Comments
4C, 6C, 10C? Ramping Up The Numbers Game Ahead of Copenhagen
We can expect climate hysteria to reach fever pitch as the Global Warming Industry’s Global Governance Conference in Copenhagen on December 11th draws closer. Today we have a double helping of computer modelled garbage based on absurdly high climate sensitivity to CO2. First up were the combined twin taxpayer funded bureaucracies of the UK’s ‘Mystic’ Met Office and the Soviet-style EU’s European Commission, which threatened that ‘global warming will bring killer heat, floods and storms to Britain’ as reported in The Telegraph. Apparently, if we don’t give up evils such as heating/lighting our homes, travelling to real jobs that don’t involve sponging off the taxpayer, then Italy’s pasta ‘gets it’ and temperatures could rise by up to 10C in the next 50 years. Nothing less than reducing CO2 emissions to zero by 2100 will do. I guess that rules out breathing too. Perhaps they didn’t read the 2009 European Commission paper showing that there is no greenhouse gas signal in normalized European flood losses for 1970 to 2006.
Next up, a Nature Geoscience paper enthusiastically reported by one of the BBC’s ensemble of taxpayer funded climate Marxists with the headline, Earth ‘heading for 6C’ of warming, tells us:
“Average temperatures across the world are on course to rise by up to 6C without urgent action to curb CO2 emissions, according a new analysis. Emissions rose by 29% between 2000 and 2008, says the Global Carbon Project. All of that growth came in developing countries; but a quarter of it came through production of goods for consumption in industrialised nations.”
Several points to comment on here. First, the 29% rise in CO2 emissions since 2000 has seen a zero rise in global average temperature, as illustrated by the graphs of CO2 emissions, and the 10-year temperature stagnation below:
HadCRU3 Global Temperature Data/ENSO contribution as published in BAMS, 2009
Secondly, what’s the point of the Nature Geoscience authors complaining goods produced in developing countries being exported to developed countries. Are manufactured goods and exports to be banned?
Thirdly, the claim that: “The team believes that carbon sinks – the oceans and plants – are probably absorbing a slightly lower proportion of the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions than they were 50 years ago, although researchers admit that uncertainty about the behaviour of sinks remains high” contrasts with recently published real world data showing “that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now. This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.”
So, against a background of a decade of non-warming, despite rapidly rising CO2 emissions from developing countries, 20,000 CO2 emitting climate circus performers head for Copenhagen, leaving a wake of unfounded climate alarmism behind them. 12C anyone?
November 18th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Good to see someone appears to have grasped the situation at last. It is all no more than vague computer model simulations issued by researchers reluctant, actually that should really read ‘unable’, to argue their case effectively! Climate change is a natural cycle and we are just along for the ride, to assume that humans might have some bearing upon such fundamental cycles is pure delusional arrogance.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:10 am
Computer based climate models.
These are the models on which the IPCC has based all of its predictions of AGW.
These models have been designed to ignore the Sun as a factor influencing climate. But however you try and justify ignoring the Sun in a climate model you are either going to look like an idiot or a liar. The Sun provides the Earth with all the heat it needs to produce a climate that supports life. Therefore in a climate model the Sun must not be ignored, and neither should its variable cycles, they are intrinsic.
But there is another intrinsic process effecting climate and of course temperature, which has also been completely ignored by these IPCC climate models. Coincidentally it is a process that when ignored, produces a result, which could be extremely desirable to anyone with a brief to try and show that certain gasses trap in heat, causing a greenhouse effect.
CONVECTION. Convection has been completely ignored by the IPCC climate models for many reasons but one of the most important and convenient reasons is that it enables the IPCC to alter reality and imply that CO2 traps heat and reflects it back down to Earth causing a greenhouse effect. When the reality is that ALL hot air rises, including CO2 (which is in contravention to a greenhouse effect). But because the IPCC simply ignore convection they can incorrectly infer that there is greenhouse effect because, this is exactly how a greenhouse works, by preventing convection.
Some say that the greenhouse effect is real because without it the Earth would be an ice planet. Well one of the answers to that is that if we had to rely on CO2 at 385 ppm to keep us warm then indeed Earth would be an ice planet, but it’s not an ice planet and CO2 alone can’t keep us warm so other gasses must play their part too. Water vapour and methane are supposed to be the other main culprits for causing warming. Water vapour is only 10,000 ppm of the atmosphere which is also not enough to keep the atmosphere warm and the methane content is so tiny its not worth talking about.
It is claimed that the science behind the greenhouse effect is a well established, undisputed and at least 150 years old. This is yet another false claim. The establishment of the greenhouse effect is attributed to John Tyndall, a professor of Natural Philosophy at the Royal Society (previously called the Hidden Collage) during the mid 1800′s. In his book “Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat” he implies that the atmosphere behaves like a dam to radiant heat, when in-fact, because of convection, nothing could be further from the truth. In the same book he also makes the peculiar statement that if a layer of olfiant gas two inches thick existed around the Earth it would radiate back 33% of the infrared heat escaping, causing the temperature of the Earth to become stifling. Again there seems to be a propensity to ignore convection even this far back. His book “Contributions to Molecular Physics” is very interesting for another reason. The purpose of the experimental studies was to examine individual atmospheric gasses to discover their ability to absorb radiant heat. In his results he continually ranked CO2 as a powerful absorber and water vapour even higher. In all his experiments water vapour was ranked the number one in terms of its ability to absorb radiant heat and appears to be the origin of the claim that water vapour is the strongest greenhouse gas. But when it came to Oxygen and Nitrogen he claimed that he witnessed no noticeable heat absorption abilities in either gas during his experiments. The implication being, that the effect they would have on atmospheric temperature would be negligible.
The very important question then arises, was John Tyndall trying to be deliberately misleading or was he genuinely unaware that Oxygen and Nitrogen have melting points of 54.36 K and 63.15 K respectively. Actually making these two gasses, which make up 99% of the atmosphere far more important in the domain of radiant heat than CO2 which remains as ice up to a temperature of 194.65 K or Water which is ice up to 273 K and are only 0.03811% and 1% of total atmospheric gasses respectively.
The slight of hand becomes obvious if you consider that Tyndall’s job here may have been to produce the effect of a reality reversal, by implying that gasses which are poor absorbers of heat, are actually powerful absorbers of heat and that these gasses may also posses the ability to form layers which can trap heat as with the imagined example of olfiant gas. The truth however, is that the gas which has the lowest melting point is by definition the greatest absorber of heat. In other words if Oxygen and Nitrogen were not able to absorb heat they would still be ice. These two gasses Oxygen and Nitrogen have the lowest melting points of all the important atmospheric gasses and at the same time are, in conjunction, the most abundant gasses at 990,000 ppm compared to CO2 which is a mere 385 ppm.
The truth is, that air is a very efficient absorber of heat but because it rapidly expands when warmed this makes it a poor conductor. But the atmosphere does not use conduction to transfer heat, though it does use convection, and very efficiently. As there is nothing preventing convection in the atmosphere like there would be in a greenhouse for example (glass), then there is nothing to trap the heat and so, it is rapidly re-emitted back into space. Hence the fact that the Earth has never over heated. So if you have a climate model which deliberately ignores convection as a factor, then that climate model is not worth the DELL its running on!
John Tydall is interesting for another reason. He had strong links with Sir Francis Galton and Thomas Henry Huxley who themselves are directly linked to social darwinism and the early Eugenics movement, which later spawned the Nazi movement. Even more importantly, the big money that brought us Adolf Hitler and funded his and many other pseudo science Eugenics programs, (Rothschild/Rockefella/Warburg et al.) is the same big money behind this AGW Pseudo Environmentalism.
Be warned, history is repeating itself.
Don’t believe AGW is a fraud, Know it!
Get, CO2 The Debate Is not Over, free .pdf download.
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
November 19th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
[...] http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/11/4c-6c-10c-ramping-up-the-numbers-game-ahead-of-copenhagen/ convey_source = "English"; Bookmark It Foo! Hide Sites [...]
November 19th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
you folks gladden my heart after a day hearing the media crap!
Why is it that people do not ask questions?
and accept only the MSM spin?
have we really managed to produce 1984 so easily, in such a small time frame that memory, inquiry, and intelligence have dissipated like the truth seems to have..:-(
and these gullible but useful idiots are whom we leave the world to?
we MUST win, or the human race IS in deep shit for sure!
November 20th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
[...] Climate Research News Wednesday, November 18, 2009 [...]