Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

In each case the worst case scenario is that the planet will continue to function exactly as it would if there were no humans living on it.

 

You seem to be using the english language in a new and novel way. Such that worst means best.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Wildcat

[Lockjaw]

You seem to be using the english language in a new and novel way. Such that worst means best.

 

You seem to have completely misunderstood the point being made.

[Wildcat]

You seem to have completely misunderstood the point being made.

 

Ooops

[Joe9T]

All of which is interesting but does not contradict the evidence that global temperatures are increasing at an alarming rate.

 

Surely you are not so foolish as to have pinned your point on cherry picking highest recorded temperatures for that purpose when the complete datasets show the opposite of what you are wanting us to doubt.

 

All the datasets available show global temperatures increasing, for it not to be warming you would have to have some form of argument about flawed recording of temperature data from landstations, from satellites, from sea temperature measurements, from proxies collected by scientists working for scientific institutions across the globe. Doubt would require Conspiracy on an almost unimaginable scale, similarly incompetence or flawed science would require an incredibly strong argument to believe all the experts have got it wrong. Which of the two is it? or is there some other reason to doubt the evidence?

 

So, where is it warming up? Certainly NOT Antartica, Death Valley or Libya, in relation to record high temperatures!

[Wildcat]

So, where is it warming up?

 

Erm globally.... pretty much everywhere.

 

Certainly NOT Antartica, Death Valley or Libya, in relation to record high temperatures!

 

You don't appear to understand record high temperatures is not the same as warming. It is really not so hard to understand/ If you want to know whether something is warming you look at the whole temperature record, not simply the maximums.

 

The warming in antarctica for example is primarily happening in winter.... incidentally one of the reasons we can rule out thermal energy as a cause.

 

Since records began, 50 years ago, mean annual temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have risen rapidly [Turner, et al., 2005; Vaughan, et al., 2001; Vaughan, et al., 2003]. A total increase in mean annual air temperatures, of around 2.8 °C makes this the most rapidly warming region in the Southern Hemisphere – comparable to rapidly warming regions of the Arctic.

 

On the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, warming has been much slower in summer and spring than in winter or autumn, but still the summer warming has been sufficient to raise the number of positive-degree-days by 74% [Vaughan, 2006], and the resulting increase in melt has caused dramatic impacts on the Antarctic Peninsula environment, and its ecology.

 

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science/climate/antarctic_peninsula.php

[convert]

Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about

 

 

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

 

Let’s set a few things straight.

 

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

 

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

 

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

 

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

 

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

 

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

 

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

 

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

 

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

 

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

 

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

 

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade — yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected.” These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.

 

One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.

 

The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source.

 

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?

 

The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

 

We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

 

Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold — in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

 

Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

 

Financial Post

David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23..

 

[Wildcat]

Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about

 

Why no reference Convert? You like to just do copy and paste hit and runs, without any references.... what should we take from that?

 

Doing a quick google I can see plenty of debunkings from 2007 onwards for his views.

 

First off the author, David Evans is a Computer modeler and not an expert in Climate Change.

 

He does however have a background in trying to make himself sound authorative, despite only having published one paper over 20 years ago and unsurprisingly not on the topic of climate change.

 

Some info about him and his views:

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/david-evans

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/10313/Aussie-Scientist-Dr-David-Evans-former-Carbon-Accounting-Modeler-Now-Says-Its-a-Scam

 

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/20/spot-the-recycled-denial-ii-60-minutes-crunch-time/

 

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-david-evans-is-wrong-along-with-all.html

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php

 

Sounds like a bit of a fantascist to me.

 

All of that could be discovered with a quick google.

 

Convert, do you bother checking your references? or is credibility unnecessary when the viewpoint is one you want to believe in?

Edited April 12, 2011 by Wildcat

[outdrawer]

it was very hot and then temp just dropped. no good

[Joe9T]

That was a good read, convert!

[Wildcat]

That was a good read, convert!

 

Jules Verne is a good read. A computer modeler repeating claims that were thoroughly debunked 3 years ago is an embarassment.

 

One example... Dr Evans says "During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one."

 

Ermm what about the one here:

 

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/

 

pointed out to him two and a half years ago...

 

He is repeating his claims knowing they are false. That makes him a liar and about as credible as citing Jules Verne.