the facts about global warming
03-05-2010, 09:09 AM
RE: the facts about global warming
You quote me and make silly statements.
(03-04-2010 01:35 PM)jason_85 Wrote:(03-04-2010 02:33 AM)Richard S Courtney. Wrote: The basic assumption used in the numerical climate models is that change to climate is driven by change to radiative forcing.
All the climate models are based on the assumption of radiative forcing.
All of them. Got it?
Science progresses by dispute of “a strong scientific consensus ”. Were that not so then Galileo would have been wrong. And appeal to “a strong scientific consensus ” is an example of the logical fallacy of ‘appeal to authority’. (Google it if you want to know about logical fallacies).
I absolutely and certainly did mean "it is quite possible that there is no force or process causing climate to vary". I boldened it so it was clear that he statement was my main point. The remainder of what I wrote was explanation of it.
Your saying you intend to ignore it is offensive and stupid. Ignore whatever you want to, but stating it is not polite. And choosing to ignore reality choosing to believe in fantasy is one definition of insanity.
The "evidence on my side" is that your argument is demonstrated to be wrong. Therefore, there is need for an alterative explanation of climate change and I am suggesting one. Please try to 'shoot it down': the scientific method consists of presenting possible ideas and trying to demolish them, and it does not include any attempts to prove them.
You don't think there is need for an alterntive to AGW and radiative forcing as an expanation for climate change? OK, then address the following points.
Empirical evidence says the AGW hypothesis is wrong.
The following points explain this.
1. The anthropogenic emissions and global temperature do not correlate.
2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration follows 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.
Global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose to 1998, and has fallen since. That’s 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming. Global temperature is now similar to that of 1990. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. It has increased by 8% since 1990.
4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
Over 80% of the emissions have been since 1940 and the emissions have been increasing at a compound rate. But since 1940 there have been 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming. There’s been no significant warming since 1995, and global temperature has fallen since the high it had in the El Nino year of 1998.
5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.
The hypothesis predicts most warming of the air at altitude in the tropics. Measurements from weather balloons and from satellites both show cooling at altitude in the tropics.
So, the normal rules of science say the AGW-hypothesis is completely refuted.
Nothing predicted by the hypothesis is observed, and the opposite of some of its predictions are observed.
I made no mention of Milankovitch Cycles. I discussed chaotic behaviour and the effects of strange attractors. Glacial and interglacial states are completely explicable as being the positions of strange attractors, and no forcings are required for a transition between them.
There is no evidence of anything unusual happening to the global climate.
The different estimates of the Earth’s average surface temperature (mean global temperature: MGT) all show
cooling from ~1880 to ~1910,
warming from ~1910 to ~1940,
cooling from ~ 1940 to ~1970,
warming from ~1970 to 1998,
cooling since 1998.
The general trend has been warming, but the rate of temperature rise was the same for the rate of rise in the two ~ 30 year warming periods: i.e. from ~1910 to ~1940 and from ~1970 to 1998.
Nobody disputes that the rates of global warming were the same in these 30-year periods: even Phil Jones admits it.
However, over 80% of the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) were after 1940. Clearly, there seems to have been little change to rate of temperature rise induced by the CO2 emissions from human activity. Indeed, if the emissions were causing the most recent rise then why has the temperature not increased for the last 15 years? And why did the global temperature rise in the period from ~1910 to ~1940 when everybody agrees the CO2 emissions from human activity were not sufficient to induce the rise?
It seems that there are several natural cycles that are overlaid on each other. The global temperature variations listed above seem to be a ~60-year cycle (i.e. ~30 year periods of alternating warming and cooling). And there is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP). All the observed rise of global temperature in the twentieth century could be recovery from the LIA that is similar to the recovery from the DACP to the MWP.
These two observed natural cycles provide a complete explanation of the rise in MGT over the twentieth century. The recovery from the LIA is responsible for most – possibly all – of the temperature rise over the twentieth century, and the ~60-year cycle (that coincides with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, PDO) counteracted that rise in the periods ~1880 to ~1910, ~1940 to ~1970, and since 1998.
If these two natural cycles continue then
(1) the present stasis in MGT can be expected to continue for another 20 years after which global temperature will resume its rise until it reaches the level it had in the MWP
(2) at some time global temperature will start to fall until it reaches the level it had in the LIA.
|Messages In This Thread|
RE: the facts about global warming - Richard S Courtney. - 03-05-2010 09:09 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)