jump to navigation

The Real Truth About AGW February 18, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
trackback

The Real Truth About AGW

Posted on ICECAP

By Richard Courtney

Sirs, you say: “And perhaps some scientists are coming out against the idea that humankind has warmed the planet and continues to spew increasing pollutants into our atmosphere. If so, they are awful quiet about their challenge. Perhaps they should post their arguments here and let NRDC’s real climate experts take them on.”

Well, I am an Expert Peer Reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); i.e. I am one of the often touted “thousands of UN Climate Scientists”. I and thousands of others speak, publish and sign petitions in attempt to get the media to tell the truth of man made global climate change. And in response to your invitation I post that truth below.

The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) – notably carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW), and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).

I think a clear distinction needs to be made between (a) the science of AGW, and (b) the perception of AGW – and the use of AGW – by non-scientists.
The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e.

1. There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature.

2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow 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. The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940.

4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940, and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.

5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.

The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of science: i.e. Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data, and the opposite of the hypothesis’ predictions is observed in the empirical data.

But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc.). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis. Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates (e.g. Hansen). And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are. Read blog here.

Comments»

1. Jeremy - February 18, 2009

“global temperature is now similar to that of 1940”?

temperature anomaly for 1940: 0.018
temperature anomaly for 2008: 0.325

For ‘the real truth’ on a blog called ‘an honest climate debate’, you really should check your facts more often.

2. Tuukka Simonen - February 18, 2009

This might interest you:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/pgutis/public_enemies.html

Richard Courtney is NOT a doctor at all, he has no education in climate science. He is a methodist preacher and if you have time to read the discussion, you’ll see how all his arguments are totally flawed.

Richard is full of fossil money: [Link removed, stick to the science, not ad hominem attacks, pls]

3. honestclimate - February 18, 2009

Tuukka Simonen

Yeah, you have to be a former US vice president to actually be qualified as a climate scientist these days.

Also the head of the IPCC, Pachauri Rajendra, is an economist/railway engineer.

P.S. I bet if Richard Courtney had been been preaching that man was responsible for every climate catastrophe in the world, he would be classified as a fully qualified climate scientist😉

It’s all explained in the here:
https://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/how-to-deal-with-a-global-warming-skeptic-in-a-cooling-world/

4. honestclimate - February 19, 2009

Jeremy

Click on that link Tuukka provided where in the comments section, Richard Courtney expands on how global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.

Also be sure to read the below post by Joseph D’Aleo
https://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/taking-a-time-machine-ride-back-to-the-1960s-or-1800s

As an aside, Joseph D’Aleo, a “mere” meteorologist, has a much better record at predicting weather than the Met Office you so like to quote.

5. Jeremy - February 19, 2009

Ok, I’ve followed the link and this is how Mr Courtney explains his theory that the temperatures are the same as in 1940:

“The ranges of the monthly values for these years overlap; i.e. the highest monthly value in 1940 (+0.057) was higher than the lowest monthly value in 2008 (+0.053). I think it very reasonable to say they are “similar” when their ranges overlap.”

That’s the same as saying that earning $30,000-$40,000 a year is the same as earning $20,000-$30,000 because their ranges overlap.

In other words, it’s manifestly idiotic.

I’ve read the post you link to and I’m well aware that the climate goes through cycles, but there’s nothing in that post that shows how temperatures are similar to the 1940s.

6. honestclimate - February 19, 2009

Jeremy:

You say you are well aware that climate goes through cycles.

That’s correct, climate changes, always has and always will. At least now we know that buying carbon offsets from Al Gore isn’t going to stop the climate from changing😉

7. Jeremy - February 19, 2009

Just because there are natural climate cycles doesn’t mean AGW isn’t happening. If the planet is going into a natural cooling cycle that would be great, as it will help counterbalance the man-made warming effects and slow it down.

But no, you’re quite right, no carbon offsets for me. They’re something of a sham.

8. Gene - February 19, 2009

Jeremy:

Can you actually measure either 0.018 degrees or 0.325 degrees?

And how do you explain away the fact that STILL, we’ve had 40 years of cooling, and 28 years of warming since 1940 while CO2 increased continually, or the FACT that climate researchers themselves have admitted that there is a lag between temperature increases and the SUBSEQUENT CO2 increases?

Keep in mind that on a geological scale of hundreds of thousands of years the historical records show very wide swings in temperature, far beyond what we have seen in the past 1,000 years.

Also, Courtney says: “The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.”

I seem to recall from my education in the sciences and engineering that for a scientific hypothesis to be invalidated, only one (1) failure of evidence to support the hypothesis is needed. At that point, the hypothesis needs to be reconsidered. With AGW, we seem to be trying to find ways to make the data fit the hypothesis, or even make new data…

9. Jeremy - February 20, 2009

You don’t measure 0.018 degrees, you get those figures by calculating the averages across hundreds of measurements taken around the world, on land and in the sea.

And no, you shouldn’t expect year-on-year rises in temperature, because CO2 levels are not the only thing affecting climate. The sun’s activity, weather patterns, geological events, there’s a hugely complicated interplay of factors at work. As always, it is the overall trend that is important, and the overall trend is a rising temperature.

I applaud your education in the sciences and engineering, as it should also equip you to read averages and trend lines.

10. lweinstein - April 25, 2009

A couple of writeups are located at the following addresses. These are impartial analysis and logical examinations of the issue. Please read.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: