WUWT, Professional, 2nd Place Competition Winner – ‘Is there really a climate crisis?’ – Is it good?

I’m happy to publish our second spot contest winner in the professional category,

Topic: Is there really a climate crisis?

Write the best arguments against the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming to convince your neighbors that there is no climate crisis.

I said, “Is there really a climate crisis?” Congratulations David Hammond. Look for more essays that won this week and the runner-up to be published next week. -Anthony

Is there really a climate crisis?

By David Hammond Ed DU

The short answer to this question is no, as there is no official data to show an increase in frequency or intensity of extreme weather events. Nor is there any empirical evidence to link CO₂ Exhaust gas increases in temperature, although CO₂ is a greenhouse gas (GHG) and causes modest warming in the atmosphere.

Warming is expressed by how much temperature will increase if CO₂ doubles and is called Balanced climate sensitivity (ECS) but according to the IPCC it relies on positive feedback (i.e. anything that amplifies the initial warming like an increase in water vapor) to have a big impact. There are also negative feedbacks that have a cooling effect. The IPCC estimates the sensitivity to be between 2 and 5 degrees Celsius and estimates the positive response to be around 300%. While no body disagrees with the basic premise of CO₂ As it heats up, there are questions raised about the sensitivity, the effect of the response, and how the IPCC comes up with their figures.

We can see from the graph below that the only correlation between CO₂ and the temperature ranged from 1975 to 2000.

Indeed, the graph itself (Figure 1) is enough to convince people that CO₂ do not increase driving temperature

was described by the alarm camp as unprecedented, using Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph to prove it. But the Hockey Stick graph is now discredited and without it we are left with the temperature record below (Figure 2) which clearly shows that the temperature is at the end of 20^order C is not unprecedented.

So, what is the alarm?

Basic basis of IPCC approach and distinguishing warming of the late 20^order C from natural fluctuations are computer models but they can only be confirmed if they can reproduce past temperature fluctuations, (Taylor 2009, Sangster 2018).

The IPCC asserts that the temperature spike from 1975 – 2000 cannot be simulated in their models without GHGs and that when they enter GHG, their models will accurately simulate the temperatures observed since 1975 – 2000. However, when the amount of CO2 was not enough to raise the temperature (1910-1945), the models could not reproduce the temperature accurately, which suggests that something else is driving the heat. degree at that time.

The graph above (Figure 3) shows not only the 20 . early non-replicating patterns^order C warmed but they were unable to explain the ‘dimming’ from 1945 – 1975. To explain this and explain why the active patterns were hotter than the observed temperatures during the warming pause from In 2000, modelers included sulphate aerosols from fossil fuel emissions into their models. In 2013, the IPCC estimated the ability of sulfates to resist warming to be between -0.4^OC and -1.4⁰C basically means that any value in this range can be included in the models depending on their sensitivity. If the sensitivity of a model is too high, this can be compensated for by increasing the amount of sulphate and vice versa. Climate models vary greatly in estimating ECS ​​and only ‘replication‘end 20’^order Temperature C’by inferring any aerosol cooling effect is necessary‘ (Johnston 2010 p.21).

The falsity of sulphate cooling was highlighted by Bjorn Stevens, who compared temperature increases in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres from 1850 to 2010 and found them to be very similar, but he explains that sulphate cooling would have more of an effect on the Northern Hemisphere as this is where most of the sulphates are produced. No such difference was observed. Stevens estimates that the sulphate cooling capacity is too great, which is why the samples cannot cool like the mid-20s.^order C is correct.

This variation of a particular parameter (in this case a sulphate aerosol) in models keeping the ECS within the ‘expected tolerable range’ is confirmed by a paper called The Art and Science of Climate Modeling in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Association (March 2017). However, optimizing these models to perform better on a particular metric relative to specific goals is not how science should do it or how to evaluate a model according to Legates, (Consortium). Heartland, You Tube 2021). Legates adds that because the models are so used, the response of temperature to CO₂ NOT physics based. It’s subjective with modelers choosing what they want to get the right output.

Double the amount of CO₂ does not double the temperature or make it increase linearly because of the structure of CO₂ Molecules affect temperature in logarithmic terms. There is a point that adds more CO₂ atmosphere no longer has ‘warming power’ (Taylor 2010 p.42). Work by Jack Barrett at Imperial College, London, determined how much infrared radiation would be absorbed and transmitted at specific wavelengths and that doubling CO₂, as calculated by Dr Barrett, would resulting in an increase in CO₂ absorption of only 1.5%. This suggests that the IPCC General Circulation Model values ​​of 2 to 5 degrees Celsius are too high.

Similar conclusions have been drawn by others with expertise in spectroscopy. Using the increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration from 290 to 385 ppm between 1880 and 2010, Professors Laubereau and Hristo Iglev calculated the temperature increase caused by CO₂ to be about 0.26 °C. When including Including the feedback effect of water vapor in the atmosphere, they concluded that CO₂ contributed somewhat less than 33% of its reported contribution to global warming.

ECS doesn’t just depend on double CO2₂ but relies on positive feedback to amplify the small initial increase in temperature due to a doubling of CO₂. That is to say, as the temperature increases due to the increased amount of CO₂ will produce more steam and since this is a GHG it will amplify the initial temperature rise. This is considered a positive feedback but it has not been proven and indeed, Dr Richard Lindzen has argued that more vapor in the atmosphere would lead to more clouds which could have a cooling effect.

Then the question becomes, how big is the positive and negative feedback? The IPCC calculates a positive response of 3 times but there is no scientific or theoretical basis for this assumption. It is just what is thrown out of the model. However, there is a lot of uncertainty about the negative responses, especially as the role of clouds is still not fully understood.

Climate models are the basis of IPCC work but are not reliable in predicting future temperatures. Johnston 2010 cites research by Roe and Baker showing that rising temperatures are not the output of climate models but are in fact the input – a direct consequence of the assumption of a large positive feedback.

Tisdale (2015) cites Policymakers Compendium 5^order Evaluation report:

It is not currently possible to give a best estimate of equilibrium climate susceptibility due to a lack of consensus on values ​​across the lines of evidence and evaluated studies. (IPCC 2013)

The ECS is the basis of the alarm that has swept the world, but keep in mind that if the models cannot reproduce the climate earlier, they cannot predict future climate and cannot be verified and therefore are not valid. rate and based on these two factors, the model fails.

The mismatch of the models is also seen in the difference between them and the observed temperature, especially the discontinuity or decrease in temperature from after 1998 until now (2021). Many people will be surprised to learn that there is no significant increase in global surface temperature for 20 years (until 2021) and this is not predicted in any of the models.

The differences between the models and the observations were first raised regarding temperatures in the tropical troposphere, where due to the lapse rate (the rate of cooling as moist air increases), according to models, surface warming should be amplified in the troposphere and this is one of the ‘empirically testable central proposals generated by climate models‘ (Johnston 2010 p.19). However, no such increase in tropical troposphere temperatures has been observed and the IPCC has acknowledged that the reasons for this difference are ‘elusive’ (IPCC 2013).

Another difference is that computer models are also programmed to predict constant water vapor relative humidity in the upper troposphere (8–12 km) above the tropics in the form of CO.₂ get a raise. Observations show that tropospheric relative humidity above 8km has decreased by 9% since 1960 and this means a feedback effect on temperature from a doubling of CO2₂ will be significantly less that the models predict.

The following chart by Dr. John Christy and published on Dr. Roy Spencer’s website shows how wrong the models are.

Dr. Roy Spencer note:

Now in what universe would the above results not represent a catastrophic failure for the models? Honestly, I don’t see how the IPCC can continue to claim that the models “do not fit” the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise.

In short, the basis of climate disaster projections is based on models with built-in assumptions about responses that have no scientific basis. Models must be verified and validated against physical evidence. Reproducibility of the model in the late 20s^order Does C heat up? Not showed us that the model correctly measured the responses that would determine the ECS to increase CO₂ and their predictions are meaningless unless they are confirmed by unrealized physical evidence. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that there is no statistical link from the official data sets connecting extreme weather and CO.₂ emissions or increases in the intensity or frequency of droughts, floods and storms. Climate crisis? What climate crisis?

Presenter

Johnston, JS (2010) Advocacy science in favor of global warming: a cross-examination. Research Papers 10-08. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1612851

NOAA GFDL (2019) Temporal and equilibrium climate sensitivity. https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/transient-and-equil Balance-climate-sensors/

Sangster, MJ (2018) Really inconvenient truth. Its warming but not CO_2. Printed in the US

Spencer, R. (2013) STILL Fails Epic: 73 Climate Models vs Measurements, 5 Years Vehicle Run http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

Taylor, P. (2009) Relaxation. Re-evaluate the theory of global warming. Clairview Books, East Sussex

Tisdale, B. (2015) About global warming and the illusion of control. Part 1. Previous copy Pre-edited copy.