Peter
New Observations Show Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming
11 December 2007
Current Summary of Crucial Evidence
Background
A paper I wrote that briefly describes the history of why we used to believe that carbon
emissions caused global warming, and how we got to where we are now in the debate:
http://mises.org/story/2571
Ice Core Data Reverses — 2003
First crucial point, 2003. We've all seen Al Gore’s movie. It was the early, low
resolution ice core data first gathered from 1985 to 2000 that convinced the world that
CO2 was the culprit: CO2 levels and temperature rose and fell in lockstep over the last
half a million years, to the resolution of the old ice core data (data points over a
thousand years apart). We assumed that CO2 levels controlled the world’s
temperature.
After further research, in 2000 – 2003 new high resolution ice core results (data points
only a few hundred years apart) allowed us to distinguish which came first—rising
temperature or rising CO2? We found that temperature changes preceded CO2
changes by an average of 800 years. So temperature rises caused the CO2 rises, and
not the other way around as previously assumed. The world should have started backpedalling
away from blaming carbon emissions in 2003:
%A0%20temperature.htm
Greenhouse Signature Missing — 2007
Second crucial point, August 2007. Each possible cause of global warming causes the
atmosphere to warm at different latitudes and altitudes — that is, each cause will
produces a distinct pattern of hot spots in the atmosphere, or “signature”. The
greenhouse signature is very distinct from the others: warming due to greenhouse
would cause most warming in the tropics at about 10 km up in the atmosphere:
Greenhouse Signatures (IPCC AR 4, 2007, Appendix C)
As of August 2007, we’ve measured where the warming is occurring using satellites
and radiosondes (weather balloons). The observed signature is nothing like the
greenhouse signature — the distinct greenhouse signature is entirely missing:
Observed Warming
(US CCSP 2006 p.116 fig. 5.7, confirmed by more measurements published in 2007)
There is no hotspot in the tropics at 10 km up, so now we know that greenhouse
warming is not the (main) cause of global warming — so we know that carbon
emissions are not the (main) cause of global warming.
There is no hotspot in the tropics at 10 km up, so now we know that greenhouse
warming is not the (main) cause of global warming — so we know that carbon
emissions are not the (main) cause of global warming.
Of course, these observations need to be repeated by other researchers before we can
be completely sure, but they are made by top-notch researchers and reported in top-of the-
line peer-reviewed journals so at this stage they look solid. Recent radiosondes
have confirmed the results so far.
This article from August 2007 is a hard read, but the results are new, it is the most
accessible so far, and is much easier to understand than the raw scientific papers:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/whatgreenhouse/mo
ncktongreenhousewarming.pdf
Where the IPCC Models Went Wrong — 2007
So why did we go wrong? Another set of recent observations partly explains why the
UN climate models got it so wrong.
Doubling atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280ppm up to 560ppm
(which is roughly were the IPCC says we will be in 2100) is calculated to raise the
world’s air temperature by 1.2C in the absence of feedbacks such as convection,
evaporation, and clouds. This is what you would get if the air was like in a flask in a
laboratory. Everyone roughly agrees with that calculated result.
But the modellers assumed that increased warming would cause more rainfall, which
would cause more clouds high up in the atmosphere — and since high clouds have a
net warming effect, this would cause more warming and thus more rainfall, and so on.
This is one of the main positive feedbacks that causes the UN climate models to
predict a temperature rise due to a CO2 doubling of 3.2C (their central estimate), of
which we have already experienced 0.7C.
Roy Spencer is a top-class scientist who has spent a few years closely observing
temperatures, clouds, and rainfall. In September 2007 he reported that in reality
warming is associated with fewer high clouds. So the feedback due to high clouds is
actually negative. Reversing this feedback in the IPCC models lowers their estimates
of warming for a CO2 doubling by about 1.5C.
As Spencer says with such understatement: "Global warming theory says warming will
generally be accompanied by more rainfall. Everyone just assumed that more rainfall
means more high altitude clouds. That would be your first guess and, since we didn't
have any data to suggest otherwise ...". Science is about observational evidence
trumping theoretical calculations, which is exactly what is happening here:
http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875
Warming Already Waning
The only temperature data we can trust are satellite measurements, and they only go
back to 1979. (Ground-station data is corrupted by an unknown amount of urban heat
island effect.) Satellite temperature data shows that there has been no warming in the
southern hemisphere, and that the warming trend in the northern hemisphere has
waned since 2001:
Global Satellite temperatures (1979 – late 2007, updated Jan 2008)
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSNHem.html
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSSHem.html
(Gratuitous advice for those whose jobs depend on the idea that carbon emissions
cause global warming: Find another job to pay your mortgage and feed your kids!)
Three Stages of Knowledge and the IPCC
Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:
1. 1985 – 2003. Old ice core data led us to strongly suspect that CO2 causes global
warming.
2. 2003 – 2007. New ice core data eliminated previous reason for suspecting CO2.
No evidence to suspect or exonerate CO2.
3. From Aug 2007: Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming.
CO2 no longer a suspect.
The IPCC 2007 Assessment Report (the latest and greatest from the IPCC) is based on
all scientific literature up to mid 2006. The Bali Conference is the bureaucratic
response to that report. Too bad that the data has changed since then!
6 comments:
Yeah...sorry Pete, this guy needs to be discredited.
Evans is a thoroughbred "denier" - he simply denies that the science was done correctly to begin with and should immediately be discounted; he articulates this in his two major popular press articles, "No Smoking Hotspot" and the "Gravy Train" (posted above), plus what appears to be a blog post simply titled "There is no evidence." Easy to find on the web. His reasoning sounds rational enough and is accompanied by a graph or two here and there. To follow Evans is to believe in the complete irresponsibility, inaccuracy, and incompetence of the global warmist community.
So there.
But then the "howevers" come banging in the door complete with their golf bags filled with red flags.
Red Flag #1: The man is an electrical engineer. An electrical engineer!!!! No peer-reviewed research on the climate. 'Nuff said.
Red Flag #2: Same as above: No peer review on the climate. Not a climate scientist (I know you think peer review is a circle jerk, Pete, but it is still the universal standard of accepted science worldwide).
Red Flag #3: It is unclear that Evans has done any sort of research at all since the late '80s - much less climate research. He claims he’s been “writing a book.” For nine years. No book. In fact, one might even say that, though he started out with a good deal of promise, he hasn't had much of a career, at least as a scientist. This potentially casts light upon his sudden emergence on the denier circuit.
Red Flag #4: The guy may be a nut. Now it is hard to make this assertion without dipping into the ad hominem pool, but it is also worthwhile to make sure that your sources, when you talk about science, are trustworthy. And Evans is not.
Red Flag #5: Rocket Scientist: Evans is somewhat mildly famous in the blogosphere for his self-appointed “Rocket Scientist” designation. It actually says this if you find his CV on the Science Speak website. His defense of this title is that this is what one is called when one graduates with an advanced degree from one of the top schools (Stanford) in one of the hard sciences (electrical engineering, not climate science). At best this is pretentious and conceited in the extreme – particularly since Evans has not done much actual scientific research – self-delusional at the worst. I don’t know which it is, or if it is a combination or somewhere along the continuum…but it don’t speak well.
Red Flag #6: Science Speak: Evans’ company. It is not clear exactly what this is. The website is extremely amateurish, so it is hard to tell what Evans & Co. sells. It would appear that he and his partner, Joanne Nova, are looking for speaking engagements; Nova is also trying to sell a book.
Red Flag #7: Gold Standard: But even more troubling is the link to an editorial Evans wrote, “Why invest in gold now,” which has a link to something called “Gold Fields” which appears to be a marketing site of some sort for gold interests. Huh? What is Evans doing writing on the status of gold prices? Very strange stuff. Perhaps, since Evans has a background in statistics, he is trying his hand at economics? Unclear, but it does cast doubt upon his motivations as a scientist – is Evans attempting to profit by the current debate?
Red Falg #8: Now this one would take some checking up on, but it is possible that Evans never worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office. Or if he did work there, it was only in a minor capacity. There is no mention of him on the AGO website…oh but wait, the government is trying to obliterate his identity. Right.
In the end, Pete, this guy is an absolute no go, loserville. I know you like the theory that “warmists” “discredit” scientists who oppose their viewpoint, but it is pretty easy to do and pretty relevant if the scientist in question has no credentials and appears to be a nutjob. Is persona necessarily an indicator of a scientist’s viability? Not always. But for the same reason that one should not give money to a televangelist who claims “God will take me home” unless he raises $1M, one should discount any scientist who appears to be milking the post-warmist gravy train or who appears to have a screw loose. After all, we have to trust our sources (because neither of us really understand climate science), and we wouldn’t want to simply believe someone because we like what they say. Right Pete?
I stand (or sit) chastised. So whip me with a wet noodle.
Wouldn't it be nice if every global warming alarmist nutjob were as carefully scrutinized as this Mr. Evans has been?
Not only are the "nutjob" climate alarmists not questioned, particularly by the mainstream media, but Congress and governments around the world are spending Billions (Trillions?) of taxpayers money based on inadequate and fraudulent science.
And there are few greater "nutjobs" or fruitcakes than Al Gore and Jim Hansen.
So? Scrutinize them. Seems that that's what your whole blog is about. Seems that there is a good deal of scrutinizing going on on both sides. Mainstream media? Isn't John Stossel somewhere around here?
I know you aren't too fond of Jim Hansen, but he's not actually a nutjob. He's a pretty bona fide scientist. His climate physics may be off base (I'm not saying they are, but just "if" they are) but he has some very solid credentials. And, as I posted last week, someone like Botkin is pretty hard to discredit and pretty easy to believe.
If there's a moral here, Pete ol'buddy, it is that you ultimately leave yourself and the whole anti-warmest community vulnerable when you blindly follow the pied piper of pseudo-science (I read, for instance, your thread on "peer-reviewed" articles...quite a debate...)
Sorry, you must whip yourself with the wet noodle.
Anon,
Ok, so you don't like this Evans guy. I don't know him personally. Maybe he is a bit of an eccentric. Ok.
Now what about the tens of thousands of other scientists, "climate scientists" or not, who can't swallow, or can see through the man-caused global warming bullshit. Can you discredit them all?
Would you, could you apply the same critical examination to Jim Hansen of NOAA infamy? He's the master fear-monger and data-distorter. He makes this Evans look like a Boy Scout.
How can an honest "climate scientist" stomach the distortion and lies promulgated by the mainstream media over the past 20 years regarding the weather and climate change? Do these people know no shame? Have they no scientific integrity?
The answer is no.....they live by sucking off the government tit, the taxpayers money.....and they make things up to suit their own desires. They are bottom-dwelling scum suckers.
Umm...Well, isn't Dr. Hansen on the list? We'll get to him, my little droogy, patience, patience.
I might point out that this particular commentary on your part is exactly the sort of generalized, unsupported, ad hominem attacks you disdain in others...oh what's the use.
Were you been tipping back some of them good Wisconsin brewskies before you wrote that last post?
Post a Comment