SS Myths debunked -3

See       Page 1  #1 to 85             SS myths debunked -1
             Page 2  #86- to 110        SS Myths debunked -2
THIS   Page  #111 – 140        SS Myths debunked -3
            Page 4  #141-176          SS Myths debunked -4

111
Hansen’s 1988 prediction was wrong
112
It’s global brightening
Global dimming and brightening are names given to periods from the 1980s onwards when, despite TSI levels, radiation at the Earth’s surface seemed to fluctuate between decreases, dimming, and increases, brightening. Whether this variation was due to aerosols or clouds is still uncertain, although scientists like Pinker and her team think it was due to clouds, in which case all the modern warming can be put down to natural factors
113
Earth hasn’t warmed as much as expected
This is a schizophrenic point. It’s true of course but the SKS boys seem to agree with it and drag out aerosols again and something called the planet’s thermal inertia to explain it. The thermal inertia of course is all that missing heat being stored in the oceans. Not, see item 31. How do they reconcile that with their sustained argument that temperatures have risen in accord with alarmist-in-chief Hansen’s predictions; see item 111. The only inertia here is the inability of the alarmists to see reality
114
Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain
Garbage. The IPCC has consistently played down the expansion of sea ice at the Antarctic. The alarmists have also generated bizarre explanations for the expansion of Antarctic sea ice such as increased evaporation from a warming Southern ocean which then falls as ice. This is clearly nonsense as both atmospheric and sea temperatures in the Antarctic are trending down. Finally global sea ice, that’s both the Arctic and Antarctic, has been increasing since 2012
115
It’s a climate regime shift
Yep. David Stockwell and I looked at this and concluded the same. The breaks in temperature featuring a step up in 1976 and a step down in 1997 were both correlated with real physical events and contradicted the basis of alarmism in respect of how CO2 effects temperature. There are plenty of papers on the subject. Climate shifts associated with PDO cycles have been around for a long time
116
Solar cycles cause global warming
Items 2, 28, 43, 81 and 89. It’s the Sun stupid
117
Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
It’s probably less. See items 4 and 80. John Cook is the driver of the consensus. Here is a couple more refutations of his weird, unscientific concept of consensus.
118
Over 31000 scientists signed the OISM petition project
The SKS boys reckon only a few were climatologists. Yet many alarmist climate experts and spokespersons did not train in climate; ie Flannery, Manne, Pachauri, Steffen, Clive Hamilton, Cook, Lewandowsky, Oreskes. The qualification issue has always been the default position of alarmists: as in, you’re not a climate scientist, now go home and do what you’re told as Manne exhorted in supporting the Finkelstein report which was set up to censor sceptics on the basis they could not comment on alarmism because they were not qualified. Michael Ashley, an astronomer, kindly offered the same advice to me. Alarmism is really a position of moral superiority. The qualification barrier to sceptics is a red herring. For alarmists sceptics are not good enough. This is why the alarmists are crawling all over the Pope’s support for alarmism. What could be more moral than the Pope? But in moral matters the Pope is an expert and the alarmists are not. How ironic that alarmists who take the high ground on science credentials should be revealed as lacking expertise in moral matters by an expert

119
 Ice isn’t melting.
Yep. See items 10, 29, 39, 40, 44, 74, 95, 97, 114.
120
IPCC disappeared the medieval warm period (MWP).
Yep. Sort of. I say sort of because the alarmists’ approach to the MWP is so confused it is hard to say what they did. But you can be assured that disappearing the MWP is consistent with alarmist adjustments which make the past cooler and the present warmer. First some facts. The MWP was at least as warm and probably warmer as today and global in extent. A good resource chock full of peer reviewed papers confirming this is at CO2 Science. Plenty of papers confirm this. The history of the MWP illustrates the alarmists’ confusion. In the 1990 IPPC report, FAR, Figure 7.1 showed the MWP being clearly warmer than today with the Little Ice Age (LIA) also clearly visible. The alarmists needed to get rid of Figure 7.1 and in tried and tested fashion began to denigrate it. Mike Hulme for instance called it Lamb's sketch on the back of an envelope, and a rather dodgy bit of hand-waving. Lamb drew the graph in his 1965 paper which was subsequently referred to by Michael Mann who used the same graph, albeit to show that the MWP was regional. Other studies have also produced a MWP similar to Lamb’s Figure 7.1 but with the MWP being global in extent. However in the IPCC’s 2001 report, TAR, the Lamb graph had been replaced by the Mann, Bradley Hughes (MBH) 1998 graph. The MBH graph clearly shows the hockey stick with both the MWP and LIA now missing. Also in TAR was Figure 9.1b with its extraordinary suppression of both the MWP and LIA. Another change occurred in the IPCC’s 2007 report, AR4, where MBH’s graph was replaced with Figure 6.10 where in (c) it is plain that the margins of error include a MWP warmer than today! If this wasn’t exhausting enough our good friend Monckton entered the fray and was accused of producing a doctored comparison graph between Lamb’s original graph used in 1990 and the subsequent hockey stick graphs which had no MWP. I actually think Monckton’s graph, which as it turns out wasn’t his graph, but a media construct, is pretty good (and I’ve already used it a couple of times here) and sums up the efforts by the alarmists to disappear the MWP. Monckton also likes it, so I’m in good company, not the alarmists’
121
A drop in volcanic activity caused warming
It may have contributed. But given the uncertainty with the climate effects of aerosols (item 109) and how much CO2 volcanoes emit (item 72), who knows?

122
Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
. True. Alarmists certainly can’t predict anything including the past as Koutsoyiannis and his team found, see part 7 here
123
It’s ozone
Despite what the SKS boys say ozone has a crucial effect. The alarmists as usual are confused about ozone. The IPCC says AGW causes ozone problems by cooling the Stratosphere. But the Stratosphere isn’t cooling (item 56). However there is a body of science which says the variation in the ozone layer has been responsible for the recent warming. Conversely the science says the ozone depletion may have caused the increase in Antarctic sea ice. Apparently variations in ozone can affect circulation with climate consequences. As to what causes variations in the ozone level a previous lot of alarmists blamed humans although there is now contradictory evidence and the possibility that maligned (see item 21) cosmic rays may play a part. Unlike the simplicity of AGW where human CO2 is the cause of climate the real world shows us that many factors play a part
124
Freedom of information (FOI) requests were ignored
Yep. No excuse. Item 94. The SKS boys says the CRU is a very small outfit. So what? Their excuses were pitiful. And yeah their credibility is in question.
125
Climate sceptics are like Galileo
Personally I prefer Copernicus
126
The IPCC consensus is phony
As per items 4, 80, 117. The SKS boys note nations sign up to the UN/IPCC agreements. Hilarious, or it would be if you were living on a warming Mars. Look at the China/US deal. China is laughing all the way to the bank; Obama commits the US to cuts now while China does nothing until 2030 when its emissions will peak. That’s how to wipe out your economic competitor 101. And look at Figueres who openly declares that the UN’s mission is to rid the world of capitalism and that the Western nations must give $billions to the rest via the UN. Which 3rd world nation wouldn’t sign up to that and with the alarmists running the Western nations they’re locked in as well. There is no scientific consensus and the nation consensus is a product of greed and guilt

127
Sea level is not rising
. No, the rate of sea level increase is declining. See item, 25, 31, 68, 98. See also Cazenave et al 2014 who find a further 30% decline in the rate of sea level rise. This decline is a major contradiction of alarmism
128
Tuvalu sea level isn’t rising
To which the SKS boys add that Tuvalu is rising 3 times the global average. LOL. PSMSL gauge readings for Tuvalu. The 3 times comes from this Cazenave et al paper. Cazenave speaks of vertical ground motion. That is the island was sinking. If it was it no longer is and is fact growing according to new research. Even the alarmist ABC has noted the growth of Tuvalu and other Pacific islands. So rising and falling of the land apart what has the sea been doing around Tuvalu? According to the BOM, Pacific Sea Level Monitoring Project buggar all
129
Naomi Oreskes study on consensus was flawed. But “Benny Peiser the critic had to retract his criticism
, the SKS boys crow. Sure. Poor Benny, he included one paper he should not have done and the alarmists have been dredging this up since 2004. Now let’s talk about Oreskes’s mistakes. She knows nothing about Santer and the Tropical Hotspot; she isn’t familiar with the pH scale, thinks Beryllium is a heavy metal, mistakenly assumes that CO2 is trapped in the troposphere, and climate models can predict forest fires and floods and doesn’t understand the difference between reactive oxygen and radioactive oxygen. She is a scientific dunce. She also favours communism. Oreskes is a condescending, puritanical conspiracist whose business is maligning and smearing hard working sceptics. She is the ugly face of alarmism. See items 4, 80, 117, 126
130
Renewables can’t provide baseload power.
They can’t and it’s despicable that alarmists peddle this garbage. See items 37, 65 and 96. World-wide, according to the IPCC, 13.8% of the world’s energy use is from renewables ( and nothing is going to change in the future) with 10.2% coming from wood, Most of the rest is hydro; less than 0.5% of the world's energy comes from wind, tide, wave, solar and geothermal put together. Just think of that, the dominant renewable is wood. And with idiotic governments in thrall to alarmism and trying to meet renewable targets forests are now in danger of being cut down. Renewables are too unreliable to meet base-load power demand. Base load is the absolute minimum power to keep modern civilization going. In Australia the minimum or base power requirements are shown here. Compare that with typical wind power production figures. The only way renewables can supply baseload is if that baseload is equal to nothing for long periods of time. Renewables like most parts of alarmism are a lie
131
Trenberth can’t account for the lack of warming
The SKS boys try to fiddle the point by saying Trenberth meant energy flow not warming but according to Hansen the energy flow isn’t there either. Whatever fancy spin you put on it Trenberth’s missing heat is still not in the ocean and has left the planet. See item 31
132
Ice sheet losses are overestimated
Of course, alarmist and over-estimation, exaggeration and lying go hand in hand. See items 10. 20 and 40
133
CRU tampered with temperature data
Yep. See items 17, 85, 91, 94 and 104. Alarmism is their name, temperature tampering is their game. Not just CRU but the BOM
134
Melting isn’t warming the Arctic
Not much else is either. This is a typical misleading alarmist point. Seawater is darker than ice so does not have a high albedo. The alarmists argue that means more heat is going into the oceans. But it isn’t AGW heat through backradiation because backradiation cannot heat the ocean (see items 63, 64). It’s also unlikely albedo is playing a part either because Arctic albedo is not declining recently (see item 107). Even if the Arctic is warming it’s probably natural. And in historical terms the Arctic temperature has been falling since 1950. And you can compare the Arctic temperature year to year here from 1958. The alarmists will say there has been a degree or slightly more warming from year to year and ignore the relative effect of an increase from such a low temperature base in the Arctic compared with a decline in the tropical temperature. This was looked at in a couple of papers about the errors in alarmist’s temperatures. The Pielke et al paper is particularly relevant. Pielke et al generate this formula: (A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4. What it means is deduced from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, E = sigma x T^4, where sigma = 5.67×10^-8, and T is temperature in K; what this means is that temperature variations at particular sites contradict the efficacy of a global average temperature [GMST], even if homogenisation process has established a commonality of trend; the reason is that the amount of the IR emission from a locality which is determined by the SB equation can show no alteration in the Earth radiation [or energy] balance [ERB] despite an alteration in GMST; what AGW does is (A + B)^4 or adds all the site temps and then applies SB to that total; this does not take into account the temp differences between the sites which is crucial to ERB rather than the trends at those sites; the second part of the equation is crucial for spatial difference A^4 + B^4 where each site has its SB emissions determined before adding to other sites; you can see this is different by just plugging some figures into the equation and seeing how they differ. On this basis an increase in temperature in the Arctic will have less effect on the ERB than a lessor decrease in the tropics. Microsite effects do count (see item 100).

135
Breathing contributes to CO2 build up
It does which is why alarmists are misanthropes (see item 56). If there are less humans breathing than AGW will be reduced. It’s simple arithmetic. Humans breathe in air which has 400PPM of CO2 and exhale air which has up to 6000PPM of CO2. So humans are increasing CO2, especially since human population is increasing as well. Cow farts, on the other hand are carbon neutral
136
Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperature
The SKS boys say the Great Lakes temperature is not included in global temperature records. You can bet it will be if the Great Lakes show any warming consistent with alarmism. And guess what, that’s what the alarmists did. That’s alarmism for you: never let an opportunity to alarm go by. Anyway get all your Great Lakes weather information at Watts.
137
Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature
And he’s right. See items 45 and 46. A review of Soares is here. CO2 doesn’t seem to correlate well with temperature over any time span. If there is a correlation it is CO2 following temperature which makes sense because as temperature increases the ocean releases CO2. Attempts by the alarmists Shakun and Parrenin to argue that CO2 doesn’t follow in a lagged fashion behind temperature increase are critiqued here at parts 7 and 8
138
We’re heading into cooling
. Cooling is about due according to well established interglacial cycles. Solar cycle 24 is also shaping up as a reduced one. Temperatures are not rising. The scientific basis for the imminent cooling is that it has happened many times in the past and AGW is rubbish. The only reason alarmists say we’re not is because they cling to their belief in AGW. The SKS objection to the cooling point is ironic given their stance at item 140
139
Murray Salby finds CO2 rise is natural
He’s probably right. See items 45, 46, 77. Salby’s work on isotopes which the alarmists say prove the increase in CO2 is due to humans in fact shows the opposite. As Jo Nova notes : Salby points out that while fossil fuels are richer in C12 than the atmosphere, so too is plant life on Earth, and there isn’t a lot of difference (just 2.6%) in the ratios of C13 to C12 in plants versus fossil fuels. (Fossil fuels are, after all, made in theory from plants, so it’s not surprising that it’s hard to tell their “signatures” apart). So if the C13 to C12 ratio is falling (as more C12 rich carbon is put into the air by burning fossil fuels) then we can’t know if it’s due to man-made CO2 or natural CO2 from plants. Salby has been vindicated in a number of ways as shown at item 45. In addition new satellite data shows the developed nations are net absorbers of CO2 which contradicts the alarmist claim and new Swedish research supports Salby. Salby is a straight shooter. He has been vilified by the alarmists and treated in the usual alarmist/watermelon way at his job at Macquarie University. All because he acted like a true scientist
140
CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentrations. See above
The SKS boys default to isotopes again. As well as Salby’s work Tom Quirk looks at hemispheric differences in isotopes which contradict the alarmist claim that all the increase in CO2 concentration must be human in origin. An overview of possible plant and other natural isotopic sources for the increase in CO2 also contradicts the alarmist position, while Professor Segalstad’s work on isotopes, noting section 10, shows how alarmists have fudged the figures. Finally Professor Gösta Pettersson’s work on the atom bomb test’s production of CO2 C14 isotopes reduces the alarmist position to radioactive sludge

See More -SS Myths Debunked -4


Comments