Since 2016 almost a 1000 published papers have challenged the theory of human-caused climate change


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Link here. What the author does is quote from numerous scientific papers where they either note the lack of evidence that human activity has caused the recent warming of the climate since the 1600s, or note other natural phenomenon where the evidence of influence is far stronger. Here’s one example:

Rosenblum and Eisenman, 2017

Observations indicate that the Arctic sea ice cover is rapidly retreating while the Antarctic sea ice cover is steadily expanding. State-of-the-art climate models, by contrast, typically simulate a moderate decrease in both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice covers.

Here’s another, with a link to the actual peer-reviewed published paper:

Blaauw, 2017 [pdf]

This paper demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory

He quotes many more, and has found 900 papers since 2016 that challenge the accepted-wisdoms pushed by global-warming theories.

The point here is not to say the climate doesn’t change, or that increased CO2 is not a concern, but to point out that the science is not settled, and anyone who makes that claim is either ignorant, or lying.

Share

28 comments

  • wayne

    I think we are long past simple ignorance and fully into pure unadulterated lying arrogance with absolute malice-aforethought, as far as climate goes.

  • Wayne: When it comes to the scientists who push the idea that the science is settled, you are absolutely right. Most are untrustworthy and are corrupt. The ignorance applies to people who aren’t climate scientists and accept what those corrupt scientists say, and need to be educated to the uncertainties. (I think for example of one particular very good space journalist who comments here occasionally on this subject, who really needs to learn more about uncertainty within the climate field.)

  • Phill O

    Nice find! Yes, the science is not settled.

    The Blaauw, 2017 [pdf] uses some solar influence data that may be under estimated. This is partly due to our limited understanding of all solar earth interactions, some of which, are now coming to light; like the long period cycles.

    Each influence needs study in-depth, then inter influences evaluated. Consider the Manhattan project. It was not known which bomb would work (P239 or U235) and also, which method of U235 production would be best. The shotgun approach was used. Evaluating the CO2 scenario without looking at all the alternatives is foolish.

    It was Donald Rumsfeld who coined the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns phrases (Nick P). I believe we have a significant number of unknown unknowns.

  • Garry

    I see signs that the tide is turning. Just this morning I read an article on Yahoo, hardly a right-wing site, complaining that residents of Tangier Island, VA have not heeded the calls by Al Gore and other visitors to blame their island’s erosion on global-warming-induced sea level rise. The islanders are firm that the solution to their problem is a seawall, which has been very effective in stopping erosion on one side of the island.

    I started reading the comments, and decided I’d read them until I found one that supported the gospel according to ManBearPig. I ended up reading all 100+ comments (at that time), and every single one pointed out the idiocy of thinking that the level of Chesapeake Bay was rising, rather than the land subsiding. I imagine some trolls have countered by now.

    Phill O, by “long period cycles” are you referring to Milankovitch cycles? I think they go a long ways towards explaining where the ice ages have come from in the past million years, with solar cycles explaining the shorter cycles (such as the 60 year).

    Just this morning it occurred to me that if the 60-year cycle is accurate, then I have a return to cold to look forward to in my lifetime, whereas my kids have a return to warmth to look forward to in theirs.

  • Phill O

    Garry, thanks for the Milankovitch cycle. That I did not know but suspected. A couple of years ago (Bob would probably have the reference) there was a paper indicating some shorter cycles have been observed and concluded there could be a large sun spot minimum starting to occur now. I do remember from sediment data that 1 in 100 year storms tend to be bunched.

    What other cycles are there we do not know about? The unknown unknwns.

  • Phill O: In my research on solar cycles, I discovered that there are numerous papers that analyze the proxy records and come up with numerous other cycles. Few of these papers match up well, and the data is super uncertain. Moreover, all of this work is purely superficial, trying to understand the sun not by its actual internal processes but by external cycles that are weakly documented.

    The Milankovitch cycles are different however. They have nothing to do with the Sun itself, but are determined by long term cycles in the Earth’s rotation, inclination and orbital obliquity and precession. Relatively simple to calculate (especially with computers), Milankovitch found that these cycles matched well with previous ice ages. Moreover, the changing amount of solar energy that hits the Earth as these cycles evolve can be calculated, and this also matches previous ice ages.

    Note that the comparable cycles on Mars are much more extreme, and are considered an important contributing factor to that planet’s loss of water.

  • David

    Yes, it’s simply poor science and poor critical thinking to only present one side, one approach to the complicated subject which is earth’s climate and what impacts it. I’m always amused (and saddened) at those who think they are exhibiting critical thinking and yet only sing the same one-note song on this issue.

    Meanwhile, the real work continues.

  • wodun

    Robert Zimmerman
    October 24, 2017 at 6:20 pm

    Note that the comparable cycles on Mars are much more extreme, and are considered an important contributing factor to that planet’s loss of water.

    The term Milankovitch Cycle applies to all planets or just Earth? The internet seems to say both.

  • Edward

    Robert Zimmerman wrote: “When it comes to the scientists who push the idea that the science is settled …

    The idea that science can be settled is hardly a scientific one. It may be relatively easy to convince people that science can be settled, because through high school science classes the experiments we did only answered a question. It isn’t until college science classes that the students are asked to find additional questions as a result of their science experiment.

    Often times, scientists observe additional phenomena while they are trying to performing an experiment. This is why we didn’t stop looking at electricity when we discovered that lightning was only a large electrical discharge. We didn’t stop looking at lightning, either.

    It is because the science is never settled that we continue to discover newer and stranger things about the universe and that we are able to invent newer and better products for our own use.

    If we had stopped looking at light after discovering that sunlight is made up of all the colors of a prism, then we wouldn’t have the laser. If we had stopped looking at matter once we realized that it is made up of earth, air, water, and fire, then we would never have discovered that atoms can lase light in order to invent the laser — because we would not know about atoms.

    For a scientist to say that the science is settled is absurd.

    There was a time when we might have said that the science of gravity was settled, because we thought we knew everything to know about it. We thought that all the known unknowns had been turned into knowns, only to have Einstein discover that there were plenty of unknown unknowns to find out about.

    Weather satellites give us data that allows us to make relatively accurate ten-day forecasts, but the accuracy diminishes the farther into the future we predict. Even as climate scientists were declaring that their models could accurately predict years and decades into the future, those same models were unable to accurately reproduce actual climate conditions when they were given historical start points. That should have been the first clue that the models aren’t yet ready for prime time.

    So far, climate science hardly answers any questions, so it does not nearly come close to almost being settled.

  • Wodun: I suspect the term Milankovitch Cycles can be applied to all planets, as it was Milankovitch who discovered the importance of long term and normal orbital changes on the climate of any planet. I also would not be surprised if some only apply it to Earth.

  • Joe

    Edward, great post, it is the job of a scientist to discover truth in whatever endeavor he or she is working on, in climate science, it is the job to push a false narrative on people who are educated by television comedians and refuse to look farther than their own noses.

  • Phill O

    Edward Thanks. You put in better words the arguments I was trying to relay.

    Bob, thanks for more info. I look forward to the day when those thoughts a better relayed to the general public. If we are seeing a Renaissance of thought, then that day will come. I would love to have climate science debate with all possible factors properly discussed.

  • Phill O: See: Signs of a Renaissance, written May 26, 2005. We are seeing the consequences of the changes I described then in the political world now. While an increasing percentage of the population is exposed to a wide range of thought, there remains a small but powerful group that remains isolated within the kind of limited intellectual television culture that I described existed in the 1950s.

  • Dick Eagleson

    (I think for example of one particular very good space journalist who comments here occasionally on this subject, who really needs to learn more about uncertainty within the climate field.)

    May I assume you are referring here to Doug Messier of Parabolic Arc? Lord knows I’ve done my best, but Doug is just a True Believer when it comes to Climate Change®.

    Climate Change® is a registered trademark of the Vast Left-Wing Hive Mind.

  • Phill O

    Thanks! It would seem to me that during the Obama years, there was a degradation of thought freedom and the Renaissance now has started again. The “Today in fascist academia” is restarting the move to what you described in you 2005 article. It is a breath of fresh air but it comes because folk are standing up and being counted.

  • wayne

    Dick-
    Good stuff.

    (A subsidiary of the Environmental Industrial Complex?)

  • Edward

    Phill O,
    What you said is important. It is unwise to focus on only one solution or method when there is a multitude of possibilities. In the case of the Manhattan Project, both worked. In the case of climatology, the one modelling method has failed, putting us back two or three decades in our search, and what is worse is that now the scientists are changing historical data in order to force the data to match the bogus models, rendering useless the data that was meticulously collected over the past 170 years, setting us back a century and a half in our search. We will never find the solution if we keep trying to make the wrong solution look like it works.

    The correct way to find the solution is to do as you suggested and try a variety of methods. The Blaauw paper pointed out that the current models may be too simplistic and tries to find a better method for modelling climate. Many people have suggested a wide variety of other factors that influence Earth’s climate, but the climate scientists are still focused on largely on CO2 emissions and their assumed feedback value (which is looking incorrect). Robert recently posted about a strange phenomenon that runs counter to the AGW (man-caused global warming) hypothesis, and without explanation of this phenomenon, current CO2-based climate models cannot be made accurate:
    https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/recent-co2-increase-comes-from-tropical-jungles-not-human-activity/

    In my college days, I took a job with a scientist who was comparing seven aerodynamic computer models with a 3-D air-flow in a small wind tunnel*. The idea was to narrow down which models worked best so that computer modelling could reduce the time required to design better new aircraft. And cars, ships, rockets, etc. Voila! People are now starting to say that wind tunnels are obsolete.

    It is too bad that climate scientists have a love of theory, for that is the root of all evil.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnEsI2fTaJo (7 minutes, Best Sentence Ever) (BTW, Briggs has since placed his aphorism at the bottom of the page, no longer in the banner, as Whittle says.)
    The flaws are right there before their eyes, but they’re too blind to see it.

    Climate scientists love their theory so much that they are willing to contaminate and invalidate actual historical and current temperature data in order to force the data to match the theory — which is actually only a failed hypothesis, because the data disproves the “theory.”

    Whittle mentions that (Nobel Laureate) Paul Krugman, and others, are so enamored with Keynesian theory that when it fails to produce the expected results they insist upon applying even more of the theory until it works right. Of course, since the theory is flawed, it will never work right. Once again, Keynesian theory is only another failed hypothesis, because multiple testings have disproved it.

    If this madness continues, we are all doomed, just like those poor men at the River Somme in France.

    wayne, maybe it is a subsidiary of the Environmental Political Complex?

    * At the time it didn’t seem so, but I really did have an interesting career. At the time, almost every task seemed like a pain, but overall I was having fun.

  • Phill O

    Edward Great video. It explains a lot.

    I made a mistake, once, of saying to my Ph.D. supervisor that an aim or goal of an analytical chemist was to invent a machine that you put a sample in and get an accurate readout of everything in it: kind of like a tri-quarter from Star Trek. He admonished me saying it would take the analyst out of a job. Reality has shown him to be wrong as many machines have been invented since that put analysis into the hands of people in general I give the air monitors now available for air quility for caving etc.

  • Edward

    Phill O wrote: “Reality has shown him to be wrong as many machines have been invented since that put analysis into the hands of people in general.

    It is amazing how technologies that replace human jobs end up allowing for even more human employment.

    There was a time, a couple of centuries ago, when virtually everyone was a farmer, performing mindless, not very technical or complicated tasks. Technology allowed for ease in farming and allowed for people to take on far more thought provoking jobs (such as weather forecasting or climate science). Even the technology of farming frees the farmer to analyse his fields and think about the best next thing to do to protect or to improve this year’s yield, or the next technology to improve next year’s.

    Freeing up labor for more thought provoking work has allowed the amazing prosperity that the world has enjoyed these past two centuries.

    Too bad so many climate scientists, rather than look for thoughtful improvements, insist that thoughtful analysis of the climate be shut down, that the thoughtful skeptics be imprisoned or executed — as though we were living in the dark ages.

  • David

    What a broad brush some here use when writing about those involved in climate research. Painting all in the field with the same claims. Sounds suspiciously like the same crime, the same “group-think” some here say exists in climatology.

    Climatology has been, is, and will remain a field filled with people who are doing good work, are honest, and most importantly who are curious.

  • wayne

    David-
    Why does all this “good work,” and “curiosity,” always (every single time) involve stealing my money and attempting to control every aspect of my life?

    “Ideas so great, they have to be imposed.”

    Mark Levin:
    “Climate change is just a pretext to impose control”
    May 5, 2014
    https://youtu.be/JCbkmBNA57Q
    12:02

  • Max

    Dick, that was good :)

    This article makes me very excited. Some sane relevance is finally coming to earths climate controversy.
    Zimmerman quotes,
    Blaauw, 2017 [pdf]
    “This paper demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory”

    (The article has wording which I find hilarious, classic! Let’s quote some more.)

    “This explanation is based on a simple model of the Earth’s climate system consisting of three layers: the surface, a lower and an upper atmospheric layer.”

    (This three layered model is only good 50% of the time. When the sun is shining… at night, the heat radiating is only leaving earth with no energy entering)

    “The distinction between the atmospheric layers rests on the assumption that the latent heat from the surface is set free in the lower atmospheric layer only. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.”

    (Like David said, “Poor Science, poor critical thinking” . They can’t imagine any other heat source than the sun? Here is a hint, where does the heat radiates from? The lowest part of our atmosphere. The closer you get to the heat source, the warmer it becomes. Law of thermodynamics)

    “The mean temperature of the Earth’s surface has gone up over the past 250 years. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)1 the temperature rise during 20th century was 0.78 k
    “Most people accept the Panel’s view”
    that the warming owes to the so-called greenhouse effect, viz. the increase of the internal energy of the Earth’s climate system caused, through a complex of processes, by the “growing CO2 concentration” in the atmosphere.
    ” However, a genuine proof of the effect has not been given in spite of many indications brought forward.”

    (Everybody knows CO2 is the cause, but after 30 years they don’t have a shred of proof! Classic! I would suggest that they remove CO2 as the “accepted cause” and replace it with “magic”)

    “Maybe the strongest point in favour of the greenhouse idea is the “absence of a credible alternative”, possibly additional explanation for the global warming.

    (It must be the greenhouse effect because no one can come up with a better explanation? This is science? Don’t any of these people own a thermometer? Let’s play a child’s game, find the “credible alternative” solution… Try looking over there… You’re getting warmer… You’re getting hot… it’s burning you and you still can’t feel It yet?)
    (here is the best part that got me excited)

    “Basically, as there are no other significant energy inputs to the Earth, we can conceive just one alternative: the varying solar irradiation. However, the IPCC has reported that the climate forcing by the solar radiation only accounts for about 10% of the full forcing. The minor role of the Sun is often illustrated by a calculation based on a very simple model of the Earth. The model treats the Earth as a black body at a temperature of 255 K emitting long-wave radiation the power of which is balanced by the net solar energy input, about 239Wm 2.”

    (Varying solar radiation is less than 1%.) Seeing how the sun has a “minor role,” perhaps they should look for another heat cause of the 90% that is not solar radiated.
    Really? 90% of the earths heat does not come from the sun and they can’t find it? How is that possible? And yet they go on and on about The sun ignoring the elephant in the room. Those of you who’ve been on BTB for a while probably remember some outlandish claims I made… that 10% figure sounded very familiar… I cannot find that old post where I did the math, it went something like this…
    The moon has a day and night temperature variation of 550°. From 250° at the equator during the day, to -300° below zero in the shadow of night.
    The earth has an atmosphere that filters out 150° of the heat so the average temperature seldom goes above 100°, or below 0°.
    Without a heat source like the sun, night should cool the earth, like the moon, down to -300°. Obviously it does not. We lose about +/-30° and then we stop cooling. I figured 30° is close to 1/10 the amount that we should be cooling off at night. Even Antarctica average temperatures from summer (more than three months of continuous sunlight) to winter (six months with no heat or sunlight) only has a 30° difference.
    So where is 90% of our heat coming from? Engineers will tell you that “all heat is friction.” Atmospheric pressure provides this friction. Were the barometric pressure is the greatest, it is also the hottest. Doesn’t matter if it’s day or night.
    Death valley will always be hotter than the top of Mount Everest, even though the mountaintop is closer to the sun.
    The Chinook winds heat up 5.4° for every thousand feet it drops to the desert floor from the mountains. Again, doesn’t matter if it’s day or night. And yet, this well-known phenomenon is not in their 10% solar model. Friction.
    This same affect can be demonstrated on every planet that has an atmosphere. The extreme example is Jupiter. Under its atmosphere Jupiter is 16,000°, 6 times hotter than the photosphere / surface of the sun.
    I’m going to stop there, I’m sounding like a broken record. It’s just odd that educated climate scientists can ignore so much data in favor of excepted “warmatology mantra” a world religion based on faith that doesn’t make sense but is excepted by committee consensus with no facts or proof to back it up.

  • Garry

    David wrote,

    “Climatology has been, is, and will remain a field filled with people who are doing good work, are honest, and most importantly who are curious.”

    I’m sure that there are climatologists who do good work, and are honest and curious, and I’d love to hear more from them.

    Unfortunately, their voices are drowned out / many of them are afraid to go against the official creed of the Warmunists. I wish that more of them were courageous and had a platform, so we can hear more from them.

    As proof mounts against CO2 being the alleged temperature control knob, I expect to see an increasing torrent of honest, curious climatologists saying, “I always knew the premise was flawed.” At some point I’m going to doubt the sincerity of the latecomers.

    Judith Curry is very honest and curious, and look how the field turned against her, unfairly painting her as an idiot/paid mouthpiece of the oil industry/and even slut.

    The leading spokesmen of climatologists have proven themselves to be dishonest and suppressors of curiosity, making many of us often paint them with a broad brush.

  • Edward

    David,
    You wrote: “I’m always amused (and saddened) at those who think they are exhibiting critical thinking and yet only sing the same one-note song on this issue.

    And in a later comment: “Climatology has been, is, and will remain a field filled with people who are doing good work, are honest, and most importantly who are curious.

    Yes, David, Garry is correct. Some here also acknowledge that the honest ones, who do good work and are curious for the correct answers, are outcast and disallowed from publishing, are usually called deniers, and are sometimes declared to be enemies of man and the Earth — suffering from calls for their houses to be burned down (or worse punishments for failing to conform to the “Al Gore” model of climatology). It is the honest ones who are singing the additional notes to the climatology song. They seek the additional factors that are needed in order to make the climate models reflect the reality and the observations, because the CO2-based models have failed.

    The people we complain about are those who advocate for the prevention of free publication, who do the name calling, and who call for punishment of those with non-conforming conclusions or views. Dr. Curry is a good example of a victim of these people. These are the people who prevent Garry from hearing more from the honest, curious ones who do good work.

    Max wrote: “This three layered model is only good 50% of the time. When the sun is shining… at night, the heat radiating is only leaving earth with no energy entering

    Actually, the model is good 100% of the time, because the the absorption rate of solar energy, J, is variable and can drop to zero at appropriate times. From page 5 of the report: “dJ is a function of time following the irradiation variations.

    Max wrote: “Everybody knows CO2 is the cause, but after 30 years they don’t have a shred of proof! Classic! I would suggest that they remove CO2 as the ‘accepted cause’ and replace it with ‘magic’

    Well, magic is not very scientific. It is when we are able to verify causes to the effects and eliminate the magic that we are scientific. You see, everybody also knows that we have been exiting the Little Ice Age for three centuries or so, long before humanity started putting much CO2 into the air, which started around WWII. Thus we need to distinguish between this normal warming and the human-caused warming, otherwise humanity’s contribution to the warming is only a WAG (wild guess). Plus, we have to explain why two decades ago the Earth ceased its warming trend.

    Further, successful models will be able to accurately predict when the Earth will resume warming or whether the next trend is cooling. We do not have such models, yet.

    Max wrote: “Don’t any of these people own a thermometer?

    Care must be taken to avoid confusing correlation for causation. This is part of the problem with the statement “Everybody knows CO2 is the cause.” This is not knowledge, it is assumption. If it were the cause, then why did the warming trend cease a couple decades ago? If it is part of the cause, then how much of the cause is it? Core samples have shown that, unlike Al Gore’s statement in his movie, atmospheric CO2 increases a couple of centuries after the atmosphere warms, and decreases a couple of centuries after the atmosphere cools. There is a correlation, but does one cause the other?

    I once almost got run over when I stepped off the curb after the walk sign turned on. I had been coming back from lunch with a few engineers and scientists, and I decided to do an experiment in order to see what caused me to almost get run over: the sign turning on, the approach of the car, or my stepping out into the street. [I am not making this up. I carried out this correlation/causation joke experiment for weeks, when I was at lunch with people of that original group.] Naturally, we were unable to make any conclusions, because the cause was not an obvious (meaning visible) factor, it was a driver in a hurry — a common cause of street accidents.

    Max wrote: “Without a heat source like the sun, night should cool the earth, like the moon, down to -300°.

    Careful. The Moon’s surface spends two weeks in darkness, but the Earth’s surface spends only half a day. The Earth does cool down at night, but it only has 1/30 the time to cool down, so the extreme temperatures on Earth are less than the extreme temperatures on the Moon.

  • David

    Garry and Edward – thank you for your thoughtful comments. If I can carve out a bit of time in the next few days, I’ll try to comment on several points you each made that deserve responses. Sadly, age combined with large fingers make typing on anything smaller than a full sized keyboard a dreadfully s-l-o-w exercise for me. This limits me on opportunities to bang out a detailed post, particularly when I need to lay out the supporting math behind a post.

    For now, let me simply say two things: (1) I have always and will always stand against anyone who try to shove any position on earth’s current and future climate as the final settled point. (2) As far as some in the field feel, it can be hard to discuss work in public forums because of the behavior exhibited by some on both (all) sides who hear/read/view something that isn’t what they wanted to hear. Right down to threats against one’s own family.

    Wayne = I’m sorry that you feel that way about those in this field, but it is not the way it is. May I simply say that how politicians in both parties have used this issue to divide the country, by choosing data/theory/modeling, etc. to fit their political desires makes me ill.

  • Edward

    I wrote: “Actually, the model is good 100% of the time

    This makes the assumption that the model is any good at all. I did not mean to give that impression. A more correct statement is that the model takes into account varying irradiation conditions. The model could actually be a poor predictor of temperature, but it seems to try a little harder than most.

    Simple models may or may not be a good thing. These guys built a simple model that better “hindcasts” observed reality, but that does not mean that it is a good model. The correct test is to correctly predict future observations, which takes years. That is the test that the more commonly accepted models have failed.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4534509/
    However, the simple model, informed by its authors’ choice of parameters, usually hindcasts observed temperature change more closely than the general-circulation models, and finds high climate sensitivity implausible. With IPCC’s choice of parameters, the model is further validated in that it duly replicates IPCC’s sensitivity interval.

    Finding correct climate models is not going to be a rapid process. It will make SLS’s development look fast.

  • Max

    I’ve been giving it some time to see if anyone else would respond to the revelations offered in Zimmerman’s post. The PDF is a big deal (at least I got very excited). The admission carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect cannot be backed up with cause and affect science. But there is a great deal of math and science telling us how much energy is entering through our atmosphere, and how much is radiating out. Which led them to say this quote;

    solar radiation only accounts for about 10% of the full forcing. The minor role of the Sun…

    They can’t explain 90% of the heat values that they are measuring radiating from the surface of the earth. When I said the three layer model is only accurate 50% of the time, I was misunderstood. When the sun goes down, temperatures cool off… But not by much.
    The satellites that were launched into space to monitor Global warming, in I believe it was 1991, they gave a 10 year anniversary analysis of the data which I remembered it to say;
    The energy passing through the atmosphere is reflected back into space with the same ease that it entered. No greenhouse causation was found. Indeed, earth radiated energy into space at a constant rate “all night long”. They expected to find a decrease over hours of time, or perhaps a thermos bottle affect where the heat was totally stopped being conserved to the surface and not radiating at all at night. That would prove that the sun was the only source of heat, just like it is the only source of light. Their findings show that the earth radiates all night long at 90% of its daytime value.
    Conclusion, that it’s either magic… Yes I know Edward, Magic is not very scientific. Neither is CO2 as causation without proof. In fact it is the word people use for phenomenon in which they have no explanation… As of Yet.

    But they do know… In fact they bring up the calculations in the model in pages seven and eight of the PDF. I name the phenomenon by its original observation… The Chinook winds.

    “If the vapour would not condense, the vertical vapour pressure distribution would be the barometric distri- bution with a scale length of about 13 km (slightly depending on the atmospheric tempera- ture). This distribution expresses the balance between buoyancy and gravitation. ”
    And
    “We can construct the vertical profile of the saturated vapour pressure from the data in Schmidt9 and the approximately linear fall of the atmospheric temperature with increasing altitude (the lapse rate being about 6.49Kkm 1;”
    Excerpts of hints in the article demonstrating their aware that atmospheric pressure (thickness /gravity) creates heat.

    You are all so much smarter and more educated than I am. Am I tilting at windmills? Should I shut up and go away?
    Or do we go on pretending there is a greenhouse, because they can’t come up with a better model?
    Or that carbon dioxide, which is such a rare gas that makes up 1/2 of 1/10 of 1% of the atmosphere, is responsible for the world catching fire that will make us all extinct…

  • Edward

    David,
    I hope that you find some time to comment. I look forward to reading what you have to say.

    Max wrote: “do we go on pretending there is a greenhouse, because they can’t come up with a better model?

    We do know that there is a greenhouse effect, and we have quantified it. We know that the Earth is about 20 degrees warmer due to the water vapor in the air than it would be without it. We know that the Earth is about 1 degree warmer due to the CO2 in the air. We also know the overlapping light frequencies of these two molecules where they absorb the heat energy of the light passing through the atmosphere. The greenhouse is an important part of any model.

    It is not, however, correct as the entire model.

    We have had three time periods where the warming of the Earth, since the end of the Little Ice Age, has paused, yet the increase in CO2 concentrations have not paused. It is clear that there are factors other than CO2 that drive the Earth’s temperature, despite the importance of the greenhouse effect. The models need to include these factors, whatever they are, in order to become smarter models.

    Max,
    You wrote: “Excerpts of hints in the article demonstrating their aware that atmospheric pressure (thickness /gravity) creates heat.

    Care needs to be taken as to just what you mean. Increasing pressure creates a raised temperature (just before your first quote, Blaauw notes that “the vapour behaves as a perfect gas“). The energy for the increase in heat comes from elsewhere. In school, they demonstrated this temperature/pressure/volume relationship with a sealed syringe, and in that case the energy came from the plunger of the syringe: force times distance.

    In the atmosphere, air that is carried upward, for instance by a wind crossing a mountain range, will reduce in pressure as it rises (less weight of air above it), will increase in volume (same number of molecules take up a larger volume), and will come to a lower temperature. This phenomenon is well understood.

    Also in the atmosphere, for similar reasons, high pressure areas tend to be warmer than if they were not under high pressure. The heat energy is once again from a different source than merely the pressure (as with the syringe demonstration, it is the source that created the high pressure).

    They can’t explain 90% of the heat values that they are measuring radiating from the surface of the earth.

    In the paragraph from the Blaauw paper (AKA the PDF), “they” is the IPCC. Blaauw is pointing out one of the flaws in the IPCC reports about climate forcing. The following paragraph, in Blaauw, states that the simple model is crude and then suggests a factor to be included in smart climate models.

    Whether Blaauw is correct will take time to determine and requires correct — or at least better — predictions of future temperatures.

    Since a successful model will have to successfully predict future temperatures and trends, the test for each model modification will necessarily take multiple decades. Even if this is two decades, it will take a long time to tweak climate models into correctly predicting future climates. It isn’t like when I helped test aerodynamic models, which could be done in months, this takes many years. It still took decades in order to derive aerodynamic models that were good enough for engineers to start thinking that they needed fewer wind tunnel tests. Even if we stop messing around with trying to force data into matching the predictions of the failed models, it will likely take centuries to develop good climate models.

    The science is not nearly settled.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *