Greenhouse gasses responsible for OVER 100% of global warming according to SkepticalScience

Many proponents of human induced global warming (the AGWs) take issue with some of my posts on climate and cite the website Skeptical Science as their authority. Rather than being skeptical, the site Skeptical Science has always defended the AGW orthodoxy against “heretical” skeptics and in doing so often mis-characterize evidence.

I, too, sometimes look at the site to see what they are ranting about. Their current rant is that PBS dared to interview climate skeptic Anthony Watts, proprietor of Watts Up With That calling his appearance a ‘false balance” as if “balance” actually mattered to them.

Within that rant at Skeptical Science is this statement: “…the amount of warming caused by human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is known to a high degree of certainty, and these same studies have all found that GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming over this timeframe (Figure 3).” Over 100%, wow. Here is their figure 3 which shows by color coding the various attributions of several allegedly peer-reviewed papers, all of which Skeptical Science claims show that human greenhouse gases have produced more than 100% of observed warming.

SKS contributors to global warming

I’ve checked some of the cited references for this Skeptical Science rant and have found that they do not say what Skeptical Science says they say. Shall we say that Skeptical Science is subject to use of hyperbole?  Also, those references were computer simulations, not physical evidence.

Anthony Watts comments on the article, “..when you see the sort of things the people at Skeptical Science write, you start to understand that this isn’t about science, but about pure unmitigated hate against people that have differing views about climate science.”

See Anthony’s complete remarks here.

Let this serve as notice to AGW proponents who cite Skeptical Science as their authority. Your comments stand a good chance of being deleted if that is your only source, because much of the material on Skeptical Science is, in my opinion just so much drivel.

Advertisements

9 comments

  1. Jonathan, this is pretty simple stuff. If you’re going to look at a temperature trend, you have to set a baseline. Because temperature is the result of many factors, it’s easiest to simply set the baseline for the trend at some average temperature. If the trend is above or below the line, you can then go about doing signal analysis to determine what percentage of the trend is due to which signals. In the case of global temperature, we have the “natural” distinction. Natural forcings–solar (orbital and output), natural variations in GHGs, volcanic aerosols, etc.–can be aggregated to produce the “natural” temperature signal — what the temperature should be according to only natural forcings (and, of course, the system feedbacks, which respond to all forcings, natural or otherwise).

    That natural signal is not the baseline. The baseline is some point on the actual observed temperature record, the result of all forcings. Let’s call it X. The actual observed temperature at some given point is Y. Y – X = Z. Z is how much above or below the baseline Y is. When we talk about attribution, we can say that some forcing is responsible for 100% of Z.

    Let’s call the natural signal, as defined above, A. We have a situation where X does not equal A. A is less than X. In other words, if global temperature were based on just natural forcings right now, it would be lower than the baseline. Thus, human-sourced forcings are responsible for more warming than the 100% of the trend above baseline.

    It would be better if everyone would talk about trend above natural, but that’s not easily communicated to the public. The public wants to know “how much above what I’m used to?” It’s also a useless thing, because discarding the baseline makes trend above natural = 100%.

    See
    Huber & Knutti (2008) — http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

    Foster & Rahmstorf (2011)
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

    Pasini et al. (2012)
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020

    . . . among many others.

    1. First, your comment seems to have nothing to do with the over hyping presented by Skeptical Science. Secondly, your references refer to computer simulations the result from which assume correct recognition and attribution of signals. That’s a big assumption.

      1. Actually, the last two studies are purely statistical. I stayed away from the multitude of model-based studies because I knew you’d complain about it.

        Your post was not about SkS, so why should I respond to that subject? Will you delete my posts if I try to defend the work done at SkS? You say you will at the end of the post. That’s another reason not to say anything about SkS.

  2. I’m really kind of amazed at how difficult it is for people to understand the “more than 100%” issue. It’s really very simple. Think of it as an airplane.

    You know that your airplane is traveling over the ground at 100kts. But you also know you have a head wind of 10kts. If there was no wind how fast would the airplane be traveling? Yes. 110kts.

    Same with global warming. The temperature over the past 50 years = 100% of known warming. But known mechanisms like solar irradiance have been falling and should be acting to cool the planet. If that cooling is 10% then the resulting man-made GHG warming would account for 110% of current warming. If solar irradiance had been increasing (it hasn’t) and accounted for 10% warming instead of cooling then the human contribution would be 90%.

    Is it that hard to comprehend?

  3. The mechanical greenhouse gas experiment is

    flawed in many ways.

    The air tight transparent enclosure didn’t
    allow air to flow, or circulate as it does in earth’s upper, and lower
    atmosphere. The transparent enclosure not only retains the heat, it accumulates
    heat, and causes the temperature to rise within the enclosure. This was not
    noted in the experiment.

    For example: Sit in a car with the windows up on a hot sunny
    day. When the temperature in the car reaches 100 degrees fahrenheit row the
    windows down. You will notice a dramatic temperature decrease. The enclosure of
    the car, like the air tight transparent enclosure in the greenhouse gas
    experiment retains, and accumulates heat. The environment of earth is similar
    to a car with the window down. This fact was over look in the experiment.

    In the experiment there’s an equal volume of
    air, and CO2 in both air tight transparent enclosure. The temperature in the
    enclosure with CO2 was higher, than the enclosure with air, but in earth’s
    atmosphere CO2 only represent a small percentage of the gases that make up the
    air we breathe (0.0383%). During the
    experiment the transparent enclosure CO2 levels should have better represented
    the CO2 level in earth’s atmosphere (0.0383%). There is not an equal quantity
    of air, and CO2 in earth’s atmosphere. The experiment was conducted improperly.

    Nitrogen (N2) 78.084%

    Oxygen (O2) 20.946%

    Argon (Ar) 0.934%

    Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.0383 %

    Neon (Ne) 0.001818 %

    Helium (He) 0.000524 %

    Methane (CH4) 0.0001745 %

    Krypton (Kr) 0.000114%

    Hydrogen (H2) 0.000055%

    1. Lab experiments cannot mimic a chaotic,unpredictable atmosphere.With the lab,there are two things to completely discredits the experiment is the fact the two systems/bottles are next to each other and can influence each other.The other is the fact the bottles are closed.The earth isn’t closed.the experiment fails reality.Also al gores climate 101 uses red ir heat lamps. red ir heat lamps emit swir, co2 is transparent to swir…Also in the 18th and 19th century they did not have full understanding of the carbon cycle well they still do not!

      1. Global warming is caused by the earth’s orbit around the sun destabilizing. The nine anomalies below are occurring simultaneously, and are worsening. The scientific websites are my references. http://globalwarming31.blogspot.com

        (1). The sun is getting hotter, and brighter in
        Summer. Many people around the world notice the sun feels hotter on their skin. This anomaly will produce deadly events in the future.

        http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence.htm.

        (2). The moon is continuing to move away from the earth 3.8 cm per year. Click on website (2A) read last sentence in figure10. I don’t know the total distance the moon has traveled away from the earth, at this point.

        http://www.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section4/new17.html.

        (3). The earth is developing a breach in its magnetic fields. The earth’s magnetic field is showing signs of collapsing. This anomaly will produce deadly events in the future.

        http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1611923/themis_project_discovers_breach_in_earths_magnetic_field/

        (4). The earth has tilted on its axis 26.0 degrees beyond normal, and the tilting of the earth axis is worsening. This anomaly will produce deadly events in the future.

        http://divulgence.net/axis%20shift%202.html.

        (5). The earth’s magnetic poles are continuing to reverse at 40 miles per year.

        http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/

        (6). The earth’s rotation is continuing to slow down. Due to the earth tilting on its axis.

        http://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html.

        (7). The earth is wobbling on its axis, and the wobbling is continuing to worsen.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble

        (8). Both polar ice caps are being melted by the sun during each polar ice caps summer season, due to earth’s orbit destabilizing. The oceans are rising. This anomaly will produce deadly events in the future

        http://polaricecapsmelting.com/two-effects-of-polar-ice-caps-melting/

        (9). The northern hemisphere, and the southern hemisphere are experiencing rare winter tornadoes. Due to the earth’s orbit destabilizing. The website proves the temperature in winter is rising. It should be too cold for tornadic activity in winter. Rare winter tornadoes are not rare anymore.

        (A).http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/southern-storms.html

      2. Very interesting info mate.I am in Australia and we do not get storms/cyclones in winter.In the south of the state they will get storms etc.Over all extreme weather has been getting less.We just had 4 years of floods which we were due for.I also follow on what Piers Corbyn works on.The reason the sun feels hotter in summer is because we are closer to the via the earth tilting.In winter it is not as hot.I actually prefer warmm to hot.I am in North Queensland and we just had some cyclones and for my area we had our first in 40 years.Others formed but went past etc.Globally,tornadoes,hurricans,cyclones are record lows.Also i can sow you pre 1800,s,1700,s,1600 s that had storms worse than now but like you said,over all the sun and other forces other than a minute gas is causing what we are seeing.

Comments are closed.