Global warming theory fails again

Written by Jonathan DuHamel, Tucson Citizen.

cloudsIt is a tenet of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory (CAGW) that our carbon dioxide emissions are the major cause of recent global warming. Although carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas, CAGW theory holds that it is enough to start the warming process which, in turn, evaporates water, and water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas. CAGW proponents ignore the fact that more water vapor in the air produces clouds which block the sun (more on that below).

It follows from CAGW doctrine that more carbon dioxide emissions should increase the humidity of the air, thus establishing an enhanced greenhouse effect. Is that happening?

A new paper, Trends in U.S. surface humidity, 1930 – 2010, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, finds just the opposite: “Average long-term trends (1930 – 2010) indicate that temperature has warmed, but little change has occurred in dewpoint and specific humidity.” In other words, the mechanism for CAGW’s enhanced greenhouse effect is not happening according to observational data.

How, then, do we account for warming in the 20th Century? Back in 2005, Dr. Roy Spencer published a book: “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists” (see my review here). In that book Spencer proposed that “The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.” Could such a small change in cloud cover be significant?

A new paper just published in the Journal of Climate finds that global cloudiness has decreased over the past 39 years from between 0.9 to 2.8% by continent. See graphs and a discussion of the paper at WUWT here.

The first paper falsifies the major CAGW tenet; carbon dioxide has been increasing but there has been no increase in humidity. The second paper provides confirmation of a natural control of global temperatures.

For a more detailed discussion of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide see here. “Examination of Earth’s climate sensitivity by varied derivation reveals climate to be remarkably insensitive to changes in forcing from enhanced greenhouse effect.” “Evaluation of Earth’s natural greenhouse effect reveals forcing response to be considerably less than line by line spectral radiance evaluation would suggest. Net feedbacks are found to be negative.”

Source

Comments  

 
Drewski
# Drewski 08-25-2012 20:43
"Although carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas". Love it when you start an article with an untruth. CO2 is 2nd only to water vapor as the major GHG and contributes approximately 15% of the total effect. Of course, these were old figures -- expect that number to climb as we continue on our merry way.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 08-25-2012 21:32
Yes! That's why all of the Global Warming Models predicted the Tropospheric Hot Spot no empirical observations could detect.

Quote:
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said,


“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 08-26-2012 08:37
“Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.”
― Richard P. Feynman
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 08-26-2012 10:14
The predicted Hot Spot is still not there right? So who is fooling his own self drewski?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
aynberliner
# aynberliner 08-26-2012 21:25
WRONG

There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. All allegations thereof are based on mere supposition. Never once has any proof been proferred which actually points out the presumed greenhouse effect.

Look up the thermal infrared spectrography curves of all the supposed reenhouse gases as well as nitrogen, oxygen and argon. They are virtually identical while water vapor is conspicuously opaque. The only logical conclusion therefrom is that either all constituent gases of the atmosphere are greenhouse gases or only water vapor is.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 08-27-2012 01:15
aynberliner, what is your explanation for the greater difference in temps between daytime and night time temps in dry climates as opposed to more humid climates? Why do temps drop further at night in desert climates? Could it be less of the green house gas known as water vapor?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
aynberliner
# aynberliner 08-27-2012 05:38
It is opaque in both directions. Water vapor does not care from which direction the radiation comes.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 08-29-2012 00:57
So why is it if Co2 and Water Vapor are "Greenhouse Gasses" why do dry deserts get alot hotter during day time, as opposed to the more humid climates with all that "greenhouse gas" known as water vapor?

Greenhouse gasses are supposed to trap the heat from sunlight. Yet daytime temps are higher in the dry deserts.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 08-26-2012 04:08
www.google.co.uk/.../ Drewski just read this 'objectively' for once.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 08-26-2012 08:48
Why would I go to American Liberty Publishers to learn a bout the properties of CO2 (BTW their claims re CO2 were unreferenced, but that is, of course, no surprise) when I can get "objective" and fully referenced information from America's highest scientific authority?

From the National Academy of Sciences: The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7%.

As you can see this "harmless trace gas, CO2, packs quite a wallop.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 08-26-2012 09:21
BTW Anne, did you notice the graph towards the end of your paper citing solar cycles and earth's temperature? Why do you suppose the trend lines just disappear with 20 years left on the graph? Is it because that is when the lines begin to diverge (temperature continues to climb as the sun goes into a quiet cycle) and showing this trend from 1980 onwards would completely discredit the propaganda they were trying to sling?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 08-26-2012 13:49
Quote:
Is it because that is when the lines begin to diverge (temperature continues to climb as the sun goes into a quiet cycle) and showing this trend from 1980 onwards would completely discredit the propaganda they were trying to sling?
Are you talking about the fraudulent manipulation of the Solar Data by Lean and Fröhlich? www.klimaskeptik.cz/news/judithgate-ipcc-consensus-was-only-one-physicist/

They could always take a page from the Hockey Stick teams playbook and graft on some "Real" temperatures to "Hide the Decline". Mike's Nature Hat Trick!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 08-27-2012 03:11
amirlach, where in that graph does it mention temperatures?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 08-27-2012 20:05
It's a graph showing that there was no "Divergance in the Lines" as you claim.

The IPCC Claim is pure BS.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 08-28-2012 01:47
I repeat, where in that graph is the correlation between solar irradiance and global temps?

Do you have any idea what you are trying to show?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 08-29-2012 00:16
Ther is no correlation between solar irradiance and temperatures in that graph.

What it does SHOW is your claim that there is was a fraudulent adjustment to solar irradiance by Lean and Fröhlich.

This lead to the BS claim that the sun cannot explain observations, or as you claim that. "That is when the lines begin to diverge (temperature continues to climb as the sun goes into a quiet cycle)." The sun never went into a quiet cycle, the data was "Adjusted" to look like it did.

When the correct solar data is used there is no divergance as you know full well Comrade drewski. www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKOvszg8PXc www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp0Bjxensd0&feature=related

Simply read the letters of protest posted here and stop lying. www.klimaskeptik.cz/news/judithgate-ipcc-consensus-was-only-one-physicist/
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 08-26-2012 14:55
Drewski, I am so sorry that your mind is so totally closed, what you adhere to like glue is nothing more than a belief, a religion. Can you tell me how a 'carbon tax' will reduce CO2 in any way? Please give consideration to the buying of credits to so called 'pollute'. Als passing the tax on in the form of costs to the consumer.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 08-26-2012 20:14
MY mind is closed??? You ask me to read a highly biased piece of political tabloid journalism regarding the GHG potential which makes false claims which it doesn't even reference and then you ask me to "believe" them?


I show you information from the highest scientific body in the US (arguably the world) and it is my mind is closed and I am the one with "religion"?!?

The Japanese have a word for your condition, unfortunately, I can't post the characters for it.

Regarding the carbon tax: It is a tax on the 400 odd largest polluters in Australia where they pay a price for being inefficient -- become efficient and you don't have to pay. Since anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of all power is lost through inefficiency, sounds reasonable to me. BTW, isn't it amazing how few controversies have arisen re: the Carbon Tax in the 2 months it has been in practice? It appears the Coalition Party's scare tactics were just wishful dreaming on their part.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 08-26-2012 20:15
Anne, if you want to get my attention, don't send me to third-rate sites.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
John
# John 08-27-2012 01:18
Quoting Drewski:
Anne, if you want to get my attention, don't send me to third-rate sites.


Really?
Oh yeah. Wait. Wikipedia is better.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 08-27-2012 03:08
And what is even better than Wikipedia is the National Sciences Foundation or the National Academy of Sciences or the National Center of Atmospheric Research.

Read what they say about CO2 and learn.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 08-29-2012 01:01
They can say whatever they like. When all of the predictions based on this Co2 clap trap fail it only means one thing. Quote:
“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, or how many times drewski appeals to your ah-thor-eh-tah, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 08-27-2012 02:05
www.theatheistconservative.com/2012/08/03/the-mystic-un-and-agenda-21/ In the end Drewski this is what it is all about, it is certainly not 'human friendly', but may be that is what you wish for.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 08-27-2012 08:49
"The mystic UN and Agenda 21 1

Could there be something happening in the world today that is even more threatening to life and liberty than Islam and its jihad?

There could be, there is, and its name is Agenda 21.

It emanates from that powerhouse of evil, the United Nations. It was initiated and is driven by votaries of a dark mysticism."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 08-27-2012 02:29
www.iclei.org/index.php?id=global-themes What you all need to be very wary of, is your country, city, town involved in this?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 08-27-2012 02:39
www.google.co.uk/.../ What is sustainable development, listen to these 'experts'. A good laugh for you before I go.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 08-27-2012 03:45
www.google.co.uk/.../ look at any UK council website and realise your destiny.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 08-27-2012 08:44
And this has what exactly to do with global warming and the use of fossil fuels?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
aynberliner
# aynberliner 08-28-2012 00:11
I am intrigued by the phrase " fossil fuels ". Exactly how do you propose that petroleum is one. It not only has never been proven, there is far more proof to the contrary.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 08-28-2012 01:44
aynberliner, I am intrigued that hey let you use the computer without supervision.

You say that there is no proof that petroleum is a fossil fuel and the green house effect doesn't exist?

I think you will fit right in with Joker and Gator.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Squidly
# Squidly 08-28-2012 00:17
You're an idiot
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.


Security code
Refresh