Flaws in Catastrophic Global Warming Forecasts

Here is a good little video. I’ve provided a written summary below.

Climate sensitivity = temperature increase that results from a doubling of CO2 concentrations.

IPCC Assumptions – catastrophe- what you have to believe:
1) Climate is dominated by positive feedbacks
2) Aerosols currently create substantial cooling

Neither of these assumptions is well supported by science.

Climate models assume sensitivity of between 2.5C and 4.5C

According to the IPCC these senstivities are built in two steps:

a) If the amount of CO2 is doubled instantaneously, wth everything else remainng the same, the temperature of the surface troposphere would have to increase by 1.2C…in the absence of other changes. This implies warming over the next century of less than 1C.

b) Due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is more complex. The IPCC believe the overall effect of feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase by an additional 1.5C to 4.5C.

Feedback:

Temperature change = dT/(1-f)

If f > 0, then feedback is positive and temperature increases are accelerated
If f < 0 then feedback is negative and temperature increases are damped
If f >1, then temperature "runs away" (tipping points)

Most scientists assume, that when they discover an unknown but stable process, that it is dominated by negative feedback. However, the IPCC seems to be the exception when it comes to climate science. Climate scientists assume that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedback. They assume that 1.2C of warming from CO2 alone is multiplied up.

Positive feedbacks assumed by IPCC: Albedo, humidity, outgassing
Negative feedbacks assumed by IPCC: clouds, plant growth, iris effect

If one assumes positive feedbacks dominate then you should be able to apply this to historical CO2 concentrations and temperatures e.g. from the 285ppm CO2 level 125 years ago, to 385ppm level today. In that time, global temperatures have only risen 0.6C. No-one has proven either whether this is natural or man-made warming. Anyway, if you assume the 0.6C increase is from ma-made CO2, it is only a fraction (f= 0.13, 0.6C increase, sensitivity 1.37C) of the temperature increase required to fit into any of the IPCC positive feedback scenarios (e.g. f=0.8, 2.6C increase, sensitivity 6C; f=0.6, 1.3C increase, sensitivity 3C). The IPCC blame this on "global dimming“.

The IPCC now postulates that man made aerosols (e.g. sulphates, black carbon) play a role in temporarily colling the globe and delaying any temperature increases from CO2 emissions by masking any positive feedback. This is an arbitary plug to save face of climate modellers.

Man made aerosols cannot be causing global dimming…. because they are short lived, and local in effects, only present in significant concentrations in certain areas of the world. Therefore for aerosols to mask global warming by 1oC would require the aerosol affected areas to have a masking effect of 10-20oC which is absurd. Also, aerosols are mostly in the northern hemisphere, so if aerosols were masking temperature increase then you would expect the northern heisphere to be cooler, but in fact the southern hemisphere is warming less quickly than the northern hemisphere.

Advertisements

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: