Unveiling Climate Mysteries: Debunking CO2's Role in Global Warming
Howard ‘Cork’ Hayden, professor emeritus in the Physics Department of the University of Connecticut, reveals the true drivers of climate change through rigorous scientific inquiry.
A Startling Revelation
By Howard “Cork” Hayden
TL;DR
Abstract: An examination of the distinction between global heating and global warming, emphasizing the former as a more critical measure of climate change. Challenges in accurately calculating temperature rises on Earth expose the flaws of climate models based on presumed net heat absorption without verification through fundamental laws of physics. Prevailing theories about the role of greenhouse gases like CO2 in global warming are incompatible with Earth's energy balance. Findings from the CERES satellite system indicate that the increase in Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI) is primarily attributed to a decrease in albedo (reflected sunlight) rather than CO2, challenging mainstream climate science narratives.
Introduction
The distinction between global heating and global warming has become a topic of increasing importance in climate science discussions. This paper aims to elucidate this distinction, emphasizing the former as a more crucial metric for understanding climate change dynamics. The complexities of calculating temperature rises on Earth are discussed, highlighting the challenges posed by various factors. Criticisms are raised regarding the reliance of climate models on presumed net heat absorption without rigorous verification through fundamental physical laws such as the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Furthermore, prevailing theories about the role of greenhouse gases like CO2 in driving global warming are examined, setting the stage for a comprehensive analysis of the Earth's energy balance and its implications for climate change.
Discussion
Hayden begins by dissecting the complexities inherent in accurately measuring temperature rises on Earth. He scrutinizes the limitations of existing climate models and their failure to incorporate fundamental physical principles like the Stefan-Boltzmann law1 for validation. He then delves into an analysis of the Earth's energy balance, challenging mainstream narratives regarding the role of CO2 in global warming. Findings from the CERES satellite system2 are presented, indicating that the increase in Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI) is primarily driven by a decrease in albedo3 rather than CO2. This challenges conventional “science” and suggests that concerns about CO2 emissions driving climate change may be misguided. The implications of these findings for climate science, policy, and public discourse are thoroughly examined, shedding new light on the underlying mechanisms of global climate change.
Conclusion
Hayden presents a compelling argument for re-evaluating the prevailing narratives surrounding global warming and climate change. By emphasizing the distinction between global heating and global warming and highlighting the importance of accurately measuring the former, he challenges existing paradigms in climate science. The findings from the analysis of the Earth's energy balance, particularly the role of decreasing albedo in driving Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI), suggest a need for a paradigm shift in our understanding of climate change dynamics. Ultimately, he calls for further research and discourse to address the implications of these findings and inform evidence-based climate policies for the future.
Howard ‘Cork’ Hayden, professor of physics emeritus in the Physics Department of the University of Connecticut, is editor of The Energy Advocate, a monthly newsletter promoting energy and technology. On receiving his Physics Ph.D. from Denver University, he went to the University of Connecticut where he spent 32 years doing teaching and research.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law explains how much heat or light energy an object gives off based on its temperature.
Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES): This is a NASA-led project that uses instruments on several satellites to measure Earth's radiation budget. This helps scientists understand how much energy the sun pumps into our planet and how much Earth radiates back out to space.
Albedo is a scientific term for how reflective a surface is to sunlight. It's a value between 0 and 1, where:
0 represents a perfectly black surface that absorbs all incoming sunlight (like a black hole).
1 represents a perfectly reflective surface that bounces all sunlight back out into space (like a mirror).
This is something which sceptics have been saying for years. The radiative forcing from changes in cloud cover is at least an order of magnitude greater than the miniscule alleged contribution from GHGs. Anthropogenic forcing is entirely lost in the noise of natural variability plus limitations upon observations, yet climate alarmist 'scientists' claim to be able to discern it with precision. This is fraud. Here is what the Loeb abstract says:
"Observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) show a marked increase in Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) since 2000. At the same time, we’ve seen marked changes in numerous geophysical variables that influence EEI. While observations alone cannot quantify the anthropogenic and natural contributions to changes in these quantities, they can provide insight into how changes in different components of the climate system have led to the observed EEI trend. Using additional data from MODIS, CALIPSO, Cloudsat, and reanalysis, we find the increase in EEI to be due to decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice, which cause a pronounced increase absorbed solar radiation (ASR), and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor. The ASR increases are largest over the subtropics and mid-latitudes in regions with decreases in low and middle cloud fraction, which likely occur in response to observed increases in sea-surface temperature (SST) in those locations. We diagnose the SST changes by performing an ocean mixed layer energy budget analysis at regional, hemispheric, and global scales using TOA and surface radiation observations from CERES, SST and temperature/humidity fields from ERA-5, and ocean mixed layer depth from ocean reanalysis. This analysis suggests that heating of the mixed layer and the subsequent increase in SST stems from ocean mixing/advection rather than from surface forcing."
As clear as day. Whilst there may be some increase in radiative forcing due to GHGs, EEI since 2000 has been driven primarily by changes in cloud cover and ice cover. The ocean heat content (claimed by alarmists to be definitive evidence of man's influence) has increased as a result of the mixing and advection of the extra solar energy hitting the surface (think El Nino/La Nina). Schmidt and others CANNOT claim to have eliminated these very large natural changes in order to discern the tiny forcing due to anthropogenic GHGs. Man-made climate change is a fraud.
My father has been a professor of electrical engineering for nearly 60 years. He has a very long CV of publications in top journals, and previous consultancies for Motorola, Archer Daniels Midland, NASA, Argonne National Labs, and others. He's an expert in informations theory, probability & statistics, and modelling.
When he did a deep look into the climatology literature he noticed the regression models using atmospheric temps, and estimates of human-produced CO2 in the literature were invalid. The researchers made a sophomoric error in that they did not transform the nonstationary data (time-varying mean) before doing the regression as MUST be done.
He used the same data, and submitted a paper for publication to the IPCC. For the first, and only time in his career he had to call a journal editor just to get his submission "peer-reviewed." The response was basically fuck off we're not interested.
He had been in touch with MIT's Richard Lindzen and Lindzen who told him he'd never get his paper published. Around that time my father had also signed a letter, which at the time he signed it, had 5,000 signatures from academics, and other experts questioning the head long rush into global warming. That letter did not ever get any publicity.
Anthropogenic climate change is a complete scam. There's ZERO credible evidence for it.