Does Dangerous Anthropological Global Warming Exist?

Professor Robert Carter has a long and quite good article on global warming over at the American Institute for Technology and Science Education. His main thesis is that without a doubt CO² can cause a small rise in lower-atmospheric temperature, but that there is no evidence that this can cause significant climate change, or that it presents a danger to humanity. Here are some of his proofs for the non-existence of dangerous anthropological global warming (DAGW):

The DAGW hypothesis that I want to test here is precisely and only “that dangerous global warming is being caused, or will be, by human-related carbon dioxide emissions”. To be “dangerous”, at a minimum the change must exceed the magnitude or rate of warmings that are known to be associated with normal weather and climatic variability.

What evidence can we use to test the DAGW hypothesis?

Many different lines of evidence can be used to test the DAGW hypothesis. Here I have space to present just five, all of which are based upon real world empirical data. For more information, please read both Dr. Hayhoe’s and my book.

Consider the following tests:

(i) Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.

Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.

(ii) During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4O C and 0.7O C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7O C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1O C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5O C/century.

In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.

(iii) If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.

In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails.

(iv) The IPCC’s computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0O C/century.

In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity). Hypothesis fails.

(v) The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles.

Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldn’t surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails, twice.

One of the 20th century’s greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, observed about science that:

In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.

It’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”

None of the five tests above supports or agrees with the predictions implicit in the greenhouse hypothesis as stated above. Richard Feynman is correct to advise us that therefore the hypothesis is invalid, and that many times over.

(H/t Powerline)

As always, read the whole thing.

There is plenty of evidence that variations in the Earth’s temperature are closely linked to the intensity of the Sun’s radiation. Since this is a logical conclusion backed by thousands of years of human observation, the burden of proof is on the believers in global warming, rather than on the skeptics. Yet, somehow, zealots of the global warming sect have managed to twist the argument and have placed the burden of proof on those who are in defense of common sense and reason. This, even though there is no evidence for their claims.

The world is slowly returning to the Dark Ages. In those days, doctors advocated blood-letting and leaches for every medical ill, though all evidence showed that such kinds of treatments did more harm than good. In the same way, our modern “doctors” have a prescription for every malady, and care not that their cure is usually worse than the disease, or that their patients were never ill to begin with. And when all evidence is against them, they just twist the facts.

A drop in GDP combined with a rise in unemployment are now heralded as signs of an economic recovery. Adding more to the federal deficit than every previous president combined is an example of cost-cutting. The best way to defend ourselves is to disarm. And, any weather, be it a heat wave or a blizzard, is a sign that a catastrophic future awaits because of that dreaded poison, CO² (never mind that CO² is as necessary for plant life as oxygen is to humans).

And when the evidence that one is completely deluded becomes too strong to ignore, one can just blame all the world’s problems on those “flat-earthers” and “bitter clingers” (Christians, classic liberals, conservatives, scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, etc.) and that hated beast of the apocalypse–the source of all wrong, the great deceiver of the masses–George W. Bush.

Yes, it’s their fault! If they had never been allowed to exist, none of this would have happened!

Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads
This entry was posted in climate change and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Does Dangerous Anthropological Global Warming Exist?

  1. The correct term is anthropogenic not anthropological. It is scientifically impossible to increase warming due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere because CO2 is a heavier than air gas. You can fact check me by punching into Google the specific gravity of CO2 where numerous sites will tell you that it is 1.52 which means that it is a 152% heavier than air and thus sinks to the ground when released. This is why they use it in fire extinguishers because it smothers the fire for oxygen. According to scientists we have had an 80 ppm (parts per million) increase, The fractional equivalent to that is 8/100,000ths of 1% a trace amount by any legitimate unit of measure and yet they claim the sky is falling and we are all going to die. BS!

  2. Pingback: The Church of Global Warming and the Little Ice Age | Daily Pundit

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s