Skip to content

AGW Evidence Reviewed

August 30, 2013

Let’s review the “evidence” of anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 emissions one at a time:

1. Sea level rise – satellite altimetry data can’t confirm any increase on a global basis. This is partly due to the limits of satellite measurement accuracy – any given measurement may be averaging in the peak or trough of a large scale wind or surface wave. Meanwhile, surface measurements at any given point are hopelessly confounded if they don’t factor in the effects of plate tectonic movements, plate boundary subduction zones, long term changes in earth’s two diameters (polar & equatorial), long term changes in the moon’s orbit (affecting tides), and changes in earth’s orbit (eccentricity – change in the elliptical path of the earth around the sun, precession – change in orientation of the axial tilt relative to the earth’s orbital plane, and wobble – change in axial tilt in degrees).

2. Arctic ice melt – at the same time, Antarctic ice mass has increased. CO2 warming should be global, if CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere, as is hypothesized. Recently, Arctic ice mass has been gaining – 2013 did not exceed the dramatic melt of 2012, which was weather pattern-related, not CO2-related.

3. Solar “constant” – satellite data now indicates solar cycle to solar cycle variations as great as +5W/m2. Solar cycles last for 9 to 13 years, so this represents an enormous amount of additional energy, applied very, very slowly. Whether it causes global warming or not, and at what rate, is entirely dependent on earth’s mean temperature at the time an increase occurs. As any physicist can explain, it takes more energy to warm an object further when it is already warm, and when warming an object, it will initially cool much more rapidly when the source of the warming is reduced, creating a characteristic saw-tooth pattern (as observed in ice core records of polar temperatures).

4. Total Fossil Fuels consumption causing atmospheric CO2 increase – mankind has consumed 350 GtC (gigatonnes carbon) from 1750 – 2000 = +35ppmv atmospheric CO2 (maximum) = +0.5W / m2 (forcing, from Hansen’s equation) = +0.15 C  direct climate change (1750 – 2000)

5. Feedback – GISS climate models use +3 feedback, which would result in an unstable climate system, which is contrary to all observations. The only thing unstable here is the good Dr. Hansen in thinking such feedback describes any natural climate process. The UAH’s Dr. Roy Spencer, and many others, have shown feedback is actually negative, which results in a long-term stable climate system – exactly as observed. There can be brief periods of warming and cooling within a long term stable system, but only when feedback is negative. This falsifies ALL current climate models, which cannot reproduce past warming without assuming positive feedback exists in earth’s climate system. One reason why climate models cannot reproduce past warming is because they treat solar radiation as a constant.

6. Global temperature – has not increased beyond the peak temperature reached in 1998 – with CO2 increasing steadily from 1958 to 2013, temperatures only increased over a single 10-year period (1988 – 1998). There was global cooling from 1958 to 1988, and there has been no additional warming from 1998 – 2013.

7. CO2 absorption spectra – one narrow peak not also covered by water vapor

8. CO2 greenhouse effect – less than 0.2% of total (99.8% is due to H2O)

9. Tropical “hot spot” predicted by all climate models – shown by satellites not to exist

10. Polar bear decline – counts of polar bears only show an increase in numbers (they are good swimmers, so don’t cry when you see one “stranded” on an iceberg)

11. Hurricanes – records show no increase in either numbers or strength; what has changed is the numbers of people who believe they can live in perfect safety at the ocean shoreline, or under sea level protected only by man-made dikes

12. Tornadoes – records show no increase in numbers or strength

13. Droughts – records show only an increase in average rainfall, no long term increase in droughts or flooding

14. Corals – records show corals thrive in shallow waters, failure of sea levels to rise significantly has resulted in a slowing of coral reef growth rates (this has nothing to do with any increase in CO2)

15. The long-term Global CO2 level was measured at ONE POINT on Earth’s surface; the point is 11,000 ft above sea level on the side of an active volcano (Mauna Loa). While the effort was reasonable and scientific, the scientific community still awaits the deployment of an orbiting carbon observatory (OCO 2), because the first one crashed into the ocean after launch. It will be at least 10 more years before we have truly reliable, scientific data for mean (global) atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

The 8th assertion above will be contested and/or “corrected” by most climate scientists and atmospheric physicists. However, I’ve not seen any valid refutation of the 0.2% statistic using only physics. 

The reason CO2 has such a tiny greenhouse effect is two-fold:
1) only 400 ppmv of CO2 vs 10,000 to 30,000 ppmv of H2O
2) only one narrow spectral peak where CO2 absorbs radiation well, and H2O does not

The first fact indicates there are 25X to 75X as many H2O molecules in the atmosphere for each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. Using 50X (i.e. 5000%) as the average ratio, then H2O would be expected to produce greater than 98% of the greenhouse effect, while CO2 would produce less than 2%. That is, it would be expected if both molecules absorbed energy equally across the entire spectral band for incoming solar radiation.

The second fact indicates CO2 only absorbs at one peak in the incoming solar energy spectral band, and the narrow band around this peak represents less than 10% of total incoming solar energy. Therefore, the actual greenhouse effect due to CO2 is only 2% times 10%, or about 0.2% of the total, leaving 99.8% due to H2O.

Politically active “scientists” like James Hansen (formerly of NASA’s GISS, whose team produced one of the most respected – albeit false – global climate models) will try to argue the tiny greenhouse effect of CO2 on incoming solar radiation is irrelevant. They argue the greenhouse effect during the day (50% of earth’s surface) is supplemented by a (fictitious) “back-radiation” effect, day and night (100% of earth’s surface). The handful of climate modelers who believe in this phenomenon “discovered” it while sitting at their desks, playing with computer models of climate. They found they could accurately reproduce decades of historical global climate surface records by assuming forcing from CO2 according to the equation F = 5.35 x LN(C/C0), where F is forcing in Watts per square meter, LN is the natural logarithm, C is the current concentration of CO2 in ppmv, and C0 is the original concentration of CO2 over the period of interest.

The problem? There is no empirical evidence for this hypothetical “back-radiation” idea. It was refuted by the peers of Arrhenius 100 years ago, and again by the peers of Revelle 50 years ago. The only reason other scientists accepted it recently was because mean global temperature had risen (as predicted by climate models) for ten years in the late 1980s and 1990s to close out the 20th century, and this temperature rise “correlated” with the dramatic increase in use of fossil fuels by mankind from 1950 to the present. Watch out when you try to establish new science using only simple correlations and computer models.

We now know the increase in mean global temperature was primarily due to an active Sun (not due to increased CO2) in solar cycles 21, 22, and 23. The Sun pumped out additional energy and warmed the oceans (albeit, very slowly, over 35 yrs). The vast thermal storage capacity of the oceans means there is hysteresis in the climate system. Hysteresis means small amounts of forcing in one year may not “show up” for many years into the future, and cooling may not occur for many years after the extra forcing is removed.


If there remains doubt about this hysteresis, then it should be removed by the long-term (500+ years) ongoing correlation between global warming and cooling periods with the relative strengths of solar activity. The Little Ice Age occurred because the Sun became inactive (very few sunspots) for an extended period of time. Global warming has been generally occurring since the end of the Little Ice Age, but many astrophysicists and heliophysicists are worried the Sun may be on the verge of another 400-year cycle (i.e. another Ice Age). Solar cycle 24 has been half as strong as was solar cycles 21, 22, and 23.


The result? Mean global temperature now sits at only about +0.17 C above the 35 year average of all satellite data (down -0.25 C from the peak year in 1998). During a single extended period of solar minimum in 2007 – 2009, the mean global temperature anomaly dropped below 0 C. It spiked up at the start of solar cycle 24, but when cycle 24 didn’t reach the same level of activity as cycles 21, 22, and 23, the warming stalled.

The sunspot cycle is now positively equated with excess solar energy output. When the Sun is most active it appears to produce a net increase of +5W per square meter at the top of Earth’s atmosphere (from satellite data).

While +5W per square meter may sound like a lot, it actually represents a very small change in solar radiation of only 0.36%. Unless a climate scientist looks very closely, he or she may consider changes of 1/3 of 1% as little more than measurement error. Indeed, principal investigators originally forced different satellite data (NIMBUS, ACRIM, SOHO) to correlate with one another, assuming the solar constant really was a constant. However, the evidence from SORCE satellite data and ongoing ACRIM data is now clear – there was a change in solar forcing to close out the 20th century. This “tiny” percentage change represents orders of magnitude more energy than all of mankind has produced in the last 100 years. This is why one doesn’t need to be a scientist to know mankind cannot impact climate. The Sun drives Earth’s climate system. The Sun provides or has provided virtually all of the energy that keeps the climate system humming.

Going against most all atmospheric physicists with more than 30 yrs of experience back in the 1990s, James Hansen, the U.N.’s IPCC, and political activists in various nations have intentionally and maliciously perverted climate science in order to justify evil deficit spending (more than $1.5 Trillion per year, globally). Green energy companies were started with infusions of tax payer dollars, and promptly failed when the hoax was discovered, and when the lies told by green company executives about the energy “efficiency” of their wind towers and solar panels were exposed. Guess who walked away with tax payer funds, without being prosecuted for misappropriation of funds, deceptive advertising, and failure to deliver as promised? ALL OF THEM. 

If we don’t learn from this lesson, and elect business leaders (instead of lawyers) to serve in Congress, then we are doomed to repeat the same mistake. European nations are already moving to fix the damage done to their economies. Do we need riots in the streets before the U.S. Congress acts to fix the American economy?

I call the deficit spending evil, because it is our children and our grandchildren who will be saddled with the enormous debt this generation is accumulating. In other words, citizens who have no say in our politics today will be responsible for “cleaning up this mess” tomorrow.

There is a solution that will clean up this mess today. 

The solution is to remove the barriers currently blocking fossil fuel energy resource development. Replicate what is currently happening in North Dakota in every U.S. state with natural fossil fuel resources. Unemployment will be virtually zero within 10 years.

Remember, CO2 is plant food. Add more CO2 to the atmosphere, and you will increase the health of all plants, and help them grow stronger and yield more. It has already been shown CO2 does not impact global temperature, so there is no downside.

Make energy cheap, and you will virtually eliminate unemployment in first, second, and third world nations. Remove the barriers preventing global corporations from helping third world nations recover their own natural resources, execute a zero-tolerance policy toward dictators and despots governing their tiny nations with corruption and graft, and thereby lift all third-world citizens out of poverty.

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: