Archive for October, 2011

NOTANECONOMIST :- Global Warming the basics

October 1, 2011

I left the following comment at

http://notaneconomist.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/global-warming%e2%80%94the-basics/

Jim seems to be a great believer in the somewhat dubious correlation between the current warming (if it is happening) and the current rise in CO2  which as I say below is as a proportion of the total atmosphere is  actually about 0.0213% since 1960.

However after posting my comment twice, Jim has spammed my comment without any comment of his own.

Join the club Jim. Which day of the week will you put aside to meet in worship in the name of your new religion. 

Once again we have a believer who will not discuss a well informed and logical criticism of his conclusions. 

Jim,

You are forgetting one important part of the global warming debate.

That is actual scientific proof.

Your economist friends will no doubt give you an idea of the cost to our society, families and children if we go along with the IPCC CO2 reduction demands.

As the cost is so incredibly horrendous, it is reasonable that we have reasonable scientific proof that it is us warming the planet before we commit to this ultimate sacrifice.

FYI there are many hundreds perhaps thousands of published, peer reviewed scientific papers which contradict the unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.

Here is a sample.

An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre

(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)

– Richard S. Courtney

An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)

(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)

– Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNide

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)

(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)

– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)

(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)

– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

– Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)

(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)

– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)

(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)

– Roy Clark

A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming

(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)

– William Kininmonth

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)

(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)

– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming

(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)

– Robert C. Balling Jr.

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)

(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)

– Craig Loehle

An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem

(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-19, March, 1984)

– Sherwood B. Idso

An upper limit to global surface air temperature

(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 141-144, June 1985)

– Sherwood B. Idso

As I said, for no good reason, these papers and many others like them are ignored by the IPCC and its followers. You may also read criticisms on the net about some of these authors, but you should also note that the criticisms are aimed at the person, not the work, and only rarely are there academic papers, that have been peer reviewed etc., published to contradict these authors, which of course is the proper scientific way to disagree in a situation like this.

Therefore as there is no “strong, credible body of evidence” as the above sample of papers show, one needs to examine more closely what the IPCC is claiming.

On one hand we have data that shows, or purports to show, that the climate is indeed warming unusually rapidly over the last 50 years or so. I say purports, as there is some

doubt about the accuracy of the data, however the climate may well be warming.

On the other hand, we have measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere that show that this has increased concentration has increased, as a portion of the atmosphere is only about 0.0213% since 1960, (dosn’t sound too much when you put it like that does it?).

Nevertheless it is true that anthropogenic CO2 has increased.

Now in order to prove that there is a connection between these two events that is proof of a causation factor, we need peer reviewed scientific publications that show this.

Alas there appears to be none. All of the IPCC conclusions are based on 1. That this rather weak correlation is actual proof, and or 2. On scientific model results, which being only hypothesis in themselves, are not proof either.

So one would expect something along the lines of the following:-

Published academic papers using at least one of the following methods to show that the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” is more than just a possibility.

1 Empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming.

2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2. Im sure you know that correlations are never proof.

3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?

Now I’m sure you do not need it, but just in case, here is a little reading to understand what these things are. Here is a site which describes what is needed for #3 which might help. http://www.experiment-resources.com/null-hypothesis.html

I think number three is the most important, because it means, that in order to consider the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis as a better hypothesis over a null hypothesis (such as “The climate naturally changes anyway”) one has to explain how and why all the previous warmings occurred (At least three in historical times).

Now check out my blog and then see if you can find any academic papers that explain why the planet has heated up before, even though there was zero anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com


%d bloggers like this: