Former “alarmist” Aussie scientist says (AGW) false science

[unseen4ce]

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/

Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science

Share616

posted at 6:00 pm on May 15, 2011 by Bruce McQuain

printer-friendly

David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.

The politics:

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

He makes clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas”, and makes the point that if all else was equal then yes, more CO2 in the air should and would mean a warmer planet. But that’s where the current “science” goes off the tracks.It is built on an assumption that is false.

The science:

But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas. [emphasis mine]

But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by the alarmist crowd.

The modeling:

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

Evans is not the first to come to these conclusions. Earlier this year, in a post I highlighted, Richard Lindzen said the very same thing.

For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The dominant role of cumulus convection in the tropics requires that temperature approximately follow what is called a moist adiabatic profile. This requires that warming in the tropical upper troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something is wrong with the data. It is well known that above about 2 km altitude, the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the horizontal so that sampling is not a problem. Below two km (roughly the height of what is referred to as the trade wind inversion), there is much more horizontal variability, and, therefore, there is a profound sampling problem. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend at the surface is about 60% too large. Even the claimed trend is larger than what models would have projected but for the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol cooling. The discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al (2007). Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data.

Evans reaches the natural conclusion – the same conclusion Lindzen reached:

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

And why will it continue? Again, follow the money:

We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

Indeed. How extraordinarily unexciting for the proletariat who will be the ones stuck with the bill if these governments ever succeed in finding a way to pass the taxes they hope to impose and extend even more government’s control over energy.

While you’re listening to the CEOs of American oil companies being grilled by Congress today, remember all of this. They’re going to try to punish an industry that is vital to our economy and national security, and much of the desire to do that is based on this false “science” that has been ginned up by government itself as an excuse to control more of our energy sector, raise untold revenues for its use and to pick winners and losers. All based on something which is, according to Evans and other scientists, now demonstrably false.

[∂an]

Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

 

I don't agree taxes are the only way to curb emissions. Continued research into alternative energy sources such as geothermal, solar, hydroelectric etc will eventually make these technologies competitive in the market place, especially as carbon based fuel sources begin to run out.

He makes clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas”, and makes the point that if all else was equal then yes, more CO2 in the air should and would mean a warmer planet.

 

But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

 

But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by the alarmist crowd.

 

Surely climate scientists should be forgiven for being alarmist given that the issue at hand is the fate of all life on Earth. Given that Venus and Mars, our nearest neighbours are both devoid of life and both have CO2 based atmospheres, shouldn't we be cautious about releasing carbon into the atmosphere?

I find the skeptic position on this issue hard to understand given the high stakes of destabilising the atmosphere. When articles such as these point to world domination as the purpose behind governments tackling carbon emissions, it makes the skeptic position appear pretty flimsy. To me anyway, I find conspiracy theories hard to swallow.

Edited May 18, 2011 by kalika

[qualia]

it's not just warmer air thats at stake, considering humans devastation of global fish stocks have already reduced marine life numbers drastically, one would want to ensure that the resource has at least a chance, yes?

Professor Martin Kennedy from the University of Adelaide (School of Earth & Environmental Sciences) and Professor Thomas Wagner from Newcastle University (Civil Engineering and Geosciences) have been studying 'greenhouse oceans' - oceans that have been depleted of oxygen and suffered from increases in carbon dioxide and temperature.

Using core samples drilled from the ocean bed off the coast of western Africa, the researchers studied layers of sediment from the Late Cretaceous Period (85 million years ago) across a 400,000-year timespan. They found a significant amount of organic material - marine life - buried within deoxygenated layers of the sediment.

"Our research points to a mass mortality in the oceans at a time when the Earth was going through a greenhouse effect, with high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and rising temperatures, leading to a severe lack of oxygen (hypoxia) in the water that marine animals are dependent on," Professor Kennedy says.

"What's alarming to us as scientists is that there were only very slight natural changes that resulted in the onset of hypoxia in the deep ocean. This occurred relatively rapidly - in periods of hundreds of years, or possibly even less - not gradually over longer, geological time scales, which suggests that the Earth's oceans are in a much more delicate balance during greenhouse conditions than originally thought, and may respond in a more abrupt fashion to even subtle changes in temperature and CO2 levels than previously thought."

Professor Wagner says the results of their research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), have relevance for our modern world: "We know that 'dead zones' are rapidly growing in size and number in seas and oceans across the globe. These are areas of water that are lacking in oxygen and are suffering from increases of CO2, rising temperatures, nutrient run-off from agriculture and other factors."

Professor Kennedy says: "If you consider that the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has doubled over the past 50 years, this is like hitting our ecosystem with a sledge-hammer compared to the very small changes in incoming solar energy (radiation) which was capable of triggering these events in the past. This could have a catastrophic, profound impact on the sustainability of life in our oceans, which in turn is likely to impact on the sustainability of life for many land-based species, including humankind."

Professor Kennedy says the geological record offers a glimmer of hope thanks to a naturally occurring response to greenhouse conditions. "After a hypoxic phase, oxygen concentration in the ocean seems to improve, and marine life returns. Our results show that natural processes of carbon burial kick in. Importantly, this rescue comes from the land, with soil-formed minerals acting to collect and bury excess dissolved organic matter in seawater. Burial of that excess carbon ultimately contributes to CO2 removal from the atmosphere, cooling the planet and the ocean.

"This is nature's solution to the greenhouse effect and it could offer a possible solution for us. If we are able to learn more about this effect and its feedbacks, we may be able to manage it, and reduce the present rate of warming threatening our oceans."

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-greenhouse-ocean-future.html

[qualia]

oh and i don't doubt for a second that traditional energy companies, with their strangle hold on energy supply, seek to lobby government so that renewable energy doesn't get a chance to get off the ground. "Big Energy" has a very large stake in ensuring the public sees AGW as a myth, and governments do nothing hence ensuring the continuation of their high profits.

[mac]

traditional energy companies, with their strangle hold on energy supply, seek to lobby government so that renewable energy

I agree with qualia on this point, thats why the government cut the solar rebate programs.

A friend who had the panels installed for a mere $100 deposit that was refunded once the system was hooked up just got his first 3 monthly bill for $35 as opposed to his normal $300-400 for the quarter

with the amount of panels that have gone up in this town i can see the energy companies profit margin being effected

Edited May 19, 2011 by mac

[qualia]

heres a (what i think) decent article outlining the trouble green-energy startups have in this country, relevant considering nsw govs recent policy change

http://www.startupsmart.com.au/growth/2011-05-03/a-cloud-of-uncertainty.html

[WoodDragon]

You need to be careful in relying on people just because they have qualifications.

David Evans' credentials to comment as an 'expert' were dissected several years ago (and here too), and he came out looking stupid. Which, quite frankly, his claims on changing climate are - for a recent deconstruction of Evans' nonsense see this thread on Skeptical Science.

Evans has made several claims about his expertise too, which are as misleading as his pronoucements on global warming. He is not a rocket scientist, as he has claimed. He is not a climatologist either, nor did he do climatological work for the Australian Greenhouse Office - instead, he put together an accounting system that calculates Australia's land-use carbon budgets, which is really nothing more than a specific auditting program. He does have strong connections to conservative corporate lobby groups that have a strong vested interest in avoiding societies paying for pollution.

To find out much more, spend some time UTSE.

[chnt]

agree with qualia.

i devised a model on ms paint

basically i see it as the media controls what people believe, ie, they force their agenda onto the people, the people's agenda controls what the government will change or not change, and the government regulates the media, so to change the media you need to change the government, to change the government you need to change the people, and to change the people you need to change the media, which creates an endless cycle of conservatism, meanwhile, big business have their hands and agendas in every aspect in what they try to portray as a symbiotic relationship, when in truth it is a parasitic relationship.

this is why fast food is advertised in excess, why unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food, dont you think that if the government cared about our health they'd tax unhealthy food and subsidise healthy food? why there's no massive scale research and development into renewable energy, why drugs are illegal, why hemp isn't in mass production, etc etc etc, i really dont think anyone can change anything.

[∂an]

i devised a model on ms paint

 

I see you have a thing for ms paint artwork chnt

yeah I agree, the media has its dirty little paws in every pie. thats why `alternative' media and forums like these are important, so we are not just consuming content from a centralised source.

[chnt]

I see you have a thing for ms paint artwork chnt

yeah I agree, the media has its dirty little paws in every pie. thats why `alternative' media and forums like these are important, so we are not just consuming content from a centralised source.

 

agree.

and yes, ms paint is a quality program

Edited May 20, 2011 by chnt

[Distracted]

I like your diagram chat cunt.

[chnt]

i want to write a novel under the moniker helen cunty