Huge data gaps, crude models, system complexity and endless unknowns frustrate climate scientists
The science of climate change is very complex and there are many different points of view. This post summarizes some of the strongest arguments of climate skeptics.
The earth’s system is chaotic and unpredictable. Today’s climate models are still crude given the earth’s huge complexity. (Symbol image: NASA)
1. Natural climate variability
The Earth’s climate has always changed in the past, often dramatically, even without human influence. The current warming is therefore likely just part of a natural cycle, and one that is totally capable of reversing on its own.
2. Climate models are still in their infancy
Climate models are complex computer programs that attempt to simulate the climate system. These models provide different results and are not able to accurately reproduce past climate changes. All are filled with assumptions and guesses.
The climate is a highly complex, chaotic system and so much of it is still poorly understood. Much remains a complete mystery, which means it is impossible to accurately model. Model outputs are thus unreliable.
Remember that with chaotic systems like weather and climate, even very small changes in the initial inputs, which are many, can be amplified over time, thus making long-term predictions impossible. That’s a hard fact of life that climate scientists have to accept.
3. The influence of the sun
The sun is the earth’s main energy supplier and its activity certainly greatly influences the climate. There are hundreds of publications that show this. Many of these impacts are poorly understood, and so climate scientists like to pretend they don’t exist.
4. Limited effects of trace gas CO2
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a trace, “greenhouse” gas that human activities release into the atmosphere. Many scientific publications show CO2’s impact on global warming is overestimated.
5. Oceanic cycles hugely impact climate change
The ocean acts like the earth’s giant heat re-distributor. There are many cycles that impact climate. Ocean currents move warm water from the equator towards the poles, and from higher depths to lower depths, thus redistributing energy. Ocean cycles play a crucial role in regulating Earth’s temperature and weather patterns. Changes to these cycles can have significant consequences for global climate.
The heat content of the oceans is about 100 times that of the atmosphere, so even small heat redistribution changes can significantly impact the atmosphere above.
Predictions are difficult because there is little historical data available from the ocean depths and scientists can only speculate what the oceans will do next.
6. Economic consequences of climate change
Measures to combat climate change entail extremely high costs and are especially socially unbearable for the poor. Study after study suggest these costs far outweigh the negative consequences of climate change, which we are unable to steer in the first place.
The positive feedback loops assumed in the models, to amplify the slight warming that they assume is caused by CO2, cannot exist in nature. If they did, any previous warming would have spiralled out of control many billions of years ago!
You forgot the only one that definitively disproves the CAGW hypothesis… not a single warmist physicist has been able to come up with a refutation to date (because one cannot refute scientific reality based upon the fundamental physical laws), and there are some climatologists who’ve read the linked paper and changed their stance.
The full paper:
https://ufile.io/gb1xn4lh
The CAGW hypothesis has been disproved.
All of the offshoots of the CAGW hypothesis (EPA CO2 Endangerment finding, SEC emission reporting requirement, social cost of carbon, carbon capture and sequestration, net zero, carbon credit trading, replacing reliable fossil-fueled or nuclear baseload electrical generation with unreliable ‘renewables’, etc.) are based upon the conclusion from CAGW that CO2 causes deleterious climate effects, and thus are likewise moot.
The CAGW hypothesis relies upon a false premise, is predicated upon a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, is sustained via a half-truth (and thus a lie-by-omission), and implies rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws.
In the linked paper, I definitively, mathematically disprove the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2) hypothesis; I prove it is brought about via a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation; I use the “Earth Energy Balance” graphic from Kiehl-Trenberth (it and all subsequent similar graphics represent the mathematics used in Energy Balance Climate Models) as an empirical example of this mathematical proof; I further prove that what the climatologists claim to be happening blatantly violates 2LoT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and Stefan’s Law, and is hence unphysical.
The climatologists have misused the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation (and the fundamental physical laws), and in the process, have practically flipped reality on its head… polyatomics (CO2, H2O, etc.) are not “global warming gases”, they are net atmospheric radiative coolants (radiative emission to space being the only way that Earth can shed energy); monoatomics (Ar) are not inert gases that have no effect upon climate, they are the actual “greenhouse gases” (because they cannot emit IR, and thus cannot shed energy to space… they dilute the radiative coolant gases); homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2) are somewhere in between… they can radiatively emit IR (and thus shed energy from the system known as ‘Earth’), but only under certain conditions (collisional perturbation of their net-zero electric dipole, which is why homonuclear diatomic vibrational mode quantum states are meta-stable and relatively long-lived. Collisions happen exponentially less frequently as altitude increases), and thus are “greenhouse gases” like the monoatomics, just not to the same extent.
Think about it this way… we all know the air warms up during the daytime as the planet’s surface absorbs energy from the sun. Conduction of that energy when air contacts the planet’s surface is the major reason air warms up.
How does that ~99% of the atmosphere (N2, O2, Ar) cool down? It cannot effectively radiatively emit.
Convection moves energy around in the atmosphere, but it cannot shed energy to space. Conduction depends upon thermal contact with other matter and since space is essentially a vacuum, conduction cannot shed energy to space… this leaves only radiative emission. The only way our planet can shed energy is via radiative emission to space. Fully ~76.2% of all surface energy is removed via convection, advection and evaporation. The surface only radiatively emits ~23.8% of all surface energy to space. That ~76.2% must be emitted to space by the atmosphere.
Thus, common sense dictates that the thermal energy of the constituents of the atmosphere which cannot effectively radiatively emit (N2, O2, Ar) must be transferred to the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (CO2 being a lesser contributor below the tropopause and the largest contributor above the tropopause, water vapor being the main contributor below the tropopause) which can radiatively emit and thus shed that energy to space. Peer-reviewed studies corroborating this are referenced in the linked file.
So, far from being ‘greenhouse gases’ which ‘trap heat’ in the atmosphere, those polyatomic radiative gases actually shed energy from the atmosphere to space. They are net atmospheric radiative coolants.
In short, in an atmosphere sufficiently dense such that collisional energy transfer can significantly occur, all polyatomic radiative molecules play the part of atmospheric coolants at and above the temperature at which the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules exceeds the lowest vibrational mode quantum state energy of the radiative molecule. Below this temperature, they act to warm the atmosphere via thermalization (the mechanism the climate alarmists claim happens all the time), but if that occurs below the tropopause, the net result is an increase of Convective Available Potential Energy, which increases convection, which is a net cooling process. It is a gradation… as temperature increases, so too does the population of vibrationally excited polyatomics, and thus increases radiative emission. For CO2, that ‘transition temperature’ (the temperature at which the molecule transitions from being ‘net warmant’ to ‘net coolant’ and vice versa) is ~288 K.
The climatologists only told people half the story (the half-truth referenced above… thermalization by CO2 via vibrational mode to translation mode (v-t) collisional energy transfer processes. They didn’t tell anyone about the inverse (the lie-by-omission referenced above)… translational mode to vibrational mode (t-v) collisional energy transfer processes (then that energy being radiatively emitted to space), which is a cooling process. That didn’t fit their doomsaying narrative, so they left it out.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220521192232if_/https://i.imgur.com/CxVTcro.png
Now, on to how the climatologists were able to flip reality on its head…
Essentially, the climatologists are treating real-world graybody objects as though they are idealized blackbody objects… with emission to 0 K and emissivity of 1 (sometimes… other times they slap emissivity onto the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation while still assuming emission to 0 K… which is still a misuse of the S-B equation, for graybody objects).
This essentially isolates each object into its own system so it cannot interact with other objects via the ambient EM field, which grossly inflates radiant exitance of all objects, necessitating that the climatologists carry these incorrect values through their calculation and cancel them on the back end (to get their equations to balance) by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but far too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.
That wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow is otherwise known as ‘backradiation’… a mathematical artifact due to that aforementioned misuse of the S-B equation.
As I show in the attached paper, the correct usage of the S-B equation is via subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object.
2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense states that system energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient (remember that while 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense only mentions temperature, temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant, per Stefan’s Law), that it requires “some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time“… that “some other change” typically being external energy doing work upon that system energy to pump it up the energy density gradient (which is what occurs in, for example, AC units and refrigerators).
The “backradiation” claim by the climatologists implies that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient… just one of many blatant violations of the fundamental physical laws inherent in the CAGW narrative. As I show in the attached paper, this is directly analogous to claiming that water can spontaneously flow uphill (ie: up a pressure gradient).
In other words, the entirety of the CAGW industry is built upon a foundation of mathematical fraudery, and we’re all being lied to. Given that the climatologists are purportedly highly educated, there’s no way they’d slip up on such an elementary issue… ergo, it must be intentional deception. The only other possible explanation is profound incompetence on the part of the climatologists.
This means that the offshoots of CAGW… social cost of carbon, net zero, carbon capture and sequestration, carbon credit trading, etc. are as equally useless as CAGW… because the proper interpretation of the fundamental physical laws and the proper application of the S-B equation shows that CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant (peer-reviewed empirical studies are referenced in the linked paper corroborating this), not a “global warming gas”.
This doesn’t just apply to CO2, however. It applies to all atmospheric polyatomic molecules (in fact, far from the ‘global warming gas’ claimed by the climatologists, water acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause, as I show in the linked paper). So while the climate catastrophists are attempting to shift from CO2 to CH4 (methane) as their climate bogeyman, it won’t work because their narrative still relies upon that same misinterpretation of the fundamental physical laws and misuse of the S-B equation.
These concepts used to be common knowledge. Somewhere along the way, the concepts got skewed to fit a particular narrative. Eventually, the concepts described herein will be common knowledge again, whereupon CAGW and its offshoots will be dumped on the midden heap of bad scientific ideas.
Review the attached paper… you’ll find everything I write hews to the fundamental physical laws, and uses bog-standard thermodynamics, radiative theory, cavity theory, dimensional analysis, electrical theory and quantum theory.
Then ask a climatologist… they’ll claim it’s junk science… except it was all taken directly from physics tomes, and the climatologist is just attempting to protect their gravy train. Then ask the climatologist how their latest “Earth Energy Balance” graphic (remember that the “Earth Energy Balance” graphic represents the mathematics used in their Energy Balance Climate Models) could possibly arrive at 398 W m-2 surface radiant exitance at their claimed 288 K average global temperature… that’s not even physically possible (you can do the calculation using the S-B equation to see this for yourself). Watch as they hem and haw in attempting to explain their junk science.
Bravo! 100%
Awesome site. I am bookmarking this site.
Wish I had found it sooner.
Keep it up
7. Real world data* shows there is no correlation between C02 levels and temperature, geological long term, or short term.
* aka “science”
8. CO2 levels are at a historical low.
[…] From NoTricksZone […]
You wrote “The heat content of the oceans is about 100 times that of the atmosphere”. The oceans are 2400x the mass of the air. the heat capacity is many times more than 100.
Evidence of past temperatures being at or higher than current temperatures with no “species extinctions” should temper current concerns. As an example, multiple reports of glacier retreat also frequently mention tree trunk stumps being exposed as the ice melts. Trees growing in the past where glaciers recently were is evidence of temperatures as high as or higher than current temperatures without mass extinctions.
The corollary to JP’s #7 above: Human CO2 is only a small part (about5%) of the atmospheric CO2 content.
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
[…] Learn extra at No Tips Zone […]
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
deux éléments essentiels de réfutation de AGW
1 – l,impact du CO2 sur les températures est inobservable dans la paléo-climatologie.
la vague coincidence entre CO2 et températures sur ces 170 dernières années, est une utilisation frauduleuse car introuvable dans la continuité des données historiques, le lien est aléatoire, alternatif et donc centré sur … “corrélation Zéro”
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2021.0836
2 – la réfutation de l’impact solaire est tout autant délibérément frauduleuse car se limitant la variabilité de l’intensité solaire globale, alors que la seule valeur scientifiquement significative est l’intensité “nette” des ondes courtes SW impactant les océans
Ceux-ci gagnent en énergie, ce qui est admis par tous et la restitution enérgétique vers l’atmopsphère est en hausse modulée par les aléas d’état thermique de surface SST, selon les rythmes AMO et Enso … souvent en “résonance”
[…] points of view. This post summarizes some of the strongest arguments of climate skeptics. (Read more) […]