Preview of upcoming "summary" rebuttal

My recent post on OLR is the hopefully the final preliminary post in preparation for a ~13-point rebuttal I plan to the AGW theory. Here's an outline of those points. I give a couple of links with each point to further explain.

It's interesting to see how far my thinking has evolved since my first attempt at a similar summary 7 years ago.

1) No temperature rise during time of highest CO2 rise also known as "the hiatus" in warming

(Links: One, Two, Three)

2) Lower stratosphere is not cooling

(Link: One)

Outgoing Longwave Radiation – the fuller story

For a couple of years or so I have been claiming [1, 2] that outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) should be decreasing if infrared was being curtailed by increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as per AGW theory. But there is more to the story.

On a spectral line near 700 wavenumber (14.3 µm) there is indeed quite a reduction in radiation expected to be caused by an increase in CO2.

The following chart (data via the Modtran simulator) shows a deepening of the groove that appears around 700 to 770 wavenumber with surface temperature kept constant and atmospheric carbon dioxide increased from 150 to 1000 ppm.

How to load .nc files into Matlab

Much climate data comes in the form of NetCDF files which have an .nc suffix.

This post is as much for my own reference in case I forget how to do it, as it is for anyone else interested in opening a NetCDF file in Matlab.

Here's a list of the current climate NetCDF files I am interested in:

• ·       Satellite Temperature Lower Troposphere

http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature

↳

ftp://ftp.remss.com/msu/data/netcdf

↳

uat4_tb_v03r03_anom_chtlt_197812_201509.nc3.nc

(Note that the name suffix changes slightly with each month)

•     NCEP Reanalysis 2 of Upward longwave radiation flux at nominal top of atmosphere

Why the "missing heat" of AGW can't be going in the ocean

The reason "missing heat" can't be going in the ocean is that the ocean is warming. A warmer ocean makes it less likely that heat will be drawn in from the atmosphere, not more.

Here is the global sea surface temperature anomaly, and it's on the rise:

(Source. Many more graphs here. Also here.)

Circular axis unfairly weights more recent years

In the latest deception by Team Consensus, Ed Hawkins converts temperatures that are normally displayed on an X-Y plane to a circular axis.

This has the effect of increasing the area occupied by recent years and cramming past years into a little dot in the middle. The resulting spiral, made scarier by employing a violet to red rainbow colour, gives the impression of an out of control temperature rise.

Spiralling global temperatures from 1850-2016 (full animation) https://t.co/YETC5HkmTr pic.twitter.com/Ypci717AHq

— Ed Hawkins (@ed_hawkins) 9 May 2016

My comment that was not approved: No increase in drought

My comment that I submitted but was not approved on this article:

http://news.trust.org/item/20160509061041-3lrr7/?source=fiHeadlineStory

In reply to this comment:



My reply:

Recent uptick in AGW concern epitomises ignorance of fears

The recent uptick in polls of the public's concern of AGW epitomise the public's ignorance regarding AGW (and frankly most issues scientific or technical).

AGW water-vapour-feedback theory disproved by satellite observations

AGW theory says that CO2 can cause some warming, for example 1C for a doubling of CO2; but that the resulting water vapour feedback will cause an extra 2C or so of warming, which is where the real AGW danger comes from. (Scared yet?)

Climate models [1, 2, 3] and observations show that each 1C of warming causes about a 7% increase in water vapour, which in turn causes a further 2C of warming.

Well, water vapour did just increase by about 7% over course of the year of 2015, but little happened to earth's average temperature; maybe a 0.2C warming at most over the same period:

2015 is 3rd hottest on satellite record since 1979, not 1st

I put RSS data into calendar year bins & graphed it (Excel file). 2015 is 3rd hottest calendar year since 1979 according to satellite, not 1st hottest ("evah") as some claim.

Deforestation has same 'fingerprint' as fossil fuel combustion

Several climate metrics are claimed to be fingerprints showing that human fossil fuel combustion caused the recent atmospheric carbon dioxide rise [1, 2]. These are:

1) Rising CO2 and falling oxygen
2) Falling 13C/12C ratio
3) CO2 is highest in ~800,000 years

Decline in 13C/12C ratio not keeping pace with fossil fuel combustion emissions

One of the key "fingerprints" of human influence in the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is the declination in d13C, the ratio between 13C/12C.

Fossil fuels are supposed to have more of the carbon-12 isotope in comparison to the carbon-13 isotope compared to what's "average" in the atmosphere prior to burning. Hence burning fossil fuels should decrease the 13C/12C ratio. And this is what's found.

But while human emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion are only increasing with time (you should see what China's doing)...

Teasing the data to get the trend you want

"The cherries are picked mainly on the plains..."

Feldman et al 2015 (link) [1, 2] is supposed to be one of these 'smoking guns' of CO2-induced doom Team Consensus likes to refer to [3, 4]. Here's a graph from that paper.

At first glance a few things seemed odd:

Harries et al 2001 corrected graphs

The labels were switched on graph 1a. So I switched them back to correct them. You can verify that the graph is now correct considering the difference graph figure 1b:

Source

The broken pea shooter

I've been looking into so-called smoking gun of greenhouse gas absorption: Harries et al 2001, and came across a rather hard to obtain, obscure 2003 follow-up paper by Harries co-authored with Brindley that basically nullifies the 2001 finding.

The paper is called Observations of the Infrared Outgoing Spectrum of the Earth from Space: The Effects of Temporal and Spatial Sampling by Brindley and Harries (hereafter B & H 2003).

Turns out sampling limitations (etc) in the later 1997 IMG instrument gave rise to errors that effectively nullify the following graph (as depicted on the SkS website):