Friday, June 14, 2013

Ten Reasons Why the Man-Made Global Warming Theory is Wrong.

Reblogged from The Climate Skeptics Party, Australia:


1 Temperature

CO2 emissions by humans are supposed to increase the temperature; that is the basic point of man-made global warming [AGW]. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the hotter it should get. That is a basic AGW prediction. It is isn’t happening. Walter Brozek analyses the official temperature data from all the main sources including the satellites. Brozek uses 2 criteria; the first from NOAA to test for flatness or zero warming; the second from Dr Phil Jones to test for no statistical warming; the 2 criteria overlap with the second allowing for some slight warming and the first for even cooling. The first shows zero temperature for 15 years; the second for up to 23 years. The first is climatically significant by NOAA standards, the second by Dr Santer’s standards. This means the temperature is not being caused by AGW. The only line going up is CO2:

Link available HERE,

2 Models. 

AGW science is based on modelling which in turn is based on certain assumptions about the effect on climate of various factors such as CO2. This effect is expressed as a forcing and can be seen at the IPCC website. Note how the forcing expected from CO2 is nearly 20 times greater than from the sun. Predictions about how these forcings will determine temperature have been around for a long time and can therefore be checked. Roy Spencer has checked the model predictions against the temperature in the Troposphere: 

Roy Spencer Graph.

Some will say Roy’s comparison only shows the models can’t predict the Troposphere. But as Bob Tisdale shows the models also can’t predict sea surface temperatures,  land and sea surface temperatures, or precipitation. Nor can they, as Koutsoyiannis showed, predict the past.

3 The sun (1).

 AGW science says the sun has little effect on temperature compared with CO2 forcing. Dr Ka-Kit Tung disagrees and has compared the long-term solar record with the longest temperature record on the planet, the Central England Temperature [CET]. The final image in Tung’s slide presentation is revealing and shows a remarkable correlation between the CET record and Total Solar Irradiation [TSI]. This correlation between temperature and TSI has also been derived in 2 other studies. The first is by Glassman at Figure 1 where he uses global HADCRUT3 data. The second is by Stockwell at Figures 4-7 where all the major land-based temperature indices are shown to correlate with TSI using his model. Stockwell’s model is simply that temperature responds to TSI mean with the rate of temperature increase/decline determined by the movement away from the mean.

4 The sun (2). 

new study from Spain, the home of solar power and national bankruptcy, shows how variations in solar radiation correlate well with temperature without any need for AGW. The increase is due to cloud variation. Of course Monckton was on top of the role of clouds and temperature when he debated Tim Lambert  - and Lambert sprung that infamous ambush about Pinker being a woman not a man. What was overlooked was the fact that Monckton was correct. Pinker et al had found that solar forcing through cloud variation was sufficient to explain all the temperature increase from the 1980’s onwards. This should come as no surprise really because it is exactly what the IPCC in TAR had found too.

5 The sun (3). 

Hood et al’s 2013 paper shows how slight variations in TSI have an amplified effect on the ocean, land and stratosphere. This amplification occurs or begins regionally and can produce seemingly contradictory results such as the ‘warming’ Arctic and a freezing Europe which the AGW supporters are saying is merely how AGW works. Of course this is the complete opposite of what the AGW supporters used to say. Who can forget Dr Viner predicting an end to winter snow in the Northern Hemisphere generally and particularly in England? NASA’s Drew Shindell noticed this solar amplification back in 2002; Shindell said:
“In our simulations, we find that the reduced brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum causes global average surface temperature changes of only a few tenths of a degree, in line with the small change in solar output. However, regional cooling over Europe and North America is 5-10 times larger due to a shift in atmospheric winds."
“So a reduction in the amount of sunlight reaching the planet leads to a weaker equator-to-pole heating difference, and therefore slower winds. The effect on surface temperatures is particularly large in winter. Because the oceans are relatively warm during the winter due to their large heat storage, the diminished flow creates a cold-land/warm-ocean pattern (Figure 3) by reducing the transport of warm oceanic air to the continents, and vice-versa.”

6 The Moon. 

In Tom Cruise’s latest movie, Oblivion, aliens conquer the Earth by destroying the Moon and creating climatic havoc. Ian Wilson is probably entitled to a script credit. Wilson and his co-author, Nikolay Sidorenkov’s latest paper looks at how the Lunar cycles have major impacts on the Earth’s climate. This is intuitive since the Moon has such a pronounced effect on the oceans; it is reasonable to suppose it has an equal effect on the atmosphere. Jo’s analysis reduces Wilson and Sidorenkov’s complex paper to a satisfying layman’s level.

7 Aerosols. 

These minute particles can be part of volcanic eruptions and be produced by industrial processes. Their effect on climate is complex and suspected of causing both warming and cooling. Their most spectacular effect was on the Ozone layer which protects the Earth from the sun’s worst radiation. Now professor Qing-Bin Lu, former Newcastle university student has done a comprehensive analysis of the effect of aerosols on climate.
Lu’s paper analyses the relative contributions of CO2 and various other factors including cosmic rays (CRs), total solar irradiance, sunspot number, halogenated gases (CFCs, CCl4 and HCFCs) and total O3.  Lu uses comprehensive measured datasets of quantities of all the factors and concludes: “For global climate change, in-depth analyses of the observed data clearly show that the solar effect and human-made halogenated gases played the dominant role in Earth's climate change prior to and after 1970, respectively.”
This is a remarkable repudiation of AGW. Equally remarkable was the response of leading AGW scientist David Karoly when interviewed on the ABC. It was plain Karoly had not even read the paper.

8 Water. 

Earth. Look at it. It’s all clouds, oceans and ice. In a neglected paper Ferguson and Veizercompared the water and CO2 cycle and found the CO2 cycle was a subordinate process. The AGW position is put by Lacis et al. who say that non-condensing gases, mainly CO2, are the Earth’s thermostat or “control knob” The reason for this is that CO2 stays longer in the atmosphere. This is a flawed view because CO2 is constrained by basic laws like Beer-Lambert which limit its radiative effect. In fact it is the condensation process which enables water to change its state from liquid/gas/ice which is the major contributor to atmospheric energy. A new paper by Makarieva et al finds this condensation process of water lowers atmospheric pressure.That atmospheric pressure should drop with condensation is contrary to AGW modelling. There are 2 issues flowing from this; the first is whether Makarieva is correct about condensation caused pressure drop and secondly whether that effect influences the impact of AGW. In respect of the first the issue is discussed between Makarieva and Stigter and Meesters. Useful discussions are also to be found at Jeff Condon and Jo Nova where the main protagonists, for and against, participate. Meesters main point is that is while condensation removes water from the vapor body the process of condensation heats the remaining vapor and causes a rise in pressure. This is wrong, as blogger voxUnius notes:

Condensation heats the air parcel and hence causes faster molecular motion, expansion of the air parcel, decreased density and a decrease in pressure. That's how convective clouds work. The air inside the cloud is hotter, hence less dense, hence has less pressure than the air at the same altitude immediately outside the cloud where condensation is not taking place. This causes the simple mechanics of atmospheric convection. So-called hot air rises.”
The significance of decreased pressure profoundly contradicts AGW; with decreased pressure there can be no THS, a vital prediction of AGW. The pressure drop also confirms that even if AGW exists it is a minor player of no consequence. The Lacis paper on behalf of AGW wants us to believe the non-condensing greenhouse gases control the earth’s temperature and disaster will occur because of a 3.7 W/m2 forcing over the next 100 years or so. But this minute forcing is dwarfed by evaporating/condensing water which generates energy fluxes from Ldq and PdV[equations 1 to 3] that well exceed 1000 W/m2 each and every day. Small variations in those fluxes, such as cloud cover or levels of humidity make AGW forcing, if it is right, insignificant.

9 Carbon Dioxide (CO2). 

The basic issue of whether humans are responsible for all the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been looked at before. If CO2 increase is not due to human emissions then it is irrelevant if the claimed effect of CO2 on climate is true or not. Professor Murray Salby has given a comprehensive presentation on why the increase in CO2 is most likely due to natural emissions. CO2 follows temperature and the sun has warmed the Earth from 1850 up to the end of the 20thC thus providing the temperature cause to a natural CO2 increase. Salby addresses the mass balance argument [MB] which supposedly proves the CO2 increase is due to human emissions because the increase in CO2 is less than the human emissions. The MB cannot be right because the highest concentrations of CO2 are in non-industrialised areas such as the Amazon, key elements of the MB such as natural sinks and emissions are unknown and the correlation between temperature [and therefore natural emissions] is very high while there is little correlation between CO2 increase and human emissions.

10 Angry summer. 

Some hot temperatures and some particular site records during the summer of 2012-2013 were hailed as proof of AGW. The defects of these claims has been looked at. One point remains to be made. The Bureau of Meteorology [BOM] temperature record was the basis of these claims of a record hot or “Angry summer”. The BOM’s record is ground based. A comparison of the satellite temperature record is instructive:

These facts speak for themselves and should be front page news. They are not. That fact should also be front page news.


  1. Planetary atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures are not determined by (and cannot be calculated from) radiative energy budgets. In fact there is a huge effect caused by non-radiative processes. But there is no physical relationship that enables you to determine the temperature of a surface from just some information about non-radiative heat transfer. Furthermore, you can tell nothing from radiation either if significant energy is simultaneously being lost by non-radiative processes. At the very least you need information on temperature gaps at boundaries, because cooling processes are slowed as such gaps approach zero.

    The whole of the pseudo physics of greenhouse effects and assumed heating of the surface by back radiation (or “radiative forcing”) is trying to utilise the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which only relates to bodies in a vacuum losing all their energy by radiation without any conduction or evaporative cooling. A planet’s surface is not remotely like that.

    Just try explaining Venus surface temperatures with an instantaneous radiative energy budget! There is only about 10W/m^2 of direct Solar radiation reaching its surface, that is, less than a tenth of the amount received by Earth’s surface. So why is the Venus surface about 730K and how does it actually increase in temperature by about 5 degrees during the 4-month long Venus day?

    Instantaneous radiative energy budgets don’t have built in storage factors – the energy flows are balanced autonomously, but there is a lot of non-radiative heat transfer happening on Venus, and you need to understand why, or you don’t really understand what happens on Earth either.

  2. Great list, BUT I think it's wrong to have 10 reasons. You need 1 and only 1 reason, if possible. Many of those ten can actually support the one main reason.

    A analogy is the "One Excuse Rule." Give ONE excuse for something, if you give many excuses, it won't come off as well. For instance, if you said "the reason why I couldn't make it to your birthday party was ... I was sick with the flu" that would be better than "I couldn't make it to your birthday party because...[and then give multiple reasons]." Multiple reasons fall short.

    Find the ONE reason, if possible.

    Unfortunately I myself can't get it down to fewer than two reasons. The hockey stick has been debunked, and that means there is nothing unusual at all about current temperatures, which means that [reason 1:] there is simply nothing wrong with the climate. The climate is not broken, and it's not going to break .... because [reason 2:] there is actually no proven or demonstrated causal correlation between CO2 & temperatures. In fact, going back nearly two centuries, if we analyze the rates of temperature change, we see nearly identical indistinguishable rates of temperature change despite much higher CO2 levels in recent years... CO2 has not done a thing! C3 covers the identical rates of temp change here:

  3. In your REASON 1 the graph shows that the temps 2000-2012 are flat,

    while in your REASON 2 the graph shows the same temps as rising.

    Please make up your mind if the temps are rising or not for the last decade...

    PS: or was it by intent - to give warmists ammunition to call this site "self-contradictory" and "stupid"?

    1. In chart #1 Werner was pointing to the lack of statistically significant warming trend and it is back as far as 1996 on the chart.He shows that there is no apparent connection with CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

      Chart #2 used the two satellite data and all the way back to 1979 that still show a small warming trend.

      They do not conflict with each other at all.

    2. yeah, I got the fine print ... linear trend over 30 years ...


      using those graphs together is a bad call for a blog post that targets laypersons.

  4. Hi Anon; alarmists don't need 'ammunition', they are self-starters.

    The reason the graphs show different rates of trend is because they have different starting points. The purpose of the first graph was to show that flat or statistically insignificant rises had occurred for periods of time which were climatically significant by AGW's own criteria.

    The purpose of the 2nd graph was to show the model predictions were hopeless over the full range or time.

    Hope that clears it up.

  5. They are different time scale resolutions, global temperatures have been flat over the past 15 years or more but temperatures had increased from the little Ice age.

    Alarmists insist that the temperature increase from the little Ice age and current standstill is man made.

    The more reasonable view argued by skeptics is that the temperature increase from the little Ice age and current standstill is natural variability.

  6. They are different time scale resolutions, global temperatures have been flat over the past 15 years or more but temperatures had increased from the little Ice age.

    Alarmists insist that the temperature increase from the little Ice age and current standstill is man made.

    The more reasonable view argued by skeptics is that the temperature increase from the little Ice age and current standstill is natural variability.


  7. Great in sequence! There is something wonderful regarding "Ten Reasons Why the Man-Made Global Warming Theory is Wrong". I am impressed by the excellence of information on this website. There are a bundle of good quality resources here. I am sure I will visit this place another time shortly.


    temperature leads co2