See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: No smoking hot spot
Source:
The Australian
URL Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a ... /0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
Published: Jul 18, 2008
Author: David Evans
Post Date: 2008-07-18 13:33:59 by farmfriend
Ping List: *Agriculture-Environment* Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*
Keywords: None
Views: 1769
Comments: 126
David Evans | July 18, 2008 I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet. But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts: 1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again. When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot. Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything. 2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming. 3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling. 4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance. The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion. Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming. So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved. If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now? The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory. What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise. The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy. Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
No smoking hot spot
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
#8. To: farmfriend (#0)
Excellent article. And the man is correct--the burden of proof is, or should be, on those who posit the theory, not those who doubt the validity of what appears to be a swindle that is making Al Gore a very wealthy man.
Sadly their "proof" is fading like sun spots.
And even MORE sadly people such as you try to misrepresent the current situation by claiming the sky is falling because there are fewer sunspots than usual, while failing to mention that it is NORMAL for there to be fewer at this time as we are at the MINIMUM point in the solar cycle. Now what sort of person would misrepresent scientific data in order to scare people and/or pacify them with false conclusions and misleading statements, eh? You are doing exactly that which you accuse NASA scientists of doing, except in reality they ARE concerned for mankind, whereas YOU are concerned about oil company profits. Do you get a commission on those?
Now what sort of person would misrepresent scientific data in order to scare people and/or pacify them with false conclusions and misleading statements, eh? You are doing exactly that which you accuse NASA scientists of doing, except in reality they ARE concerned for mankind, whereas YOU are concerned about oil company profits. Do you get a commission on those? This from someone who has analyzed NASA's latest release Nasa’s announcement that there is nothing wrong with the sun needs in this frame a little investigation. (By the way how can sun be "wrong"?). Nasa says that "The ongoing lull in sunspot number is well within historic norms for the solar cycle." I assume that they mean past behavior by their "historic norms". To be able to assess the value of this claim I counted the length of the cycle minima beginning from the second month below 10 Wolfs to the second last month below 10 Wolfs. I compare this time frame to the cycle that is beginning. Below 1 year: 2 cycles (2 1766- and 18 1944-). 1.0-1.9 years: 12 cycles (includes all the five cycles 19-23 (1954-, … ,1996-). 2.0-2.9 years: 2 cycles (1 1755- and 17 1933-). The cycle 24 will be at least in this category, because in July 2008 the lull preceding the cycle 24 has lasted already 2.4 years. 3.0-3.9 years: 3 cycles (5 1798-, 12 1878- and 15 1913-). 4.0-4.9 years: 3 cycles (7 1823-, 13 1889- and 14 1901-). 5.0-5.9 years: none. 6.0-6.9 years: none. 7.1 years: cycle 6 (1810-). 1810 is the only year after 1713 that has been wholly spotless. In August 2008 there will be 16 cycles with shorter minima and 7 cycles with longer minima than the on-going minimum. Still more important is that the longer minima are in two consecutive groups: cycles 5-7 (Dalton minimum) and 12- 15 (1878-1913) and that all the cycles 16-23 (1923-1996) have shorter minima than will be due to the cycle 24. Nasa continues: "This report, that there’s nothing to report, is newsworthy because of a growing buzz in lay and academic circles that something is wrong with the sun." Probably Nasa means that our observations/hypotheses/theories, not the sun, is wrong. What is newsworthy is that since 1913 not one minimum has lasted as long as the on-going one. And the end is not in sight. What is newsworthy is that after a period of 76 years or one Gleissberg (1923-1996) of short minima we are back to periods like the 25-year Dalton (1798-1823) or the second part of the Maunder minimum (1675-1699) or the cycles 12-15 (1878-1913). The active part of the long minima cycles lasted 7-8 years and of the short minima cycles about 9 years. So there is a phase shift going on with the cycle 24 and that is what is newsworthy. The climate changes to cool and warm in step with the solar phase shifts. Nasa continues: "Decaying solar cycle 23 has so far lasted 142 months – well within the first standard deviation and thus not at all abnormal." (Why don’t they tell is their SD .95 or .98?). But in theory this is true in a mathematical sense, but unfortunately it has no relevance in this context. The reason is that we have here no socalled normal distribution, where you could use the standard deviation in a statistically and logically meaningful way. Instead we have here a series of phase shifts: 1798 (1796) to long minima, 1833 (1832) to short minima, 1878 (1876) to long minima, 1923 (1922) to short minima and now again (from 2005/2006) again to long minima. Nasa continues: "The current minimum is not abnormally low or long." But that’s not the point. The point is the ongoing phase shift with cycle 24. Nasa compares this minimum also with Maunder minimum ("the longest minimum on record"), which is not a valid comparison because the on-going minimum is between cycles (could be also between super-cycles, but that we can’t know) and the Maunder minimum was a super-minimum where we can (barely, but still) see five cycles. Nasa: "The quiet of 2008 is not the second coming of the Maunder Minimum, believes Hathaway. We have already observed a few sunspots from the next solar cycle, he says. This suggests the solar cycle is progressing normally." I take this as an overstatement. Three very tiny spots lasting 1-2 days during the last half year. Normal? Surely not. 10.7cm flux going down to some 65 during the same period. Normal? Maybe if we put together Maunder, Dalton and the hyper-active sun of the 1900’s. So this leads to the conclusion that however the sun behaves, it is normal. But there is really some point to that. The sun really behaves always normal (according to physical laws), but the various ways and many surprises in which it shows its normality is really fascinating.
#19. To: farmfriend (#17)
When sunspot activity rises again later this year, what will be your next most favorite scare tactic?
That's a crock of shit BTW... There's nothing all that remarkable about the current cycle. Why are you and your pals so desparate to push this "global cooling" idea of yours?
That is a total and complete lie. Here's the current year's daily sunspot numbers. As anyone can see, there have been far more than just THREE. Do you really think you can pull off your scams here this easily? From ftp://ftp.ngd c.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/2008
DAILY SUNSPOT NUMBERS 2008
===============================================================================
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yr Day
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 11 0 16 0 0 2008 01
7 9 0 9 0 0 2008 02
7 9 7 9 0 0 2008 03
12 8 0 7 7 0 2008 04
10 0 0 0 8 9 2008 05
11 0 8 0 0 0 2008 06
11 0 0 0 0 0 2008 07
9 0 0 0 0 0 2008 08
0 0 0 0 0 0 2008 09
8 0 9 0 0 9 2008 10
8 0 0 0 0 8 2008 11
0 0 0 0 0 0 2008 12
0 0 0 7 8 8 2008 13
0 0 0 7 0 0 2008 14
0 0 7 0 9 7 2008 15
0 0 7 0 14 7 2008 16
0 0 7 0 12 7 2008 17
0 0 0 0 15 8 2008 18
0 0 0 8 11 7 2008 19
0 0 0 0 7 8 2008 20
0 0 0 0 0 8 2008 21
0 0 0 8 0 8 2008 22
0 0 0 8 0 0 2008 23
0 0 19 7 0 0 2008 24
0 8 32 0 0 0 2008 25
0 8 36 0 0 0 2008 26
0 8 35 0 0 0 2008 27
0 0 34 0 0 0 2008 28
0 0 30 0 0 0 2008 29
8 31 0 0 0 2008 30
8 25 0 2008 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.4 2.1 9.3 2.9 2.9 3.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values are preliminary after Dec 07.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
#10. To: James Deffenbach (#8)
And the man is correct--the burden of proof is, or should be, on those who posit the theory, not those who doubt the validity
#15. To: farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#10)
Sadly their "proof" is fading like sun spots.
#17. To: FormerLurker, James Deffenbach, Original_Intent (#15)
And even MORE sadly people such as you try to misrepresent the current situation by claiming the sky is falling because there are fewer sunspots than usual, while failing to mention that it is NORMAL for there to be fewer at this time as we are at the MINIMUM point in the solar cycle.
The cycle 24 will start a new phase shift in the sun.
Replies to Comment # 17.
#20. To: farmfriend (#17)
What is newsworthy is that since 1913 not one minimum has lasted as long as the on-going one.
#21. To: farmfriend (#17)
Three very tiny spots lasting 1-2 days during the last half year. Normal?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 17.