I want to encourage you to read Peter Taylor’s book Chill. The key point is from 1990 to 2000 changes in the sun’s output and reduction in cloud cover were responsible for an increase of at least 6 wm-2 at the earth’s surface yet CO2 was only responsible for an increase of 0.8wm-2.
It makes no sense to attribute the claimed increase in temperatures to CO2 when at there same time there was another effect at work which was at least 7 times as large.
Since 2002 CO2 concentration has continued to rise yet temperatures have dropped. Cloud cover has increased and the sun’s output has dropped this must mean the sun and clouds are the major drivers of the earth’s temperatures and not CO2.
Despite this IPCC did not consider cloud cover or solar variation, you would have thought it might at least made it to AR4 which appeared in 2007. Actually that’s not quite true, they were aware of the evidence but rejected it.
Why should you read this book
Peter has 30 years experience as a professional ecologist for 30 years
during this time he was
- chief advocate and science advisor to greenpeace for 12 years
- advisor to UK government
- advisor to UN’s International Maritime Organisation
- he has experience with computer models previous (failed) incarnations when they were used to predict how pollutants would disperse around the world. The computer models predictions turned out to be wrong.
Peter sat for 3 years national UK board advising on community based renewable energy initiatives. He formed the view the proposed remedies for global warming were damaging to many elements of sustainability he had worked on. The cure was worse than the disease.
Chill is in 2 parts, the first considers the science, the second the politics of climate change. In overview
- The science, even the basic science is alarmingly unsettled
- The computer models are built with the assumption water vapour interacts with CO2 in some way which amplifies the effect of CO2 even though there is no physical or theoretical basis this happens
- Right from the beginning there never was a consensus among scientists and there still isn’t
- The IPCC summaries for politicians greatly exaggerated certainty and consensus compared to scientific documents
- The effect of the sun, especially it’s fluctuations has been overlooked.
- Satellite data does not support (contradicts) CO2 hypotheses
- The warming of late 90’s was caused by several natural cycles all peaking at the same time and so was not caused by man
- World has cooled since 2002
- IPCC from models attribute 2.5 wm-2 to global warming gases 1.6 due to CO2 over 150 years yet this effect is dwarfed by observed 6wm-2 increase in solar radiation 1990-200.
- Politicians, scientists, educators and bureaucrats have built their careers on idea of global warming – they have strong interest in status quo.
- Is IPCC going to say we got it wrong?
- People business making money from windmills solar tax breaks have strong incentive not to change
- climate change targets now law in Europe and UK, law would have to be changed
- Very few, if any bureaucrats or politicians examine basic science assume it is settled, they are told it is
- Major NGOs such as Greenpeace, WWF, Friends Of The Earth, have supporters who believe in global warming – so can not change policy without losing their supporters and their donations.
- Media, particularly BBC, has bought in to climate change will not and do not
put alternative case
- Climate change is taught as fact in UK schools, you either repeat the official line or fail that part of the course
- IPCC is intergovernmental panel on climate change
it’s decisions are taken as government policy by DEFRA, Met office, EA, NE
who have all spent years and much money planning policies
based on climate change, rising sea levels being true,
CO2 reduction being necessary – are they going to say we were wasting our time and your money?
CO2 amplification factor built into models
Peter spent 3 years going through all the scientific papers he could find related to climate change. He had assumed the basic science of CO2 and atmospheric heating was sound. But this was not what he found.
There are about 390 parts per million of CO2 in atmosphere this is a tiny amount 0.039%
and of this only 3% is produced by human activity. This is far to small amount to have any significant effect.
There is an assumption built into the models that in some way the effect of water vapor
acts to amplify the effect of CO2 by 300%.
There is no direct physical evidence (or even a theoretical reason) to support the suggestion the effect of CO2 is amplified. There is no science, it’s all about computer programs. The following 2 graphs show the IPCC’s case.
This picture is figure 9.5 in IPCC AR4. These two graphs are IPCC’s case CO2 is responsible for global warming. The top graph shows when their models are run backwards including the effects of CO2 the models reproduce observed temperatures. The bottom graph shows the models run backwards without the effect of CO2. Although the models reproduce temperatures for most of the last century they fail to match the rise from 1980 to 2000. The IPCC say this means CO2 must be responsible – even though their models leave out other possible factors such as change in sun’s output and change in cloud cover.
Pschologists might find the fact that this image is very small, only 269 x 364 pixels, revealing. It is said that when were are ashamed or uncertain of something we use small indistinct gestures to describe it.
Although effects of climate change are presented to public in terms of rising temperatures
in scientific papers they are discussed in terms of energy in balance which is measured
(for some bizarre reason) in watts per square meter (wm-2)
Over period 1990 to 2000 IPCC attribute a rise of 2.5 2wm-2 of each they attribute 1.6wm-2 to CO2.
Yet from 1990 to 2000 the amount of energy reaching the earth from the sun increased by 6wm-2 dwarfing the rise in energy attributed by IPCC to CO2 for the whole century.
For comparison IPCC attribute a rise of just 0.8wm-2 for the period 1990 to 2000.
In addition over the same period there was a decrease in the amount of cloud cover, which would allow more of the sun’s energy to reach the surface of the earth.
Occam’s razor is the name given to the idea if there are a number of possible explanations you choose the simplest explanation with the least assumptions. Occam’s razor is commonly used in science. So if you have an observed physical effect which can explain a phenomena you would chose that in preference to some assumption, that has no observational or theoretical basis but is needed to make some computer programs give the answer you want.
In addition as the computer programs do not take account of changing solar energy and cloud cover it would be a good thing to rewrite the programs so they did.
And if you could run the programs, without including the assumed effect of CO2 (as has already been done to produce the graphs above) and the rewritten programs were able to reproduce past temperatures you would know that the it was never CO2 in the first place.
Since 2002 CO2 levels have kept rising yet temperatures have fallen, as have sea levels and artic ice has thickened. Solar output has diminished and cloud cover has increased. This would seem to be a fatal blow for CO2 (or any green house gas) based warming.
Yet for some reason IPCC did not consider changes in solar output and cloud cover in the fourth assessment report – even though this was published in 2007 and the recent trends were already evident.
Trends Cycles And Pulses
IPCC seem obsessed with trends, things going up or down in straight lines forever.
Why I don’t know as just about anyone on the planet will be familiar with the idea of cycles
- day and night
- high and low tide
- winter and summer
Even investment adverts have to carry a warning
Investments can go down as well as up. Past performance is no guide to future performance.
It is true CO2 levels have only risen since they started being measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii in 1958. However it is known that CO2 levels were higher than they are now in prehistoric times so they must have fallen at some point.
It is interesting CO2 has been measured to rise since 1958 as there was a period of global cooling from around 1945 to 1980. At the time this was attributed to industrial aerosols, mostly from burning coal. This is no longer thought to be the reason. But it is interesting to think burning coal has been blamed for both global cooling and global warming.
Besides cycles of solar output and cloud cover, there are cycles of varying length in the worlds oceans. These have a major effect on the earths climate. Most of these cycles move heat from tropics towards the poles.
These cycles are not completely regular and all have different frequencies. It seems they all peaked together towards the end of 1990s to produce an unusal peak in warming.
In addition to cycles there are occassionally pulses, a short sharp increase (or decrease) in energy. One example is the unusually large El Nino in 1998.
Cycles are another reason why CO2 or any other greenhouse gas was not and is not responsible for climate change let alone global warming.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. So I spent all of 5 minutes producing a spreadsheet which would combine some cosine waves of different periods to produce (solely by being programmed to do so) a peak around 1998. This is not in anyway supposed to simulate the climate, just to show how combining a few cycles of different periods will produce a larger than usual peak when the peaks of all cycles occur at the same point, then fade away.
This graph was produced by combining 4 cycles with different periods as shown by the following spreadsheet excerpt.
Is There A Trace Of CO2 Warming – The Dog That Didn’t Bark In The Night
Almost all of the sun’s energy arrives at the earth as visible light. This is called Short Wave or SW radiation.
The earth radiates heat as infrared which is called LW radiation. It is claimed that this LW radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, methane and water vapour (by the way water vapour is by far the biggest green house gas). As the GHG absorb LW radiation they will(should) warm. These gases will radiate LW radiation (i.e. cool) some of which will come back to earth. It is this LW radiation sent back to earth that is causing global warming, allegedly.
Now the GHG will radiate in all directions, so some will go into space.
There are 3 missing components during the 1990-2000 period of warming.
- There was no clear increase in LW radiation arriving at the surface of earth.
- There was no clear increase in LW radiation with part of atmosphere occupied by the GHG.
- There was no clear increase in LW radiation being radiated into space.
In contrast there was a clear increase, as has already been mentioned, of SW radiation at earth’s surface.
Moreover the amount of SW radiation has decreased and temperatures have fallen.
Things Peter Didn’t Mention In Chill
Or if he did I didn’t notice.
Global Temperature Anomalies
IPCC case for global warming is the computer models can not reproduce past global temperatures without the CO2 amplification factor built into the computer programs.
How accurate are the temperature records?
In this post I explain why the idea of global temperature make no sense.
It is worth remembering the graphs of temperature shown in press are NOT graphs of temperature but of temperature anomaly. A temperature anomaly is the difference between an observed temperature and long term average. In most places in the world temperatures will vary by 10°C or more everyday. Yet the change in temperature anomaly which has caused all the fuss is 0.5°C rise over the twenty years from 1980!
If the temperature records are inaccurate or wrong who cares whether the models can reproduce them.
Assumptions Made For IPCC Scenarios
IPCC don’t produce predictions or projections. They produce scenario’s.
They make a large number of assumptions about how people will behave in the future here are few of them
- How many people will there be
- How many people in developing world will have cars and eat more meat
- How much coal, oil and gas will be burned which
All of these will affect the amount of CO2 in atmosphere, or at least IPCC say they will.
The models are run lots of times with varying estimates of all the different assumtions.
All of which means the scenarios are little more than guesswork. And much more importantly it means the claim that running the models backwards in time proves the models work does no such thing. We know what CO2 levels were in past, we do not now what they will be in the future.
We do not know how much energy the sun will output or how much cloud cover will be either, but then the models ignore these much more important factors.
The idea is by running the models with a range of different scenarios the models will tell us the likely range of possible future climates.
Leaving aside the fact the models don’t work, and the input data to them (global temperature record) is very likely wrong there is a much bigger problem.
We are talking about 100 years into the future.
We are in no position to generate realistic scenarios for this far ahead.
Thinking back to 1900 or even 1912 who would have predicited
- Atom bomb and nuclear reactors
- Cheap jet travel
- Mass ownership of cars
- The size of modern cargo ships
- Ryan Air and Michael O’Leary
- The huge rise of manufacturing in China and far east
- 2 world wars and a host of smaller ones
- The wests huge thurst and dependency on oil and gas
- The demise of coal in UK
- Most homes in UK having inside toilets, bathrooms and central heating.
It is said the pace of change is far greater now that it was 100 years ago. We are simply in no position to predict the future, as if we do we will omit the things that have yet to be discovered or invented.