Cohenite - Dismantling the Warming by CO2 Fantasy &SF

This is from Cohenite earlier this year. It deserves repeating.

Unlike “Climate Change”, which is the new, deceitful term used by alarmists, AGW does conform to Popper’s falsification principle; Climate Change is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproved; the climate is always changing and nothing disproves it. But AGW is promulgated on the basis of definite assumptions; these assumptions can be examined for flaws and defects.

1st flaw: that increases in atmospheric CO2 cause increases in temperature. AR4 states [p666] that a doubling of CO2 will cause a temperature increase of 3C. CO2 increased ~ 30% from 1900 – 2000. According to AGW theory temperature should have increased ~ 1C; temperatures actually increased 0.4C. But this 0.4C does not represent the influence of CO2; a solar forcing [SF] must also be deducted. TAR gives a SF of 0.4C, AR4 a SF of 0.12C. Using AR4 0.28C is left. But the influence of ENSO must also be deducted. Douglass and Christy have calculated an ENSO temperature effect of 0.288C with an R2 correlation of .864. Both of these values are confirmed in other studies. McLean and Quirk give a value to the La Nina/El Nino transition of 1976 of 0.3C [see fig 4 and p4], while Joe D’Aleo attributes an R2 between ENSO and temperature of .85. When the ENSO temperature effect of 0.288C is deducted from 0.28C there is no CO2 effect.
2nd flaw: given the failure of CO2 to be an adequate heating agent AGW created the “Enhanced Greenhouse”[EG] concept [see AR4 FAQ 3.1]. EG allows for natural temperature increases with [anthropogenic] increases in CO2 following the temperature increase and causing an increase in atmospheric water vapor, with the increased water vapor in turn causing extra heating. Indeed CO2 does seem to follow temperature over medium geological time spans;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/fig_tab/nature06949_F2.html
But this ‘following’ relationship neither supports EG or AGW for 3 reasons;
(i) CO2 does not follow temperature in the way predicted by EG. Frank Lanser has shown that for equivalent atmospheric concentrations of CO2 [and presumably vapor] temperature can be both increasing and decreasing;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#more-5392
Furthermore, the rates of temperature increase and decrease for equivalent concentrations of CO2 are also different.
(ii) Even if H2O vapor was increased by CO2 [which is contradicted by NOAA data from 1949] Spencer and Braswell have shown that increased H2O is not only not a positive feedback but may not be a feedback at all. That is, it is H2O which affects temperature and CO2, not the other way round.
(iii) Over the short term CO2 doesn’t follow temperature at all;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUvsCO2.jpg
Nor does it in the long-term;
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
3rd flaw: if the EG is problematic does that mean the basic greenhouse concept is suspect? CO2 and other GHG’s are photoluminescent; they absorb and reemit radiation in the long-wave spectrum. Is this photoluminescent property sufficient to produce the 33C increase above the temperature that a planet such as Earth would have without an atmosphere containing GHG’s? Arthur Smith’s classic piece says it is;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
The 33C greenhouse effect is subject to a logarithmic decline in the photoluminescent effect;
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9652/logwarmingillustratedkn7.png
But there are profound contrary views to this; Dr. Heinz Hug’s paper shows that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is maximized at 10 metres with maximum asymptocality at 357 ppm so that further increases in CO2 have no effect on temperature. Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who Smith wrote his paper in response to, argue that there is no greenhouse effect, while Heinz Thieme argues against backradiation, a crucial aspect of both the greenhouse and the EG. Thieme has also argued against the concept of the greenhouse and presented an alternative view about the thermodynamic properties of the atmosphere being consistent with the mass and composition of the atmosphere and consequent atmospheric pressure;
http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/atmos.htm?200820
Smith has addressed the issue of pressure in his response to the comments on his paper [at 15/10/2008; 12.49pm];
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/proof-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-arthur-smith/#comment-66797
Smith compares Earth with Venus and says the GHG’s produce a tropopause which is pushed higher as GHG’s increase. But he misses a couple of crucial points; firstly, there is no evidence the tropopause on Earth is going higher with increased GHG’s; secondly, Venus’s atmosphere warms bottom up with SO2 and H2SO4 from the constant volcanic activity increasing the density and temperature of the atmosphere; on Earth, H2O reduces density by being instrumental to vertical convection which removes from the surface the incoming heat from the sun; Chilingar, Khilyuk and Sorokhtin have confirmed this in their paper;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727
4th flaw: the AGW atmospheric model has no empirical evidence; the AGW atmospheric model is semi-opaque and infinite as described in Spencer Weart’s paper;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
Basically Weart says extra CO2 traps IR in layers which raise the point at which the IR can finally escape from the atmosphere. This process, amongst other things, should produce a Tropical Hot Spot, as predicted by Fig 9.1(c), AR4. Despite much obfuscation and vitriol against sceptics of this prediction, no THS has been found. The most profound critique of the AGW model, however, has been found in Miskolczi’s finite semi-transparent atmospheric model. This model was based on an empirical LBL flux analysis of the atmosphere which showed no Top-of-atmosphere imbalance and no surface to immediate atmosphere discontinuity; both of these characteristics are essential to AGW
5th flaw: AGW asserts that anthropogenic CO2 [ACO2] is both long-lived in the atmosphere and entirely responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 [FAQ 2.1, AR4]. The basis for this assumption by AGW that the CO2 produced by human emissions can be distinguished from natural CO2 is the isotopic distinction between different CO2 molecules; fossil fuel burning releases 12C CO2 and this should decrease the proportion of natural 13C isotope in the atmosphere; there are a number of things wrong with this theory:
(i) Delta 13C atmospheric ratios have been historically overestimated;
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Professor Segalstad has also shown that natural forms of CO2 have similar isotopic values to fossil fuel emissions and the C12/C13 ratio can therefore be disrupted naturally.
(ii)Dr Steve Short’s work on Cyanobacteria suggests that they may preferentially consume C13 CO2 thus altering the C12/C13 ratio
(ii) With the isotopic distinction problematic the issue of how much natural and ACO2 is entering and remaining in the atmosphere can be looked at. Fig 7.1 of AR4 shows the total of all natural and anthropogenic emissions of CO2;
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf
Fig 7.1 shows the total emissions are 218.2Gt; the anthropogenic contribution is 1.6 + 6.4 = 8Gt; which is 3.67%. For ACO2 to be entirely responsible for all CO2 increase none of this 3.67% can be reabsorbed. Table 3 of the US Department of Energy report shows that 98.5% of all emitted CO2 is reabsorbed;
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304.pdf
If 98.5% of CO2 is reabsorbed then 1.5% accumulates. Since ACO2 cannot be distinguished from natural CO2 the amount of ACO2 accumulating and contributing to the increase in CO2 is 3.67% of 1.5% which is 0.055%; a miniscule amount. So, even if CO2 did have a warming effect, as AGW predicts, the anthropogenic contribution to this warming would be negligible.

Original post on Jen Marohasy's site here
The TCS website is;
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
Join now and have a say in your future.

3 comments:

  1. Arthur P. Smith has been refuted here: http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.2767

    ReplyDelete
  2. Re Arthur P. Smith, I got the PDF. When I get a few minutes I'll read it and add something to the post.
    Thanks.
    Happy Christmas. :-)

    ReplyDelete