'''Anthropogenic global warming''' (AGW) is a theory that suggests that human activity is causing the [[Earth]] to warm. The theory posits that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor, trap solar warmth on the planet. Computer models suggest that industrial and vehicular emissions could lead to catastrophic warming. [[Leftist]]s use this theory as a basis to propose cuts in energy production and consumption and promote de-industrialization.
Radiosonde (weather balloon) and satellite data shows that the lower troposphere warmed by 0.44 degrees Celsius between 1979 and 2014. This corresponds to a rate of 1.7 degrees per century. If the AGW theory was correct, the lower troposphere would be warming at a rate of 3.1 degrees per century, according to an average of 102 climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).<ref>"[https://www.newcriterion.com//cm/images/THE%20CLIMATE%20SURPRISE%20PAMPHLET.pdf The Climate Surprise Pamphet]", ''The New Criterion'', 2016. Taken from chart "All 3 Global Temperature Dataset Types Disagree with the Climate Model During the Period of Greatest Greenhouse Concentration." Despite the numerous flaws detailed in the "Harry Read Me" file, the IPCC still favors the CRU's HadCRUT4 temperature record. This record shows warming of less than 0.6 degree from 1979 to 2014. See "[[Global_warming#The_temperature_record |The Temperature Record]]."</ref>
Radiosonde and satellite data are the most accurate sources for global temperature, but they do not go back far enough to establish a relevant trend. A reanalysis of weather station data for 1943 to 2012 by U.S. climate researcher Roy Spencer shows that after a cooler period in the 1960s and 1970s, U.S. temperatures returned to their earlier level. Unlike the official weather station record, Spencer's data includes only those stations that recorded temperature at a consistent time of day.<ref name="Spencer" />
==Difficulties with the theory:==
*'''Carbon dioxide is insignificant as a greenhouse gas.''' The level of CO<sub>2</sub> in the Earth's atmosphere is only 400 parts per million. Ninety to 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor.<ref>Friedenreich and Ramaswamy, "Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models," Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264)</ref> The IPCC claims that water vapor acts as a "positive feedback," i.e. warming creates more humidity, which leads to additional warming. There are humidity measurements going back to 1948, and they show no upward trend.<ref>"[https://wattsupwiththat.com/global-climate/ global climate]," ''Watt's Up with That''</ref> More humidity could lead to more clouds and therefore to cooling and to negative feedback. So why assume positive feedback? AGW works only if water vapor is a positive feedback, so that is what the IPCC must claim.<br/>Although Obama has denounced elevated carbon dioxide levels as "carbon pollution," greenhouse operators commonly increase the level of CO<sub>2</sub> to 1,000 ppm or more to enhance plant growth.<ref>"[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151210101819.htm Plant growth enhanced by increased carbon dioxide, but food webs give rise to significant variations]", ''Science News'', December 10, 2015.<br/>Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer, "[http://arizonaskywatch.com/article/articles/In%20defense%20of%20carbon%20dioxide.pdf In Defense of Carbon Dioxide]," ''Wall Street Journal'', May 8, 2013.</ref>
[[Image:NASA-1024x933.jpg|thumb|right|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows little warming, and many areas to the East (right) are almost cooling.<ref>Roberts, Greg (April 18, 2009). [http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191 "Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away."] News.com.au. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.</ref>]]
*'''The Earth has warmed or cooled many times. Historically, warm periods are associated with favorable climate.''' The [[Roman Warm Period]] (250 BC to 400 180 AD) featured temperatures comparable to those of modern times. This was followed by the Dark Ages Cold Period (450-950 AD).<ref>"[http://www.co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/dacpeurope.php Dark Ages Cold Period (Europe) - Summary]", ''CO<sub>2</sub> Science'', 1 June 2005.</ref> The Medieval Warm Period was even warmer than the Roman period and lasted from 900 950 to 1300.<ref>John P. Rafferty, "[https://global.britannica.com/science/medieval-warm-period Medieval warm period (MWP)]", ''Britannica''</ref> From the 14th century to the early 19th century, there was a Little Ice Age.<ref>John P. Rafferty, Stephen T. Jackson, "[https://global.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age Little Ice Age (LIA)]", ''Britannica''.</ref><ref>See the graphs at "[http://www.climate4you.com/ Global temperatures]," Climate4you.</ref><ref>Bastasch, Michael, "[http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/ Study: Earth was warmer in Roman, Medieval times]", ''The Daily Caller''. For a peer-reviewed paper, see Moberg, A., et al. 2005 "[ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt 2,000-Year Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction]", ''World Data Center for Paleoclimatology''. The Moberg data set is charted [https://i0.wp.com/i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Moberg-1.png here].</ref>*'''For leftists, the attraction of the theory is that it supports their agenda.''' The environmentalist agenda of renewables, solar energy, conservation, and world government was put together in the 1970s in response to the energy crisis and to the overpopulation scare. At that time, most scientists thought the Earth was cooling.<ref>"[http://realclimatescience.com/the-corrupt-history-of-nasa-temperature-history/ The corrupt history of NASA temperature history]", ''Real Climate Science''.</ref><ref name="Time" /> When AGW came along, it was treated as an additional justification for this agenda.<br/>Steven Schneider, founding father of the AGW movement, was a global cooling believer in the early 1970s. "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have," he explained.<ref>This is from an article Schneider wrote for ''Discover'' magazine in 1989.[http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=67]</ref> To Schneider, global cooling and global warming were just two "scary senarios." He could offer up whichever one was expedient.<br/>If *'''Carbon dioxide can be absorbed by promoting plant growth, an angle overlooked by the problem was simply too much mainstream media.''' In fact, the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, this could be addressed by promoting has already resulted in an increase in plant growth in . If that's not enough, iron filings can be dumped at sea to encourage the oceansgrowth of marine plants.<ref>Carrington, Damian, "[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/iron-sea-carbon Dumping iron at sea can bury carbon for centuries, study shows]" ''The Guardian'', 18 July 2012.</ref> Such Freeman Dyson, America's top physicist, has suggested genetically engineering trees to absorb more carbon.<ref>"geoengineering[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015]." doesnDyson recommends 't appeal to liberals because AGW is less about 'Cool It'' (2007) by Bjorn Lomborg as the climate than about justifying best summary of the anti-energy cause. Scratch an AGW believer and there is an overpopulationist or a world government socialist underneathissue.</ref>
*'''If the science was in fact settled, we would see less outrage at "deniers" and greater concern for scientific integrity.''' One climate science scandal after another has been exposed. The Climategate emails show hoaxers scurrying to "hide the decline."<ref name=MISH>"[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html#quEdWPhB8b6cs07f.99 Beware The Ice Age Cometh: Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]", ''MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis''</ref> The "hockey stick" view of climate history, which holds that global temperature was constant for 2,000 years and then surged in the last century, has been repeatedly debunked.<ref>Muller, Richard A., "[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell]", ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.</ref> No one's reputation is tarnished by these bloopers, no one pays any price. The first response of AGW backers is name calling and attempts to shut down the discussion. Argument is a last resort.<ref>Phil Plait, columnist for ''Discover'', is a good example. Plait has only contempt for those who express concerns about scientific integrity in climate research: "yawn," "non-event," etc. With no sense of irony, he can write, "these denialist claims are largely ad hominems." If you fail to show "the scientists" enough respect, then you are a "global warming denier." This name-calling-as-argument strategy is typical of AGW hacks. (Phil Plait, "[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/11/30/the-global-warming-emails-non-event/#.WHMkC9J97cs The global warming emails non-event]," ''Discover'', November 30, 2009.)</ref> The logical explanation is that they already know AGW is a hoax, and they don't care.
As for Ångström's point concerning water vapor, Arrhenius insisted that CO<sub>2</sub> rose higher in the atmosphere than water vapor could, so water vapor was not relevant. This argument never caught on. The idea that adding CO<sub>2</sub> would change the climate, "was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO<sub>2</sub> is [already] absorbed by water vapor," the American Meteorological Society concluded in 1951.<ref>American Meteorological Society, ''[https://www.questia.com/read/97549786/compendium-of-meteorology 1951 Compendium of Meteorology]'', p. 1016.</ref> Despite Ångström's debunking of his theory, Arrhenius won the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1903 for unrelated research. The Ångströms, meanwhile, are remembered for a miniscule unit of length named after Anders Ångström, Knut's dad.
Finally performing the experiment Fourier had recommended a century earlier, Robert Wood showed in 1909 that energy is transferred from the Earth's surface to the atmosphere primarily through "convection currents." In Wood's experiment, the temperature in a glass box was compared to that in a box with a top made of halite (rock salt). Halite allows sunlight to enter, but blocks infrared. Infrared re-radiation and the greenhouse effect play "a very small part," both in the atmosphere and in literal greenhouses, Wood concluded.<ref>Wood, Robert, "[http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Note_on_the_Theory_of_the_Greenhouse.pdf Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse]", ''Philosphical Magazine'', January—June 1909.<br/>"[http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.jp/2010/06/greenhouse-theory-disproven-in-1909.html Greenhouse Theory disproven in 1909, 1963, 1966, 1973...but still refuses to die]," June 28, 2010.<br/>Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, "[https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics]"</ref> A greenhouse is warmer because the roof limits convection and the walls restrict wind. "The acquired heat is concentrated, because it is not dissipated immediately by renewing the air," as Fourier himself explained.<ref name="Fourier" />
From 1909 until the 1960s, only a few additional papers on AGW were published. Research went forward as the lonely project of English scientist Guy Callendar. Callendar collected historical temperature readings and CO<sub>2</sub> measurements and published the results in 1938.<ref>Callendar, G.S. (1938). "The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Climate." ''Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society'' 64: 223-40. Reprinted in ''The Warming Papers'', pp. 261-273.</ref>
*[[Global annual average temperature]]
*[[Warm period]]
*[[Liberal lies]]
==External links==