“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, and more completely on pages 163–165 of the “gold standard” of climate textbooks, Raymond Pierrehumbert’s Principles of Planetary Climate  (recommended if you want to know establishment climate science). We get the parameter values from the IPCC’s latest assessment report from 2013, AR5 .
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 modelers (not me). Modelers 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.
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 modeled 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 opacty?
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 wavelenghts 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 modecules), ... 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 observataion 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. Modelers 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 erurpting ash into the stratosphere which cooled earth's climate for 3 years. It was the 2nd largest volcanic erruption of the 20th 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 modelers losing their minds in speculation - getting physics back-to-front. This is what happens when modelers 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- Haimberger, Tavolato, Sperka. J. Climate(2012) 25(23): 8108-8131
... Temperature trends from raw radiosonde data are also inconsistent with climate models, which project an upper troposphere warming maximum, especially in the tropics”
- 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 suface temperature rise. Evidence, available from India and China, following large scale irrigation, shows the opposite of a GHGE.
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.
When arid areas of China were intensely irrigated the 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'
Here's an interesting comment: Herbert October 20, 2020 at 10:11 pm
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).
Anthropogenic global warming and man-made climate change are almost entirely evidenced by model projections. Self-styled climate modelers often ignore real world data in favour of modeled 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. Clinmate modelers 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.
- 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
- 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)
- Isaac Held & Brian Soden, 2000, Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 2000. 25:441–75
- Raymond Pierrehumbert, 2010, Principles of Planetary Climate, Cambridge; New York: CUP
- 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.
- The maximum altitude varies depending on latitude. At the tropics it can reach 15km, but at the poles, may only be about 10km