|
Scientist says Carbon Emmissions No Cause of Global Warming
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
Discuss?? :conf: :conf:
| quote: |
No smoking hot spot
David Evans | July 18, 2008
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005. |
|
|
|
| robstar |
EH DISCUSS WHAT??
| quote: | | The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this. But the political systems around the world have held this at arm's length because it's an inconvenient truth. // Gore |
He's obv paid by the Oil companys and isn't funded by governments like the REAL Scientist! He devoted 6 years to this? LOL!
The government scientist have been researching this for 5 decades!
I read somewhere that this is like the Evolution vs Intelligent design battle.
:clown: |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by robstar
He's obv paid by the Oil companys :clown: |
Obviously dude... I mean, there's no other answer. :stongue: |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Give it time, my friends, in time truth will be understood. Its not just the oil industry trying to make itself look better. When the current warm streak will run dry in the next couple decades, it will have a far-reaching impact on humankind.
I believe that the whole climate change issue has been severely misunderstood. There is a bit of both that have a factor in play - there is climate change going on (as there always is and will be), and that humans have a huge impact on the environment. But the issue has not been given a proper limelight - I mean, like seriously, wouldn't the massive destruction of the world's rainforests have anything to contribute to the ever-rising CO2 levels and the climate change? I think so. But thats hardly being discussed by either the oil companies or the Al Gore faithful. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
I mean, like seriously, wouldn't the massive destruction of the world's rainforests have anything to contribute to the ever-rising CO2 levels and the climate change? I think so. But thats hardly being discussed by either the oil companies or the Al Gore faithful. |
Actually in Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth, he does talk about the carbon emissions of cutting down the rainforest. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by robstar
EH DISCUSS WHAT??
I read somewhere that this is like the Evolution vs Intelligent design battle.
:clown: |
I mentioned that quite some time ago because that's exactly what it began to resemble to me, and unfortunately that's coming more and more to fruition.
In regards to Evans, it was an unfortunate dead giveaway to me when someone claims to have expertise in climate science but, despite his impressive background in Mathmatics, Physics, and Mechanical Engineering, has no formal training in climate science itself, nor has he ever written any peer-reviewed articles pertaining to climate science. His other background information is also strangely a bit out of place as well:
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-ro...ist-david-evans
Touting himself as a "Rocket Scientist" was a bit weird to me as well. Who the hell ever calls themselves that other than true rocket scientists, especially when one clearly is not that?
This is one of the favorite tricks of creationists as well - pretending to hold expertise in evolutionary science despite being a mathematician or some other field other than that directly related to biological and/or anthropological evolution.
There are other sincere problems with his hackery:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/200..._science_16.php
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2...g-with-all.html
http://one-salient-oversight.blogsp...ut-another.html
This has gotten old for me a long time ago. I don't necessarily want to run down the alarmist aisle with my hands flailing in the air, but I will also not stand idly by watching these ing hacks make a ing mockery of devoted scientists who's life's work have nearly all come to a very similar conclusion about the associated causes of climate change.
We're the ing problem, and we need to do something about it. We can quibble about the validity of data from the vast majority consensus from a loud group of conservative s who rely on unqualified boobs who have not a whit of valid evidence in climate science just as they rely on Dembski and Behe with their Intelligent Design/Discovery Institute balogna infiltrating our science classrooms with bogus bull, or we can listen to the 99% other majority who's life's work states a bit more of an obvious point:
we're the ing problem.
I prefer the latter, because I'm sick as listening to the ed up twits of the former who's done nothing but continue to ruin our environmental policy and take a gigantic dump on our planet, all the while I see Rush Limbaugh smoke his ing 5 foot long cigar and giggle when he reads these Drudge headlines from these ing buffoons. I'm sick of it. I'm ing sick to death of it. We've embarrassed our scientific community long enough. We've embarrassed logic and accountability ing long enough. We either man the up and deal with the pile of dung we're throwing out or we sit here and pick our collective dicks listening to the blowhards throw out misinformation after misinformation and attempt to convince us all is ing right and peachy-mother-ing-kean in the world.
Ugh. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
|
Well said..:tongue2 |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Actually in Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth, he does talk about the carbon emissions of cutting down the rainforest. |
On Page 294 with small lettering and just couple sentences?:rolleyes:
How about making a note of that in his famous movie? I've read his older books, I know that he has knowledge about the human-driven environmental destruction of the planet ("Earth In The Balance") ... yet its puzzling why he didnt make that the front story in his movie. What is he afraid of? Afraid of tuckling a REAL issue because that would get in the way of his political base?
According to Al Gore, global warming is mainly driven by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. I must make a note that, even though I dont recall the exact number, but there's quite a large number of football field size areas of rainforest that get cut down every MINUTE. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
On Page 294 with small lettering and just couple sentences?:rolleyes:
How about making a note of that in his famous movie? I've read his older books, I know that he has knowledge about the human-driven environmental destruction of the planet ("Earth In The Balance") ... yet its puzzling why he didnt make that the front story in his movie. What is he afraid of? Afraid of tuckling a REAL issue because that would get in the way of his political base?
According to Al Gore, global warming is mainly driven by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. I must make a note that, even though I dont recall the exact number, but there's quite a large number of football field size areas of rainforest that get cut down every MINUTE. |
No, page 294 talks about the success story of eliminating CFCs so we could rebuild the ozone layer. I actually think he does mention the rainforest in his movie. In fact, I think he shows a satellite photograph of Brazil, and you can clearly see the land area that has been cleared, and the rainforest that is left.
Something like this...
 |
|
|
|
|
