SS Myths debunked -4

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

The Sun is getting hotter
The SKS boys say it’s at century breaking cooling records. They must be looking at the measurements upside down like Mann did with his tree-rings. See items 2, 28, 43, 50, 81, 83, 116. Note that every other planet in the solar system is getting warmer. What else could it be except the Sun. In fact the Sun reached a TSI zenith in 2000, the highest in over 400 years. Since then of course the solar maximum has faded. Solar cycle 24 is indeed shaping up as a reduced one. That is going to produce cooling. See items 5, 38, 49. To sum up: temperatures increased up to the TSI maximum and then as the solar cycle has declined have paused and will probably fall as the solar cycles enter a predicted minimum. That explanation certainly seems much clearer than the confected fairy tales of alarmism.
It’s waste heat
The Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE) has a profound effect on temperature. See item 26. There are numerous papers and research confirming this. Here, here, here, here, here, here, here. It is a nonsense to say urban heat from accumulating and expanding human activity cannot produce warming beyond natural trend
Water vapor in the Stratosphere stopped global warming
Stratosphere water is important because it increases backradiation, lets in TSI and blocks outgoing infrared radiation. Soloman’s paper is behind this idea. Soloman finds a 10% decline in Stratosphere water since 2000, coincidentally the time of the temperature pause (see items 5 and 9). Surely if more Stratosphere water caused warming in the 1980-90s (the alarmists say only by 30%) and 10% less Stratosphere water reduces warming by 25% doesn’t that mean water is the dominant GHG (see item 35)? Soloman doesn’t give the % increase in Stratosphere water before 2000 which caused the 30% increase in temperature from what it would have been with just CO2, nor does she and the witless alarmists consider that nature may have played a part in the warming via a +_ve PDO (see items 32, 48 and 54). In contrast to Soloman other calculations show the decline in troposphere water after 2000 had a cooling effect 16 times the warming effect from human GHGs from 1990 to 2001. To confound the issue recent studies show a negative trend in lower and mid Stratosphere water from the mid-1980s and a positive trend in upper Stratosphere water. It’s a water world
 It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940.
These were positive PDO or warming periods, just like from 1970-2000. There is no effective difference in the rate of warming between 1910-1940 and 1970-2000. The rate of warming from 1910-1940 was 0.0152577 per year. The rate of warming from 1970-2000 was 0.016094 per yea
An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature
This point is crucial and has been touched on at items 30, 46 and 73 dealing with the log decline of CO2 forcing, differencing to reflect the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature and saturation. A good over view of this issue is at Lucia’s blackboard, the difference between a forcing and a feed-back is here and Beers Law is described in Michael Hammer’s essay. The forcing of CO2 as measured in temperature is constrained by Beers Law which gives it a logarithmic declining effect. The comparison with a window being painted illustrates this. The first layer of paint covers most of the window; successive coats complete the cover but each successive coat has less and less effect compared with the first coat. In the atmosphere each higher level of CO2 has less effect in absorbing and emitting infra-red radiation because the lower levels of CO2 are like the first coats of paint. For CO2 to have continuing effects on temperature it has to increase at an increasing rate, an exponential rate. 2 scientists, Beenstock and Reingewertz published 2 papers on this point. Simply put Beenstock confirmed this diminishing effect of CO2 on temperature by differencing which means subtracting successive data points to produce a stationary or trendless line. Because CO2 has to be differenced twice I(2) compared with temperature only once I(1) to produce a trendless line CO2 can only affect temperature by increasing at an increasing rate and the amount of CO2 has no effect on temperature. This means there is no ECS (see item 13). Has CO2 been increasing at an increasing rate? The alarmists think so. The sceptics are more measured saying the increase is reducing to a linear increase (page 5). The rate has increased. But some issues arise. Firstly the effect of CO2 as shown is a log effect decreasing with increase. The rate of increase here is very small so the effect on temperature is going to be very small. So small in fact that temperature has paused (see item 5). Feedbacks, despite alarmist claims, have played a part in this and must be negative (see item 67). As has natural variability (see items 1 and 54). And even if CO2 has increased at an increasing rate that increase is probably natural (see items 45, 46, 77, 139, 140).
Record snow cover was set in winter 2008-2009.
The SKS boys say it was business as normal. Depends where you were. This is typical alarmist hypocrisy. If a weather event supports their narrative its AGW, if it doesn’t its weathe
Mauna Loa is a volcano.
Yep, no argument. The SKS boys get one right
Venus doesn’t have a runaway greenhouse effect
Venus is odd. It has no tectonic plates and there is a theory that it literally overturns periodically to release internal pressure and it is this which has caused the 96% CO2 concentration in Venus’s atmosphere not a greenhouse effect. Venus’s atmospheric temperature is also arguably not due to greenhouse but atmospheric pressure and/or lapse rate. A good discussion on the pressure/greenhouse dispute is here. And a new paper by Chilingar et al shows that atmospheric pressure/mass and solar heating can explain the temperature profile not only on Venus but Earth as well. See item 63

Antarctica is too cold to lose ice
It is cold. Antarctic sea and atmospheric temperatures are falling. See items 10, 97 and 114. There is a certain irony here since alarmist ‘science’ says warmer conditions in the Antarctic should produce more snow and here they are claiming its losing snow
Positive feedback means runaway warming
The SKS boys disavow this by implying the log effect and diminishing returns but positive feedbacks are locked into the IPCC alarmist in the form of the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect. But with every major scientist crying from the rooftops about the end of the world this measured tone is hypocritical. Alarmism is what alarmists do. See items 34, 88, 91, 106. If it’s not islands being drowned then extinctions, temperatures soaring, ice melting, hurricanes getting bigger, everything will be worse with AGW. Here’s the list. Make no mistake: the alarmists think feedbacks are positive (they aren’t, see also items 1, 110) and with positive feedbacks Earth will end up like Venus (we won’t).
Sceptics were kept out of the IPCC
Yep, the alarmism narrative cannot tolerate dissenting voices and censorship of sceptics continues. Look at new EPA head McCarthy who thinks deniers aren’t normal people. Alarmists treat sceptics and other people with contempt (see items 17, 34, 85, 94). Alarmists not only think sceptics aren’t normal but they burn books because the books have sceptical content, they oppose democracy, they want to jail sceptics, they want to stop the press and public from even talking about alarmism, they conduct vicious vendettas against sceptical scientists like Soon, Tol, Carter, Bengtsson, Salby (item 139) and so on. Ordinary scientists are afraid to speak out against the alarmism oppression and censorship. Alarmism is not only bankrupting the Western economies but it is revealing itself as an oppressive, censorious ideology. It is not for nothing that greenies are called watermelons
Water levels correlate with sunspots
See items 2, 25. Meehl and other NASA alarmists think so especially on a regional level. Other studies confirm that mean sunspot frequency corresponds with mean rainfall. Since the Sun dominates climate and water is the dominant GHG this point makes sense. Naturally the SKS boys don’t like it.
CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
The SKS boys hide behind the snowball Earth and faint Sun concept but there is no hiding. See item 50. CO2 was higher during the Cambrian and almost as high during the Silurian and relatively high during the Jurassic (from here) where the Sun was at 99% of its current power. But regardless of the historical level of CO2 there has been little correlation between CO2 and temperature. It’s a strange alarmist argument because in effect they’re saying unless the Sun is hot enough CO2 cannot warm
It’s internal variability
The SKS boys hide behind the snowball Earth and faint Sun concept but there is no hiding. See item 50. CO2 was higher during the Cambrian and almost as high during the Silurian and relatively high during the Jurassic (from here) where the Sun was at 99% of its current power. But regardless of the historical level of CO2 there has been little correlation between CO2 and temperature. It’s a strange alarmist argument because in effect they’re saying unless the Sun is hot enough CO2 cannot warm
CO2 increase is natural not human caused
Yep. See Salby at item 139. That’s why the alarmists hate him.
 It’s CFC
CFCs are very effective at trapping infra-red radiation. CO2 is the base at 1. There is credible science (discussed here) that CFCs have contributed to warming. So why haven’t the alarmists concentrated on CHCs when the evidence for CO2 is so problematic and CFCs are almost entirely caused by humans and CO2 is probably not?

Scientists retracted claim that sea levels are rising.
See item 25 That’s what peer pressure review can do. In fact the paper confirmed the IPCC’s estimates of sea level rise, which are problematic (see items 25 and 98), but made 2 technical errors. It was not withdrawn because its estimate of sea level rise was too low because its estimate was the same as the estimate of the IPCC. Sea level rise is one of the foundations of alarmism with many papers showing the alarmism claims are typically exaggerated. See here, here, here. Despite the firm evidence that sea level rise is not to do with AGW many policies are enacted by councils which impact in a negative way on the citizenry
Warming causes CO2 to rise.
Yes. See item 90
Coral atolls grow as sea level rises
They must because sea levels have been well above today’s levels and yet we still have coral reefs. Alarmism thrives on certain iconic natural features, Polar bears (see item 36), coral reefs (see 71). Both are doing fine
Renewable energy investment kills jobs.
It sure doesn’t create real jobs because renewables would not exist without government subsidies. Spain is the classic case. Professor Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of Juan Carlos University’s study which was confirmed by a consequent Spanish study and an Italian study showed, despite the usual howls of alarmist outrage and much worse, that every renewable job created by subsidy destroyed 2.2 real jobs. In Spain, once the subsidies end the renewable jobs cease. But the damage had been done, with $billions diverted into useless renewable projects and potential debt and contractual law suits created. The Spanish economy has been decimated with unemployment the highest in Europe at 25%. See also items 37, 65, 96, 130. Maybe, just maybe, this expenditure could be justified if renewables worked; they don’t. Each dollar spent on renewables is not just a dollar wasted but as Spain shows is the start of a multiplier effect which undermines the whole economy. That’s the real runaway (see item 1).
Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass
Historically this is very true. See items 39, 74. Recent studies show that the rate of ice loss in Greenland is reducing and concentrated on the coast. The ice in the centre of Greenland is increasing.
DMI show cooling Arctic
Correct. So do other measurements. See items 29, 44, 95. DMI is here. Watts’ ice page is here
CO2 limits won’t cool the planet
But say the SKS boys, limits will prevent catastrophic climate change. And these are the same alarmists who at item 34 claim the alarmists are understating and don’t use exaggeration. CO2 limits won’t do anything for the climate because extra CO2 won’t do anything to the climate. But extra CO2 will make a lot plants happy (item 42) and save $trillions (items 37, 65, 96)
Royal Society embraces scepticism
No it doesn’t. The history of the RS is one of pro-alarmist activism leading up to the highly political current president, Paul Nurse. A group of RS sceptics forced the RS to amend its pro-alarmist public statements. The RS agreed to take a more balanced view in regard to alarmism and issued a report for this process. That report is no longer available and Nurse has resumed making alarmist statements under the imprimatur of the RS. This in fact is how alarmism gets its consensus. Organisations like the RS which receive most of its funding from the public are led by alarmists who dictate policy in accord with alarmism and in that way despite in house dissent, can be claimed to support alarmism in their entirety. Hey presto, a consensus. Typical alarmism
It’s only a few degrees
It’s only nothing. Temperature has stopped (see item 5) and the alarmist experts haven’t got a clue and default to saying its worse than we thought even though they don’t know what it will be. Quote: “The greater the uncertainty that is considered for radiative forcing, the more difficult it is to rule out high climate sensitivity, although low climate sensitivity (< 2°C) remains unlikely.” This is the alarmist precautionary principle; we’re not certain about anything, but we’re certain things are going to be bad

97% consensus on human caused global warming has been disproved
Yep. See items 4, 80, 117, 126, 129. The consensus is a horrible idea promoted by horrible people (see items 129, 164).
It’s satellite microwave transmissions
It’s not which is why, if alarmists were fair dinkum, they would be supporting solar power based in space with power transmitted to Earth in microwave
CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
See item 174 This is classic sleight of hand from the alarmists. There are 2 temperatures on Earth. The first is the effective temperature which is produced by the solar constant, planetary albedo (reflectivity) and internal heat sources as ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, industrial heat generation (UHIE) and is about 255 Kelvin or minus 18C. The second is the greenhouse temperature, coming from the presence of infrared-active gases (H2O, CO2, methane, ozone, etc.) and clouds in the atmosphere, and is about 33C. These two give 288 K (+15 C) global average surface temperature (GAT). So CO2 is only contributing to the second, greenhouse, temperature. Its contribution to that 33C is based on relative forcings of all the GHGs which is shown by Ramanathan. Based on Ramanathan’s measurements of outgoing infra-red or longwave radiation the forcing of CO2 is about 9% or about 2.5 times less than water which is 25% of the 33C. CO2, therefore contributes about 3.1C of the greenhouse temperature, or about 1% of the GAT.
Sea level fell in 2010
The SKS boys put it down to the La Nina caused flooding. The 2010-2011 floods in Australia were a product of natural variability. See items 1, 154. So, just like the rise in sea level over the 20thC, the decline
Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past
See items 29, 44, 95. There is no doubt sea ice was less in the past with a quasi-cyclical pattern of ice cover of about 2500 years. Arctic sea ice over the 20thC has correlated strongly with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, AMO. Therefore it can be said the pattern of recent Arctic ice cover is natural. The extent of human effect on the Arctic appears to be limited to this.
We didn’t have global warming during the industrial revolution
We didn’t have a lot of things: power, sanitation, medicine, law and order, high life expectancy, equality etc. Alarmists like Clive Hamilton would like us to go back to these primitive times, to save the planet and give up the massive increase in social wealth. Alarmists are misanthropes.
Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
He had plenty of help. See items 16, 27, 85, 108, 120. Ljungqvist 2012 is a great paper, discussed here. This graph says it all. It boils down to this; the alarmists have a track record of shenanigans and silly-buggars which would be funny if it wasn’t so grotesquely expensive. They have tried to eliminate past warming and shonked the modern temperature record. So, who are you going to believe: Ljungqvist or the SKS boys and the rest of the alarmists?

Hansen predicted the Westside highway would be under water
The SKS boys say Hansen was just speculating, just throwing some guesses into the air to see what floated down. See items 61, 111. Hansen gets arrested a lot. He has some tricky friends who may or may not have orchestrated the warm reception for Hansen’s 1988 alarmist speech which got the whole alarmist scam up and running. Hansen is prone to hyperbole; he calls coal trains, “trains of death, thinks Earth is going to become like Venus with burning oceans, said the president had 4 years to save the Earth, in 2009, advocates civil disobedience, deplores democracy and says creation will end. Normally you would classify such a person in the loon category. But Hansen as much as anyone has presided over the waste, expense and corruption of science with alarmism. His responsibility cannot be dismissed. Still he does like nuclear and thinks renewables are junk. So as loons go he is on the top of the heap

Removing all CO2 would make little difference
See item 168. The SKS boys link to a talk by Richard Lindzen who proposed this thought exercise. Lindzen says removing all the CO2 from the atmosphere would result in about 2.5C cooling. SKS concedes this is a throwaway line by Lindzen but in fact Lindzen has referred to it before even arguing that removing all CO2 would only cause cooling by less than 2%. The position for the alarmists is put by Lacis who assert that even though in radiative forcing CO2 is less than H2O, the fact that CO2 does not condense out of the atmosphere means it is the dominant forcing. But Lacis assumes all water is a feedback and a positive feedback, always increasing forcing. They assume that with CO2 removed, Earth will cool, as Lindzen does, but they assume further that as the world cools more clouds will develop (Figure 2) and further cool creating a Snowball Earth (see item 50). This does not make sense. In a cooling world there would be less cloud because there is less sunlight coming in and less evaporation. See item 67. Clouds are also not a positive feedback and in fact a forcing (see item 67). An interesting paper dealing with the Snowball Earth suggests a way Earth could emerge from a Snowball Earth (see here; and here for discussion); that is, by albedo increasing with less land. In short water can keep itself wet. However Lindzen’s thought experiment of removing all CO2 is not necessary because it has already been done by Ramanathan (see item 35) who clearly shows CO2 is the lessor GHG
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
See items 63 and 64
Heatwaves have happened before
Not in alarmist pixie-land where Camelot conditions reigned until humans came along and ruined everything. There has been some great work done by private researchers showing that statements by the alarmists about increasing heatwaves have no validity at all. See here, here, here, here, and here. This is an appropriate way to finish dealing with this motley collection of alleged rebuttals to sceptic positions. In the small sample above the researchers simply look at the alarmists’ own statements, use alarmist data and plainly show alarmist claims are wrong