a greenhouse gas means that it acts to warm the planet. If levels of co2 increase then this will definitely enhance the greenhouse effect that warms Earth. How much? There's uncertainty due to the complexity of the climate but the current science puts the eventual warming per doubling of co2 in the range of between 1.5C to 4.5C

Does the co2-temp lag in the ice core record disprove the theory that co2 rise is causing current warming? No. It is however a problem for the theory that interglacial temperature rises were caused primarily by co2, but that is a different theory altogether.

But does the co2-temp lag in the ice core record prove that co2 doesn't cause any warming at all? Again no, because the co2 rise in those periods (~50%) is small compared to the temperature rise (~10C), and most of that warming occured after co2 started rising. The record is not compatible with co2 being the primary driver of the warming, but is compatible with it causing some of it.

But if temperature caused co2 to rise in the ice core record, doesn't that mean co2 cannot cause temperature to rise? Temperature can cause co2 rise and co2 rise can cause temperature rise. This two way relationship is not contradictory, and doesn't contradict either the lag seen in the ice core record, or global warming theory.

If temperature caused co2 to rise back then, could temperature be the primary cause of the co2 rise today? No, the cause of the recent co2 rise is already known to be primarily due to human carbon emissions. Besides this though, the amount of co2 rise seen recently is well above the sensitivity which ice cores indicate is possible from temperature rise. The ice cores show about 10ppm co2 rise per 1C rise in temperature. Yet the recent co2 rise of over 100ppm has occured during a period of less than 1C rise in temperature. Also of course there is a lag time in the ice core records of many hundreds of years before co2 levels start rising. The situation today and the situations during the interglacial warming periods in the ice core record do not match.

It's fairly easy for contrarians to survive off this issue because there are many ways of implying co2 doesn't cause warming by selecting some facts to mention while omitting others. For example "The Global Warming Swindle" documentary selectively used some of the above facts and omitted others to imply that current co2 rise is due to warmer oceans emitting co2.

[sunsettommy]

Does Carbon Dioxide Really Affect Temperatures?

Yeah it does. Carbon dioxide is the second most powerful greenhouse gas behind water vapor. Being a greenhouse gas means that it acts to warm the planet. If levels of co2 increase then this will definitely enhance the greenhouse effect that warms Earth. How much? There's uncertainty due to the complexity of the climate but the current science puts the eventual warming per doubling of co2 in the range of between 1.5C to 4.5C

Does the co2-temp lag in the ice core record disprove the theory that co2 rise is causing current warming? No. It is however a problem for the theory that interglacial temperature rises were caused primarily by co2, but that is a different theory altogether.

But does the co2-temp lag in the ice core record prove that co2 doesn't cause any warming at all? Again no, because the co2 rise in those periods (~50%) is small compared to the temperature rise (~10C), and most of that warming occured after co2 started rising. The record is not compatible with co2 being the primary driver of the warming, but is compatible with it causing some of it.

But if temperature caused co2 to rise in the ice core record, doesn't that mean co2 cannot cause temperature to rise? Temperature can cause co2 rise and co2 rise can cause temperature rise. This two way relationship is not contradictory, and doesn't contradict either the lag seen in the ice core record, or global warming theory.

If temperature caused co2 to rise back then, could temperature be the primary cause of the co2 rise today? No, the cause of the recent co2 rise is already known to be primarily due to human carbon emissions. Besides this though, the amount of co2 rise seen recently is well above the sensitivity which ice cores indicate is possible from temperature rise. The ice cores show about 10ppm co2 rise per 1C rise in temperature. Yet the recent co2 rise of over 100ppm has occured during a period of less than 1C rise in temperature. Also of course there is a lag time in the ice core records of many hundreds of years before co2 levels start rising. The situation today and the situations during the interglacial warming periods in the ice core record do not match.

It's fairly easy for contrarians to survive off this issue because there are many ways of implying co2 doesn't cause warming by selecting some facts to mention while omitting others. For example "The Global Warming Swindle" documentary selectively used some of the above facts and omitted others to imply that current co2 rise is due to warmer oceans emitting co2.

Then why has the worlds temperature level been near zero up or down since 1998?

LOL

[speaker]

I expect that there are moderating influences even on a phenomenon like global warming. The oceans are able to absorb more heat, winds might change taking more heat over the poles thereby reducing the rate of global warming but in the process melting more snow and ice making the next warming season that much more of one. This chart is an example of what scientists are looking at for average temps.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

This one shows how weather may be helping us out in the short term by spreading the global warming out over colder areas.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070531HuberNature.html

[B. Max]

I expect that there are moderating influences even on a phenomenon like global warming. The oceans are able to absorb more heat, winds might change taking more heat over the poles thereby reducing the rate of global warming but in the process melting more snow and ice making the next warming season that much more of one. This chart is an example of what scientists are looking at for average temps.

The fact remains that once all the hype, fear mongering, mights and maybes are removed there is no evidence of man made global warming.

http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20070524.html

http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/3967

[sunsettommy]

Here is the part that I have never seen explained in the reverse.

From B.Max's link,

On the other hand, even if it were true that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels discernibly increased global temperatures, temperatures wouldn’t likely increase by very much.

Based on the physics of the greenhouse effect, a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from the pre-industrial period (supposedly around 280 parts per million) to 560 parts per million (about 48 percent higher than present levels), might lead to an increase in average global temperature on the order of less than 1 degree centigrade — and we’ve already experienced about 60 percent of that increase.

A further doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide to 1,120 parts per million would result in even less of an increase in temperature because of the energy absorption properties of carbon dioxide.

Essentially, the Earth only radiates so much energy back into the atmosphere that is available to be absorbed by carbon dioxide. Once all that energy is absorbed, superfluous carbon dioxide will not add to the greenhouse effect.

It is called the logarithmic trend.This is known physics.

This was long ago aknowledged by the IPCC.

So why continue the farce?

[sunsettommy]

From B.Max's second link:

Finally, Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl praised Griffin's climate comments, calling them "sensible." On his public blog, Motl said he applauds Michael Griffin and encourages him to act as "a self-confident boss of a highly prestigious institution." "I have always believed that the people who actually work with hard sciences and technology simply shouldn't buy a cheap and soft pseudoscientific propaganda such as the 'fight against climate change,'" Motl added.

emphasis mine

I posted Lubos Motl's post about the LOGARITHMIC trend on CO2 absorption a while ago here and in other forums.The reaction has always been shallow and sometimes just personal attacks against Lubos.

Now we have the top Administrator making candid remarks and the propagandist such a James Hansen making personal attacks against his own boss!

I am still a skeptic because there is no way that all those future projected climate models we keep hearing about can be validated and reproducable.Gosh we have to wait up to 93 years!

LOL

[shoggoth]

Then why has the worlds temperature level been near zero up or down since 1998?

It is continuing to go up, look at the black trendline: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

[shoggoth]

Here is the part that I have never seen explained in the reverse.

From B.Max's link,

On the other hand, even if it were true that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels discernibly increased global temperatures, temperatures wouldn’t likely increase by very much.

Based on the physics of the greenhouse effect, a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from the pre-industrial period (supposedly around 280 parts per million) to 560 parts per million (about 48 percent higher than present levels), might lead to an increase in average global temperature on the order of less than 1 degree centigrade — and we’ve already experienced about 60 percent of that increase.

A further doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide to 1,120 parts per million would result in even less of an increase in temperature because of the energy absorption properties of carbon dioxide.

Essentially, the Earth only radiates so much energy back into the atmosphere that is available to be absorbed by carbon dioxide. Once all that energy is absorbed, superfluous carbon dioxide will not add to the greenhouse effect.

It is called the logarithmic trend.This is known physics.

This was long ago aknowledged by the IPCC.

So why continue the farce?

The part above which I have bolded is incorrect. The doubling of co2 from 560ppm to 1120ppm would result in the same increase in temperature as the doubling from 280ppm to 560ppm. That there is the logarithmic relationship - a constant temperature increase for each doubling of co2.

Also their <1C value for the constant is taken from the plain direct forcing from increasing co2 alone and doesn't take into account any feedbacks, which is why it differs from the mainstream range.