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."

[justa-hairyape]

That is the facts. Venus has a very dense atmosphere compared to Earth. Mars has a weak one. Venus is very hot and its atmosphere has a very high relative heat content. Mars is very cold at night and hot during the day with a low relative heat content. And what happens in Earths atmosphere is not even remotely similar to what happens in a green house. The green house myth has been shattered for decades, but the settled science cannot seem to get over it. The glass in a green house absorbs infrared light, which is why the glass gets hot. That heated glass is cooled by the outside wind. So very little infrared light energy from the sun enters the green house. It is primarily all visible light. That is not what happens on the Earths surface. Our atmosphere absorbs some infrared and our oceans receive large amounts of infrared, which is primarily absorbed. So infrared light from the sun is a significant factor on Earth. What heats a greenhouse is energy from the visible light spectrum traveling through the glass which eventually warms surface that absorb the light. These surfaces give off heat that heats the internal atmosphere. That warm air cannot escape. There was an old experiment where they painted the internal surfaces of a green house white. It did not significantly warm because the white surfaces reflected and did not absorb the visible light. So if you do not want your green house to warm significantly, paint the inside surfaces white and use clear glass. Infrared has nothing to do with a green house. To show how how wrong the settled science is, infrared light is all that matters with respect the CO2 green house gas. So CO2 is not a green house gas, because infrared light is not a factor in a green house. CO2 is an atmospheric gas, just like water vapor. Now the more water vapor or the higher density of the atmosphere (Venus), and the atmosphere can hold and store a lot more heat. Mars atmosphere is very thin and it retains very little heat. The most important factor on Earth for heat content is the density of the atmosphere. You can see that at sea level where atmosphere is more dense compared to mountain tops where atmosphere is thin.

So now perhaps you can understand why all the predictions based on green house gas concentration in Earth's atmosphere have not panned out to be correct. Reality has bit them in the behind. You cannot make accurate predictions with inaccurate science. The above paragraph is just the basic explanation for how they got it wrong. If you want the explanation from a physics perspective, you can download a paper from the link below.

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

[justa-hairyape]

Well, we even have it in the Land of the Free. Perhaps that is where I found the paper too.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

The only rebuttal given by AGW proponents is that the scandals of the IPCC don't negate the science

No, they are still repeating that the last decade is the "hottest in history."

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent...

[onyx]

Hey, I like that man!

Seriously.

[onyx]

Thanks for the ping.
I’m saving all articles.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

How Big are you Hard Drives...?

I just bought one of these the other day...still trying to get it working on my Linux network:

LG N2R1DD1 1TB 1TB Super Multi NAS with DVD Re-Writer

[parsifal]

A freeper named “cobra64” did it. I think it is great,too.

parsy

[Marine_Uncle]

I might as well throw in another issue that must be better understood. Key points. Shrinking ionosphere and magnetic flux density changes within the earth at Watts Up With That?

As some at this site (FR) are aware some solid studies indicate perhaps the primary driver in the whole earth heating/cooling is due to the formation of clouds in the higher levels where increased cloud formation in the upper levels reflect more sunlight verse when lower cloud density in the upper levels prevail more sunlight can enter the lower atmosphere as well as strike the earth's land masses.
This stuff is very complicated. But surely the issue of CO2 somehow being responsible for earth heating surely can be shown to be pure rubbish.

[justa-hairyape]

To show you how absurd the CO2 argument is, you know those massive cooling towers at nuclear power plants. The kinda power plant Obama wants to build to decrease the CO2 “greenhouse emissions”. They are emitting large amounts of warm water vapor. The major “greenhouse gas”.

[Marine_Uncle]

I know. Long before global warming issues targeting CO2 as a prime culprit where being elucidated, I knew this crap was simply that crap. And for the most part every petrochemical plant, oil refinery, coal, oil, natural gas electrical generation plant etc., in the USA who have stacks fit into the same scenario, harmless water vapor being emitted.
Let me just add, if one considers how much water vapor rises each day world wide across the huge expanse of oceans, all the man made generation of water vapor is a drop in the bucket.

[justa-hairyape]

Let me just add, if one considers how much water vapor rises each day world wide across the huge expanse of oceans, all the man made generation of water vapor is a drop in the bucket.

No doubt, but it is the irony that is amazing to behold. Wonder if anybody has quantified the amount of water vapor we have be adding over the years ? We could be slowly making our atmosphere more dense. Our politicians are certainly becoming more dense.

[raptor22]

Pachauri must resign or be fired so he can go back to writing porn novels full time.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2438939/posts

[Marine_Uncle]

The oceans represnt over 70% surface of our planet. Think of the huge amount of surface area of our planet that is water. 99% percent of it being salt water oceans. The amount of water being emitted into the lower atmosphere by humans is a small percentage world wide that each day is attributed to surface evaporation.
It is that simple. Let the reader absorb that concept.
I would be simply surprise if I had someone counter this basic fact. They would be among the idiots and morons that populate this earth.
I probably will not even respond to any challenges on this comment. For I do not deal with idiots.
Mankind contributes very little to the emission of water vapor verse the huge body of surface water this planet represents. It really is that simple.
Let the morons try to dispute such an elementary fact.

[justa-hairyape]

Agree with it being a small percentage compared to total atmospheric gases. However, the amount of human generated CO2 gas is also a small percentage of the total atmospheric gases. Measured as ppm. What first needs to be addressed is the following - Is the amount of water vapor being released into the atmosphere by human activity, as significant with respect to atmospheric warming, as the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere by human activity. If human generated water vapor turns out to be far more significant, CO2 regulation will be a grossly inefficient mechanism to prevent AGW.

At any rate, the sad state of affairs is the following. We have not quantified how much of the most significant atmospheric warming gas we humans are releasing into the atmosphere, yet we think we know enough now to prevent atmospheric gas warming of the planet. So just how is that possible if we consider ourselves to be smart ?

[Marine_Uncle]

Reasonable suggestion, but easier said then done.

[justa-hairyape]

That is probably why is has not been done yet. Sometimes ignorance is not bliss, it is just practical.

[Marine_Uncle]

Not really. I mean no disrespect, but it is not easy to quantify the CO2 total output from all forms of living things not only humans but the tens of thousands of living things both of the animal and plant kingdoms that live on land as well as in the sea. Both industrial in nature, as well as the biological. And so what. The underlining understanding is CO2 has no effect in the over all heating or warming of the earth's surface and atmosphere.

[justa-hairyape]

Agree with your CO2 statement. Was referring to quantifying water vapor changes. The AGW crowd claims to have the carbon cycle fairly well figured out. The hydrogen cycle however is less known. And hydrogen in the gaseous form of water vapor is the dominate “greenhouse” gas. Without a doubt the hydrogen cycle has a much more significant affect on atmospheric warming then does the carbon cycle. The AGW types even acknowledge this with their Water Vapor Feedback Mechanism. According to them, more CO2 atmospheric warming apparently leads to more water vapor creation. It is the water vapor that makes their CO2 so dangerous. Actually the only way CO2 could be dangerous, if you do the math. Funny how they worry about human action causing the minor atmospheric gas having an affect on the major atmospheric gas. Duh ? What about human activity affecting the Major Atmospheric gas. They are such dupes.

[Marine_Uncle]

Let me just add. There are things such as concentrations of carbon (carbon black) that are exhumed into our atmosphere that may have a more profound effect on the over all surface reflectance of IR into the lower atmosphere levels, that some claim might have some effect on the over all warming.
This suggestion is not fully explored. The issue regarding the extremely low level by total content of various gases as argon, CO2, methane, ozone, etc., should soon be a closed case. They do not in any way contributed to this so called greenhouse effect, that supposedly warms the earths surface and oceans.
It is simply a lie to buy into based on very poor science.
What we need to do is to start from the United States view point, seek measures that will silence such horse shit in the future. There is plenty of room for honest scientific investigations into the many by products of industrialization that really do poison our atmosphere, ground waters and land, to be addressed within the confines of rational and fair future scientific study and perhaps where required regulations.
With that being said. Perhaps you should carefully read the few papers that have been introduced within these many posts as how Carbon Dioxide is not even a issue in the very complicated studies regarding potential global warming, or quite frankly the opposite, global cooling.
I rest my case.