Scientists find more CO2 causes land surface cooling

Biophysical impacts of Earth greening largely controlled by aerodynamic resistance

Satellite observations show widespread increasing trends of leaf area index (LAI), known as the Earth greening. However, the biophysical impacts of this greening on land surface temperature (LST) remain unclear. Here, we quantify the biophysical impacts of Earth greening on LST from 2000 to 2014 and disentangle the contributions of different factors using a physically based attribution model.

... We find that 93% of the global vegetated area shows negative sensitivity of LST to LAI increase at the annual scale, especially for semiarid woody vegetation. Further considering the LAI trends (P ≤ 0.1), 30% of the global vegetated area is cooled by these trends and 5% is warmed ...

93% of the global vegetated area shows ∂T_s^bio/∂LAI < 0 with an average of −0.36 ± 0.22 K m² m⁻² (mean ± 1 SD, where SD indicates spatial variability). We find that the mean magnitude of ∂T_s^bio/∂LAI is larger in temperate regions (−0.44 K m² m⁻²) than those in high-latitude (−0.34 K m² m⁻²) and tropical regions (−0.29 K m² m⁻²) ...

LAI = leaf area index = a measure of vegetation.
LST = land surface temperature

Neoliberalism

You probably hear a lot of bad things against Neoliberalism from the woke and left media. It's a general swear word they use when talking about capitalism. A way to dis' capitalism by implying capitalism got worse and turned into something more evil: 'Neoliberalism'.

It is: In fact: what you hear is probably all nonsense. Neoliberalism was specifically, an attempt to make things better by making more human interactions more market like: to apply market principles to otherwise, non-market relationships. For example, Neolibs wanted a market like solution to pollution. They thought they could use the tax system to "make the polluter pay". Using, for example, fines, penalties, to the tax system to act like negative money. In it's essence that's all neoliberalism really is.

What it's not: There are lot's of other iseas associtated with Neoliberalism, supported by the same people who promoted Neoliberalism. Ideas such as free movement of labour and abolishing trade tarriffs. But those other ideas weren't new.

Why Neoliberalism fails? It fails for the same reasons all government interference in the economy fails. Government thinks it knows best. It doesn't. Unfortunately Big Gov does not care. Because everyone in Big Gov is using Neo-lib policies, they are all, neolibs. Even the woke and left critics of neoliberalism are neo-libs. Despite it's failures, Neoliberalism remains without real critics because governments never abolish useless regulations.

UK 2030 'zero carbon' electricity needs.

We'll probably need to, at least, triple electricity supply in the end to move to 'zero carbon'. Double to move vehicles to electricity. Tripling it will also do away with gas boilers. We can't get to zero carbon. There are no plans for zero carbon ocean: frieght, air traffic, nor heavy industry. Just road traffic and domestic heating.

Some UK stats:

• 2018 UK electricity use = 333 TWh
• Average of 2.5 million new vehicles are sold in UK each year (average for last 10 years)
• UK has 38.36 million licensed vehicles.
• Making the average lifetime of a vehicle ~ 15.4 years
• In 2018, total UK motor vehicle fuel use = 37 million tonnes
• UK vehicles use about 430 TWh/year of fuel.
• Motor vehicle traffic was at a record high in 2019 as 356.5 billion vehicle miles (bvm) were driven on Great Britain’s roads, a 2 per cent increase from the previous year.

Assuming higher electric car efficiency, we need to add about 333/15 TWh per year in electricty generation until we've doubled it after about 15 years. About 22 TWh/year. But we're also banning domestic gas boilers! So make that about 13% more electricy per year (about 44 TWh) for 15 years. This is 5GWe of dispatchable plant per year. Nuclear plants take about 6 years from 1st concrete to finish and another year of testing before they are connected to the grid. At least 7 years. I see no plans to build NPPs from 2023. We begin phasing out the existing nuclear fleet in 2022. It should all be decommissioned by 2030.

If we build more wind turbines we need to build natural gas plants to supply dispatchable electricity in a wind lull.

J Curry - Week in science 122

Reblog: Judith Curry science review.. I commented out a lot of these because when they're of no interest, have been said before, especially when they're not hard science. After skipping through the open access, I'll get to the pay-wall papers one by one - even if they don't interest me - because they interest Judith Curry - who is an influential person.

My intention is to copy the links worth reading, so I can comment on them. I'll look at the open access papers first.

---

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye these past 10 (!) weeks

Politics-free thread, please!

Climate science

• How changing content of clouds could influence climate change [link]

  Nonesense. A discussion of models entirely divorced from science. Contains no discussion of testing, validation nor falsification. A few of the original links from J Curry were also like that. One of the reasons I commented some of them out

• Rebuttal of recent Mann paper: Multidecadal and Interdecadal climate oscillations: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence [link]

• Antarctic ice dynamics amplified by Northern Hemisphere sea-level forcing [link]

• Status and outlook for the climate change scenario framework [link]

• Forcing of western tropical Sought Atlantic sea surface temperate across three glacial-interglacial cycles [link]

• Earth greening mitigates surface warming by enhancing the efficiency in heat and water transfer (i.e., aerodynamic resistance). https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/47/eabb1981…

  According to a model, ... Greening, due to increased CO2, cools the climate ...

  This is another model: untested, non-validated. Probably untestable.

• A very strong stratospheric polar vortex and other record-breaking phenomena made the Northern Hemisphere winter of 2019–2020 one of extremes. [link]

  Exceptionally strong stratospheric polar vortex of winter 2019–2020 enabled severe ozone depletion, and likely also contributed to unusual warmth at the surface across the Northern Hemisphere, such as Siberia. I accept their claim regarding Ozone. But the other claim? I only looked at the abstract so far.

• Oreskes:Severe weather event attribution: Why values won’t go away [link]

• Unraveling glacial hydroclimate in the Indo-Pacific warm pool [link]

• Interannual variability in the North America carbon cycle [link]

  Only really of interest to climatologists - in that it could be useful to scale this for the whole plantet.

• Anthropogenic stresses on the worlds big rivers [link]

• Geothermal heat persistently warms the ocean’s bottom ~2000 m by 0.3-0.5°C via seafloor vents. With horizontal circulation heat accumulates over time. The abyssal ocean was 6-10°C warmer 9k yrs ago and still much warmer 1k yrs ago. [link]

• Combining modern and paleoceanographic perspectives on ocean heat uptake [link]

• Coherent stream flow variability in Monsoon Asia over the past eight centuries links to oceanic drivers [link]

• Moist heat stress extremes in India enhanced by irrigation [link]

  To say I found this extremely tendentious is an understatement.

• Enhanced warming constrained by past trends in equatorial Pacific sea surface temperature gradient [link]

• Inherent uncertainty disguises attribution of reduced atmospheric CO2 growth to CO2 emission reduction [link]

• Decadal and multi-decadal natural variability in European temperatures [link]

  Many climate papers begin by paying homage to man-made climate change as the price authors must pay for publication. None of that here. These guys are naturalists. They begin their article saying they're looking at natural variability, AKA everything which is not 'man-made'

  European monthly temperatures undergo strong fluctuations from one year to the other. The variability is controlled by natural processes such as Atlantic cycles, changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, unforcedinternal atmospheric variability, as well as anthropogenic factors.

  So they added 'as well as anthropogenic factors'. But just to get published. They didn't really mean it. So they are deniers. Everyone studying natural variability and the sun is a denier, or shill anyhow - by climate scare-mongering definitions.

  </SNARK>

  This paper more or less demands to be read in full. Especially as we just entered a grand solar minimum for the next 33 years. I'm puzzled by the correlations and anti-correlations sitting side by side!

  

• No net warming in Sweden over the last 210 years [link]

  No net warming in Sweden over the last 210 years. They will not actually say that!, and their paper shows a new dendroclimatology technique - so is nothing to do with Sweden nor warming, nor not-warming! Yet that's the important byte to take for the climate war: 'catastrophic global warming?', definitely not in Sweden. Ho, ho.: it's supposed to be most noticeable closes to the poles (where Sweden is), at night and during winters.

• East Antartica has cooled substantially since 1986 [link]

• Koutsoyiannis:  Atmospheric temperature and CO2: hen-or-egg causality? [link]

• Oligocene much warmer than previously thought; this is difficult to explain & has implications for ice sheet stability. [link]

• Water on Mars: discovery of three buried lakes [link]

• “This is why hurricanes are bigger and longer-lasting and more intense than before.” New study shows that ocean stratification is increasing. [link]

• New synthesis article on ocean acidification & changing seawater chemistry from rising CO2 and the impacts on biological organisms, marine ecosystems, people, fisheries & aquaculture https://annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-083019… …

• New study finds the modulation of cloud cover that drives decadal- and century-scale climate changes is thought to be either driven by internal variability or (more likely) by interplanetary factors operating within a 60-year cycle. [link] …

Technology, impacts and policy

• Michael Kelly: Warming is not the only threat [link]

• Michael Kelly:  Until we get a proper roadmap, Net Zero is a goal without a plan [link]

• Misconceptions of global catastrophe [link]

• Approximate calculations of the net economic impact of global warming mitigation targets under heightened damage estimates.  The cure is worse than the disease? [link]

• Compact nuclear fusion reactor is very likely to work [link]

• BTI:  How to stop the wildfires [link]

• Extreme weather and marriage among girls and women in Bangladesh [link]

• America needs a modern electric grid [link]

• Do we focus too much on IAMs & scenarios? Do alternative methods need a more prominent role? [link]

• “The UN Secretary General António Guterres’s call for India to give up coal immediately and reduce emissions by 45% by 2030 is a call to de-industrialise the country and abandon the population to a permanent low-development trap” [link]

• The invisible elephant in the room with a Green New Deal is the staggering quantity of stuff that needs to be mined in order to build all the green machines, and where that mining and processing happens. https://dailycaller.com/2020/10/27/green-new-deal-laws-of-physics/…

• Michael Pollan: The sickness in our food supply [link]

• Room-temperature superconductivity [link]

• Pielke Jr:  Global CO2 emissions are on the brink of a long plateau [link]

• Re-imagining the Colorado River by exploring extreme events [link]

• Plan for climate solutions takes Georgia-specific approach [link]

• G20 countries projected to miss 1.5C targets by wide margin [link]

• Maybe the narrative that dense cities are better for the environment may be off. Here’s new research from Australia. http://newgeography.com/content/006840-high-density-and-sustainability

About science and scientists

• Five ways to ensure that models serve society: a manifesto [link]

Review: Rex Fleming: Rise and Fall of the CO2 theory of Climate Change

Dr Rex Fleming, an ex- Climate modeller (now retired), with qualifications in physics and maths, renounces IPCC and establishment to look at what really causes climate change. He says that climate models fail and

"CO₂ does not contribute any net heating to the atmosphere column - though both CO₂ and H₂O contribute to the thermal blanket at the earth's surface.

His motive: Fleming breaks ranks with the climate establishment on humanitarian grounds because of the deliberate attempt to obstruct fossil fuel use. Many regions in Africa have grossly inefficient energy systems or no energy systems. Leaving: inadequate clean water and food, landscape denuded of trees, women forced to cook with dried animal dung.

• 30,000 people die of diseases due to poverty each day
• ⅓ of earth's population lack electricity
• 1 billion people have no clean water
• ½ billion people go to bed hungry each night

Far from global warming being a worry - the opposite - a return to cold conditions of the Little Ice Age is a huge concern.

IPCC climate change: IPCC / establishment definition of climate change is wrong. IPCC definite climate change as a change in earth's surface temperature over a 30-year period; with humans overwhelming the cause. Let's call the IPCC version of climate change: anthropogenic global warming, AGW - as there's no scope there for humans to cool the climate. In fact: recent research shows that more CO₂ in the atmosphere promotes plant growth and more vegetation does, indeed, cool the climate! by about ⅓C in vegetated areas. In addition the 30 year period over which climate is decided has always been wrong because there are clear ocean cycles lasting longer than 30 years! (65 to 70 years!) - such as the AMO

They have ulterior political motives to promote renewables and abolish fossil fuel use.

IPCC tactics are to scare the public over extreme weather - supposedly caused by people: Hurricanes, bush fires, heat waves are all blamed on humanity. They acieve their objectives by replacing the temperature record with anomalies and adjusting to make the anomalies look big. Justifying 90% AGW with bad models. Mass media is ruthless controlled to censor reason and dissenting views.

The global temperature anomally relates to nothing but itself.

Bad models: vastly exaggerate the role of carbon dioxide in climate. In particular: climate models misattribute warming to CO₂ which is really due to H₂O. For example, at the surface, water vapour (up to 40000ppm) is up to 100 times more concentrated than CO₂ (400ppm). Although CO₂(g) is a more powerful GHG than H₂O(g), by 5.5, H₂O(g) causes 18 times more warming. The ratio of CO₂:H₂O GHGE, at the surface is 5.5 : 100. Only 5.5% of it can be due to CO₂.

Oceans and atmosphere are turbulent, interacting, fluids. Atmospheric winds drive ocean currents and oceans exchange heat and chemicals with the atmosphere. The atmosphere is chaotic and oceans have chaotic elements too.

There are 3 dynamic atmospheric processes transferring heat from earth's surface:

1. Radiation
2. Sensible heat transfer (Convection and conduction)
3. Latent heat transfer - due to the vapourization of water at the surface, and condensation as water droplets (AKA clouds) in the upper troposphere

Radiation also works to transfer heat to space. But due to changing amounts of water vapour with altitude it works differently according to altitude. The relative role of radiation has been bother exaggerated and misrepresented. The effect of the sun on climate is much greater than media and establishment say; amounting to fraudulent misrepresentation.

Note:

Temperature adjustments IPCC measure temperature changes since 1880; claiming human fossil fuel use increased climate warming by 1C. Their trick is to manipulate temperature records and always talk in terms of temperature anomalies (never actual terran surface averages). This enables them to set the starting position of global temperature (in 1880) at anything they want. In practice: they set it at about 14C, or less. In fact a book written in 1889 stated the average global surface temperature was 14.6C. Many metrological institutes today still measure the global surface temperature at below 15C - indicating a real rise of only about 0.4C over 110 years; when they claim temperature rises of at least 1C due to man-made changes over the last century! PS: Fleming does not state this]

Summary

Dr Fleming, very much agrees with Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray theory of climate change which explains shorter term climate change in terms of solar cycles. I too, believe solar cycles dominate climate changes. We know that changes in clouds over the past 4 decades (net global changes of at least 7% in cloud cover) ara the dominant cause of earth's warming. I don't go as far as attributing all those changes to cosmic ray variation. The evidence for cosmic rays as a sole cause is not yet here. The evidence for the sun dominating climate change (99% of it) is here.

This is a valuable book on technical aspects of climate change. It's a must read. I also recommend Don Easterbrook's new book to complement it.

14.6 degrees Celsius = average surface temperature in 1889!

Reblog: Original by Eric Negron

---

Facebook Fact Check

This time I check out the facts on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Dr James Croll published a book in 1889. It was a reply to critics of a book he wrote in 1885 or before. From page 60 in “Discussions on Climate and Cosmology,” => See photo. His Distribution of Heat on the Surface of the Globe, according to “Dove” was seen in the photo below. From that data, I calculated a GLOBAL AIR TEMPERATURE of 58.225 degrees Fahrenheit. Or about 14.6 degrees Celsius.

Now turning to this website, “They depict how much various regions of the world have warmed or cooled when compared with a base period of 1951-1980. (The global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 14°C (57°F), with an uncertainty of several tenths of a degree.) In other words, the maps show how much warmer or colder a region is compared to the norm for that region from 1951-1980.” https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/wor.../global-temperatures

For agreements sake, let us agree that the 2020 GAT is 15 degrees Celsius or 59.0 degrees Fahrenheit. What we cannot agree on is the adjusted temperature in the past. Skeptics maintain that Climate Scientists have cooled the past global temperatures. But let’s not bicker about that here, nor there.

What we can agree on is that a NORMAL GAT distribution between 14.6 and 15 degrees Celsius is possible. We can agree that the Earth Observatory’s GAT is NOT a normal temperature distribution. Therefore we can make no conclusion about the current Trend of warming/cooling temperature because it may fall well within a given NORMAL distribution of GAT. In other words, global warming has been concocted to reflect warming ocean temperatures er the last 150 years. That land based temperatures are heavily influenced by changes in increasing ocean temperatures surprises no one here. The fact that Global Warming is much more than much ado about nothing surprises us Skeptics.

1. Alarmist do not have global data.
2. Alarmist do not have quality data over the period.
3. Data aggregation methods are questionable, at best.
4. Conclusions based on questionable data are questionable.

---

Now let us throw out my opinion and return to Dr Croll’s Distribution of Heat on the Surface of the Globe. Why do I get the feeling that his measurement of 14.6 degrees Celsius made prior to 1890’s and average global air temperatures of 14.6 degrees Celsius as late as 2010 perfectly match?

---

Distribution of Heat upon the Surface of the Globe was written in 1853. Boys, would I love to see the data.
The distribution of heat over the surface of the globe : illustrated by isothermal thermic isabnormal and other curves of temperature
Author: Heinrich Wilhelm Dove
Publisher: London : Taylor and Francis for the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1853.
Series: Landmarks of science.
Edition/Format: Book Microform : Micro-opaque : EnglishView all editions and formats

Reasons to reject climate alarmism, and fake science

1. it destroys free speech on the climate issue. In UK, the BBC is now an intellectual desert on the climate issue. Killed by censorship, suicided - if you like.
2. misinforms the public about the scientific status of climate models, which I'm told are: "simple physics" and "settled science"
3. misallocates research spending to pseudoscience - such as invalid climate models
4. refuses to allocate sufficient funds to what matters - the study of the sun - so we know less than we should during GSM. This can kill people
5. it attacks science and the scientific method.
6. activists try to cancel those who support rigorous science: it destroys good science careers.
7. it allows charlatans, incompetents and fakers to prosper
8. it promotes the destruction of economies - as we replace reliable energy systems with weather, seasonal, and diurnal dependent systems. Evidenced by Germanys very expensive Energiewende having no effect in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
9. now Biden is mongering for economic warfare against countries which fail his standards: it potentially promotes hot and cold wars. Before you dismiss the idea of climate alarmism causing hot wars - I'd like to remind you the Second World War was due to Malthusian beliefs on the part of the top Nazis. They believed the only way to secure the prosperity of the Germany people was to expand the land area of Germany.
10. it promotes a nihilistic attitude to existence. When people blame humans for this, that and the other they become fatalistic, cynical, and sometimes suicidal in their personal lives and social attitudes. Instead of seeing human agency as the solution to problems they see people are the cause of problems.
11. 'white people cause climate change' is now an excuse for promoting racial antagonism
12. did I mention climatism concern is racist and anti-human?
13. Who is the real enemy of Humanity?. Part 2

Dr Robert Fagan - Climate feedback loop

I don't agree with everything Dr Robert Fagan (Geologist) published on his website. Especially things which aren't geology. On geology I conceed he's entirely right. However: everthing there is worth reading.

• Twitter: Dr Robert Fagan (Geologist)
• The CO2 Debate
• Global Warming Unpicked
• Mean Global Temperature & Atmospheric CO2 Charts for All of Geological Time
• 25 Critical Questions that Climate Alarmists Need to Answer or Explain
• Is The Science Settled?
• Letters to Editors, Newspaper Articles & Recent Tweets
• summary posts encapsulating the main points on critical issues

Carbon dioxide emissions and oceans.

Place holder for discussion about the carbon cycle and CO₂.

1) More evidence that carbon dioxide atmospheric variations are caused by ocean emissions, and not by human activity. This chart shows that CO₂ increases lag el Nino events by around 12 months and correspondingly, CO2 reductions follow La Nina events by the same period.

2) It appears that the sun is the real problem. It heats the ocean and 3 months later the land heats up and then 9 months later CO₂ is emitted from the oceans, increasing the CO₂ atmospheric concentration. The UN now needs to form a study group to reduce solar irradiance by 2030.

3) Measured CO2 saturation in 1951. Ref - The Infra Red Handbook.

4) CO₂ has been resting for at least 70 years. It was absorbing 100% of all 15 micron surface radiation in 1951 when its concentration was around 300 ppm. Additional CO₂ since then has had no additional radiation to absorb. 100% then is still 100% now.

5) Carbon dioxide has had no effect on global temperature for at least 70 years. 100% of surface radiation was absorbed and converted to heat when the CO₂ concentration was around 300 ppm. Adding additional CO₂ cannot absorb more than the existing 100 % of the radiation.

Two replies to my Reddit censor

This is what passes for debate on Reddit today:

"Do all of you believe in this right wing climate skepticism garbage?"

My replies (apparently censored from Reddit, so posted here)

You "ask" a rhetorical question with a defamation embedded in it:

"Do all of you believe in this right wing climate skepticism garbage?"

Don't pretend you're here to have a reasonable discussion. You're already throwing logical fallacies and defamations left and right as soon as you began.

• It is not a "belief". It is a method, the scientific method.
• It is not "right wing" - it is rationalist, as opposed to, say, anti-rationalist
• "skepticism" is not garbage. It is the foundational method of reasoning for the civilization you currently enjoy the fruits of.

Try learning something useful such as how to discuss ideas without throwing insults at people left, right and centre. I suggest you get a book on logical fallacies. Learn them. Then try to apply what you learnt by discussing something online without recourse to any fallacies.

My reply to his reply

No such thing as proving a scientific hypothesis. But there's disproof; which in scientific circles is called refutation or falsification.

Climate models are not like engineering models - thought I'd make the point before you claim it. An engineering model must be validated against something - even if it's only the bridge built from it! In contrast, the atmospheric model of the greenhouse gas effect has been around 53 years, since 1967. Yet you will find no serious scientific papers, written by its supporters, discussing rigorous tests and validations. The model fails all possible tests I know. So it is a junk model. Yet people like you - who never even bothered to read it - never even tried to falsify it - claim it is "settled science". You're with the superstitious and the reactionaries. I'm with progress. I tire of hearing the anti-science arguments such as "settled science" put forward to support broken models upon which trillions of dollars of policy spending rides.

Summary

Do not let the left call themselves progressive. Take the term back. Explain to the left, on their own terms, why they are reactionary and regressive.

Magical 'science' of temperature homogenization and adjustment

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology uses “surrounding” thermometers to adjust for odd shifts in data (caused by things like long grass, cracked screens, or new equipment, some of which is not listed in the site information). The Bureau fishes among many possible sites to find those that happen to match up or , err “correlate” during a particular five year period. Sometimes these are not the nearest site, but ones… further away. So the BOM will ignore the nearby stations, and use further ones to adjust the record.

These correlations, like quantum entanglements, are mysterious and fleeting. A station can be used once in the last hundred years to “correct” another, but for all the other years it doesn’t correlate well — which begs the question of why it had these special telediagnostic powers for a short while, but somehow lost them? Or why a thermometer 300km away might show more accurate trends than one 50km away.

... more: Joanne Nova

Falsification of the Greenhouse Gas Conjecture / Model

“I have never been convinced that there is ANY fingerprint of anthropogenic warming.”
— Dr Roy W. Spencer

“... any increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere will not affect the average temperature of the troposphere”
— Dr Jack Barrett

“The data from the weather balloons has shown quite categorically there is no greenhouse effect. Increasing greenhouse gases will increase the rate of adsorption but because the atmosphere is in internal dynamic equilibrium it also increases the rate of emission. The net effect is none.”
— Dr Michael Connolly

“there is no propensity for CO₂ to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate change effect (as defined in the introduction)”
— Dr. Rex J. Fleming

“There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
— Dr Yuri Izrael

“The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
— Dr Tom Segalstad

“I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
— Dr Miklos Zagoni

Why am I writing this?

Because a simple greenhouse gas model, called the 'standard atmospheric model of the greenhouse effect' is widely used to project future climate trends. This basic model calculates the climate sensitivity of CO₂. Which is the warming in Celsius per doubling of atmospheric CO₂. Trillions of dollars of spending are being allocated to stop this projected warming. As they say: "What if it's all a hoax?" I don't think it's a hoax, but I think the greenhouse gas modellers are fanatics, and keen to hold on to their jobs at any cost to the rest of us. They've bent the rules in the past and will bend the rules in future. I want to look at the model they use from the same vantage point how one examines a testable hypothesis. This is how scientists test their hypotheses.

• Are model assumptions valid?
• What predictions made by the model can be tested?
• What are the empirical results of those tests?

What model are we mainly talking about?

The conventional basic climate model is partially described by two foremost theorists, Isaac Held and Brian Soden, in their paper of 2000[1], and more completely on pages 163–165 of the “gold standard” of climate textbooks, Raymond Pierrehumbert’s Principles of Planetary Climate [2] (recommended if you want to know establishment climate science). We get the parameter values from the IPCC’s latest assessment report from 2013, AR5 [3].
Dr David Evans.

Dr James Hansen and co-workers also added to the model in 1981. Dr Roy Clark gives a good summary of the model and its development over the past 54 years: here

Goes without saying: Claims are made by modellers (not me). Modellers all have a vested interest - their careers depend on people taking their models seriously.

The Greenhouse Model

As, you probably all already know, the atmospheric model of the greenhouse gas effect, AM-GHGE, fails some of the simple tests it should pass. This model is mainly derived from 2 papers: Manabe and Wetherald, 1967; Held and Soden, 2000. Dr David Evans wrote a series of blog articles on the model (for those who want more background). He also wrote an article published in 'Evidence-Based Climate Science', 2nd edition, Ed. Don Easterbrook.

James Hansen described the model in words in 2011:

The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse effect, is simple. An increase of gases such as CO₂ makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths. This added opacity causes the planet's heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. The temporary imbalance between the energy absorbed from the sun and heat emission to space, causes the planet to warm until planetary energy balance is restored.

Hansen et. al. 2011; Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 13421-13449. doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011 (open access)

There Can Be Only One

It is important to understand: there is ONLY ONE basic model used by the self-styled 'climate consensus'. Otherwise they couldn't have a consensus!! Any differences between various AM-GHGE are minor tweaks. Each uses, essentially the same, mechanisms to calculate the greenhouse gas warming. Other GHGE models have been written using different or highly modified simulations, but the climate consensus call these deviant models denial, and ignore them.

Two Tests

From Hansen's excerpt, we get two tests:

• T1: CO₂ makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths
• T2: reducing emission of heat energy to space OR: we expect a fall in infrared emissions to space

My Big Runaway

Most of the warming in this AM_GHGE is due to positive feedback due to water vapour. Because CO₂ warms the atmosphere, its humidity also increases. This causes far more (2 or 3 times more) warming due to the greenhouse gas effect of water vapour. Or so the story goes. Due to how the model works, there will be pronounced warming at the top of the troposphere (10 to 12 km altitude) over the tropics. This is called the 'hotspot'. This 2nd part of the model, implies more tests

To be fair - for the first three tests: T1, T2, T3, we were looking at a 2 dimensional model of how the greenhouse gas effect is supposed to work. Tests T4, T5 look at more complex 4D-models (3 space and 1 time) called general circulation models, GCMs. But we are still looking at how the greenhouse gas effect is modelled to legislate future energy policy. [only a 3D/4D-model can find differences at different latitudes.]

3 more Tests

• T3: Expect an increase in water vapour
• T4: Especially over the tropics at altitudes from 10km to 15km⁽¹⁾
• T5: Also expect to find a clear hotspot (at least: +1K) over the tropics at altitudes from 10km to 15km.
• T6: Expect increased atmospheric water vapour to warm the surface.

2 + 4 = 6

So we have at least 6 tests. If we look at the atmosphere over the last 70 years from the start of Radiosondes we can falsify the AM_GHGE even if it fails but ONE test. That's because the AM_GHGE claims to be a simulation of how the greenhouse gas effect warms earth. A simulation which is broke at step 2 cannot be giving right answers at later steps.

Validation: How does the Greenhouse gas effect test?:

• T1: I think there's been no change in the opacity of the atmosphere to infrared. But alarmists will give you an argument which says opacity increased. Figures 1, 2

  
  

  Why no increase in opacity?

  Increasing opacity shows the atmosphere absorbs yet more infrared at those wavelengths CO₂ absorbs at. But IR atmospheric absorption is already saturated, so opacity cannot increase.

  "In radiation physics the term “saturation” is nothing like the simple thing we call saturation in ordinary language, just as the greenhouse effect is nothing like how greenhouses work. Your paper towel is saturated when it won’t pick up any more spilled milk. In contrast greenhouse gases are saturated when there is no more milk left to pick up, as it were, but it is far more complex than this simple analogy suggests."
  - Dr David Wojick

  But the atmosphere is basically as saturated as it can get - meaning there is no more IR at those wavelengths which it can absorb. As explained by Dr William Happer:

  “For the most abundant greenhouse gases, H₂O and CO₂, the saturation effects are extreme, with per-molecule forcing powers suppressed by four orders of magnitude at standard concentrations...”
  Dr William Happer

  We'll only consider CO₂, because alarmists call it the forcing gas; whereas they say water vapour H₂O is not forcing because the average atmospheric lifetime of water vapour is 8 days. In contrast they claim CO₂ has an atmospheric lifetime of 100 years, or more. Alarmists are, of course, wrong on this too. The average atmospheric lifetime of CO₂ (look on it as the ½-life) is about 8 years. What Happer means above by per-molecule forcing powers suppressed by four orders of magnitude is that a CO₂ molecule added to the atmosphere at 400ppm CO₂ is only 0.01% as effective as the first molecule (added at 0ppm). People often talk about a logarithmic falloff in absorption. But that was measured at 280ppm. Now, at 400ppm, the falloff is far worse.

  Alarmist critics tell us that the CO₂ absorption spike has 'wings' which can absorb more infrared radiation on either side of the 15µm peak. They say wings negate the effect of saturation. But the standard atmospheric model does not use such concepts. Wings are limited in IR frequency, absorption amount, circumstances (different depending on collision frequency of CO2 molecules), ... They cannot be treated as increasing opacity - because measured opacity does not increase in the 'field' (the atmosphere) with more CO₂. There are a number of theoretical models (equations) used to calculate absorbance by CO₂ at the wings. For CO₂, around 15µm, empirical observatation of wing absorbance is far less than equations predict.

  For example, when the Voigt 'model' for wings is used the hypothetical absorption is much greater than observed. Note the y-axis is logarithmic, so the exaggeration can be up to 100 times! with a bad model. Modellers assume CO2 absorption is NOT saturated. This may be because they prefer theoretical wing absorption to real measurements.

  
  
• T2: GHGE fails. Since we measured OLR - outgoing longwave radiation (infrared), from 1985 (and before) it rose. Satellites show OLR depends of surface warming. The warming of 1980s and 1990s caused more emission to space (due to the Stefan–Boltzmann Law). Figure 5:
  

  This is something the climate models get totally wrong. Global warming, in the model, is entirely premised on OLR falling. That is literally the mechanism of man-made warming. We see OLR has been generally rising. The fall in 1991 through to 1994, is due to Mount Pinatubo eurpting ash into the stratosphere which cooled earth's climate for 3 years. It was the 2^nd largest volcanic eruption of the 20^th century.

  The very mechanism by which warming is supposed to happen has been going in the wrong direction to what the theorists say. We know that OLR is actually dependent on surface temperature. We can see that by looking at the strong correlation between Pacific ocean cycle and OLR above the Pacific. Figure 6:

  

  Over the Pacific, OLR is in an almost one-to-one correspondence with the SOI - Southern Oscillation Index.

  It's clearly a case of modellers losing their minds in speculation - getting physics back-to-front. This is what happens when modellers work in isolation from empirical reality: in that case they will always mis-describe reality.

• T3: We can get specific humidity data from NOAA (Chart below: available at climate4you.com) Figure 7, 8
  
  
• T4: We can get this from NOAA. They will plot it (but without smoothing). Select 300mb from 30N to 30S. Figure 9
  

  Over time, global relative humidity should be rising, according to the models, and the models should not show warming unless humidity rises! Both charts (above) show humidity falling in the real world. The very opposite of what models predict.

  

  "Clearly this means that the relative humidity has decreased with the increase in temperature"

• T5: No hotspot. Papers have been written claiming a hotspot, but they tortured the data to get it. Even the tortured "homogenized" data does not show the degree of hotspot needed to validate the greenhouse gas effect. One cannot see the clear prediction of a hotspot (over +1C) at all in the raw Radiosonde data.

  

  Climate scientists admit the hotspot should be there but isn't.

  “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

  - Dr Steven Japar

  
  

  “... the vertical trend profiles in the tropics did not show the enhanced upper tropospheric amplification as predicted by climate models
  
  ... Temperature trends from raw radiosonde data are also inconsistent with climate models, which project an upper troposphere warming maximum, especially in the tropics”

  - Haimberger, Tavolato, Sperka. J. Climate(2012) 25(23): 8108-8131

• T6: The greenhouse gas effect, GHGE, says: atmospheric water vapour, WV, is a greenhouse gas; so more WV warms the surface. In fact the opposite happens. More water vapor in the atmosphere is associated with a fall in surface temperatures. Not a rise as GHGE predicts.

  In the GHGE, increasing atmospheric humidity puts more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. This should lead to a surface temperature rise. Evidence, available from India and China, following large scale irrigation, shows the opposite of a GHGE.

  1. The Indo-Ganges plain cooled 0.8C during 1979–2018 while experiencing increased irrigation which led to a 2% increase in relative humidity. See: Ambika and Mishra 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 124060

     Compound extremes of soil moisture (SM) drought and high vapor pressure deficit (atmospheric aridity) are disastrous for natural and social systems. Despite a significant expansion in irrigated area in India, the role of irrigation on SM and atmospheric aridity is not examined. We used observations, reanalysis datasets, and high-resolution simulations from the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model to show that irrigation significantly modulates SM and atmospheric aridity in India. The Indo-Gangetic Plain, which is one of the most intensively irrigated regions in the world, experienced significant (P-value = 0.03) cooling (~0.8 °C) and an increase in solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence during the crop growing season (November–February). Atmospheric aridity has significantly (P-value = 0.0002) declined (−1.38 kPa) while SM (1.6 m³ m⁻³) and relative humidity (RH) (2.0%) have increased over the Indo-Gangetic Plain during 1979–2018. We conducted high-resolution simulations using the WRF model to examine the role of irrigation on atmospheric aridity. Irrigation strongly modulates SM drought and atmospheric aridity by increasing latent heat and RH and reducing sensible heat. Our findings have implications as irrigation can influence compound extremes of SM drought and atmospheric aridity. Climate models need to incorporate the influence of irrigation for reliable projections in the intensively irrigated regions.

  2. After arid areas of China were intensely irrigated maximum daytime temperature fell by over 6 °C.

     "The results show that irrigation cools daytime LST by 1.15 K, and cools nighttime LST by 0.13 K, on average, across irrigated areas in China." ... "In the arid climate zone, nearly all the irrigated areas show a lower daytime LST than the adjacent non-irrigated areas, leading to a strong ICE magnitude of greater than 6 K in the growing season. In the humid climate zone, the impact of irrigation on LST is generally negligible, with a magnitude around zero throughout the year."

     ICE = irrigation cooling effect
     LST = land surface temperature
     
     See: Qiquan Yang / Xin Huang / Qiuhong Tang; 2019; 'Irrigation cooling effect on land surface temperature across China based on satellite observations'
     Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135984
     Pdf: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337836655

---

Here's an interesting comment: Herbert October 20, 2020 at 10:11 pm

Mark,
You are right but that does not stop alarmist scientists from trotting out Harries et al 2001, “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the earth in 1970 and 1997”, as an iconic paper and alleged evidence that LESS OLR has been shown to be emitted to space.
That paper was cited by Dr. Myles Allen in the famous tutorial to Judge Alsup in the Cal.v BP litigation. It was again cited by the Australian CSIRO in response to Senator Malcolm Roberts’ demand for a paper showing CO₂ is causing dangerous warming of the planet (WUWT passim).

Conclusion

Anthropogenic global warming and man-made climate change are almost entirely evidenced by model projections. Self-styled climate modellers often ignore real world data in favour of modelled data. Real world data too often contradicts model projections. When their models are shown to be in error, the authors ignore the error and continue on their way. The scientific papers of 'scientists' promoting man-made climate change are full of group-think assumptions. Even when these scientists can be bothered to use actual experimental data they typically do one or both of two things with it.

• Modify the data so that it agrees with climate model projections.
• Attribute causality to reality using models. This effectively legitimises climate modeling.

Unless they can do one of the above, they will not publish any work. Climate modellers are fake scientists who desire to fit reality to their models. Their research consists of nothing but this.

The idea, of AGW, itself is political in origin, and is basically a pretext for ending and/or greatly restricting fossil fuel use.

Citations

1. Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald, 1967, Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity, Hansen et al. 2011 Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421-13449, doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011
2. Hansen, J.; D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind and G. Russell, 1981, ‘Climate impact of increasing carbon dioxide’. Science 213 957-956 (1981)
3. Isaac Held & Brian Soden, 2000, Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 2000. 25:441–75
4. Raymond Pierrehumbert, 2010, Principles of Planetary Climate, Cambridge; New York: CUP
5. Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuckmann, 2011: Earth's energy imbalance and implications. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421-13449, doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011.

Appendix:

1. Experimental Debunk of Climate Science, by Geraint Hughes

Notes:

1. The maximum altitude varies depending on latitude. At the tropics it can reach 15km, but at the poles, may only be about 10km

Why the 'logic' of critical race theory is nonsense

Critical Race Theory, CRT is a variant of Critical Social Justice Theory. I'm not looking at what it says but at where it derives its 'logic' from. CRT derives its logic from postmodernism, pomo, in a few fundamental ways.

Diversity. This is the reason CRT and other CSJT derive from pomo. Pomo more than any other ideology, or philosophy, tries to celebrate différance, subversion, and hidden voices.
Epistemology. The characteristic of pomo epistemology is that it has no theory of truth. There is no truth in pomo. Everything is another story or narrative. Everything is a perspective, and all perspectives should be 'celebrated'.
Critique. More on this later.

These two elements of pomo: celebration of subversion (Diversity), and its relativist theory of knowledge (Epistemology) make it an ideal foundation for CRT. Because the combo make it easy for one to make it up. To say whatever one wants to and claim it's valid, scholarly and important. The worst anyone can do to one's ideas is deconstruct them!

But there's a 3rd important element from pomo which CRT elides: critique, or rather its absence. Pomo does not do critique it does 'deconstruction'. A critique examines something from the standpoint of an ideal or, at least, an improvement to be made. Call them standards or values even, against which one can judge. But generally enlightenment values which were universal. Back in the late 1960s and 1970s when pomo began it wanted to distance itself from all things it saw as Enlightenment. Especially: Marxism, and 'Critical Theory'. Universal values were soon thown out, in favour of particularism. Pomo decontructs critique to find only a ghost motivated by a totalizing perpective and control freak mentality. Pomo sees critique as dated, oppressive, totalising, and inevitably wrong. Inevitably: because a critique is just another perspective or story, biased at that. Better to let a thousand voices sing so that a multiplicity of perspectives can be brought to bear on an issue.

Critique is totally alien to pomo. CRT had to forget this essential element of pomo when stripping the corpse to steal the clothes. The replacement of critique by deconstruction partly explains why pomo took off with liberals. Safe for the establishment. How can an ideology which disdains critique as totalising, and wrong, be harmful to the establishment?

Yet, the reader is no doubt aware that CRT, is called critical race theory, not deconstructive race theory. 'Critical' gives it an edge, weight, and importance among academics. Gives it its sense of importance, even a frisson; which 50 years ago deconstruction claimed for itself!

Finally, those of you ignorant of philosophy are asking what's wrong with a pick-n-mix approach? CRT takes what it wants from pomo: relativism and celebration of hidden voices. To this they add critique. No. You cannot do that. For a start: a critique based on a relativist theory of truth isn't a critique. Add to that: the trivializing and relativising of critique is fundamental to pomo. It's essense. More or less it's raison d'être. If you want to steal pomo's clothes you must take the underwear too. You cannot just take the sparkly, designer, outer garments.

Analysis Finds Solar Activity Controls Climate Change (reblog)

Reblog: Electroverse. To keep a copy of main electroverse graphics.

---

Analysis Finds Solar Activity Controls Climate Change

September 17, 2020September 17, 2020 Cap Allon