Skip to comments.David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says Itís a Scam
Posted on 03/26/2011 3:33:02 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Dr David Evans address to the Anti-Carbon-Tax rally, Perth Australia, 23 March 2011.
Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen.
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Lets be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planets temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.
This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
Ill bet you didnt know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but its the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and youve never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
At this point official climate science stopped being a science. You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance, otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.
But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. Surprise surprise, their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.
They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade yet they have the gall to tell us its worse than expected. These people are not scientists. They over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.
The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at wastewater plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Nearly 90%! The photos of these thermometers are on the Internet; you can get to them via the corruption paper at my site, sciencespeak.com. Look at the photos, and youll never trust a government climate scientist again.
They place their thermometers in warm localities, and call the results global warming. Anyone can understand that this is cheating. They say that 2010 is the warmest recent year, but it was only the warmest at various airports, selected air conditioners, and certain car parks.
Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has leveled off.
If it really is warming up as the government climate scientists say, why do they present only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results? And why do they put their thermometers near artificial heating sources? This is so obviously a scam now.
The earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after WWII, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.
Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government how exciting for the political class!
Even if Australia stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the stone age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate tenfold in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!
Finally, to those of you who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: sorry, but youve been had. Yes carbon dioxide a cause of global warming, but its so minor its not worth doing much about.
Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australias carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.
The missing hotspot
The one flaw that wipes out the crisis
Is there any evidence?
Even gurus of warming admit the hot spot went missing
The models are wrong (but only by 400%)
Sherwood 2008: Where you can find a hot spot at zero degrees
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 9: The Heart of the Matter and the Coloring-In Trick
Dessler 2010: How to call vast amounts of data spurious
Thorne 2010: A very incomplete history of the missing hot spot
All posts tagged The missing hot spot.
I’m always skeptical when someone says, you can keep doing what you’re doing, I just want you to pay me to do it. That’s what is going on with the commie Cap and Tax scheme.
The three words aren't synonymous ?
AMEN!! Fantastic Article by an Expert and a Fantastic Post!
Trying out a new ....to me....Linux operating system to help with my vision problems (Vinux) ....hope this looks OK.
Thanks for the find!
"Join the Competitive Enterprise for Human Achievement Hour, an annual celebration of individual freedom and appreciation of the achievements and innovations that people have used to improve their lives throughout history, this Saturday March 26th 2011, 8:00 PM. Click here to learn more. Human Achievement Hour is the pro-human, pro-energy alternative to Earth Hour, the Greens celebration of a darker world, also scheduled from 8-9 PM on March 26th. Co-sponsored by The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights."
Thanx for the ping Ernest_at_the_Beach !
Excellent. Ping for later...
Bump for later
If I had only had the wisdom to short carbon futures when this debacle was unfolding, I could have made lots of money! Such a silly scam!!!
AGW Hoax ping!
I'm glad this guy is coming around but he's still willfully ignoring some basic tenets of science. If the theory proves itself to not be the operative factor the question of whether the theory is valid or not becomes irrelevant.
Those two articles take Greenhouse Theory at face value and by the criterion set up in the theory itself finds no evidence of warming on the basis of greenhouse effect.
Those five articles each show that Greenhouse Theory has no basis in reality due to a direct conflict with the known laws of physics. No wonder the smoking gun "hotspot" can't be found.
That article pretty much puts the kibosh on any serious trend of planetary warming from any cause. Think about it. If there is absolutely no sign at all of rising sea levels how could the planet be warming? Beyond the centuries long slow warming of the earth and rising of the seas of course. But that is only a few millimeters per century due to the inter-glacial period we are in.
The absence of a 'hotspot' means that we can assume, for sake of argument, that Greenhouse Theory is correct and conclude that both man and nature put together are not increasing greenhouse gasses enough to cause any warming that may be happening. A theory cannot simultaneously prove itself right and wrong.
Another good summary of what the deal really is. Hope your new system works out well. One of these days I have to get my glasses changed. I’m long over due.
There has never been even one shred of empirical evidence to support the CAGW scam. The closest they ever got was the now thoroughly debunked and discredited hokey schtick (MBH98) and Briffa et. al. temperature reconstructions which suffered the same fate as Manns ginormous fraud. A small cabal of rent seeking scientists at the CRU in conjunction with their gravy train riding counterparts in the U.S. (Hansen and company) engineered this scam. They did it for the most ancient of motives: avarice and pride. They peer reviewed each others papers and censored other who disagreed. They conspired to obstructed justice and sold their souls in the process. They were responsible for the one chapter of the IPCC report that blames humans for CAGW. No contributor to the IPCC report was asked to sign a document agreeing with the conclusions of the assessment reports. Because their interest aligned with socialist politicians they had significant influence on who got published as well as funded. And in the real world it is indeed all about the money. You either go along to get along or become ostracized and unemployed.
Not one of the climate scientists model forecasts has come true. The liberal media has not only acquiesced in this fraud but they are an accessory to it. After all, if it bleeds it leads and the end of the world catastrophic warming hype sold a lot of papers and attracted a lot of advertising dollars.
Meanwhile, we rape the third world of their vital and precious resources and tell them to essentially live in the stone age. The average life span of someone living in Sub Saharan Africa is 45! Their lives are short and brutish. And this to please the neo-malthusians?! So much for the liberals clamor for social justice!
The useful idiots who bend to the will of their green masters have gotten away with this pogrom until now because it didnt effect the first worlds standard of living. Societal change is normally born of economic necessity. A revolution is unlikely to occur when all is relatively well. As people realize that the greens real intent is to control the very breath they exhale they are starting to react. I believe we are at the very beginning of this reaction and that this groundswell will continue to grow until this scam is swept away! I pray that I live long enough to see it so a bounty on the climate criminals heads, dead or alive!
Great article, Ernest. Thanks for posting it. I may just pass it along to my email list.
The article brings up a pet peeve of mine, which is, that the so-called science channels and programs on cable (and PBS) continue to sing the ‘Climate Change’ mantra, even when the whole subject has been proven to be rife with fraud and untruths.
March 26th, 2011 at 7:57 am
Eddy Aruda: #4
Another of your temperate summaries, I see
But I absolutely agree with you.
One thing that strikes me is that this is predominantly a US and European phenomena, with Australia and New Zealand jumping up and down on the sidelines saying, me too, me too. (I have said as much before).
But nobody is really talking about China. I spend a lot of time watching China, and other parts of Asia, and they are very positive about AGW, and the steps that the West are taking to address the issue.
But have you noticed that the non-western countries are in no great hurry to follow? Have you noticed that, for some reason, they are not expected to follow?
The UN is primarily based in New York and Geneva. The EU is based in Brussels and Strasbourg. So both organisations work within a societal framework that still has a predominantly catholic philosophy that man (meaning humankind) is irredeemably sinful. The British in particular, are always apologising to each other for something, whether real or imagined.
The west actually feels guilty about its industrial and financial success, and in true catholic style is using AGW as a form of self-flagellation. And the non-western countries, in their condemnation that the west is destroying the planet, are actually reinforcing those feelings of guilt.
We either need to wake up to that fact, or start learning Mandarin.
Right....see #18 from the comments to the article.
LOL love it!
The average life span of someone living in Sub Saharan Africa is 45! Their lives are short and brutish. And this to please the neo-malthusians?! So much for the liberals clamor for social justice!
Never forget that the libs always have The Population Bomb in the back of their rarely used minds. That's why when they speak about 'humanitarian concerns' I don't believe a word they say.
Those are some pretty funny guys (as well as sharp) on that forum. I may have to start reading their comments just to get a laugh-induced endorphin fix.
This is a GREAT article. I am in agreement with him pretty much. I am not a GW denier, nor a denier in the effects of CO2, I just question the HOW MUCH that the alarmists have been trumpeting for years now. It good to see some rationality returning to at least some of the scientists involved.
Richard C (NZ):
March 26th, 2011 at 8:49 am
The ice core record (Law Dome spliced to Mauna Loa) is a bit dodgy too.
Evidence for molecular size dependent gas fractionation in firn air derived from noble gases, oxygen, and nitrogen measurements
Huber et al 2005
The enrichment of elemental ratios near the close-off region measured in the firn air from Devon Island and NGRIP, can be modeled assuming a constant close-off fractionation factor between closed off air and open pore composition during air enclosure. The strong similarities found at both sites indicate a universal physical process causing this close-off fractionation. Our model approach
is able to explain and predict the general shape of the firn air profiles from various different sites. However, it fails when the firn density structure has impermeable layers that cause large non-diffusive zones at the bottom of the firn. This has to be implemented into a future model.
The bottom of the firn is critical. This is the inclusion zone where firn transforms to solid ice.
Close-off fractionation factors for different gases depend strongly on the diameter.
Except they use an inappropriate diameter. They use collision diameter (molecules colliding with other molecules) when they should be using kinetic diameter (the aperture size that will let a molecule pass, CO2 collision dia 39nm, CO2 kinetic dia 33nm).
The mass of the molecule is less important, since the effect on isotope ratios is very low. The critical size of about 3.6 Å [36nm] seems to be an upper limit up to which molecules fractionate during the close-off process in the firn.
CO2 will pass 36nm if kinetic dia is used.
A possible explanation for this could be the diffusion of molecules through channels in the ice lattice. From our findings we believe that the effect of close-off fractionation is nonexistent or at least very small for isotope ratios and for large molecules, like Xe, Kr, N2, CO2, CH4, and N2O.
They have only considered a simple sieving mechanism. Others, notably Ideka-Fukusawa et al describe a hydrogen bond breaking lattice distorting mechanism where CO2 passes through the ice latice.
This is an important confirmation for the integrity of polar ice cores as a climate archive of the ancient atmospheric composition of these gases.
I dont think so. I would be interested in any comments on this either here or at CCG
This bears repeating at every available opportunity too.
the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The corrected ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record (Figure 1 B), and reproduced in countless publications as a famous Siple curve. Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the age assumption, but they failed.
CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., March 2007
This is the dataset that ALL IPCC climate models use for initialization and subsequent simulations are based on, the results of which became the basis of govt policy.
The person who wrote this may be a scientist, I don't know, but he makes an embarrassing mistake in technical language here.
Dampening is, I suppose, the use of water to knock down a fire or moisten a cloth.
The word for a dynamic effect that tends to decrease the amplitude of a system that's oscillating about an equilibrium value is damping, as in "damping constant" or "damping factor" or "damping coefficient."
Can’t believe AGW is not dead yet bump! ;-)
I'm sure the analysis of what they have in hand is very precise (although that post seems to question exactly that) but have they thought of all the possible factors that could affect those gasses through the centuries? One unsuspected reaction could alter every conclusion they have come to.
Over my head too....but it certainly points out that what goes on down below the ice cap isn’t simple.
Good article. Also some good articles linked at the author’s web site.
I like this one:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.