The Gorebots just keep on making things up…

MIT Meteorology professor Kerry Emanuel has either spent too much time studying hurricanes (his field of expertise), too little time studying paleoclimatology (not his field of expertise) or he’s just lying (the tool-in-trade of Enviromarxism). 

He gets off to an OK start… 



 Climate changes are proven fact
By Kerry Emanuel | February 15, 2010 

OUTSIDE SCIENTIFIC forums, contemporary discussions of the phenomenon of global warming are now so heated that one wonders whether they are contributing to the phenomenon itself… 



Then he makes something up out of whole cloth…  

“With all the interest in alleged misdeeds of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hacked email exchanges among climate scientists, it is easy to lose track of the compelling strands of scientific evidence that have led almost all climate scientists to conclude that mankind is altering climate in potentially dangerous ways.”  

There is no basis upon which to base the claim that “almost all climate scientists” have concluded “that mankind is altering climate in potentially dangerous ways.” 

Then he comes back to reality for one and a half points… 

“First, the surface temperature of the Earth is roughly 60 F higher than it would otherwise be thanks to a few greenhouse gasses that collectively make up only about 3 percent of the mass of our atmosphere.”
“Second, the concentrations of the two most important long-lived greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane, have been increasing since the dawn of the industrial era; carbon dioxide alone has increased by about 40 percent.”  

Both of the above statements are true. But the second half of his second point once again veers into the realm of the unsubstantiated…  

These increases (in atmospheric greenhouse gases) have been brought about by fossil fuel combustion and changes in land use.  

There is no such thing as an anthropogenic “fingerprint” on the increased greenhouse gas concentrations. Plant stomata and Pettenkofer chemical analyses indicate that atmospheric CO2 has routinely fluctuated from 280 to more than 400 ppmv over the past 2,000 years. Only the combination of ice core and infrared spectroscopy (Mauna Loa) data indicate that the industrial era rise in CO2 is anomalous. 

CO2 from plant stomata vs. Mauna Loa Observatory and ice cores.

Beck (2007): Atmospheric CO2 from chemical analyses.

Then Prof. Emanuel briefly returns to reality (sort of)…  

“Third, in the absence of any feedbacks except for temperature itself, doubling carbon dioxide would increase the global average surface temperature by about 1.8 F.”  

In the absence of feedbacks a doubling of CO2 from 275 to 550 ppmv would increase the average temperature by a bit less than 1 C. The problem is that the feedbacks for which we have evidence are all negative feedbacks. The geological record shows that Earth’s climate is far less sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 than the radiative forcing equations would suggest. 

image277.gif Phanerozoic Eon CO2 vs Temp picture by dhm1353

Phanerozoic CO2 vs. Temperature

Then, the “nutty professor” veers off the road into a ditch of lies… 

“The rate of rise of surface temperature (over the past century) is consistent with predictions of human-caused global warming that date back to the 19th century and is larger than any natural change we have been able to discern for at least the past 1,000 years.” 

That last bit is so misleading that it is essentially a bald-faced lie. The measured rate of warming has consistently been far less than that predicted by anthropogenic global warming models. 

Hansen et al., 1988: Model prediction vs. actual satellite temperature data.

The magnitude rate of warming in the late 20th was no different from the rate and magnitude of early 20th century warming; despite the fact that CO2 levels were not significantly rising in the early 20th century. 

HadCRUT3: Early vs. Late 20th Century Warming Trends

Neither the early 20th century warming nor the general warming trend since about 1600 AD can be linked to anything anthropogenic. 

Moberg et al., 2005 Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction

And the rate and magnitude of the over-all warming trend from 1850-2009 was no different than the rate and magnitude of warming from 740-900 AD. 

Moberg Medieval Warm Period vs. HadCRUT3

The only thing that separates “larger than any natural change we have been able to discern for at least the past 1,000 years” from a bald-faced lie is about 100 years. The Medieval Warm Period peaked about 1100 years before the Modern Warming peaked. This is very consistent with the natural, solar-driven 1,470-yr (+/-500-yr) cycle. 



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: