BASIC SCIENCE MUST NOT BE TRUMPED BY COMPUTER MODELS OR GROUPTHINK

The following is an edited version of an article sent to me by Ken Haapala of the Science and Environment Policy Project (SEPP)

An experienced scientist produced a chart showing there is a poor correlation between observed temperature rise and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, with no correlation since 2003. There was a good correlation between 1976 and 1998. 

He sent it to the editor of a well known climate science journal. The editor responded by saying that much of science is not built on proofs or logically compelling arguments, but on confidence in theoretical models, using the Big Bang as an example. [The problem with the editor’s example is that there is no way to test the Big Bang Theory whereas the climate can be measured and so the measurements can be used to test the theory] 

Ken gave a lecture at a conference for doctors on Bureaucratic Science, group think used by government. Global warming was the primary example. Since the 1920s, multiple laboratories conducted experiments on the flow of radiant energy through gases. All atmospheric gases affect energy flow. Those gases that affect outgoing infrared energy are called greenhouse gases. They delay the loss of heat into space, causing the earth to be warmer, particularly at night, than it would be otherwise. By far, the most important is water vapor. Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas both in quantity and efficiency. Its effect is highly logarithmic. At pre-industrial levels (about 280 ppm) it was approaching saturation, where any increase will have a minimal effect.

“In 1979, the National Academy of Sciences published a report by a group of distinguished scientists called the Charney Report (the NYT Mag recently made much of this). Climate modelers speculated (guessed) that an increase in atmospheric water vapor would greatly increase (amplify) any increase in temperatures from CO2. The estimated increase in surface temperatures was 3 deg C +/- 50%. The low end came from the Princeton modelers and the high end from Jim Hansen’s NASA-GISS. There were no data, because no one could calculate temperatures of the atmospheric, where the greenhouse effect occurs. Small slivers of atmospheric temperature data from weather balloon instruments were not sufficient.

“In 1990, Roy Spencer and John Christy provided a breakthrough – how to calculate global atmospheric temperature trends from satellite data, gathered since late 1978. Initially, they were honored, then shunned. The data do not support the guesses in the Charney Report. Small errors from orbit irregularities were promptly corrected, as they should be. Still, the climate bureaucrats ignore these data.

“The IPCC and US climate modelers continue to use the Charney guesses, not hard evidence. The 2018 Christy et al. article in the International Journal of Remote Sensing clearly shows that amplified warming from increased water vapor is not occurring, the models greatly overestimate atmospheric warming, and if there is any warming from CO2, it is very modest. Any greater warming trend of the surface comes from other factors, not greenhouse gases. How can the atmosphere warm the surface at a greater rate than the atmosphere is warming?

via climate science

https://ift.tt/2wQK0H9

September 7, 2018 at 01:30AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: