non man made global warming read

[BABronco]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...6-7583,00.html

No smoking hot spot

David Evans | July 18, 2008

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.

[Bronco Jamus]

Good read. It confirms what I believe:

We don't know. Or more specifically there is more we don't know than we do know.

[cutthemdown]

This is what I have been thinking. We can't control the temp of the earth. We need a plan to deal with global warming if it occurs well into the future and starts to cause significant problems. I don't think though cutting C02 is going to help anything.

[El Minion]

David Evans Phd is in electrical engineering from his biography on Lavoisier Group who from sourcewatch.org state:

The Lavoisier Group is a global warming skeptic organisation, based in Australia. It argues that the evidence for global warming is based on inexact science and that any policy responses, such as signing the Kyoto Protocol, would be too expensive for Australia's industry.

The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans, then an executive at Western Mining Corporation (WMC), who was also involved in founding the HR Nicholls Society and the Bennelong Society. Hugh Morgan, former WMC boss and head of the Business Council of Australia until 2005, delivered the group's inaugural speech.

Lavoisier is a fairly small operation, with under 100 members and an annual budget of around $10,000. [1]

In 2001 Australian economist John Quiggin wrote that the Lavoisier Group is "devoted to the proposition that basic principles of physics...cease to apply when they come into conflict with the interests of the Australian coal industry." [2]

[El Minion]

The Australian's War on Science XV
Category: The War on Science
Posted on: July 18, 2008 9:19 AM, by Tim Lambert

The Australian continues to display its contempt for science, scientists and the scientific method. They've published this piece of AGW denial by David Evans. Last time I looked at Evans he was saying that new evidence since 1999 had changed his mind about global warming, with this new evidence including the fact that the world had cooled from 1940 to 1975. Apparently this was too silly even for the Australian, so he now offers us four alleged 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.

This couldn't be more wrong. Study the graphs below (from RealClimate). The left one shows the pattern predicted for doubling CO2, while the right one shows the pattern for a 2% increase in solar output.

Both patterns include a hot spot. The difference between the two graphs is that the CO2 one shows cooling in the stratosphere, while the right one does not, so the "greenhouse signature" is stratospheric cooling. And guess what, that's what's been happening. Evans continues:

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.

Actually we have found the greenhouse signature, so Evans should change his mind. I'm not holding my breath.

If the hot spot really is missing it does not prove that CO2 is not causing warming, but it would indicate something wrong with the models. (Which might mean that things are worse than what the models predict.) However, the radiosonde measurements have been found to be wrong in the past, and it looks like they may well be wrong again.

Evans continues:

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.

This is pure denial. There is plenty of evidence and denying that it exists does not make it disappear. For instance, Figure 4 of the SPM. The blue bands show temperature changes modelled using only natural forcings, while the red bands include anthropogenic forcings as well. The black line shows observations. Clearly, we must include anthropogenic forcings if we want to match the observations.

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).

Let's look at the lower troposphere trends from RSS:

Figure 7. Global, monthly time series of brightness temperature anomaly for channels TLT, TMT, TTS, and TLS. For Channel TLT (Lower Troposphere) and Channel TMT (Middle Troposphere), the anomaly time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow tropospheric warming.

The people who publish the data don't think that the warming trend ended in 2001, and if you look at the graph, it's only significantly deviated from the long term warming trend in 2008. Such short-term deviations have happened in the past without affecting the long term trend.

Evans continues:

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.

The land-based temperature readings are corrected for UHI, while the satellite readings have been found to be wrong in the past.

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.

Study the title of the NASA temperature graph:

Does it report only land-based data, or does it include ocean temperatures as well?

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.

This is wrong. The temperature rises started on average 800 years before CO2 levels rose, but most of the warming occured after CO2 levels started rising. Jeff Severinghaus writes:

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. ...

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

That's it for all of Evans' evidence. The rest of his article is more pure denial. For instance:

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?

He has, but he just denies that it is evidence.

[Bronco Jamus]

This couldn't be more wrong. Study the graphs below (from RealClimate). The left one shows the pattern predicted for doubling CO2, while the right one shows the pattern for a 2% increase in solar output.





Predicted - Meaning it's a guess.

[El Minion]

Originally Posted by Bronco Jamus

This couldn't be more wrong. Study the graphs below (from RealClimate). The left one shows the pattern predicted for doubling CO2, while the right one shows the pattern for a 2% increase in solar output.





Predicted - Meaning it's a guess.

Did you even read the next sentence:

Both patterns include a hot spot. The difference between the two graphs is that the CO2 one shows cooling in the stratosphere, while the right one does not, so the "greenhouse signature" is stratospheric cooling. And guess what, that's what's been happening.

From the cited quoted link:

Stratospheric cooling

Cooling of the stratosphere isn't just the result of ozone destruction but is also caused by the release of carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Therefore, global warming in the troposphere and stratospheric cooling due to ozone loss are parallel effects. As cooling increases, development of the ozone layer can be affected because a cold stratosphere is necessary for ozone depletion.

So releasing more carbon dioxide may not only increase global warming but may also contribute to the formation of the ozone hole. The system is pretty complicated and so we try to give just an overview of it here....

[Bronco Jamus]

Originally Posted by El Minion

Did you even read the next sentence:



From the cited quoted link:

Yep. It's very complicated. Which goes back to what I posted first.

[Spider]

Meh ...... I think EDl Minon links and posting have more concrete to them then that dip**** Dave Evans ......

[El Minion]

Originally Posted by Bronco Jamus

Yep. It's very complicated. Which goes back to what I posted first.

So it's wrong even though the hypothesis/prediction/guess of "greenhouse signature" has been proven true because GW is complicated! If even simple proven facts are dismissed and not to be believed because it doesn't fit someone's beliefs then there is no hope for the deluded.

[tsiguy96]

does anyone have to sense to think that it is right in the middle. we arent teh cause for global warming, however we may be speeding up the process...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by El Minion

David Evans Phd is in electrical engineering from his biography on Lavoisier Group who from sourcewatch.org state:

The Lavoisier Group is a global warming skeptic organisation, based in Australia. It argues that the evidence for global warming is based on inexact science and that any policy responses, such as signing the Kyoto Protocol, would be too expensive for Australia's industry.

The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans, then an executive at Western Mining Corporation (WMC), who was also involved in founding the HR Nicholls Society and the Bennelong Society. Hugh Morgan, former WMC boss and head of the Business Council of Australia until 2005, delivered the group's inaugural speech.

Lavoisier is a fairly small operation, with under 100 members and an annual budget of around $10,000. [1]

In 2001 Australian economist John Quiggin wrote that the Lavoisier Group is "devoted to the proposition that basic principles of physics...cease to apply when they come into conflict with the interests of the Australian coal industry." [2]

Another group of energy people trying to play scientist and dispute global warming. Thankfully these people are fading away in the face of global science.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by tsiguy96

does anyone have to sense to think that it is right in the middle. we arent teh cause for global warming, however we may be speeding up the process...

I held that position until I talked to a guy that just came back from Taiwan .... Over seas they are polluting real bad .P.S. did you know they eat chickens feet in China an Taiwan like we eat popcorn ?
But if you can speak Taiwan and english , you can write your own pay check over there

[Drek]

David Evans Phd is in electrical engineering

Maybe David Evans should shut the hell up and let people with degrees actually related to earth science and climate change discuss this? HMMMM?

If you believe this then hey, my piss cures cancer and aids. I'm a geologist, that means I'm a scientist too, so how can I be wrong? I mean I've never studied biology but what does that matter?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Drek

Maybe David Evans should shut the hell up and let people with degrees actually related to earth science and climate change discuss this? HMMMM?

If you believe this then hey, my piss cures cancer and aids. I'm a geologist, that means I'm a scientist too, so how can I be wrong? I mean I've never studied biology but what does that matter?

Maybe you can figure out a way for these oil companies to extract hydrocarbons from kerogen commercially, so far, no one has figured out how to do it.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by El Minion

...basic principles of physics...cease to apply when they come into conflict with the interests of the Australian coal industry."

In other words, the tobacco industry all over again. How do these guys sleep at night?

[Drek]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Maybe you can figure out a way for these oil companies to extract hydrocarbons from kerogen commercially, so far, no one has figured out how to do it.

I specialize in environmental remediation, clean up, and rehabilitation, so not really my field. (see, unlike Mr. Evans here I don't act like I'm an authority on everything just because I have a degree).

However, an Israeli company is supposed to have a lab tested extraction method for kerogen that produces oil at the cost of ~$23 a barrel. That compared to the proven methods that cost ~$95 a barrel and use extreme amounts of water.

Like I said, lab tested. They're building their first kerogen plant as we speak, should be online by late 2010 or early 2011, and is expected to be producing over 3 million barrels a year shortly thereafter. Its on a test facility and the method could expand quickly if it pays off. Also, the remnant kerogen can be burned much like coal to maximize efficiency.

Very interesting stuff, sadly though an Israeli company is leading the way on this, not a U.S. research group like it should be.

[Rigs11]

Meh, if you want to follow the 'we don't know" to sleep better at night go right ahead.if you want to ignore all the pollution that we spew into the atmosphere as not increasing the temp, fine.but what about the other impacts that this has not only on our health, but on our oceans?

[Bronco Jamus]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

Meh, if you want to follow the 'we don't know" to sleep better at night go right ahead.if you want to ignore all the pollution that we spew into the atmosphere as not increasing the temp, fine.but what about the other impacts that this has not only on our health, but on our oceans?

We still need to head down those roads, but the idea we have all the answers at this point is flawed.

[Bronco Jamus]

Originally Posted by Drek

Maybe David Evans should shut the hell up and let people with degrees actually related to earth science and climate change discuss this? HMMMM?

If you believe this then hey, my piss cures cancer and aids. I'm a geologist, that means I'm a scientist too, so how can I be wrong? I mean I've never studied biology but what does that matter?

If you have a degree in geology I feel confident you had to take either chemistry, biology, physics, or psychology. An electrical engineer would also have to take one of those as part of their core curriculum. You are also discounting on the job experience. It's also not clear what else Evans has gained in terms of other experiences. So on paper you are correct, but what's on paper isn't the whole story. Any traditional engineer, electrical, civil, or mechanical, is going to well versed in materials, physics, and chemistry. What is the climate consist of from a discipline perspective? Chemistry and physics.

[Rohirrim]

I've got a degree in anthropology. Can I play?

[Bronco Jamus]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I've got a degree in anthropology. Can I play?

Sure, if you are well versed in physics, chemistry, and real world climate application. Technically geology and antropology are not really sciences, they use the sciences and research methods.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

Meh, if you want to follow the 'we don't know" to sleep better at night go right ahead.if you want to ignore all the pollution that we spew into the atmosphere as not increasing the temp, fine.but what about the other impacts that this has not only on our health, but on our oceans?

Along those lines, an even larger point for endorsing the "carbon-as-the-cause" theory: Even if this Aussie is right, and carbon is not causing global warming, I STILL SUPPORT pursuit of renewable fuels and green technology as a way of extricating ourselves and our econimic well-being away from Middle East oil.

So, I support greening and renewables, for whichever reason.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I've got a degree in anthropology. Can I play?

What do your anthropologic studies tell you about the riddle that is claviculasolomin-ames-man?

[BABronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Along those lines, an even larger point for endorsing the "carbon-as-the-cause" theory: Even if this Aussie is right, and carbon is not causing global warming, I STILL SUPPORT pursuit of renewable fuels and green technology as a way of extricating ourselves and our econimic well-being away from Middle East oil.

So, I support greening and renewables, for whichever reason.

i agree with you there.