The AGW Smoking Gun

American Thinker ^ | February 17, 2010 | Gary Thompson

[neverdem]

A key component of the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been disproven. The results are hiding in plain sight in peer-reviewed journals.

Politicians and scientists still cling to the same hypothesis: Increased emission of CO₂ into the atmosphere (by humans) is causing the Earth to warm at such a rate that it threatens our survival. The reality of our global temperatures, the failure of these catastrophic predictions to materialize, and the IPCC scandals all continue to cast serious doubt on that hypothesis. 

The only rebuttal given by AGW proponents is that the scandals of the IPCC don't negate the science (i.e., unscrupulous behavior by a few don't negate the rock-solid science), so it seems that the only way to disprove the AGW hypothesis is to address problems with the science. Climate science is very complex, and AGW proponents dismiss the scientific arguments unless the data are contained in journal papers that are "peer-reviewed."

Three peer-reviewed journal contain data contradicting the AGW hypothesis. But before the journal papers are reviewed, here is a little background on the science.

The Greenhouse Effect is real and necessary for life on Earth. Without it, our world would be a frozen ball that would not be hospitable for life as we know it. The harmful stuff (x-rays and gamma rays) is filtered out, but the light in the visible spectrum enters, and that light energy warms our Earth. The land and sea then respond to that warming energy by emitting light in the spectrum of the infrared (IR), and that energy takes the form of small packets of energy called photons. When those IR photons reach the atmosphere, some of them get absorbed by certain molecules, and that absorbed energy is transferred into the elements of the molecules. That energy causes the molecules to vibrate and heat the atmosphere, and finally, the atmosphere transfers some of that energy back to the Earth's surface. Again, this is necessary, because if we didn't have this blocking of IR wavelengths, our average temperatures on Earth would be about 32 degrees Celsius cooler (-18ºC instead of the current 14ºC). One of the greenhouse gases (GHG) that reflects these IR wavelengths is CO₂, but there are others, such as water vapor, ozone (O₃), methane (CH₄), and CFCs. 

The science behind the AGW hypothesis is that increased amounts of CO₂ in the atmosphere (that humans produce by burning fossil fuels) will block more outgoing long-wave IR radiation (OLR) from exiting the atmosphere and thereby warm the surface. It is well-known that IR radiation causes CO₂ molecules to vibrate, but only at very specific wavelengths (wavelengths are the distances between peaks of each wave), and that wavelength is 15µm. (Fifteen µm means that each wavelength crests at a distance of 15 millionths of a meter.) As was discussed above, this vibration of the molecule causes it to heat and then radiate IR radiation back toward the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. If the solar activity is taken to remain constant, more CO₂ in the atmosphere will trap more of the OLR, and thus cause a net heating of the planet.    

So what type of experiment could be performed to test this AGW hypothesis? If there were satellites in orbit monitoring the emission of OLR over time at the same location, then OLR could be measured in a very controlled manner. If, over time, the emission of OLR in the wavelengths that CO₂ absorbs decreases over time, then that would prove the AGW hypothesis (i.e., that OLR is being absorbed by CO₂ and heating the planet instead of being emitted from the atmosphere). But what if, over time (say, over thirty years), the emissions of OLR wavelengths that CO₂ absorb remained constant? That would disprove the hypothesis and put the AGW argument to bed. 

As luck would have it, that experiment has actually been performed! Three journal papers report the data from three monitoring satellites that have measured the OLR of 1997 and 2006 and compared those measurements to 1970, and they are located here(pdf), here, and here(pdf). 

There were three different experiments performed in space to measure OLR emissions. The Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS) was performed in 1970, the Interferometer Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) was performed in 1997, and the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) was performed in 2006. All of these experiments were performed over the Pacific Ocean and confined to the same three-month period (April through June), and the data were limited to cloudless days. The variable measured was brightness temperature, which is given in degrees Kelvin (K). Higher brightness temperatures correlate to higher emissions (meaning that more OLR is emitted to the atmosphere and less is absorbed by GHG).  

The figure below (from the first link above) shows a comparison of OLR emission in 1997 vs. 1970. (Positive values indicate that more OLR emission was measured in 1997 vs. 1970, and negative values indicate that less OLR emission was measured in 1997 vs. 1970.) The top graph is taken over the East Pacific, and the bottom graph is taken over the West Pacific. The middle line is the actual measurements, and the other lines show the upper and lower uncertainty ranges. The x-axis of the graph is given in wave numbers per centimeter (cm), and the area that relates to CO₂ is at the far left of the graph (700 wave numbers per cm). After analyzing this graph, the following conclusion can be drawn: There is actually an increase of OLR emissions in 1997 as compared to 1970!

The next figure (from the second link above) shows the actual measurements of OLR emission in 1997 vs. 1970. The dark line is the IMG data (from 1997), and the gray line is the IRIS line (from (1970). After analyzing this graph, the following conclusion can be drawn: The 1997 OLR associated with CO₂ is identical to that in 1970.

The next figure (from the third link above) shows the OLR emission from TES (in 2006). The black line is the actual measurement data, the red line is what the climate models show, and the blue line is the difference between the actual and model data. 

The final figure (from the third link above) shows the OLR emission from IMG (1997). Just like the previous figure, the black line is the actual measurement data, the red line is what the climate models show, and the blue line is the difference between actual and model data.

The last two graphs can be placed on top of each other, and the black lines (actual measured data) are basically copies of each other. That means that there was no difference in OLR between 1970 and 2006.

All three of the links referenced here devote the latter sections of the papers to removing the impact of surface temperatures and water vapor and graphing the OLR that is associated only with trace GHGs. The authors perform this trick (there is that word again...) based on the climate models and not through actual measurements, and surprise, surprise -- these simulated results show a reduction in OLR emission with wavelengths that are absorbed by CO₂. Computer-simulated results based on climate models are never a replacement for actual measured data, and they should never be used to draw conclusions when actual measured data contradicts those models. 

So the results of three different peer-reviewed papers show that over a period of 36 years, there is no reduction of OLR emissions in wavelengths that CO₂ absorb. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is disproven. 

It should be noted that another paper written by Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi (both work at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences -- Lindzen is a professor and Choi is a postdoctoral fellow) reveals the differences between the measured OLR and its impact on temperatures vs. climate models. In the paper, the data showed that OLR increased when sea surface temperatures increased, so this is in direct contradiction to the AGW hypothesis that less OLR should be emitted since more CO₂ is absorbing it and warming the planet. Furthermore, in contradiction to the climate models, these results show that OLR is acting like a negative feedback (cooling the surface) instead of a positive feedback (radiative forcing). The Lindzen and Choi paper dealt in general with all OLR wavelengths and didn't show granularity with respect to specific wavelengths that were related to various GHG absorption, but the fact that the entire OLR emission spectrum didn't behave like the eleven climate models' predictions means that "the science isn't settled."

[Jet Jaguar]

Bump

[Republic of Texas]

No matter what the data says, 200 years of current records plus various snapshots of conditions throughout history simply aren’t enough to say what is or is not happening.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

mark

[parsifal]

Freeper, cobra64, nailed it with this pic: parsy

[Paladin2]

A return to an Ice Age is a Bad Thing. We are apparently overdue to do so.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Bhoy]

Great one!

So, is somebody going to email this to the Chamber of Commerce (just in case they don’t see it) getting ready for the what’s got to be the most interesting trial of the century? CofC v EPA?

Ha ha!

[cogitator]

So why’s the stratosphere cooling off?

[steveab]

This CO2 Cap and Trade tax is not dead. It's in the Energy Bill. This Tax will make payroll tax look like child's play.
The CEO of AEP on CNBC stated CO2 Cap and Trade will increase of cost of electric from $.04 to $.07 per KWH and that is only “if” the government gives the permits away for free.
Here the kicker. If someone wanted to start a new business that will use a lot of energy, they would need to get CO2 permit from the government. What happens when all the CO2 permits are already allocated? If you are a widget maker, all your future competition has been eliminated inside our borders. Under Co2 Cap and Trade, the existing widget maker is hoping to eliminate competition from out side our borders. CO2 Cap and Trade Tax must not pass.

[dannyboy72a]

Interesting thesis. Worth further examination.

[neverdem]

So why’s the stratosphere cooling off?

We're having global cooling.

Dear Al Gore: Please Send Us Some More of That “Global Warming”

The severe winter weather over the last several years is due to global cooling, not warming.

New Sunspots Could Produce Space Storms

The sun has been relatively quiet the past two years. It's at the low point in a known 11-year cycle of activity. The next peak of activity is expected sometime in 2013. The ability to predict how strong the next peak will be, or when any given storm will strike as activity ramps up in the coming months, remains iffy.

Figure in Milankovitch Cycles and assorted oceanic perturbations like the PDO, etc. The precautionary principle is a recipe for economic ruin, IMHO, especially when the climate models are so deficient.

[justa-hairyape]

The Greenhouse Effect is real and necessary for life on Earth. Without it, our world would be a frozen ball that would not be hospitable for life as we know it.

Nothing to do with a greenhouse. It is due to having an atmosphere. If the density of the atmosphere is too great, you get Venus. If the density is too weak, you get Mars. Good article otherwise.

[Huebolt]

A return to an Ice Age is a Bad Thing. We are apparently overdue to do so.

You are absolutely correct. Sad to say, the normal state of the earth is, indeed, an ice-age of various degree. I've seen glacial striations in north Texas. A couple of winters like this with a few "years of no summer" and there we would be.

[neverdem]

Nothing to do with a greenhouse. It is due to having an atmosphere. If the density of the atmosphere is too great, you get Venus. If the density is too weak, you get Mars.

I like your answer. Is it intuition, or do you have a source or two?

[steveab]

Here's a real life example.
In my heck of the woods, the city will only allow x amount of liquor permits for y population density. If you want one and all the permits have been issued, your SOL.
The other part of CO2 Cap and trade would be like all the liquor permit holders getting together (with the government getting their cut) agreeing to pay the city down the road to remain dry.

[AFreeBird]

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link.

[AFreeBird]

No problem. I thought even just the “executive summary” was pretty in depth and informative. I haven’t waded into the full paper yet. Probably a little above my pay grade.