I realize that most people have put away their Al Gore and their Bill McKibben 350 T-shirts by now, but for those who still await the promised Climatic Armageddon it's time to find a new game with more chance of a payoff this lifetime.<\/p>\n
When hard-line Greenies start swearing off the government crack pipe, the Global Warming climate change game has definitely jumped the shark, as they say in show biz.<\/p>\n
This is just the tip of the iceberg: (Previously posted on http:\/\/hotair.com\/greenroom)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
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\u2019s 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<\/a>:<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.<\/p>\n The politics:<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n He makes clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a \u201cgreenhouse gas\u201d, 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\u2019s where the current \u201cscience\u201d goes off the tracks.It is built on an assumption that is false.<\/p>\n The science:<\/p>\n But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.<\/p>\n Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n The disagreement comes about what happens next.<\/p>\n The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything<\/em>. 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]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n But it didn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n The modeling:<\/p>\n 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 \u2014 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.<\/p>\n That\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?<\/p>\n 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, \u201980s and \u201990s, 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.<\/p>\n This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Evans is not the first to come to these conclusions. Earlier this year, in a post I highlighted, Richard Lindzen<\/a> said the very same thing.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t and this means that something is wrong with the data<\/strong>. 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<\/strong>. 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Evans reaches the natural conclusion \u2013 the same conclusion Lindzen reached:<\/p>\n At this point, official \u201cclimate science\u201d 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 \u2014 that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n And why will it continue? Again, follow the money:<\/p>\n 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 \u2014 how exciting for the political class!<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n 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\u2019s control over energy.<\/p>\n While you\u2019re listening to the CEOs of American oil companies being grilled by Congress today, remember all of this. They\u2019re 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 \u201cscience\u201d 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.<\/p>\n \u2013<\/p>\n Bruce McQuain blogs at Questions and Observations <\/a>(QandO), Blackfive<\/a>, the Washington Examiner <\/a>and the Green Room. Follow him on Twitter: @McQandO<\/p>\n This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com. I realize that most people have put away their Al Gore and their Bill McKibben 350 T-shirts by now, but for those who still await the promised Climatic Armageddon it's time to find a new game with more chance of a payoff this lifetime.<\/p>\n When hard-line Greenies start swearing off the government crack pipe, the Global Warming climate change game has definitely jumped the shark, as they say in show biz.<\/p>\n This is just the tip of the iceberg: (Previously posted on http:\/\/hotair.com\/greenroom)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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<\/a>:<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.<\/p>\n The politics:<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
To see the comments on the original post, look here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Former \u201calarmist\u201d scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science<\/span><\/h1>\n
posted at 6:00 pm on May 15, 2011 by Bruce McQuain
printer-friendly<\/a> <\/small><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n