1. Scientific data used to make the models is wrong
Chemists, and climate scientists: John Abbot and John Nicol wrote a chapter in Climate Change: The Facts 2017 explaining, in detail, how actual experimental data and empirically derived results are ignored by climate models (demonized in fact as climate denial) Climate models are written by mathematical modelers who tell the real world how it should behave. They ignore actual radiative behaviour of carbon dioxide, in favour of their own imaginary behaviour for it.
- Barrett; 1985, 2005
- Laubereau, A & Iglev H; 2013
- Lightfoot, HD & Mamer, OA 2014
2. CO2 emits more IR radiation than it absorbs at most atmospheric temperatures
Although CO2 absorbs thermal radiation from the Earth, it emits more. Carbon dioxide is in thermal deficit in terms of radiative balance. Nitrogen and oxygen constantly feed CO2 with heat so that it maintains a temperature higher than its radiative equilibrium. CO2 is a coolant.
CO2 is in radiative deficit until the temp is down to -77.8°C.
When you only use up and down meters, you’ll only see up and down readings. Have you heard of something called mean free path length by the way?
CO2 is being kept warm by collisions with warm N2, O2, and H2O (water vapour) while it is busy trying to radiate it’s way to radiative equilibrium at -77.8C-- Rog Tallbloke
Normally, even the tropopause and statosphere don't get cold enough to tip the carbon dioxide radiative balance to absorb more often than it emits.
- Physical analysis shows CO2 is a coolant for the atmosphere
- A conversation with Brandon Gates on the causes of the ‘greenhouse’ effect
3. Infrared radiation does not heat oceans
A simple experiment shows that "nearly all the Long Wave GHG energy is returned almost immediately to the atmosphere and space as latent heat of evaporation."
... CMIP5 models don’t ... allow for the fact that the long wave GHG energy is almost entirely absorbed in the evaporation layer of water while solar energy is not ...-- RA Irvine
71% of earth's surface is covered by water. Sunlight penetrates deeply into water and heats it. Infrared radiation penetrates mere micrometres into water; it can only heat the surface skin. But such heating results in the energy being used to provide latent heat of vapourization, LHV, which causes water to evaporate. The evaporated water than goes to cloud layer (due to convection, because water (MWt = 18), molecules are much lighter than nitrogen or oxygen.
As wet convected atmosphere rises it cools. At the cloud layer water precipitates out as cloud droplets; giving back its latent heat of vapourization miles above earth's surface. So this energy of LHV 'warms'[note] the upper troposphere where clouds form. The atmosphere there then radiates that energy, mostly to space.
Latent heat of vapourization, LHV: This is the heat/energy required to change the state of water (or other liquid, from liquid to gas in this case). When absorbed, it does not raise the temperature of water. It breaks the hydrogen bonding in liquid water. The amount of LHV is equal to 66% of the heat which would otherwise raise the temperature of water from 0 C to 100 C. It is a lot of heat. This is why, when water boils, it does not all evaporate at once. It still needs latent heat of vapourization to change state from liquid to gas. Hydrogen bonds in liquid water are much stronger than most other liquids, and explain why water has such a high LHV value. In turn, that high LHV, explains why this method of evaporative cooling is so important to earth's climate and so flexible. If earth does get a bit warmer, evaporative cooling of oceans can quickly increase to cool it down. So it accounts for earth's remarkably steady climate temperature over billions of years. It's climatic air-conditioning.
LHV causes about half the surface cooling. The other half is due to radiative cooling.
note: Rather than warm, we should say it pauses the cooling. Because the higher the atmosphere rises, the less dense it becomes, so the cooler it would normally get. Anyhow: we know the released LHV is not retained in the atmosphere. It is immediately emitted as infrared at an altitude where the atmosphere is much thinner (than at the surface) and there is a lot less water vapour able to reabsorb it. Much of the space-bound infrared released as LHV can go straight out to space.
- Irvine, RA, 2015, 'A comparison of the efficacy of green house gas forcing and solar forcing'; WIT Transactions on Engineering Sciences, Vol 83, 2014; ISSN 1743-3533 (on-line), doi:10.2495/HT140241
4. "Who stole my water vapour feedback?" Two-thirds of the model(s) effect is pure fraud
Models mostly assume that an approximate 1C global temperature rise results from doubling carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere. In addition to this the warmer atmosphere (due to carbon dioxide radiative forcing) will retain the same relative humidity. With a warmer temperature this means that actual specific humidity will increase. Because water vapour is a greenhouse gas too, the extra water vapour will cause another 2C global temperature rise. For a total of 3C.
Another body of empirical evidence that demonstrates the incorrect assumptions in CAGW climate models is from radiosonode data, which shows that specific humidity near the top of the troposphere (i.e., 300 mb) is on the decline as CO2 concentrations increase.
This inverse relationship yet again demonstrates that the overstating of positive feedbacks in climate models and in this case the supposed positive feedback of tropospheric H2O to rising CO2 concentrations, is contrary to empirical evidence and another reason models consistently overstate anomalous rises in tropospheric air temperatures over the past 20 years.--Joseph Fournier
This increased humidity is fraudulent. It is not found. I'm willing to let people guess about it for a decade or so, but this has been projected in climate models for over 30 years, since at least 1988. Just about all climate models do it. It is pure fraud.
5. The assumed balance sheet for earth's energy budget is wrong.
The calculations for carbon dioxide radiative forcing assume that earth was in energy equilibrium before carbon dioxide increased, in the last 100 years. But the energy budget has huge errors in it. The potential errors in readings were already ten times the supposed imbalance caused by carbon dioxide.
In addition to the already existing errors, there are even more. We are now discovering that the sun emits large amounts of very high energy radiation: x-rays (and even gamma rays. Modern accurate data is often ignored by models.
6. The optical thickness of the atmosphere is unchanged
The climate consensus greenhouse gas model predicts that atmosphere will become more opaque to infrared radiation. But that is not happening.
Here is a study that examined evidence looking for changes in the overall optical thickness of the atmosphere. If IR active gases such as CO2 and H2O increase, then the optical thickness likewise increases. However, what they showed is that because H2O has its own mind and follows changes in sea surface temperature and surface solar radiation, there has been little no net increase in the optical thickness over the past 80 years.--Joseph Fournier
7. The basic model is wrong
I will look at a paper published by James Hansen, et al., in 2011. In this, he gives a simple, concise, explanation for the greenhouse gas effect, GHGE. He discusses how it could be validated (AKA tested, and passed using falsification criteria). He does not actually use such a phrase. Hansen talks of testing his model; but a failed test should amount to model falsification in any scientific discussion.
What do I mean by 'model'
I do not mean IPCC computer model. Not the kind of models which must be run on supercomputers. I (and James Hansen) refer to a much simpler, basic model which calculates the greenhouse gas effect. This basic model is modified in many different ways. By selecting different feedbacks, etc. It is then built into those computer models. It's important to know that every climate alarmist modeler is using the same basic model. They all employ the same basic calculations to find the GHGE (expected climate warming). Any significantly different model is deemed climate denial. Funds will be cut off to anyone using such a model and they will be driven out of employment. As happened, for example to, Ferenc Miskolczi. Climate alarmists do not tolerate dissent. Ooops. Must not rant. The fact they're all using the same basic model is good because we can refute this basic GHGE model in the same way. Thereby refuting every alarmist computer model.
After explaining it, Hansen draws upon his GHGE model; as if the model is 'real'. I.e. As if the model represents reality. This is a massive fallacy; essentially a reversion to a kind of idealism. Like Plato's world: but where the 'ideals' are scientific models and theories.
Hansen is clear, in his paper, that heat energy, leaving earth, measured from space, will validate his model. This heat energy is electromagnetic radiation known as infrared. It is also called outgoing longwave radiation, OLR.
The model only 'works' to warm the climate because, it describes an 'energy imbalance' caused when there is less energy emitted to space (as OLR) than arrives on earth (as insolation; AKA sunlight).
Hansen's GHGE model is what he believes happens in the real world. That GHGE is due to less OLR emitted to space. It is not just a mathematical trick. He believes it is a simulation of reality. As such reality behaves as his model describes. If reality did not behave that way his simulation must be wrong. So his model must be wrong.
What does the Satellite data Show?
Hansen believes there are 2 ways to measure the climate warming he models. One way is by measuring heat energy emitted to space, but satellites. The diagram below is not Hansen's work. It was published last year.
Actual satellite data of radiated heat (OLR) shows it increased since 1985. The satellite data clearly shows the impact of the 2nd-largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century: Mount Pinatubo, in 1991, which killed 847 people at the time, and led to considerable climate cooling.
The OLR data diametrically oppose Hansen's GHGE simulation/model. So the data falsify the climate consensus GHGE model. In interpreting the Satellite data - an increase in OLR reflects previous warming and a decrease shows cooling (e.g. 1991-1992, due to Mount Pinatubo). This is, the complete opposite of what Hansen says warming represents.
Perhaps you believe that the warming is happening but is obscured by other variable factors? The 'climate consensus' are clear that 90%, or more, of modern climate change is man-made. Meaning 90% is the GHGE. Therefore the effects predicted by James Hansen's GHGE model should dominate.
PS: Hansen's paper is open access: You can download the pdf or read the paper online. Search for it using the doi:
8. The flat-earth assumption in the basic model was stupid
The basic simplified model for the greenhouse gas effect begins by making earth flat; so that solar radiation is equalised everywhere. But this tweak to the model breaks it (the model) because we now get the wrong value for radiative forcing!
I recently did some calculations to determine how much the surface temperature would increase if the effective radiative emission altitude doubled (the so-called scientists say that increasing CO2 when its absorption bands are saturated pushes this level up, where it's colder, requiring the atmosphere below to heat up to regain equilibrium). Being a little bit of a perfectionist, I assumed that the earth *was not flat* and I approximated it to a sphere. Shock, horror! How dare I make a more accurate approximation than the flat earth approximation! To cut a long story short, doubling the effective emission altitude (ie: doubling the concentration of *all* so-called greenhouse gases) on a spherical model resulted in a surface (sea level) temperature rise of 0.128C. That's right folks! Using a spherical model instead of a flat earth model meant that the increased area available to radiate heat to space nearly completely eliminated the effect of the reduced temperature because of the higher altitude. In fact, we could easily quadruple today's CO2 concentration (and let nature do whatever it wants with water vapour, etc) and the associated temperature rise would be so small that most people wouldn't even detect a difference on a thermometer! Man-made global warming is just a modern version of the flat earth dogma!--Danny Barrett
9. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is badly modeled
Earth's oceans are a store of carbon. Oceans have about 38,000 Gt carbon dissolved in them. 27ppm of ocean is carbon. Nearly all of it is bicarbonate and carbonate. With a small amount of free CO2 itself. The ratio of bicarbonate to carbonate in oceans is 10:1. There is about 5,000 Gt of carbon available, on earth, in fossil fuel reserves which can be easily accessed.
Imagine this thought experiment. All this fossil fuel is burnt. All the CO2 made dissolves in oceans. This would increase the carbon content of oceans to 31 ppm, or 43,000 Gt
Man-made CO2 goes mostly into the oceans. Because:
CO2 + H2O --> H2CO3 (carbonic acid)
Then carbonic acid reacts with carbonate:
H2CO3 + CO3-- --> 2 HCO3-
As carbonate is removed from ocean to become bicarbonate, the carbonate is itself replaced because limestone on the ocean bottom dissolves into the ocean to restore the balance (or equilibrium, as it's called). So, potentially, oceans can absorb all CO2 we make from fossil fuels. Nor will it make the oceans acidic, as some people say. Ocean acidity is greatly influenced by carbonate (which is basic). In the long run, more CO2 dissolving in oceans will not increase ocean acidity because all the carbonate removed will be replaced by more carbonate dissolving into ocean from the ocean floor.