Empirical Evidence Refutes Greenhouse Gas Theory

Written by Denis Ables

Real-world evidence - PMLiVE

The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming invariably, (and ironically) DENY that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, 1,000 years ago) was global and also likely warmer than it is now.

These alarmists acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. (They had no choice – climate in that region is too well documented!) They apparently take this unjustifiable position because their computer models cannot explain a global, warmer MWP.

Their computer models require an increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) level, plus depend even more egregiously on yet another ASSUMPTION that water vapor feedback is the actual culprit, causing 2 to 3 times the temperature increase brought on by the increase in CO2. However, CO2 did not begin increasing until about the mid 1800s.

08 | January | 2013

[The MWP graph above featured in an early UN IPCC report]

The global temperature increase during the MWP could not have been influenced by CO2 because there was no increase in CO2, not during the MWP, nor for thousands of years before the MWP. The danger for alarmists is that it then becomes plausible that our current warming (such as it is) might instead also be due to NATURAL climate variation. That, of course, conflicts with Mann’s hockey stick graph as well as with the other usual suspects, all of whom claim that our current warming is mostly due to increased CO2 level brought on by human activity.

However, it’s easy to show that the MWP was both global and at least as warm as now. While that proves nothing about the cause of our current warming (such as it is) it speaks loudly about the credibility of the folks who DENY that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now.

A brief meta-analysis, in effect a global study, follows, which makes use of numerous peer-reviewed studies, as well as other easily accessible data. The analysis demonstrates that the MWP was global and at least as warm as it is now.

First, the MWP trend is conclusively shown to be global by borehole temperature data. No controversial models needed, the data speaks for itself. The 6,000 boreholes scattered around the globe are not constrained to locations where ice core data has been used. A good discussion of the borehole data can be found at Joanne Nova’s website.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/the-message-from-boreholes/

Next, the receding Mendenhall glacier (Alaska, pictured) recently exposed a 1,000-year-old shattered forest, still in its original position. No trees (let alone a forest) have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since the MWP. It was obviously significantly warmer at that latitude anywhere near that site. Alaska is quite distant from Europe.

Finally, there have been hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies around the globe, with investigation results showing each site to have been warmer during the MWP than at the time of the study, and that result was reflected in earlier IPCC reports.

Since then confirming research continues to show up regularly, although apparently also ignored by the usual suspects. The MWP studies were carried out around the globe by investigators and involved organizations representing numerous countries.

It’s curious that Michael Mann (pictured) and his cohort did not give more consideration to the existing studies at that time before presenting their conflicting “hockey stick” claim, particularly given the controversial process employed in Mann’s “analysis”. One of the well-known alarmists, Phil Jones, admitted publicly that if the MWP was global and as warm as now then it’s a “different ballgame”. (But apparently neither Jones nor Mann, nor other alarmists, have bothered to review that data.) Peer-reviewed MWP studies continue to regularly show up, confirming the earlier studies, that the MWP was at least as warm as now.GeoScienze: Michael Mann response to Climategate

The numerous MWP studies have been cataloged by the co2science.org website. Dr. Idso, the proprietor of that website, is a known skeptic. However, the peer-reviewed studies were independently performed by numerous researchers who not only represented many different countries but also used a variety of temperature proxy techniques. Dr. Idso is merely operating as a librarian.

One such example, the Greenland MWP Temperature (gisp2) study (which can be googled) shows, among other things, that Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it was at the time of that relative recently study. Note also that Greenland is distant from both Europe and Alaska. Another separate link to that study follows:

https://junkscience.com/2018/06/study-ancient-greenland-was-much-warmer-than-previously-thought/

Interested readers who are skeptics should be able to satisfy themselves by going to co2science.org and choosing (say) a half-dozen regions (all should be remote from each other and from Alaska, Greenland, and Europe). Focus on the subset of the MWP studies which directly address temperature. Choose at least one temperature study from each selected region. (Idso provides brief summaries but you can also review the original study.) You will find that each of the selected study sites was found to be warmer during the MWP than at the time of the study. Furthermore, these study results are consistent with the temperature trend exhibited by the borehole data. Conversely the peer-reviewed studies, in aggregate, confirm the global borehole data trend.

There are also other confirming observations which include such things as antique vineyards found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today, old burial sites found below the perma-frost, and apparently Viking maps of most of Greenland’s coastline. The link below is to a separate recent report, which references various studies, showing that South America also experienced the MWP.

https://www.c3headlines.com/2019/04/latest-peerreviewed-research-canadian-north-experienced-warmer-temperature-periods-than-modern-era.html

http://notrickszone.com/2018/11/03/new-study-medieval-warm-period-not-limited-to-north-atlantic-but-occurred-in-south-america-as-well/

The meta-study presented here is an aggregate of straightforward peer-reviewed studies, any of which can be replicated and the research results do NOT require the use of controversial “models”, nor dubious statistical machinations.

One of the “talking points” posed by alarmists attempting to “rebut” the global, warmer MWP is their claim that warming in all regions during the MWP must be synchronous. Obviously the MWP studies were generally performed independently, so the start and end dates covered by each MWP study will likely vary.

However, anyone foolish enough to accept that “synchronous” argument must be prepared to admit that our current warming would also not qualify as a global event. For example, many alarmists make reference to the 1800s when talking about the total global warming temperature increase. However, that span ignores a three decade GLOBAL cooling period from 1945 to 1975. In fact, that globally non-synchronous period is much more significant than just a region or two showing little or no temperature increase.

There are also other good reasons to exclude consideration of temperature increases during the 1800s. There was a significant NATURAL warming beginning around 1630 (the first low temperature experienced during the Little Ice Age), according to Dr. David Evans, (Joanne Nova website) and that period of naturally increasing temperatures continued up to (and beyond) 1850, The Little Ice Age | MalagaBayat which time CO2 began increasing. But it would have taken many subsequent decades, possibly more than a century, for CO2 increase after 1850, at an average 2 ppmv per year, to accrue sufficiently before having any impact on temperature measurements. Neither is there any reason to expect that the two centuries of natural and significant warming beginning in 1630 ended abruptly, after 2 centuries, merely because CO2 level (a trace gas) began increasing in 1850 at a miniscule 2ppmv per year. Also, how much, and for how long was the temperature increase after 1850 due mostly to the continuing natural climate warming beginning in 1630?

In regard to the “synchronous” argument, any current considerations about global warming must be constrained to a starting point AFTER the 1945-1975 cooling. The global temperature began steadily increasing in 1975 and that increase basically terminated during the 1997/98 el Nino. Even the IPCC (a bureaucracy which cannot justify its mission if our current warming is NATURAL) has acknowledged a GLOBAL “hiatus” in temperature increase after 2000. This admission conflicts with the well-known fact that CO2 level has steadily increased since around 1850. Where did that missing heat go?

So, our current “global warming” controversy involves basically two decades, (1975 to 1998) and that warming has been followed, by almost another two decades of no further statistically significant increase in temperature. But wait … ! It turns out that even the period from 1975 to 1998 apparently does not qualify as a global warming period because there were numerous “out of synch” regions and/or countries which experienced no additional warming over durations which are included in the 1975-1998 span.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/18/greenland-antarctica-and-dozens-of-areas-worldwide-have-not-seen-any-warming-in-60-years-and-more/#sthash.5Hq7Xqdh.JsV4juVL.dpbs

https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/hiatus-in-global-warming/

Another alarmist attempt at rebuttal is that the MWP studies cataloged by co2science.org have been cherry-picked. (Dozens of independently peer-reviewed studies spanning several decades, all cherry-picked? And what about the confirming borehole data? And the other supporting data? Readers can satisfy themselves by searching for credible peer-reviewed MWP temperature studies which support alarmist claims and supposedly were not cataloged by Idso at co2science.org.

But, keep in mind that a few stray conflicting studies will not likely be sufficient to rebut the global, warmer MWP because, as the previous link demonstrates, there are a number of regions during 1975-1998 which show no increasing warming.

There is another question regarding the assumptions used in the alarmist computer models. The greenhouse gas theory, if applied to the open atmosphere, carries with it a critical caveat: for the GHG theory to “hold water” there must also be an accompanying warmer region about 10km above the tropics.

Despite decades of radiosondes that “hot spot” has never been found, and this is not a matter of missing data. The radiosonde temperature data covers various altitudes, both above and below 10km.

Another Attempt To Find The Tropical Hotspot! | NOT A LOT ...

Occasionally some proponent of anthropogenic catastrophic warming claims to have found that required and missing “hot spot”. (Alarmists apparently do not otherwise bring up that subject.) But the folks making such a claim stretch their credibility beyond the breaking point by (1) ignoring the existing radiosonde data, and (2) replacing that ignored/denied data with nothing more than speculation about the missing hot spot.

There is yet another issue. The alarmist computer modelers insist on including the water vapor feedback assumption when the applicability of GHG theory to the open atmosphere is itself in question (no “hot spot” detected, also satellites detect heat escaping to space).

Without water vapor feedback, even if one assumes that CO2 is still capable of influencing warming, the potential warming threat is greatly diminished. (But beware: CO2 supposed capability to warm the planet diminishes quickly as its level increases.)

Ironically, the alarmist egregious claims are currently also rebutted by their own computer models, namely the widening difference between computer model projected global temperature and the subsequent actual recorded global temperature. Recently NOAA has also admitted that a significant number of surface station temperature recordings have been influenced more by the urban heat island (UHI) effect than acknowledged. If/when corrected this will exacerbate the already widening discrepancy.


The above was originally posted on PSI as a comment by Denis Ables to the article we posted, ‘On The Flat Earth Rants Of Joe Postma’ (June 4, 2019) by Roy Spencer PhD.


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

 

Comments (21)

  • Avatar

    William Walter Kay

    |

    Good article. I’ve been following the MWP debate for decades. MWP alone undermines the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis. The Alaskan crushed forest data was news to me and is helpful in countering alarmist efforts to quarantine MWP as a North Atlantic anomaly.

    The article is, however, mis-titled. The empirical evidence provided doesn’t refute what is unfortunately mis-named the “greenhouse gas theory”; rather the article refutes CAGW. This website, PSI, which should be a daily stop for pensatores, has for too long hitched itself to efforts at debunking “greenhouse gas theory” per se. As such PSI has undermined its credibility and that of the climate sceptical community. Time for PSI to move on.

    • Avatar

      Al Shelton

      |

      Mr. Kay..
      Please answer this question…
      GHG Theory [actually a hypothesis] says that a doubling of CO2 will cause an increase of global temperature of about 2C Degrees.
      So if CO2 level rise from 400ppm to 800 ppm the increase is 400ppm.
      Now, 400ppm is 1 in 2500. ie: 1 molecule of CO2 in 2500 molecules of air.
      Here is my question: How can 1 molecule of CO2 “trap” enough “heat” to raise the temperature of the other 2499 molecules of Nitrogen[N2} and Oxygen{o2] about 2 C degrees?

      • Avatar

        William Walter Kay

        |

        Scroll down and you will see I have answered your question. Spoiler alert: CO2, as you have intimated, does NOT have the potential for dramatic warming as the alarmists allege. CO2 is a heat-trapping gas but not that potent.

        The Postma fog-machine, on the other hand,, seems to be of the view that the entire atmosphere lacks any heat-trapping potential.

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          .
          The tremendous thermal elasticity that H2O brings to our planet is currently not understood or appreciated and this is a direct consequence of an error by Linus Pauling. This error dictates the conclusion that H2O polarity is constant when in actuality it is highly variable.

          And so, the “Postma fog-machine.” is part of a much larger prejudice of academia toward water. The mythology of water is that it is simple and well understood. The reality is that it is collectively very complex and blatantly misunderstood by science.

          Pauling’s error was to attribute the cause of H2O’s polarity to the geometric relationship of its atoms. It is not the geometric structure that dictates H2O’s dipole, it is the electrical gradient that is associated with the molecule’s structure that is causal. And this distinction is important because geometric structure can’t be counteracted or neutralized. In sharp contrast, electrical gradients can be counteracted or neutralized.

          Pauling made an error–and everybody followed.

          It is well understood that the force that holds H2O molecules together, allowing it to be a liquid at ambient temperatures and not a gas, is the polarity of the H2O molecules as dictated by the geometric arrangement of its atoms, one oxygen and two hydrogen. One might then observe that this geometric arrangement of each and every H2O molecule never changes in the context of hydrogen bonding. From this one might then conclude that, therefore, the force of H2O polarity is a constant force. A force that never changes regardless of situational factors. Simple enough, right?

          Well, guess what? If you agree with what is stated in the above paragraph you have made the same conceptual error that Linus Pauling made way back in the 1940s:

          I suggest you watch this video carefully and then read the discussion that ensues in the comments with two different chemists, Professor Dave and Robin Bedford:

          Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding in Water?
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNuWJDJvRw

          James McGinn / Self Declared Genius / Solving Tornadoes

  • Avatar

    Tom Harding

    |

    Why is it that the oceans are known to be a massive ‘sink’ of CO2 yet scant attention
    is given to the release of CO2 when the conditions allow that to occur.
    Our climate is a self regulating system and any increases in CO2 occur as part
    of that feedback mechanism.

  • Avatar

    Carl

    |

    Remember that the metric that the “greenhouse gas theory” uses to assert that “greenhouse gases” cause a “greenhouse effect” that in turn causes “global warming” is the average yearly surface level air temperature. By its own definition water vapor cannot be a “greenhouse gas” because everywhere you look along the same latitude, when compensated for altitude, the more humid climate system will be the one with the lower average yearly surface level air temperature.

    Phoenix, Az vs. Dallas, Texas
    Las Vegas, Nevada vs. Knoxville, Tenn
    Death Valley, California vs. Huntsville, Alabama
    Riyadh, Saudi Arabia vs. Borga, Bangladesh
    Alice Springs, Australia vs. Emerald Australia

    Since water vapor, along with the entire water cycle, does not cause local or even regional warming, it simply cannot be causing “global warming” if you believe that empirical evidence has any relevance in science.

    Nearly six years ago this article was posted to PSI: https://principia-scientific.org/southwest-u-s-heatwave-cancelled-reason-too-much-water-vapor/ The concluding section of that article observes that “. . . when nature adds a significant amount of water vapor to an arid climate, which is what nature has done over the past two weeks [late June 2013] in the Arizona and New Mexico, the temperature is seen to drop significantly. If water vapor were actually a ‘greenhouse gas’ then adding a significant amount of it to an arid climate would make the daily mean temperatures soar instead of drop and removing water vapor from a climate system (which is what nature did in early June of this year in the Southwest) would make temperatures drop instead of soar. Unfortunately for the ‘greenhouse effect’ hypothesis the opposite is seen to happen, which is why heat waves tend to occur only during droughts—periods when the concentration of the atmosphere’s ‘most powerful greenhouse gas’ is at a low point.”

    From a scientific point of view it is no mystery why the Earth’s water cycle, of which water vapor, i.e., humidity, is a part, is a lower atmospheric coolant.

    1) The ground is cooled when water is evaporated into water vapor. (Who hasn’t felt the cooling power of evaporation?)
    2) Water vapor increases the emissivity of the air which a) enhances the ability of heat to move up the atmospheric column via IR radiation and then b) enhances the ability of air to cool via IR radiation out into space
    3) When water vapor condenses into clouds it shades the ground, which can reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the ground as much as 80% and much of that lost solar energy is simply reflected back out into space before it has a chance to warm anything. (Who hasn’t felt the cooling power of cloud cover on a summer’s day?)
    4) When that cloud cover then produces precipitation, invariably that precipitation is cooler than the ground temperature, which cools the ground even further. (Who hasn’t felt the cooling power rain on a summer’s day?)

    To believe that water vapor is a “powerful greenhouse gas” that causes global warming one has to ignore the empirical evidence that contradicts that belief.

    Of course, within the realm of science-fiction anything is possible because the imagination of man is not bound by the laws of physics and within the realm of science-fiction empirical evidence is irrelevant. We also see people who simply argue from authority. “The IPCC said that water vapor is a ‘greenhouse gas’ it therefore must be true.” Or more broadly, “97% of all scientists say that water vapor is a ‘greenhouse gas’ it must therefore be true.”

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Carl,

      Glad to read your comments again, It seems like it have been awhile.

      The Willamette Valley and Portland OR does have the arid climate to which you refer. And everything is green and I have noticed that much, if any, irrigation has begun. But record highs of 95F are predicted for later in the week. And near the beginning of May we had a run of near cloudless skies, not a common part of our climate during May. So, it is amazing what can happen the incident solar radiation is not greatly hindered from reaching the earth’s surface.

      Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Carl,
      James Mcginn has written articles for PSI showing that water does not exist as a vapor in the troposphere but as nano droplets of liquid water. The strong hydrogen bonds between liquid water molecules prevent water from producing water-gas below the boiling point of water. While it takes 100 calories to raise the temperature of water from 0 C to 100 C it requires an additional 540 calories to convert that 100 C water into !00 C steam. This represents to large of a divergence from the mean temperature for it to occur.
      The hydrogen bonds in liquid water convert the entirety of the water into one molecule. As heat is absorbed by the water hydrogen bonds are broken causing the water to form into a collection of smaller droplets. Evaporation is where one of these smaller droplets breaks free from the larger body of water removing heat from it. The water is not a vapor but a nano droplet of liquid water. This explains the large capacity of water in the troposphere to absorb and store heat.
      If the water in the troposphere were a gas it would obey the universal gas law and like the other gases in the atmosphere any added energy would result inn increase in volume. Water in the atmosphere does not follow the universal gas law showing it is not a gas but a liquid. This is what causes water to moderate the atmosphere’s temperature eliminating the large swing in temperature between night and day seen in a dessert.
      A 100 C oven and a pot of boiling water have the same temperature. This means the amount of kinetic energy transferred to the two thermometers are the same. Because there are more molecules in the water transferring energy to the thermometer the kinetic energy of those molecules must be less than the kinetic energy of the molecules in the oven. The boiling water can cook food faster than the oven, even though the molecules have less kinetic energy, because there are more of them transferring heat to the food. In the atmosphere, where the gases and water droplets have the same temperature, the higher kinetic energy of the gas molecules will transfer energy to the water droplets breaking hydrogen bonds and storing energy. When the kinetic energy of the gases becomes less than the kinetic energy of the water molecules in the water droplets new hydrogen bonds will form and the water will transfer energy to the gases. This is how water moderates the temperature of the atmosphere as water droplets not as water vapor.
      You are correct wen you say water in the troposphere is not a greenhouse gas because it is not a gas but a liquid. Above the troposphere, where the kinetic energy of gases is greater than the boiling point of water, the water vapor follows the universal gas law behaving like any other gas.
      Herb

      • Avatar

        Carl

        |

        With all due respect to you and Mr. McGinn I am going to continue calling water vapor “water vapor” since the “states” of matter are defined by the physical behavior of that matter and nothing more.

        As defined in physics:

        1) “Gas particles have a great deal of space between them.” Whether the gas “particles” that we call “humidity” are single H2O molecules or “nano droplets of liquid water” as you assert, when mixed with the air there is as much space between them as there is between other “gas particles” in the air.

        2) “If unconfined, the particles of a gas will spread out indefinitely.” The nature of a gas is that it does not have a set volume. Whether the gas “particles” that we call “humidity” are single H2O molecules or “nano droplets of liquid water” as you assert, when mixed with the air the space between them increases or decreases along with the air itself because they are not attached one to the other as they were while in liquid form prior to evaporation.

        3) “If confined, the gas will expand to fill its container.” When air is confined to a container the gas “particles” that we call “humidity” will, like all other gases, will be diffused equally throughout that air.

        4) “When a gas is put under pressure by reducing the volume of the container, the space between particles is reduced.” When air is compressed the gas “particles” that we call “humidity”, whether they are single H2O molecules or “nano droplets of liquid water” as you assert, will be pushed closer together along with all of the other gas particles within the air. The opposite occurs when the container within which the air is contained increases in volume.

        You know what they say: “When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.” When the gas “particles” that we call “humidity”, whether they are single H2O molecules or “nano droplets of liquid water” as you assert, mix with the air they behave like a gas—they therefore are a “gas”.

        Humidity = water vapor that is produced through evaporation
        Steam = water vapor that is produced through boiling water
        Water droplets suspended in the air = clouds, mist, haze, fog

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          With all due respect to you and Mr. McGinn I am going to continue calling water vapor “water vapor” since the “states” of matter are defined by the physical behavior of that matter and nothing more.

          JMcG:
          Meaningless circular reasoning.

          As defined in physics:
          1) “Gas particles have a great deal of space between them.” Whether the gas “particles” that we call “humidity” are single H2O molecules or “nano droplets of liquid water” as you assert, when mixed with the air there is as much space between them as there is between other “gas particles” in the air.

          JMcG:
          Physics doesn’t define anything. Humans define things,

          JMcG:
          Obviously there is little space between the H2O molecules in the droplets. Right?

          2) “If unconfined, the particles of a gas will spread out indefinitely.”

          JMcG:
          Irrelevant. Water is not gaseous at ambient temps. So what is the point in your explanation?

          The nature of a gas is that it does not have a set volume. Whether the gas “particles” that we call “humidity” are single H2O molecules or “nano droplets of liquid water” as you assert, when mixed with the air the space between them increases or decreases along with the air itself because they are not attached one to the other as they were while in liquid form prior to evaporation.

          JMcG:
          Stop being obtuse. Obviously if they are liquid they are attached to each other. Right?

          3) “If confined, the gas will expand to fill its container.” When air is confined to a container the gas “particles” that we call “humidity” will, like all other gases, will be diffused equally throughout that air.

          4) “When a gas is put under pressure by reducing the volume of the container, the space between particles is reduced.” When air is compressed the gas “particles” that we call “humidity”, whether they are single H2O molecules or “nano droplets of liquid water” as you assert, will be pushed closer together along with all of the other gas particles within the air. The opposite occurs when the container within which the air is contained increases in volume.

          You know what they say: “When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.” When the gas “particles” that we call “humidity”, whether they are single H2O molecules or “nano droplets of liquid water” as you assert, mix with the air they behave like a gas—they therefore are a “gas”.

          JMcG:
          This is how a child reasons. Grow the F up.

          Humidity = water vapor that is produced through evaporation
          Steam = water vapor that is produced through boiling water
          Water droplets suspended in the air = clouds, mist, haze, fog

          JMcG:
          Simple and wrong.

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          Hi James,

          You wrote: “1) “Gas particles have a great deal of space between them.”)

          This statements depends upon how you define a great deal of space. 18ml of water contains 6.02 X10^23 wate molecules and 22.4 liters of water vapor (water molecules) at 1atm pressure and 25C contains 6.02x 10^23 water molecules. Now if you divide 22.4l by 6.023 X 10^23 you will find that a water molecule as gas occupies what most chemists would not consider “a great deal of space.”

          Yes, I know gaseous water would not exist at 1 atm pressure and 25C. It would have condensed when its pressure at 25C was the vapor pressure (0.03atm) of water at that temperature and external pressure of the nitrogen and oxygen molecules was 1atm.

          Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Carl,
          There is a difference between water vapor and nano droplets in how they behave. Steam will behave according to the universal gas law while liquids will not. Once water is converted to steam additional heat will increase the pressure producing “hotter steam”. This is not true of liquid water where the temperature will remain constant until enough energy is added to convert it into steam. This is why water moderates the temperature of the atmosphere.
          The atmosphere is full of minute dust particles (solids) that will follow all your guidelines for a gas. Does that mean those particles are also a gas?
          Herb

    • Avatar

      William Walter Kay

      |

      While water vapour is a “greenhouse gas” thick layers of water vapour (clouds) block solar heat input. This can produce a net cooling despite water vapour’s capacity to hold and release heat.

      I’ve been a militant “CAGW” sceptic for 30 years. I believe Earth’s surface absorbs and emits solar warmth. Earth’s atmosphere does likewise. CO2 has heat trapping properties beyond those of O2 or N2 HOWEVER I am unconvinced that adding a few hundred parts per million of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause perceptible, let alone catastrophic, results. Given Earth’s past temperature record there is still no concrete evidence of appreciable human influence of global average temperatures. This is the topic of the above article. Focus men!

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi William,
        Clouds are not water vapor but water droplets and are visible because of the refraction of light by these droplets.Steam or water vapor is a gas and is invisible because there is no refraction. A boiling tea pot will have a transparent are above the vent which is water vapor. The white fog above the vent is from that steam condensing into water droplets.When you walk through a fog (cloud) or fly through a cloud it is apparent that is composed of liquid water. Why water exists as a liquid at an altitude of 10km when the temperature is -50 C is another discussion.
        Herb

        • Avatar

          William Walter Kay

          |

          Semantics Herbert; the gentleman’s point was that lack of correlation between high humidity and high temperature indicated H2O vapour lacked heat-trapping properties. High humidity areas are also areas of cloud formation (Amsterdam, Vancouver) which have a cooling affect. Thus his correlation cannot be used to deny H2O vapour is a heat-trapping gas. N’est pas?

  • Avatar

    James DeMeo

    |

    Thanks for the excellent summary. The historical geography about the prior MWP, as well as the Minoan and Roman warm periods before the MWP, and the LIA, have always stood as a powerful rebuttal against the warmist hysteria. I remember well that earlier graphic from the IPCC, and then how it vanished when the Mann hockey-stick fabrication burst upon the world. Junk science then ruled, our State Climatologist in Oregon was fired for not “getting with the program” as were many others. Climate science was formerly the domain of guys in rumpled suits, with offices in back rooms at universities, piled high with data print-outs and documents nobody would read for pleasure. Then came the big money, and a new breed of “scientist” came in, barking out political slogans and focused on getting the next big grant money. An authentic environmental science was taken over by Marxists, as were the leadership of the environmental groups — always a problem, but it got far worse. Under Obama, junk science with political agendas spread widely, to my chagrin, but few others saw what was happening, being happy about it. What will psychologists of the future have to say about our time? That science was overwhelmed by joyful insane scientism? Persecuting new “witches”… defined as anyone who dissents from mainstream opinion, throwing them out of institutions? It is the death of science, across multiple disciplines.

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    The first step in understanding climate change is to recognize the importance of the increase of water vapor. It cools faster and farther on dry, cloudless desert nights than it does on clear nights where it is humid. This well-known observation demonstrates that water vapor is IR active at earth temperatures (i.e. a ghg), that there is a GHE and that WV is at least a substantial contributor to it.

    Average global WV (TPW) has been accurately measured by satellite and reported publicly by NASA/RSS since 1988. The numerical data for April, 2019 is at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201904.time_series.txt (last six digits are year-month). This is graphed as Figure 3 in the blog/analysis at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . It has been long enough to establish a trend and a rational approximate extrapolation back to 1700. Comparison of the WV trend with the CO2 trend reveals that, at low altitude, the atmosphere has gained about 6 molecules of WV for each molecule of CO2.

    IMO the ‘hash’ at WV wavenumbers in graphs of TOA radiation flux vs wavenumber results from the decline in population of WV molecules from about 10,000 ppmv average at surface to 32 ppmv at top of troposphere (about -50 C). As the population of WV molecules thins out with increasing altitude, more of the emission from WV molecules makes it all the way to space. The ‘hash’ indicates the range of altitudes (temperatures) over which the emission originated. Anything that posits that increased WV has not at least substantially contributed to warming is wrong.

    Multiple compelling evidence demonstrates that CO2, in spite of being a ghg, has little if any effect on average global temperature. A likely explanation is that the comparatively small % increase in the number of absorbers at sea level (WV molecules, on average, outnumber CO2 molecules by about 24 to 1) is countered by the large % increase in emitters above the tropopause (where CO2 molecules outnumber WV molecules by about 13 to 1).

    Because WV increase is self-limiting, warming of the planet is self-limiting. The increased WV should substantially mitigate if not outright prevent a temperature decline resulting from the quiet sun.

    Combining the average global temperature increase from the added WV with a simple approximation of the influence of SST cycles and a solar influence quantified by a proxy which is the SSN anomaly results in a 98+% match with measured average global temperatures 1895-2018. As shown in the blog/analysis the WV increase accounts for about 70% of the average global temperature increase since 1909

    The EXCEL file so constructed is fairly easily modified to solve using data up to any year and projecting from that year. I modified the code to project from 2005 using only data up to 2005. The projected temperature in 2018 was within 0.056 K of the measured trend.

    • Avatar

      Dan Pangburn

      |

      Jerry,
      Thanks for pointing it out about dew/frost. I should add “… even when there is no dew or frost”

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Dan,

      If you scroll up to my comment to Carl, you will find that a record temperature is forecast for the Willamette Valley OR USA for tomorrow and the next day.

      I have a question for experienced meteorologists who are in the business of forecasting such ‘abnormal’ events: What are they basing their forecast upon? I am using simple radiometers, designed after Horace de Saussure’s hot box, to document the result of high altitude (higher than 7km cirrus which is clearly increasing in density this morning over that of yesterday’s morning. Automated weather stations cannot observe and report what the specific sky conditions (type of clouds and where) are influencing the soil temperatures (both surface and at depths) . I hope to observe the influence of these high cirrus upon temperatures of my radiometers. Read my essay (https://principia-scientific.org/record-temperature-result-of-cloud-revised-updated/).

      I oonsider that the meteorologists, who have predicted the expected record temperations, have, from satellite images, seen a large region of atmosphere with a high albedo moving across the Pacific (most likely) toward the Willamette Valley. Therefore, I consider these meteorologists know such high altitude cirrus produce abnormally high temperatures, if not record temperatures. Therefore, I consider that we (these forecasters and I) embrace the same hypothesis that dense high cirrus (which cannot totally ‘block’ the direct transmission of the solar radiation) produce abnormal high temperature so far below at the earth’s surface.

      Have a good day, Jerry

Comments are closed