Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Climate Models Go Cold - Evans

Climate Models Go Cold - Evans

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by PRMurphy
"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."
"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."

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: PRMurphy on Sep 14, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Climate models gocold
Special to Financial Post Apr 7, 20118:46 PM ET |
Last Updated: Apr 7, 20118:57 PM ET
Carbon warming too minorto be worth worrying about
By David Evans
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold /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 carbongravy 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 tearingsociety 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 isbased on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But thegravy 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. Sorather 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 beingequal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbondioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxidewarms the planet, but how much.Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on howmuch a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide isconsidered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physicshave been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Mostcritically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But doesthe water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or doesit simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theorystarted, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moistair around the planet, which would warm the planet evenfurther, because the moist airis also a greenhouse gas.This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due tocarbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extramoist 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 fromthis. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, andthere is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere sincethe 1960s, manythousands 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 layerof moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of thelate 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not evena small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed,that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases dueto carbon dioxide.This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s. At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empiricalevidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theoryand evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climatescience ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidencethat backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theorythat just happensto keepthem in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great politicalpower to their government masters.There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth respondsto the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampeningthe warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise thesystem would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can proveit.But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warmingdue to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that theirpredictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decadeyet they have the gall

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->