20 Reasons To Be Skeptical of Human-Induced Global Warming

Seems like somoene who thinks we are on the verge of making earth uninhabitable by man might want to severely limit his C02 output and forsake frivolous additions of C02 into the atmosphere with things like vacations but apparently not.

 

I don't think the Earth will become uninhabitable. I've also never suggested that people need to stop flying or driving cars or enjoying life.

 

It is a very common tactic of individuals uncomfortable with a given topic to exaggerate and go hyperbolic in order to guide discussion away from the actual issue that disturbs them. It is often best to let them rant while actual debate takes place around and regardless of of them.

 

Natural variation does not explain the observed evidence, hence the null hypothesis is disproved.

Yes, models were involved. So? Point is, IR spectrometers pointed at the sky show increasing back radiation.

Do any of those explain the stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, or the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG absorption bands? No? If they don't explain the observed data, so they're wrong.

For starters, you left out feedbacks and looked at CO2 alone, so your "increment of irradiation" is off by a factor of 10.

What particular data set shows a lack of increasing specific humidity?

Not really.

The IPCC appears to have looked at the best science there.

First -- Palle's albedo measurements are not considered to be reliable by the scientific community.

Second -- A non-scientist.

Third -- talks about global brightening/dimming, which is an aerosols thing, something definitely accounted for.

Best I can tell, Feldman's measurement is for those two rather northerly spots, and is not supposed to represent a global figure.

 

If not uninhabitable far less hospitable or what's all the hubub about.

And secondly it seems you want you have your cake and eat it too.

 

What I want is for people to make informed decisions.

And secondly I'm not altruistic. I'm motivated by maximizing my family's economic and general well being just like you and everyone else.

 

So do you make "informed decisions" when you take family vacations that pump extra C02 into the atmosphere. If that's what being informed on AGW does for your decision making what's the point when you make the same decisions us non believers do? Seems to me you just want to bitch and whine and then go on with your normal life.

 

Joseph, if you want to live in a cave and hug trees, go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. However, the rest of us like indoor plumbing and heating, so we won't be joining you in your crusade for Mother Gaia.

And as always, remember that you telling these bizarre stories about us only reflects badly on you. I understand how your religion orders you to believe such stories, but you need to understand you're dealing with rational people. We are not like you. We run on reason instead of cult fanaticism.

 

1) Ok. But who made you spokesperson for the scientific community? 2) The scientific method requires us to ignore persons and pay attention to the content of what they are saying instead. The question of whether he is a “non-scientist” is irrelevant. 3) The global brightening in that paper estimates an increase in absorbed solar radiation of 6 W/m2 by the globe. Are you sure that the IPCC have accounted for that?

 

I left out the feedbacks because the positive feedbacks are unproven as far as I have seen (i.e. the missing tropospheric hotspot) and also the assumed positive feedbacks are only claimed to amplify the warming from CO2 by a factor of 3-4, not 10.

 

But apparently, they can account for some of the warming. According to Reed’s Flux Formula a 1.56% decrease in global cloud-cover (as indicated by Warren et al 2012) results in an increase in short-wave radiation of 3 W/m2 (or rather a general decrease). The claim that outgoing radiation has increased (see Noor Van Andel and Aaron Donohoe) is another piece of evidence indicating that a decrease in cloud-cover could be causing global warming. The IPCC admit that the “greatest source of uncertainty” when modelling the climate are clouds, so I think there’s a possibility they could be underestimating its effects.

 

Sure, he measured back-radiation, but in order for him to estimate the total radiation-imbalance from greenhouse gases since 1850 Evans (2006) must have used a ‘radiative-transfer model’ (HITRAN) to generate simulations of the incoming and outgoing radiation-spectra to present in place of real-world observations. I have reservations about how accurate the radiative-transfer models are. For example, the IPCC’s Arrhenius equation: RF = 5.35*In(C/C0) is based on the HITRAN radiative-transfer model and that equation is in conflict with the measurements from Feldman. You say that Feldman’s measurements are not “supposed to represent a global figure” but CO2 is more or less homogenously spread throughout the atmosphere. Why would CO2’s radiative forcing characteristics from those locations differ significantly to its forcing on a global scale? Also Evans (2006) is assuming we know what the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was and he is also assuming that the increase in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) is anthropogenic. These two things are unproven as far as I have seen.

 

The proposition that all climate change is naturally caused is the standard null hypothesis of normal science that was established as the climate status quo before industrial society came into existence and has certainly not been “disproven”. Being already established as a pre-existing fact it does not need to be re-proven in the peer-reviewed literature.

 

Those are signatures of greenhouse warming, but it’s a question of magnitude. Natural factors can warm the planet and at the same time greenhouse gases can warm it as well. You say that my increment of radiation is off by a factor of 10 due to feedbacks. But the hypothesized positive feedbacks are only supposed to amplify the warming from CO2 by a factor of 3 to 4 according to the IPCC. An amplification of 10x implies very powerful positive feedbacks are at work.

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the IPCC’s Arrhenius logarithmic equation (that’s in conflict with Feldman’s measurements) is not based on measured global back-radiation from CO2. It is ostensibly based on IR spectroscopy laboratory measurements that is used to determine the absorption characteristics of gases.

 

Regarding point #12...

Clouds definitely have the biggest uncertainty in the radiative forcing accounting. If the warming of the troposphere can be explained by a reduction in cloudiness than why is the stratosphere cooling? Less clouds means for outgoing longwave radiation flux in the stratosphere. The stratosphere should be warming in the scenario all other things being equal. Also, if clouds are the dominant casual factor in lower troposphere warming then we are forced into an even more difficult position of having to explain how and why cloud patterns are changing.

 

Regarding point #13...

The Francey 2013 research does not conclude that an unidentified non-human source of CO2 emissions exists. What they conclude is that either past emissions estimates were underestimated or present emissions are overestimated. In fact, they acknowledge that nearly all of the growth in the CO2 concentration is anthroprogenic. The discrepancy is with the reported emissions and measured growth rates of carbon in the atmosphere. The most reasonable outcome based on the observations is that past emissions were under reported and if the IPCC had anchored their forecasts of human behavior on this higher emission rate then current emissions would be tracking on the mid-to-low side of their uncertainty window. In other words, efforts to curb carbon emissions might actually be working.

 

Regarding point #14...

This seems sufficiently similar to the 14C isotope topic discussed in point #2. I'll pass on this for now unless there is a salient point that really does need to be distinguished from point #2.

 

I did not say that Francey et al (2013) claimed that an “unidentified non-human source of CO2-emissions exists”. I said that there was a mismatch between anthropogenic CO2-emissions and the atmospheric CO2 growth-rate with the atmospheric CO2 growth-rate accelerating away from human emissions from 1990 to 2003 which means that some source other than human emissions must be driving that acceleration. The idea that “nearly all” of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic is unproven and unlikely considering that the oceans have warmed and CO2 will have inevitably been outgassed from the oceans. The idea that the CO2 increase is human-sourced is unproven as far as I have seen. I have not seen any real evidence that suggests humans are responsible for the CO2 increase.

 

Ignore the science, this is what I got out of post 12-20

People, it is man. And carbon dioxide lives in the atmosphere for 100 or more years. So what is there, can't be reduced, only lived with. People, no matter what you do, this slight warming will happen.

I like the planting trees and restoring green to the earth solution.

 

Where's the proof that CO2 lives in the atmosphere for 100 years or more?

 

Stepping in here, I created the improved Curry Corner (one of the topics on this forum) and when I brought up clouds, it was treated trivilly by the alarming group. I showed an estimate of the cloud cover over the Earth and was treated as if this means nothing. I believe too that the variability of clouds is so difficult to measure, much less model, it can amount to a component that should not be ignored. I am not familiar with the studies you and Iamaman are discussing but am enjoying this topic. I wonder if I could get Nathan to post his article at the Curry site? At least there you will get respect and discussion by actual experts on this topic.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/18/...pcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c/

 

I am quoting the person that is arguing with you. Iamanonman or equivalent.

I can't prove it stays up for any particular period.

 

I get that. What I'm saying is that the Francey study does not support the idea that there is an unidentified non-human emission source. The discrepancy they highlight is with the reported emissions over specific time periods. That's what they are calling into doubt. They say that under reporting of emissions prior to 2000'ish and over reporting after that is consistent with their findings.

As I've said before CO2 isotope analysis and mass accounting of the carbon dug up out of the ground is consistent with the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and acidification of the oceans within a reasonable margin of error.

But if the CO2 increases in the atmosphere and oceans is mostly a natural phenomenon then we're still left with the confounding problem of where it's coming from and why the coincidental temporal overlap with the industrial era. And even more puzzling...if all of that carbon we are emitting isn't going into the atmosphere and oceans then where it is going?

 

One question that both of you can try out.

Given the density of Carbon Dioxide, to the point it dissolves into the ocean, what is the state of the mixed carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and is it in a layer? State meaning interspersed or in some sort of clumps or grouping? If interspersed, how can it not be completely mixed all over Earth?