Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Jul 18, 2008

The Greenhouse signature is MIA

I didn’t get the “Australian” today, so I am grateful to Ron Kitching for letting me know the following article was there so I could look it up.

Many of the arguments presenting cases against the wave of GW histrionics tend to be dismissed as mere skepticism, but this one is going to be a bit harder for the Al Gore groupies to ignore as it comes from a guy who was in the system.

“Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.”

The following are some highlights: -

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. …..

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. ….
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.

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.

The full story is here.


  1. All you say is that current warming doesn't match expectations from what computer models have predicted.

    It has been published in Geoscience today that Monsoons aren't actual due the temperature diffential between the land and the ocean but due to high atmosphere mixing of the equatorial warm air with the mid-latitudes mixed air.

    The models don't account for that, nor do they account for the fact that intense rain fall events would increase by 14% for every degree rise as has been observed they only produced a rise of 7%, therefore we can expect more deluges than we expected. As ther eis lot of rain in the tropics this must change heat exchanges due increase condensation and evaporation.

    Also the models total inaccuracy about the rate of ice melt, and there are mountains in tropics with glaciers melting much faster than expected by models which must also alter things a little?

    As evidence emerges it is more and more clear that changing Co2 levels in the atmosphere do cause a warming and the size of this warming is known for a doubling ~1C.

    What is not known is how much that warming influence will be exaggerated by positive feedback mechanisms and what temperature rise a doubling can result in fromt he baseline we had.

    Not sure if these things will alter the results of the models such that the signitaure of global warming due to GHG is not as models have predicted but as what we have?

    The stratosphere is cooling as would be expected from basic physics and no other warming influence does this does it?

  2. Radio host Mark Levin read this on his show today! has the clip. Especially disturbing is what he has to say about Europe and British Labor at the end.