Skip to comments.The Keys to the Climate Debate
Posted on 08/13/2012 12:22:34 AM PDT by neverdem
Hardly anyone knows that two thirds of the warming predicted by the climate models comes from assumed changes in humidity and clouds, and only one third comes directly from the extra carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.
Some awareness of the calculations is essential, because there is no direct observational evidence that rising CO2 caused the bulk of the recent warming. If there were, don't you suppose we would have heard all about it by now? The world has spent over $60B since 1990 looking for that evidence. The ice cores shown by Al Gore in his movie were once supporting evidence, but higher-resolution ice cores subsequently showed that the temperature changes occurred a few hundred years before the corresponding changes in CO2 and thus cannot have been caused by them.
Instead, the theory of man-made global warming relies on calculating the predicted temperature rise. First, the direct warming of the extra CO2 is reckoned, using principles known...
What distinguishes science is that evidence trumps the opinion of any human. Since at least the Enlightenment, the ultimate authority in matters scientific is universally recognized to be observational data.
But who wants to look at data? It is so much easier to just ask a recognized expert, and looking at data all seems so complicated and disputatious. Well, we all understand graphs of temperature over time, so the data is relatively easy to interpret. The data mentioned above is all in the public domain, and downloadable by anyone. Ask a climate scientist about it and he'll often say something complicated and confusing, then assert that his theory is right -- basically, "trust us." Citizens and the media now have to decide whether their highest authority is the data or the climate scientists, because these two entities are in conflict...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Even worse than that, 2/3 of the past warming which is probably exaggerated by 2x (see Watts et al recent paper) is also supposedly due to water vapor feedback. Thus the models are supposedly "validated" using temperatures biased by urban warming. Not to mention there is no good record of deeper ocean temperatures needed to calculate heat storage.
The climate modelers do not model weather, they assume certain types of weather and input it using parameters. An assumption of constant relative humidity with increasing temperature is especially bogus since weather proves that wrong in many places every day. The models do not have a shred of a hope of predicting temperature regardless of the assumptions built into them.
Science is observable, measurable and testable. They Warmists have designed their “science” around violating all three.
Anyone calculate the carbon footprint of the olympics?
The keys are they have been big money laundering for many years. That’s stealing.
Not for liberals.