Monday, June 30, 2008

The Real Truth About AGW

The following comment appeared on another blog in response to some green drivel. It bears repeating:

Richard S. Courtney — Jun 23 2008 05:59 PM


You say:

“And perhaps some scientists are coming out against the idea that humankind has warmed the planet and continues to spew increasing pollutants into our atmosphere. If so, they are awful quiet about their challenge. Perhaps they should post their arguments here and let NRDC's real climate experts take them on."

Well, I am an Expert Peer Reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); i.e. I am one of the often touted “thousands of UN Climate Scientists”. I and thousands of others speak, publish and sign petitions in attempt to get the media to tell the truth of man made global climate change. And in response to your invitation I post that truth below.

The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) – notably carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW), and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).

I think a clear distinction needs to be made between (a) the science of AGW, and (b) the perception of AGW - and the use of AGW - by non-scientists.

The science

The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e.

1. There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature.

2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales.

3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940.

4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940, and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.

5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.

The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of science.: i.e.Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data, and the opposite of the hypothesis' predictions is observed in the empirical data.

But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc..). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis.

Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates (e.g. Hansen). And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are.

-Richard S. Courtney


Robert A Cook PE said...

Good, powerful summary.

What EVERY article about AGW fails to mention is the very, very small actual temperature rise that has (supposedly) field these tens of thousands of "symptoms" from global warming (melting glaciers, changing migrations patterns, changing "health" and lifestyles, droughts, animal and plant extinctions, acidification of the sea, etc.

Global warming is nothing more than a 1/2 of one degree rise in average temperatures over a single 27 year period (1972 - 1998) followed by a 10 year of slightly declining temperatures (2/10 of one degree from 1998 through 2008).

But NO AGW extremist has been able to show how 1/2 of one degree can actually yield such influences. Instead, they must extrapolate to some (NEVER defined and ARBITRARILY very high) future temperature at some arbitrarily chosen future date - THEN create their dire forecasts - while NEVER specifying exactly what temperature rise would be needed to create the dire results they desire. (.

bono said...

What a great analysis of a non-problem. This has been my contention all along and I'm happy to read such a concise analysis. I will use it with my fellow teachers, hoping it will open their eyes.