I did think about starting this post by pasting in some unrelated yet incomprehensible maths that only a valiant few would recognize, and finish with:
And so, the theory is overturned
But that might have put off many readers from making it past the equations, which would have been a shame, even though the idea was amusing.
From time to time new theories relating to, and yet opposing, the “greenhouse” effect or something called AGW, get published in a science journal somewhere and make a lot of people happy.
What is the theory of AGW?
If we are going to consider a theory, then at the very least we need to understand what the theory claims. It’s also a plus to understand how it’s constructed, what it relies on and what evidence exists to support the theory. We also should understand what evidence would falsify the theory.
AGW usually stands for anthropogenic global warming or the idea the humans, through burning of fossil fuels and other activities have added to the CO2 in the atmosphere, thereby increased the “greenhouse” effect and warmed the planet. And the theory includes that the temperature rise over the last 100 years or so is largely explained by this effect, and further increases in CO2 will definitely lead to further significant temperature rises.
So far on this blog I haven’t really mentioned AGW, until now. A few allusions here and there. One very minor non-specific claim at the end of Part Seven.
And yet there is a whole series on CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? where the answer is “no, it’s not insignificant”.
Doesn’t that support AGW? Isn’t the theory of “greenhouse” gases the same thing as AGW?
The concept that some gases in the atmosphere absorb and then re-radiate longwave radiation is an essential component of AGW. It is one foundation. But you can accept the “greenhouse gas” theory without accepting AGW. For example, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, and many more.
Suppose during the next 12 months the climate science community all start paying close attention to the very interesting theory of Svensmart & Friis-Christensen who propose that magnetic flux changes from the sun induce cloud formation and thereby changing the climate in much more significant ways than greenhouse gases. Perhaps the climate scientists all got bored with their current work, or perhaps some new evidence or re-analysis of the data showed that it was too strong a theory to ignore. Other explanations for the same data just didn’t hold up.
By the end of that 12 months, suppose that a large part of the climate science community were nodding thoughtfully and saying “this explains all the things we couldn’t explain before and in fact fits the data better than the models which use greenhouse gases plus aerosols etc“. (It’s a thought experiment..)
Well, the theory of AGW would be, if not dead, “on the ropes”. And yet, the theory that some gases in the atmosphere absorb and re-radiate longwave radiation would still be alive and well. The radiative transfer equations (RTE) as presented in the CO2 series would still hold up. And the explanations as to how much energy CO2 absorbed and re-radiated versus water vapor would not have changed a jot.
That’s because AGW is not “the greenhouse gas” theory. The “greenhouse gas” theory is an important and essential building block for AGW. It’s foundational atmospheric physics.
Many readers know this, of course, but some visitors may be confused over this point. Overturning the “greenhouse” theory would require a different approach. And in turn, that theory is based on a few elements each of which are very strong, but perhaps one could fall, or new phenomena could be found which affected the way these elements came together. It’s all possible.
So it is essential to understand what theory we are talking about. And to understand what that theory actually says, and what in turn, it depends on.
A Digression about the Oceans
Analogies prove nothing, they are illustrations. This analogy may be useful.
Working out the 3d path of the oceans around the planet is a complex task. You can read a little about some aspects of ocean currents in Predictability? With a Pinch of Salt please.. Computer models which attempt to calculate some aspects of the volume of warm water flowing northwards from the tropics to Northern Europe and then the cold water flowing southwards back down below struggle in some areas to get the simulated flow of water anywhere near close to the measured values (at least in the papers I was reading).
Why is that? The models use equations for conservation of momentum, conservation of angular momentum and density (from salinity and temperature). Plus a few other non-controversial theories.
Most people reading that there is a problem probably aren’t immediately thinking:
Oh, it’s got to be angular momentum, never believed in it!
Instead many readers might theorize about the challenges of getting the right starting conditions – temperature, salinity, flow at many points in the ocean. Then being able to apply the right wind-drag, how much melt-water flowing from Greenland, how cold that is.. And perhaps how well-defined the shape of the bottom of the oceans are in the models. How fine the “mesh” is..
We don’t expect momentum and density equations to be wrong. Of course, they are just theories, someone might publish a paper which picks a hole in conservation of momentum.. and angular momentum, well, never really believed in that!
The New Paper that Proves “The Theory” Wrong!
Let’s pick a theory. Let’s pick – solving the radiative transfer equations in a standard atmosphere. In laymans terms this would include absorption and re-radiation of longwave radiation by various trace gases and the effect on the temperature profile through the atmosphere – we could call it the “greenhouse theory”.
Ok.. so a physicist has a theory that he claims falsifies our theory. Has he proven our “greenhouse theory” wrong?
We establish that, yes, he is a physicist and has done some great work in a related or similar field. That’s a good start. We might ask next?
Has the physicist published the theory anywhere?
So what we are asking is, has anyone of standing checked the paper? Perhaps the physicist has a good idea but just made a mistake. Used the wrong equation somewhere, used a minus sign where a plus sign should have been, or just made a hash of re-arranging some important equation..
Great, we find out that a journal has published the paper.
So this proves the theory is right?
Not really. It just proves that the editor accepted it for publication. There might be a few reasons why:
- the editor is also convinced that an important theory has been overturned by the new work and is equally excited by the possibilities
- the editor thought that it was interesting new approach to a problem that should see the light of day, even though he thinks it’s unlikely to survive close scrutiny
- the editor is fed up with being underpaid and overworked and there aren’t enough papers being submitted
- the editor thinks it will really wind up Gavin Schmidt and this will get him to the front of the queue quicker
Well, people are people. All we know is one more person probably thinks it is a decent approach to a problem. Or was having an off day.
For a theory to become “an accepted theory” (because even the theory of gravity is “a theory” not “a fact”) it usually takes some time to be accepted by the people who understand that field.
Sheer Stubbornness and How to be Right
The fact that it’s not accepted by the community of scientists in that discipline doesn’t mean it’s wrong. People who have put their life’s work behind a theory are not going to be particularly accepting. They might die first!
How scientific theories get overturned is a fascinating subject. Those who don’t mind reading quite turgid work describing a fascinating subject might enjoy The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. No doubt there are more fun books that others can recommend.
The new theory might be right and it might be wrong. The fact that it’s been published somewhere is only the first step on a journey. If being published was sufficient then what to make of opposing papers that both get published?
Why Papers which Prove “it’s all wrong” are Celebrated
Many people are skeptical of the AGW theory.
Some are skeptical of “greenhouse gas” theory. Some accept that theory in essence but are skeptical of the amount that CO2 contributes to the “greenhouse” gas effect.
Some didn’t realize there was a difference..
If you are skeptical about something and someone with credentials agrees with you, it’s a breath of fresh air! Of course, it’s natural to celebrate.
But it’s also important to be clear.
If, for example, you celebrate Richard Lindzen’s concept as put forward in Lindzen & Choi (2009) then you probably shouldn’t be celebrating Miskolczi’s paper. And if you celebrated either of those, you shouldn’t be celebrating Gerlich & Tscheuschner because they will be at odds with the previous ones (as far as I can tell). And if you like Roy Spencer’s work, he is at odds this all of these.
Now, please don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to attack anyone’s work. Lindzen and Choi’s paper is very interesting although I had a lot of questions about it and maybe will get an opportunity at some stage to explain my thoughts. And of course, Professor Lindzen is a superstar physicist.
Miskolczi’s paper confused me and I put it aside to try and read it again – update April 2011, some major problems as explained in The Mystery of Tau – Miskolczi and the following two parts. And I thought it might be easier to understand the evidence that would falsify that theory (and then look for it) than lots of equations. Someone just pointed me to Gerlich & Tscheuschner so I’m not far into it. Perhaps it’s the holy grail – update, full of huge errors as explained in On the Miseducation of the Uninformed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009).
And Lindzen and Choi’s is in a totally different category which is why I introduced it. Widely celebrated as proving the death of AGW beyond a shadow of doubt by the illustrious and always amusing debater Christopher Monckton, they aren’t at odds with “greenhouse gas” theory. They are at odds with the feedback resulting from an increase in “radiative forcing” from CO2 and other gases. They are measuring climate sensitivity. And as many know and understand, the feedback or sensitivity is the key issue.
So, if New Theory Proves AGW Wrong is an exciting subject, you will continue to enjoy the subject for many years, because I’m sure there will be many more papers from physicists “proving” the theory wrong.
However, it’s likely that if they are papers “falsifying” the foundational “greenhouse” gas effect – or radiative-convective model of the atmosphere – then probably each paper will also contradict the ones that came before and the ones that follow after.
Well, predictions are hard to make, especially about the future. Perhaps there will be a new series on this blog Why CO2 Really is Insignificant. Watch out for it.
Don’t expend too many brain cells reading Gerlich & Tscheuschner. While it has finally been published in a less than well-known journal of physics, it’s also been ripped apart by many physicists and atmospheric scientists. My reading of it is that these guys don’t seem to be too concerned with energy conservation, and don’t mind just making stuff up for the sake of argument. They invent “mysteries” that they either cynically understand and figured most of the blogosphere (which would surely hoist it high) wouldn’t understand, or they’ve lost their minds. In case of the latter, it wouldn’t be the first time this has happened to previously successful scientists.
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=G._Gerlich_and_R._D._Tscheuschner
I think a better definition of the AGW that most people are discussing would be this:
A climate science theory that changes in CO2 will trigger a global climate catastrophe.
CO2, and many other forcings, can act to change the temperatures.
The real issue – and frankly the only one that should worry non-scientists- is if CO2 at >388 ppm will destructively change the world climate.
That is very different from worrying if CO2 acts as a ghg.
Hunter,
“A climate science theory that changes in CO2 will trigger a global climate catastrophe.”
I would add
“Before the natural laws of economics force humanity to give up fossil fuels as an energy source”
harrywr2,
If CO2 in the realistic future could increase to levels taht would, in fact trigger a disaster, the disaster is worth avoiding.
But if, as seems to be the case, we are actually facing changes that are well within the range of prior experience no matter the cause, then we can remove AGW from the list of public policy concerns.
If CO2 is just one of many players in the enviro/climate equation, and we need to manage it along with land and water use, toxin releases, resource depletion, etc. we do not have a world crisis. We have a manageable situatoin.
That is the issue, as I see it.
Steve,
Great analogy with the ocean models.
This discrepancy between skeptics you described (Lindzen, Spencer, etc) is really all too common. It’s curious how I never saw them publicly disagree with each other.
Alexandre:
Thanks for the kind comment.
I’m not sure about “..It’s curious how I never saw them publicly disagree with each other..” – not that I follow what lots of people say about lots of other people.. but anecdotally, Roy Spencer did describe his skepticism about Lindzen and Choi (2009) on his blog fairly recently.
In fact if he hadn’t said that then I might have thought they were in general agreement.
What I really wanted to do was to separate out “those who attack the foundational physics” from “those who attack AGW (without attacking the foundational physics)”.
After all, AGW is a much broader topic. Which, of course, will get discussed as we go forward.
But on the more foundational attacks, I see comments like:
when Miskolczi’s theory is put forward.
But in fact, it is also “another nail in the coffin” for the previously celebrated Lindzen and Choi paper – AS WELL.
Of course, I’m laboring a point, everyone gets it, time to move onto more interesting ground..
“The real issue – and frankly the only one that should worry non-scientists- is if CO2 at >388 ppm will destructively change the world climate.
That is very different from worrying if CO2 acts as a ghg.”
What I have found in many discussions with climate “skeptics” is that they are extremely resistant to distinguishing between these two ideas. They will insist on referring to “catastrophic global warming” or “runaway global warming.” They want to argue that global warming is both not happening and not dangerous, but they will not have those discussions one at a time.
Logically this makes no sense, but rhetorically, this enables them to avoid arguments about the basic physics whilst still embracing any headline that seems to call the mechanism into question.
“But if, as seems to be the case, we are actually facing changes that are well within the range of prior experience no matter the cause, then we can remove AGW from the list of public policy concerns.”
The phrase “within the range of prior experience” is pretty meaningless, because our prior history includes large centralized states and entire civilizations which were wiped out by climate change — especially desertification and mega-droughts.
It would be slightly reassuring if the world had gone through a warming period like this in the past few thousand years, since it would suggest that the positive feedbacks in the climate system are not too energetic. It would still be of marginal importance, however, because the world’s ecosystem has never been burdened with 7 billion human beings before, many of them (and more every day) leading resource-intensive lives.) A disruption in the world’s climate that a thousand years ago might have been barely noticed by later historians might kill millions of people today, because our margin for disruption is so much smaller.
It’s a moot point, in the end, because settled human life has never seen warming like the kind we are presently creating. In speed as well as intensity, it’s unprecedented.
Robert,
Until the need for AGW promoters to deal with the MWP by disappearing it, most people were in agreement that we had, in fact gone through warmer periods without great runaways.
In fact, it is the mutable aspect of history that I find to be one of the most interesting aspects of AGW as a movement.
But I would offer that until you can say skeptic without ” “, you will not really ever find skeptics to have a serious conversation with.
I find it frustrating, by the way, that so few AGW believers are able to differentiate between the apocalyptic theory of AGW and the physics of CO2.
The range of previous experience will always include great extremes imposed on us by nature.
That is simply called history.
The question I would ask you is why do you think CO2 is the key to managing those extremes of nature?
What do you mean by ‘disruption in the world’s climate’?
Nothing has happened that is disruptive in the climate system. Nothing is happening that indicates any sort of ‘disruption’. Especially nothing has happened that has shown itself to be caused by CO2. The entire idea that we will tip into Venus somehow because CO2 is at 388 ppm, or even 400ppm, is not supported by anything more than science fiction stories.
Your assertion at the end about speed and intensity is not at all supported by non-dubious cliams, by the way.
First of all Doom, thank you for this wonderful resource.
Your clarity of expression on some pretty complex subjects makes for engaging reading.
I am an AGW sceptic, mostly because a great deal of ‘climate science’ appears not to be scientific – a view recently shared by the Institute of Physics in the UK.
My understanding is that beyond all the shadenfreude of ‘Glaciergate’ and the debates around surface temperature urban heat island effects et al, the central issue remains the effect that increased atmospheric levels of C02 will have on the global temperature. We’re adding about 3ppm annually to the existing c.380ppm.
As far as I can establish, there appears to be zero scientific evidence (as in observable, repeatable, etc) that adding more C02 to the atmosphere will result in catastrophic effects – runaway temperatures, tipping points, disappearing Maldives, cats and dogs living together etc.
I cannot find any information anywhere that shows that CO2 has a significant effect on our atmosphere’s temperature.
I totally get that the basic radiative physics is well understood and agreed upon. However, many seem to have concerns about the estimates and assumptions made by some on CO2’s logrithmic absorption curve. And lab-warming doesn’t necessarily translate to planet warming as labs don’t have ocean currents, clouds or rain (is this the fundamental scientific hypothesis testing issue?).
I have read that clouds and humidity (both affected by more C02 in the atmosphere) are highly complex. It would appear to be generally accepted that high clouds tend to warm the planet and low clouds tend to cool. But which effect rules? Nobody knows, yet as far as I know, all the models assume net warming.
This is not a minor point, as the feedback from clouds and humidity account for more than half of carbon dioxide’s warming effect. I’m hoping that the CERN CLOUD project, due to be published later this year will further understanding for all in this area.
Those that postulate catastrophic C02 effects would appear to use unproven sensitivity numbers, based on computer models (which cannot explain the lack of temperature rise over the last decade), to arrive at their hypothetical conclusions.
If our climate was indeed so sensitive to CO2, then the global temperature would be rising fast along with rising CO2. Which it isn’t.
So based on all the above, my view is that AGW is far from a ‘theory’. It is still, as it has always been, an ‘unsubstantiated hypothesis’.
Doom, I’d sincerely appreciate you letting me know if I’ve made any incorrect statements about the ‘science’ here.
Warm regards from snowblown Scotland (I built my first ever igloo in the back garden with my kids today!)
Paul.
PaulH from Scotland:
Thanks for the kind words. A few thoughts:
Of course, totally true – “many” do. But on what basis? (I know this isn’t a building block in where you are going, but I couldn’t help myself..)
Of course, the central challenge. Radiative forcing from CO2 is just one of the drivers. What happens as a result? What was happening anyway? Big questions..
Other scientific disciplines have to deal with the same “testing issue” problem. Evolution. Probably astrophysics. I think a theory can be falsifiable even so. You probably aren’t making this point..
The assumptions in the models are the fundamental physics laws and a whole bunch of parameterizations (see Models – On – and Off – The Catwalk. The output of the models, rightly or wrongly, is net positive feedback.
In Is Climate more than Weather.. I commented on this in a different way. Note in that article the comment that models often show periods of “not warming” rather than some sort of monotonic increases.
Even for a model, climate is complex. Or rather, climate outputs show complex effects. Not that they all rise and fall together though..
Perhaps there will be some interesting reading in the Models – On – and Off – The Catwalk series.
[…] New Theory Proves AGW Wrong! I commented that many ideas come along which are widely […]
I think we all know CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and, whilst not as important as water vapour, we should be grateful for this property of CO2.
The crux of the matter is climate sensitivity.
As far as I am aware, climate sensitivity is found to be high in papers relying on calculation alone, which generally exclude the effects of clouds, and climate sensitivity is found to be low in papers based on observation / calculation (Lindzen, Idso etc).
Are you aware of any papers based on observational evidence including the cloud effect that shows high sensitivity?
What do you think about the Pinker et al 2005 paper, which appears to give a viable alternative to AGW?
/Mango
MangoChutney:
“We all know..”? Many don’t, but those for whom it is non-controversial: climate sensitivity or climate feedbacks – these are among the big questions.
I’m aware of observation-based papers which also show high sensitivity, but it’s a big field. Much to read.
The paper you cite, is it – Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation? by R. T. Pinker, B. Zhang, E. G. Dutton from Science?
Could you point me in the direction of any observational papers that include the effects of clouds and which show high sensitivity, please?
And yes, the Pinker et al 2005 paper is as you have stated
Thanks
/Mango
MangoChutney:
Now I’ve reread your question, I’m not sure.
I thought I read: “observational evidence that shows high sensitivity” – but you have the word “clouds” in there.
I was thinking of papers that showed relative humidity staying constant – from observation. What about clouds in those papers?
Much reading still to do.
-What do you think the Pinker paper is claiming?
Clouds are the big unknown especially when it comes to sensitivity, and in fairness, i think the IPCC acknowledge this.
The Pinker paper shows solar radiation reaching the earths surface increased between 1983-2001 at a rate of 0.16W/m sq. Please note, this is the increase received at the earths surface which may or may not relate to actual solar radiation output (the sun didn’t put out more light).
The paper also states there was a decrease in solar radiation reaching the earths surface from 1960-1990, although the paper points out that this was pre-satellite era and not part of their study, whereas their study was all satellite.
The paper suggests the reason for the increase in solar radiation was due to changes in cloud cover allowing more of the suns light to reach the surface.
I took a look at RC for their view on the Pinker paper and the only conclusions they seem to draw are “There must be some slight cautions about the quality of the satellite data” and the results should not be over interpreted.
No rebuttal, no see this paper for the reasons why this is wrong. Even the answers to the comments seem measured, which is very unusual for RC.
I think the Pinker paper is significant. If the sun didn’t put out more light, but the earth did receive more radiation due to a change in cloud cover, this could account for the known warming without the CO2 correlation
/Mango
It’s a fascinating paper.
Over 20 years the average solar radiation absorbed by the earth’s climate system (apparently) increased by over 3W/m^2.
3W/m^2 seems like quite a bit. Increases over 150 years of various trace gases account for 2.4W/m^2.
Then there’s the cause and effect question (did increased warming from CO2 cause less clouds – positive feedback… did less clouds just happen “independently” because of less aerosols..) . And did less solar radiation arrive because of reflection by aerosols, or clouds or both? And will we ever know?
Or was it all an instrument calibration error?
Worth more of a discussion I think.
The paper is cited by 112 so there’s some follow up work to do. Enough to keep us all busy for a week..
it’s a very interesting paper and I believe Pinker has recently stated the IPCC mis-interpreted their paper.
consider Svensmarks ideas relating to cosmic rays as a possible explanation for cloud cover
and please let me know if you come across any papers including cloud cover that show high climate sensitivity
/Mango
MangoChutney:
Of course, watch this blog..
I trust you would not have reservations if I posted a part of New Theory Proves AGW Wrong! The Science of Doom on my univeristy blog?
Turismo Panama:
No problem, just identify the source.
My favorite article in 2010 yet, and by quite a margin, if I might add.
NB. The sentence “And if you like Roy Spencer’s work, he is at odds this all of these.” has a word at odds with the others.
[…] See also: New Theory Proves AGW Wrong! […]
[…] In New Theory Proves AGW Wrong! I said: So, if New Theory Proves AGW Wrong is an exciting subject, you will continue to enjoy the subject for many years, because I’m sure there will be many more papers from physicists “proving” the theory wrong. […]
Since this is the only true climate science blog I know of you just have to comment on the latest from Bob Tisdale
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/11/multidecadal-changes-in-sea-surface_17.html
lgl:
I’m not sure what you mean.
In case it’s not clear this article isn’t about proving AGW right.
It’s explaining what all these different “against” ideas are about.
scienceofdoom
Bob doesn’t try to prove AGW wrong but he suggests most of the warming could be explained by ENSO. I just wanted to hear your opinion on the idea of integrating ENSO/Nino3.4
lgl:
It’s an interesting theory. I’ve read a little about it, but not nearly enough to know how strong or weak a theory it is.
A subject to cover in more detail one day..
The most interesting theory so put it at the top of your list 🙂
Thanks
This sounds like a good candidate for this thread.
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/11/slaying-sky-dragon-is-out-as-ebook.html
“Slaying the Sky dragon” an e-book in which
” Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature. By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations – incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three – are exposed then shattered.”
sound like good Christmas entertainment.
jimmi:
I have tried to engage with Claes, for example in this article.
The important point to understand about Claes Johnson’s argument is that he appears to rely on junking the last 100 years of physics to get to his result.
Even then, it’s not clear.
So if you think Claes has something to offer – he is “offering it” not as a “clear result” of modern physics, but by saying that 100 years of physics is wrong.
Entertaining for people who want to get a result – with apparent legitimacy – from someone who can write equations.
Which is really the heart of my original article.
I guess I should have made it obvious…
My “sound like good Christmas entertainment” was sarcasm..
[…] 5. The global warming theory is yet to be proven – even the UN IPCC acknowledges that. The theory is based on computer models that are at odds with reality. Climate change dispatch reports ; Authors of a new book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ claim they have debunked greenhouse gas theory of climate change. This is on top of previous claims the greenhouse theory is flawed, wrong and just not possible. […]
Paul from Scotland
“If our climate was indeed so sensitive to CO2, then the global temperature would be rising fast along with rising CO2. Which it isn’t”
Forgettting a little something here aren’t we? How about the time lag of 30 years or so from the ocean’s thermal inertia? We are not seeing the effects of 389ppmm now, but rather the effects of whatever CO2 concentration existed 30 years ago. Wouldn’t that be more like 330ppm?
I’m just a layman, but your statement doesn’t ring true to me.
” New Theory Proves AGW Wrong” , amusing idea, and totally wrong. In the end, it will be “actual observations prove AGW wrong (or right)”.
The pro AGW crowd claims that the bad effects of AGW are happening right now. Since these bad effects are supposed to come from increasing CO2, we ask ourselves, what does increasing CO2 do? It increases backscatter of longwave rafiation. This, in turn, is supposed to increase heat at the surface, evaporation, thus increasde the amount of water vapor, which, also being a “greenhouse gas” will further increase longwave backscattrer and increase the heat even more, this is called “feedback”. So, since we know that CO2 has indeed increased, and since we are told that the bad effects are happening right now, we should expect to see increased longwave radiation right now. It does not matter if that longwave is from CO2 or H2O, since both are said to be involved (if H2O does not get involved, the amount of warming is too small to worry about).
So the question of the day (or century) is, if we look at old records of total longwave radiation arriving at the ground from all forms of backscatter, and compare it to now, is there more backscatter? Is the amount of increased backscatter (if any) in line with theories?
The only provision is “all else being equel”. It may be that the planet has warmed from natural causes, such as solar output, or a more active sun resulting in less cosmic rays resulting in less clouds and more shortwave radiation, or other causes. This appears quite likely when we see that there were things like the little ice age, medieval warm period, dark ages, roman warm period, etc, none of which were casued by human created CO2. Thus, if the planet warmed from causes other than CO2, the surface would radiate more longwave radiation, and thus there would be more backscatter of it. One could get around this by finding out what the longwave radiation (temperature) was at the time the old measurements were made, and then choosing a time when the conditions are similar. There is also urban heat island effects and land use changes to consider.
If you can take all that into consideration, and you do not see increased backscatter when we do see increased CO2, then the theory is falsified. Falsification by actual observation in this way is known as the scientific method. Dueling theories is not the scientific method, one must propose a hypotheses which, being a hypothesis, must be testable in some way by actual observation. The way to test the AGW theory is very obvious, and we have had the technology to do so for decades. Why has it not been done?
Note, since increasing backscatter from CO2 is supposed to result in increased evaporation, thus increasing the amount of water vapor, also a “greenhouse gas”, a second question, has the amount of water vapor increased as CO2 has increased? If it has not, then something like 2/3 of the warming that we are supposed to prevent will never happen. And once again, AGW has been falsified. This one is pretty easy to check is it not? I have heard that globally, water vapor has decreased 1%, is this true?
Otherwise, it is like the rheory that we are surounded by invisible pink unicorns, which a very well respected “scientist” counters with his widely respected and lauded peer reviewd theory that, no, they are actually invisible pink elephants. When you can understand why that sounds wrong, then you can understand my objection to ” New Theory Proves AGW Wrong”.
IR radiation does not backscatter. What is measured is molecular emission, as is obvious when one looks at the spectrum. If surface radiation were backscattering, then the observed spectrum would look much like the surface emission, a fairly smooth Planck curve. It doesn’t. It has structure. The emission spectrum can be calculated and is in very good agreement with measurements.
Well said Legatis.
Way back in 1909 Prof Wood conducted an experiment which showed no warming effect from any “trapped” radiation. The experiment is repeatable and has basically been repeated in a similar experiment by Prof Nahle this year. I’m sure numerous experiments could be devised to prove or disprove the issue, even simple ones involving tanks of air with very different concentrations of carbon dioxide.
But the obvious “experiment” we are observing right now is that there has been absolutely no net accumulation of thermal energy at sea surface level since 2003, that year being warmer than the 12 months ending October 2011. This is further backed up by the fact that curved trend lines are statistically a better fit for the NASA data since 1979, and such trend lines are approximately sinusoidal and have now passed a maximum.
Supporting the fact that the world is starting to cool is the corresponding decline in sea levels after the end of 2007. Also, the mean temperature for October was only 0.11 degrees C above the mean for the whole period from 1979.
There are links supporting all information herein, and also plots of these trends on my site http://climate-change-theory.com where I shall also link a screen capture of this post, lest it be deleted as with several of mine in the past.
You mentioned that water vapor may have decreased, and this reminds me of a valid point that, in any particular region, water vapor obviously can vary significantly when humidity varies between, say, 30% and 90%. Yet to my knowledge no experiment has shown actual temperature variations which would be in keeping with the models.
Why then are the models not predicting current temperature trends? For a start, they are not accurate enough to be able to determine whether warming or cooling should be the result, because in practice we are talking about variations at TOA of only about plus or minus 0.5% of total incoming radiation. But more importantly, they do not take into account internal radiation which, together with transfer of Kinetic Energy, takes place in molecular collision. Such collision also takes place at the surface/atmosphere interface, so most of the thermal energy is transferred by diffusion, rather than significant quantities of upward radiation direct from the surface.
The radiation being measured mostly originates in the atmosphere, even from the very first millimetre above the surface. Indeed some internal radiation will be generated even as molecules collide with the surface of the measuring instrument.
Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules can shed their energy in collisions with greenhouse gas molecules, including carbon dioxide. Thus, as it radiates energy away, carbon dioxide can serve a cooling function.
Even when so-called back radiation warms the surface, the energy will flow back out again at night, or by local winter at the latest, and when it does flow out it can (and mostly will) do so by molecular collision (called diffusion) rather than direct radiation. If this were not so, we would not observe such good thermal equilibrium.
Indeed the role of diffusion and subsequent convection in the atmosphere has been greatly understated. The importance of this is that rates of thermal energy transfer by convection depend on pressure, and of course one molecule of carbon dioxide for every 2,500 other molecules will not have any significant effect on pressure.
These are just some of many points which are not allowed for correctly in the models. Others include weather factors, especially winds and air currents.
The AGW theory is left without either theoretical foundation or empirical evidence supporting it.
[…] Further reading – Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect – Part One and New Theory Proves AGW Wrong! […]