Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths
WUWT ^ | 5/12/2015 | Jean-Pierre Bardinet

Posted on 05/12/2015 7:54:34 AM PDT by Signalman

1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4)

2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?

[Note 1: since 1880 the only one period where Global Mean Temperature and CO2 content of the air increased simultaneously has been 1978-1997. From 1910 to 1940, the Global Mean Temperature increased at about the same rate as over 1978-1997, while CO2 anthropic emissions were almost negligible. Over 1950-1978 while CO2 anthropic emissions increased rapidly the Global Mean Temperature dropped. From Vostok and other ice cores we know that it’s the increase of the temperature that drives the subsequent increase of the CO2 content of the air, thanks to ocean out-gassing, and not the opposite. The same process is still at work nowadays] (discussion: p. 7)

3. The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 9)

4. The lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 10)

5. The changes of the Mean Global Temperature are more or less sinusoidal with a well defined 60 year period. We are at a maximum of the sinusoid(s) and hence the next years should be cooler as has been observed after 1950. (discussion: p. 12)

6. The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring with a spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband infrared source (say a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the equivalent of some tens or hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the main CO2 bands (4.3 µm and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2 which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas. (discussion: p. 14)

7. In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today’s content, and there has been no runaway temperature increase! Why would our CO2 emissions have a cataclysmic impact? The laws of Nature are the same whatever the place and the time. (discussion: p. 17)

8. The sea level is increasing by about 1.3 mm/year according to the data of the tide-gauges (after correction of the emergence or subsidence of the rock to which the tide gauge is attached, nowadays precisely known thanks to high precision GPS instrumentation); no acceleration has been observed during the last decades; the raw measurements at Brest since 1846 and at Marseille since the 1880s are slightly less than 1.3 mm/year. (discussion: p. 18)

9. The “hot spot” in the inter-tropical high troposphere is, according to all “models” and to the IPCC reports, the indubitable proof of the water vapour feedback amplification of the warming: it has not been observed and does not exist. (discussion: p. 20)

10. The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its “positive water vapour feedback” with increasing CO2. The observed “feedback” is negative. (discussion: p.22)

11. The maximum surface of the Antarctic ice-pack has been increasing every year since we have satellite observations. (discussion: p. 24)

12. The sum of the surfaces of the Arctic and Antarctic icepacks is about constant, their trends are phase-opposite; hence their total albedo is about constant. (discussion: p. 25)

13. The measurements from the 3000 oceanic ARGO buoys since 2003 may suggest a slight decrease of the oceanic heat content between the surface and a depth 700 m with very significant regional differences. (discussion: p. 27)

14. The observed outgoing longwave emission (or thermal infrared) of the globe is increasing, contrary to what models say on a would-be “radiative imbalance”; the “blanket” effect of CO2 or CH4 “greenhouse gases” is not seen. (discussion:p. 29)

15. The Stefan Boltzmann formula does not apply to gases, as they are neither black bodies, nor grey bodies: why does the IPCC community use it for gases ? (discussion: p. 30)

16. The trace gases absorb the radiation of the surface and radiate at the temperature of the air which is, at some height, most of the time slightly lower that of the surface. The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body. (discussion: p. 32)

17. The temperatures have always driven the CO2 content of the air, never the reverse. Nowadays the net increment of the CO2 content of the air follows very closely the inter-tropical temperature anomaly. (discussion: p. 33)

18. The CLOUD project at the European Center for Nuclear Research is probing the Svensmark-Shaviv hypothesis on the role of cosmic rays modulated by the solar magnetic field on the low cloud coverage; the first and encouraging results have been published in Nature. (discussion: p. 36)

19. Numerical “Climate models” are not consistent regarding cloud coverage which is the main driver of the surface temperatures. Project Earthshine (Earthshine is the ghostly glow of the dark side of the Moon) has been measuring changes of the terrestrial albedo in relation to cloud coverage data; according to cloud coverage data available since 1983, the albedo of the Earth has decreased from 1984 to 1998, then increased up to 2004 in sync with the Mean Global Temperature. (discussion: p. 37)

20. The forecasts of the “climate models” are diverging more and more from the observations. A model is not a scientific proof of a fact and if proven false by observations (or falsified) it must be discarded, or audited and corrected. We are still waiting for the IPCC models to be discarded or revised; but alas IPCC uses the models financed by the taxpayers both to “prove” attributions to greenhouse gas and to support forecasts of doom. (discussion: p. 40)

21. As said by IPCC in its TAR (2001) “we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Has this state of affairs changed since 2001? Surely not for scientific reasons. (discussion: p. 43)

22. Last but not least the IPCC is neither a scientific organization nor an independent organization: the summary for policy makers, the only part of the report read by international organizations, politicians and media is written under the very close supervision of the representative of the countries and of the non-governmental pressure groups.

The governing body of the IPCC is made of a minority of scientists almost all of them promoters of the environmentalist ideology, and a majority of state representatives and of non-governmental green organizations. (discussion: p. 46)


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: climate; globalwarmin; wuwt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 05/12/2015 7:54:35 AM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Signalman

I appreciate all the facts mentioned. But none of this matters.

Pope Al I of the Church of Global Warming has spoken. The debate is over. All of us must be excommunicated if we don’t buy our carbon credits.......................


2 posted on 05/12/2015 7:55:44 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

3 posted on 05/12/2015 7:56:24 AM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

You’d almost think the Scientific Method is being applied there. Except we all know that it only works for computer modeling. Bill Nye told me so.


4 posted on 05/12/2015 8:13:40 AM PDT by Dr.Deth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Oh, no! with the global warming causing the oceans to rise by 1.3 million meters per year, we will all drown and all land will be below ocean level in another year!

(sarcams to those who don’t know what mm. actually means and that appears to be most of the globull warming folks.)


5 posted on 05/12/2015 8:14:24 AM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Only 13% of the population!

Sarc


6 posted on 05/12/2015 8:16:24 AM PDT by Uversabound (Our Military past and present: Our Highest example of Brotherhood of Man & Doing God's Will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Facts matter not - it’s “settled science” - besides, it’s Bush’s Fault and you’re a racist...


7 posted on 05/12/2015 8:17:34 AM PDT by Old Sarge (Its the Sixties all over again, but with crappy music...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

bfl


8 posted on 05/12/2015 8:18:10 AM PDT by Skooz (Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Bookmarked.


9 posted on 05/12/2015 8:18:23 AM PDT by OrangeHoof (Every time you say no to a liberal, you make the Baby Barack cry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

So, wait......does this mean I WON’T have a palm tree in my front yard?


10 posted on 05/12/2015 8:19:26 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Save


11 posted on 05/12/2015 8:20:05 AM PDT by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux. If not now, when? If not here, where? If not us then who?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

How dare you insult peoples’ religion with facts??


12 posted on 05/12/2015 8:31:44 AM PDT by beethovenfan (Islam is a cancer on civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
3. The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C)

Yet the TOTAL CO2 concentration (natural + anthropic) is a mere .038%! So, if this is true, we're talking about 6% of .038% being of human origin!

13 posted on 05/12/2015 8:33:33 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
There can only be one....

...the "Root Cause"

Item (0) that should head up the above list:

The Sun's magnetic field is declining....

so there are less sunspots created.

Expect no sun spots around 2020-2025

(and another ice age starts)

14 posted on 05/12/2015 8:34:00 AM PDT by spokeshave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Yet the TOTAL CO2 concentration (natural + anthropic) is a mere .038%! So, if this is true, we're talking about 6% of .038% being of human origin!

Not including the methane I personally expended a few seconds ago.

15 posted on 05/12/2015 8:36:05 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: central_va

That foul-smelling gas you recently emitted would not add to the CO2 concentration. Overall greenhouse gas concentration, yes.


16 posted on 05/12/2015 8:40:08 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

So when is Al “the Earth’s core is MILLIONS of degrees F” Gore going to go up against one of the several legit climate scientists who have challenged him to a debate?


17 posted on 05/12/2015 8:49:08 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
With the sun providing over 99.9% of the energy put into the atmosphere, the best we can do is adapting to climate change, if any.
We have done that for millennia.
Trying to prevent climate change (in whichever direction) is futile.

18 posted on 05/12/2015 8:53:28 AM PDT by BitWielder1 (I'd rather have Unequal Wealth than Equal Poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave

Do you have a current version of that chart?


19 posted on 05/12/2015 8:57:41 AM PDT by Interesting Times (WinterSoldier.com. SwiftVets.com. ToSetTheRecordStraight.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
Do you have a current version of that chart?

Looks like still trending down at 2,000 Gauss


20 posted on 05/12/2015 9:16:21 AM PDT by spokeshave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson