Tag Archives: Global warming

Dr. John Christy -Testimony to House Science Committee

In a nonpolitical world, this Testimony  by this prominent of an expert would be viewed by anyone who understands science as Checkmate, game-set-match, QED to the Climate Alarmist view of CO2 as a Climate Control Knob.

The GHG Theory and the Positive Feedback theory both manifest themselves ( in Climate Models) first as an increased temperature in the mid Troposphere which is the main layer measured by the balloon and satellite data sets.

None of the 4 balloon or 3 satellite data sets are measuring anything close to the predicted increases so the predicted “Climate Sensitivity ”  to changes in CO2 is over estimated by several times.  Carbon Dioxide has continued to rise and over a third of the total man made CO2 has been produced in the last 20 years and yet reality is that Temperatures have not risen as predicted.  The empirical measurements say the theory is busted.

The surface temperature data sets show more warming but are also way below predictions despite the “hottest year ever” claims.  The surface set is subject to UHI error , adjustments, estimates for large areas like the arctic and questionable handling of ocean data (70% of the area!).

It is also worthwhile to read the appendix as he shows how many of the claims about adverse effects of climate change are not happening. There is no increase in droughts, wildfires, crop losses and he could have included actual decreases in tornados and hurricanes and hurricane strength.

This has become such a stupid political football and is being used to justify expensive and damaging policies such as denying cheap fossil fuel energy to the third world which will continue to cost many lives.

https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf

Dr. John Christy Testimony

Former President Of Greenpeace Scientifically Rips Climate Change To Shreds

Everyone who cares about Climate Change and the Carbon issue should read this excellent article by Patrick Moore.

Former President Of Greenpeace Scientifically Rips Climate Change To Shreds

or here

PATRICK MOORE: SHOULD WE CELEBRATE CARBON DIOXIDE?

Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide  – Video  

Carbon Dioxide is the gas of life that enables all plant life on earth which creates everything we eat and the Oxygen we breathe.  We breathe out 40,000 to 50,000 ppm of CO2 with each breath.

The geologic records do not scientifically support the theory of CO2 as a control knob of temperature.

Science versus Politics and Religion on CO2

Scary climate model forecasts of large warming like 4 degrees C or higher depend on two separate theories. Carbon Dioxide is a GHG(Green House Gas) but doubling the CO2 alone can only add about 1 C because of the logarithmic decline in back radiation from CO2 let alone balancing from negative feedbacks. The forecasts of greater than 1 degree C assume a second theory of large positive feedbacks (amplification) from large increases in humidity which is supposed to cause runaway warming. The 30+ years of balloon and satellite readings of the Troposphere show that is not happening. (Google missing hot spot.) The positive feedback or amplification theory has always been suspect because positive feedbacks in nature have to be local, short term or balanced by negative feedback in long life systems.

Bottom line is the climate models based on positive feedbacks forecast warming rates that are high by 3 to 4X versus reality so it is now becoming apparent that the warming is way overestimated. The forecasts are so far outside reasonable confidence ranges that CO2 levels cannot be considered a major climate control knob. There are new peer reviewed papers that have been published since the IPCC AR5 that have dramatically reduced the climate sensitivity to less than 1.5 degrees C.

Climate sensitivity
Glaciers, sea ice, ocean heating, cycles, storms, weather, etc are all just distractions and noise. The main theory that ¾ of the warming is based on doesn’t work and is wrong! The scare is over but the general public will take a while to see that man cannot control the climate. The next big realization is that mild warming and higher CO2 levels are net positive for the planet!!

The world has been constantly bombarded with the message that 97% of scientists “Believe” in Global Warming and that man is “to blame” for some of that warming. Let us breakdown that politically worded message. The world has warmed up about .8C since the Little Ice Age; so yes, it has warmed and yes, man has influenced climate by deforestation, irrigation, desertification, urbanization (UHI), real air pollution and the effect of CO2 but how much of the temperature rise is natural? Science is not about belief but about the scientific method where theories are proposed, facts are collected and theories are tested. Scientists should not jump to conclusions and have to be open to changing their minds if the theories fail.
Now that the climate model forecasts are shown to be overestimating the warming and that climate sensitivity estimates have to be reduced, the real question is how many scientists would be willing ”to stake their lives”(interesting phrase!) on the possibility that CO2 levels will cause enough warming to cause problems. Mild warming has historically been good for the planet and humanity.
Strongly held religious and political beliefs have caused and continue to cause wars, genocides and atrocities. That is why most of the world has tried to separate the powers of the government, the church and the military because sometimes those beliefs are wrong. A Canadian example is the combination of religion, politics and social science with great intentions created the residential school system.
Do you not find it ironic that someone with a theology degree would call for people with different “belief” to be burned at the stake (sorry – suffer consequences). Skeptical scientists are people who are still trying to determine the correct answer using the scientific method.
Terms like “Denial and Denier” are political/religious terms and have no place in a science discussion. We should immediately distrust anyone using terms like that because they are abusing their positions to make political points.
Many people with no scientific background just adopt the thinking that comes down from the leaders of their social and political groups. The need to belong is stronger than the need to confirm the “received knowledge”. Current Political and social leaders are abusing that trust as they use it to create a political divide of them and us to the point of demonizing or dehumanizing the other side so they can justify “burning them at the stake” for holding a different opinion.This did not start out as a scam but now many people’s trust is being misused for political purposes.

Mild Warming and Higher CO2 Levels are Net Positive for Planet

Climate Change – Note that forecasts of large warming like 4 degrees C depend on two separate theories. Carbon Dioxide is a GHG(Green House Gas) but doubling the CO2 alone can only add about 1 C because of the logarithmic decline in back radiation from CO2 let alone balancing from negative feedbacks. The forecasts of greater than 1 degree C assume a second theory of large positive feedbacks (amplification) from large increases in humidity which is supposed to cause runaway warming. The 30+ years of balloon and satellite reading of the Troposphere show that is not happening. (Google missing hot spot.) The positive feedback or amplification theory has always been suspect for engineers. Positive feedbacks in nature have to be local, short term or balanced by negative feedback in long life systems.

Bottom line is the climate models based on positive feedbacks forecast warming rates that are high by 3 to 4X versus reality so the warming is way overestimated. The forecasts are so far outside reasonable confidence ranges that CO2 levels cannot be considered a major climate control knob.

Climate sensitivity

Glaciers, sea ice, ocean heating, cycles, storms, weather, etc are all just distractions and noise. The main theory that ¾ of the warming is based on doesn’t work and is wrong! The scare is over but the general public will take a while to see that man cannot control the climate.

The next big realization is that mild warming and higher CO2 levels are net positive for the planet!!

A good level of CO2 for most plants is 1500 to 2000 ppm versus current level of 400 ppm(from Greenhouse experience).  Plants die at less than 200 ppm and 1000’s of feet of biomass was laid down in the Permian when CO2 levels were 7,000 to 9,000 ppm.  Note humans/mammals breathe out 40,000 to 50,000 ppm every breath!

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2581.html

crop yields

grain production

CO2 plant growth

Climate Sensitivity to Carbon Dioxide Concentrations

Climate Sensitivity to Carbon Dioxide Concentrations The world is being constantly bombarded with the message that 97% of scientists “Believe” in Global Warming and that man has contributed to that warming. Let us breakdown that message. The world has warmed up about .8C since the Little Ice Age; so yes, it has warmed and yes, man has influenced climate by deforestation, irrigation, desertification, urbanization(UHI), real air pollution and the effect of CO2.  Carbon Dioxide is a Green House Gas in theory but in the atmosphere the back radiation spectrum is dominated by existing water vapor and the amount of additional back radiation declines logarithmically with additional CO2 so the actual effect of more CO2 is unknown. The accepted effect of doubling CO2 concentration is about 1C max.

These parts of the message should have near universal agreement. (maybe even 97%) So where are the important differences in opinion?

1. How sensitive is the Climate to changes in CO2 concentration?

2. Is the positive feedback/amplification theory real and can it cause large changes in temperature?What about negative feedbacks? What if feedbacks are net negative as would be expected in a natural long term system?

3. Can CO2 warm the climate enough to cause catastrophic events?

4. What is a reasonable probability of this occurrence?

The measurements from the three world satellite temperature sets and 4 balloon sets show an increasing divergence with the projections from the Climate Models. The assumptions that have been plugged into the Models appear to massively overestimate the effect of changes in CO2 concentration on temperatures. This is most noticeable in the tropics where the models and theory say CO2 should cause the most warming (see http://tinyurl.com/me5jlcd ) The temperature of the world has shown very little increase for over 19 years now which is close to the length of the previous warming period despite a rapid rise of over 40% in CO2 concentration.

There has been no increase in humidity which was theorized to massively amplify the temperature increase.  (actual decrease -see graph)

GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb

The temperatures are now so far outside of the model projections (in the less than 5 % probability range) that it is now very unlikely that CO2 concentration is the primary driver of climate. There are now 14 new peer reviewed published papers that estimate lower climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 and many sensitivity estimates are now below the estimated safe limit of 2 C.

Climate sensitivity

Unfortunately belief in Carbon Dioxide as the control knob of climate has become less of a scientific issue and more of a tool which is being used for political benefit.

Desperate Hype on 2014 as Record Warm Year

Note the error bar on the “warming” was way larger than the minuscule warming!

The widely anticipated finding deflated — but did not fully dispel — a perception that the rate of warming has slowed since the 1990s. Several scientists noted that 2014 was not a blowout, statistically speaking. The year surpassed the next runners-up by only a few hundredths of a Celsius degree, averaged across the globe. Some also noted that rising temperatures have not kept pace with computer simulations that predicted even faster warming, given the 40-percent rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution.

The most important points are that the  satellite temperature sets show no real warming and that the rate of warming is way lower than the models predicted.

Recent warming trends are less than forecast by computer models

DR. Judith Curry is always worth reading for balanced perspective     She is quoted as follows.

“With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade,” said Judith Curry, professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “This ‘almost’ record year does not help the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the surface temperature observations.”

Estimates of Climate Sensitivity to increase in CO2 content will continue to decrease. The Crisis is hugely over stated.  Even the warmists admit the claim is less likely than not.

Warming year probability

A lot of hype over something that is so marginally warmer that it is only 38 to 48 % probable that it is a record even if it is accurate.

Nice statement by Dr. Roy Spencer 

Some more good comments:

“Whether or not a given year is a hundredth of a degree or so above a previous record is not the issue. What IS the issue is how observed temperatures compare to what has been forecast to happen.”

“John Christy and Richard McNider, from University of Alabama (Huntsville) recently compared climate model projections to observed lower atmospheric temperatures as measured by two independent sources: satellites and weather balloons. They found that the average warming predicted to have occurred since 1979 (when the satellite data starts) is approximately three times larger than what is being observed.”

– Pat Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute

Is the Contribution of CO2 to the Greenhouse Effect Over Estimated?

Most people are surprised to hear that the estimated amount of the GHG effect that is attributed to CO2 in the scientific literature is a range from as low as 2 % to as high as 45 %. The amount of effect will vary with latitude, altitude, time of day/night, over land/water, season, cloud cover/type and humidity, etc. so finding an average that applies over a year or decades is a tall order.  The climate models use values in the 20 to 30 % range.

As month after month goes by with the models running too hot the big question about basic assumptions comes to the top.   Where are the  assumptions wrong?  Where are the blind spots that prevent these otherwise “brilliant researchers” from seeing the potential holes in their theories?

Climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 and the changes in forcings and the positive and negative  responses to those forcings will all be non linear and change with time. The system will work its way towards an equilibrium and there will be responses to balance or offset the positive feedbacks.  The amount of energy lost to space will increase or cloud cover will change and reduce the energy imbalance. There are events in geological history which change global temperatures to a new equilibrium for a period but changes in CO2 content does not have much support as a control knob in geological history.

The estimates of Climate Sensitivity are based on many assumptions but the most basic assumption is the amount of greenhouse effect that is attributed to CO2.   There appears to be no way to empirically determine that amount but the estimates will continue to decrease as the bust in the model predictions grows.