This is circular logic and the output of a computer cannot be used to prove the validity of its programming inputs.

The only way an empirical formula can be validated is by experimental results or by strict mathematical proof based on accepted scientific laws.

Not one of the predictions made by some 29 computer programs in the past 10 to 15 years even remotely resembles the climate of the past 10 years.  

The IPCC assessment reports do not contain any mathematical analysis based on the laws of physics to support their formulae or hypothesis.   We are reduced to statistical correlation between the CO2 content of the atmosphere and the average global temperature. 

Yet consider the number of factors that can affect the global temperature:
1. The suns radiation entering the top of atmosphere (TOA)
2. Infrared radiation leaving the TOA.
3. Cloud cover which has 3 different components – high, mid and low level cloud.  These three components have a distinctly different effect on the incoming and outgoing infrared and visible light energies.
4. Ocean surface temperature.
5. Volcanic ash suspension in the atmosphere.
6. Smoke from forest fires, human emissions and fly ash.
7. Carbon dioxide content.
8. Water vapour content.
9. Other trace gasses with resonant frequencies in the IR spectrum.
10. Cosmic radiation that influences low level cloud formation and stratospheric trace gases.

Listed above are 13 variables and this is not a complete list.  But it does demonstrate that the average global temperature is a result of many different factors some of which vary significantly in a short period of time (weeks) some in a medium period of time (years) and some long term (decades). In addition many of these factors are interrelated.

In order to separate any one of the factors statistically and determine its effect one must be able to quantify all the others.  Of course we are not even close to being able to do this, so to determine the effect of CO2 is mathematically impossible by statistical analysis.

In fact we only have data on some of the above variables since the weather satellites started to orbit the earth in 1979 and sea temperatures have only been accurately monitored worldwide since the Argo buoy programme became fully operational in 2003. 

According to the satellite data, since 1979 there has been no significant increase in global temperature.  We have had 20 years of increasing temperature and 10 years of decreasing temperature, while the CO2 content has shown a uniform increase.  Hence there is no correlation.  If there was, I would ask the question: “Is the CO2 causing a temperature change or is the temperature change causing a CO2 change?”

********************

Barry Moore lives in Calgary. 

Originally from the UK, Mr Moore graduated in London in 1960 with an honours degree in mechanical engineering before working for 13 years in nuclear research in eastern Canada. In 1981 he moved west to Calgary and joined the oil industry becoming an instrumentation and controls specialist.   

Mr Moore became interested in the Kyoto Accord about 12 years ago – just wanting to find out the truth.  In the process he has read thousands of technical papers and articles covering the full range of technologies, political and economic aspects of this very diverse and complex subject.

Read more from Mr Moore here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/barry-moore/

[If you would like to tell us why you are an AGW Sceptic email me at jennifermarohasy at jennifermarohasy.com ]

“Physics is rich in phenomena that are simple in appearance but cannot be calculated in simple terms. Global warming is like that. People may yearn for a short, clear way to predict how much warming we are likely to face. Alas, no such simple calculation exists. The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors. People who refuse to acknowledge that complexity should not be surprised when their demands for an easy calculation go unanswered.”

This is an admission that we are nowhere near a scientifically proven result with regard to the effect of CO2 on our climate.

In another article at RealClimate Gavin Schmidt suggests that all can in fact be explained in six easy steps.

Schmidt’s explanation is in conflict with Weart’s article and skips over some key points.  

Following are the steps proposed by Schmidt, with my objections:

 Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect.

 Here Schmidt notes the average incoming IR (area of the disc divided by the surface area of the world = ¼) X 1366 = 341.5 W/m2 this is reduced to ~240 W/m2 by assuming an average albedo of 0.3 . Unfortunately this completely ignores reflection by clouds which covers approximately 65% of the globe.

The actual incoming radiation which is absorbed by the earth’s surface is, therefore, much less. Schmidt’s next assumption is the surface radiation by Stefan’s law (15 deg C avg.) is ~390 W/m2 and the TOA radiation is ~240 W/m2 thus he concludes ~150 W/m2 heats up our atmosphere.  But, firstly we know that a fourth power law cannot be averaged and Stefan’s law is for black body radiators thus an emissivity factor must be assumed which reduces the 390 W/m2. Even more curiously it appears the entire heat balance consists of radiation.  

Where are conduction, convection and evaporation factored in, these are just a few of the complexities that Weart was referring to.

Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.

Schmidt explains that with the latest technology (as of 1995) the spectrum from space can be analyzed line by line to detect the energy absorbed by CO2.  However there is a qualifier, “For some parts of the spectrum, IR can be either absorbed by CO₂ or by water vapour and so simply removing the CO₂ gives only a minimum effect.”   

Put another way, remove the CO2 and the water absorbs more energy, or take away the water and the CO2 absorbs more.    

Step 3:  The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions.  

This claim is based on extrapolating from ice core data which some claim underestimates past carbon dioxide levels by 30% to 50%.   There is also the leaf stomata proxy work, Beck’s paper – 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods – and mass balance calculations based on the IPCC carbon cycle data none of which provide the necessary proof that the recent increase in carbon dioxide is unquestionably anthropogenic.

Step 4:  Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated.

I disagree and Spencer R. Weart would disagree.  Here Schmidt trots out the only formula they have, RF = 5.35 ln(CO₂/CO₂_orig).  So, if we use 385/280 for the CO2 increase we get RF= 1.7 W/m2 now at 0.75 deg C per 1 W/m2 we get an increase of 1.28 deg C.

However, if we look at the global temperature change since 1850 it is only 0.7 deg C.  So something is wrong with the calculation as a measure of temperature increase based on radiative forcing from more carbon dioxide.

Step 5:  Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO_2.  ( IPCC 4AR Pg.666)

Following on from my comments in step 4, this claim is an average based on data provided in the IPCC 4AR which provides a range of sensitivities generated from the IPCC formula and computer programs which attempt to evaluate the interaction of other factors such as water vapour.

Step 6:  Radiative forcing multiplied by climate sensitivity is a significant number.  

Schmidt explains “that current  forcings  (1.6 W/m₂) x 0.75 ºC/(W/m²) imply 1.2 ºC that would occur at equilibrium.  Because the oceans take time to warm up, we are not yet there (so far we have experienced 0.7ºC), and so the remaining 0.5 ºC is ‘in the pipeline’.”

This statement by Schmidt appears to be saying that the oceans absorb heat but do not experience a temperature change or the oceans absorb the heat but it takes time for the temperature change to affect the atmosphere.

The first concept is illogical, with regard to the second a convincing demonstration of the rapid reaction of global temperatures to ocean temperature changes was the effect of the super El Nino of 1998.

To illustrate the response of the globe and atmosphere to the sea surface temperatures the following graph shows anomalies for  the global average (top) , the global sea surface (middle) and the global lower troposphere (bottom) temperatures from 1996 to 2008 showing the rapid response to the super El Nino of 1998. 

No pipeline effect here.

Furthermore, where exactly is all the extra heat? The oceans cannot store heat “in the pipeline” without increasing in temperature which would create an immediate increase in atmospheric temperatures. Maybe it just does not exist in which case if we recalculate their formula the constant changes from 5.35 to 2.935.  This is quite a change.

In conclusion, I agree with Weart, there are no easy answers and the IPCC case is far from proven.  Attempting to explain climate changes by taking global averages and deriving empirical formulae is an extreme oversimplification of a very complex subject and is not valid proof.

Barry Moore P. Eng.

Calgary Canada.