Climate change science is a load of hot air and warmists are wrong
Date August 2, 2012
Climate scientists’ theories, flawed as they are, ignore some fundamental data.
……..
Ocean temperatures have only been measured properly since 2003 when the Argo program became operational. Some 3000 Argo buoys roam the oceans, measuring temperatures on each 10-day dive into the depths. Before Argo, we used sporadic sampling with buckets and diving darts along a few commercial shipping lanes. But these measurements have such massively high uncertainties as to be useless. Since Argo started, the ocean temperatures have been flat, no warming at all.
The assumed temperature amplification due to changes in humidity and clouds exhibits itself in all the models as prominent warming about 10 kilometres up over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmospheric warming pattern since the 1960s using weather balloons, released twice a day from 900 locations around the planet, many millions of them in total, and no such ”hot spot” has been detected. This is direct observational proof that the amplification is missing.
The climate models predict that the outgoing radiation from the earth decreases in the weeks following a rise in the surface temperature, due to aggressive heat-trapping by extra humidity. But analysis of the outgoing radiation measured by NASA satellites for the last two decades shows the opposite occurs: the earth gives off more heat after the surface temperature rises. Again, this suggests that the amplification assumed in the models simply does not occur in reality.
Government climate scientists tend to excuse away these failings, often blaming unmeasured aerosols whose effects are only dimly understood. These excuses wear ever thinner as the CO2 level continues to rise but the temperature plateau of the last 12 years persists. There are huge vested interests in the theory of man-made climate change. They will soon have to face up to the fact that they have been unwittingly relying on assumed amplification by humidity for most of the predicted temperature increases, and that the amplification is not there in reality.
Dr David M. W. Evans is a mathematician and engineer who consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005. He says he changed from being a warmist to a sceptic after ”evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006”.
Climate change science is a load of hot air and warmists are wrong
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Greg in NZ on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Trevor on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- czechlist on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- arn on COP29 Preview
- arn on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- stewartpid on COP29 Preview
Skeptics = Winning!
In a Fairfax paper too. Wow! Oz Fairfax = UK Guardian Group is a pretty accurate categorisation.
Dr Evans’ summary of the sensitivity war is here.
Dr. Evans’ comments about ocean temperature only being measured properly since 2003 is in error or aleast off the mark. I was anti-submarine warfare for 22 years in the U.S. Navy and we routinely dropped BT buoys to sample the water column. All nations that had ASW aircraft dropped BT buoys. (P-3 Orions, P-2V Neptunes, Nimrods, Shackletons, S-3 Vikings, etc) There must be archived somewhere tens of thousands of BT traces from all over the world. From Iceland waters to the Caribbean. From Australia to Japan and Alaska. The Med and Indian Ocean.
From the link provided by Bruce of Newcastle, above, David Evans is a lukewarmer, believing the CO2 climate sensitivity to be about 1°C/doubling of CO2.
Every lukewarm believer in the greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing CO2, needs to explain, according to the theory they believe, why the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is explained solely and precisely by the ratio of their solar distances, and nothing else (no greenhouse effect at all). See my Venus: No Greenhouse Effect, for a graph comparing the temperature vs. pressure (T-P) curves of the two planets, when the Venus temperatures are corrected solely for the effect of Venus’s closer distance to the Sun–if the CO2 sensitivity were 1°C/doubling of CO2, the Venus T-P curve would be over 11°C higher than Earth’s, because Venus’s atmosphere has over 2400 times the CO2 concentration as Earth’s, or over 11 doublings of CO2. But the two curves are right on top of each other (above and below the Venus cloud layer, and Venus’s curve LOWER than Earth’s, by just a few degrees, within the cloud layer, which I explain as due to a higher specific heat within the cloud). There is not the slightest hint of a greenhouse effect, for either planet, so Dr. Evans is mistaken that the greenhouse theory is “settled science” for over a century. It has merely been mistakenly believed for over a century, and it is in fact wrong. I can’t be bothered about defeating just the warmists, when the basic physics is so bad even on the lukewarmer’s side. Science requires the truth be pursued, not a political victory (although the latter is the more pressing, given the tyrannous climate policies in effect worldwide now).
No climate scientist or physicist, either warmist or lukewarmer, has explained the Venus/Earth temperature ratio in terms of the greenhouse theory they believe; at best, they are forced to call it a coincidence, but the precision with which the ratio of solar distances determines that temperature ratio is far beyond the bounds of chance coincidence, and there is a quite simple physical explanation, as I keep telling everyone and they keep ignoring and dismissing it: Both atmospheres must be warmed by the same physical fraction (the same wavelengths) of incident solar radiation, by direct absorption of that incident radiation, and not from the surface as scientists today believe unquestioningly (just as they believe the greenhouse effect unquestioningly).
The true SCIENTIFIC debate is for and against the greenhouse effect, and for me, that debate is settled by the definitive evidence of the Venus/Earth temperature comparison (a comparison that should have been done 20 years ago, when the Venus data was obtained, and the greenhouse effect dropped from science then). Dr. Evans is just as incompetent as any alarmist, in his lukewarm belief in the greenhouse effect.
Rising carbon dioxide levels are mentioned in this post. In all my reading on this (mostly blogs and skeptic books), I’ve found only one data point that seems agreeable to all: the Mauna Loa Observatory in the Hawaiian Islands. This was chosen as a standard of comparison for CO 2 concentration because Hawaii has no industry, so supposedly at 13,000 feet above sea level, the air is uncontaminated by (local) fossil fuel burning.
Are there any other reliable record sources of any duration for CO2 levels in the atmosphere? It seems to me that only one data point would be less than a scientific enterprise or theory should rely upon. What are the CO2 readings in other places?
It has also occurred to me that, if off-gassing by warming waters might be the actual source of the rise in atmospheric CO2, an island surrounded by a subtropical ocean would be a poor choice for your main (only?) data point — that is, if you’re trying to measure the effects of fossil fuel burning at the same time.
Last year I looked on the web for information to corroborate something I’d heard before: that in a corn field “there is no(!) carbon dioxide close to the ground while photosynthesis is actively occurring”. It was supposedly “all taken up” by the plants. All I found was a study done in the 1950s that recorded “less than 200 ppm” at ground level during the daylight hours.
Any info on either of these topics would be appreciated.
Steve Tabor
Alameda CA USA