Missing Signature
July 26th, 2008 by Wyatt
I am thankful for scientists with integrity that are willing to state the truth. I worry about those who bend and dissemble when the truth becomes inconvenient. This article from one Dr. David Evans sounds like the result of the integrity we should be applauding in the scientific community. No doubt, he will be called names and cast out. However, I doubt anyone will challenge him on his science. He was a believer in anthropogenic global warming, but he has since changed his mind due to the lack of evidence.
My title here refers to one of the basic reasons why AGW should not be believed:
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.
If the science that predicts catastrophe also predicts this hot spot, what should it do when the hot spot cannot be found? Is it sane to act like the science is still correct? Maybe a reevaluation is in order?
He also reiterates my favorite evidence that it’s time to step back and consider the consequences of any further actions to abate CO2: The fact that the warming trend that scared everyone to death actually stopped seven years ago.
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.
What would you call those who disguise or ignore the truth and tell the public something contrary to it? Should we choose to turn our economy and lifestyle upside-down to accommodate the predictions of these prophets without evidence? Is it politically incorrect to at least request a clean analysis of climate change based on currently known data and not just predictions from the last decade or two?
Why does anyone listen to these people anymore?
Dr. Evans comes to the very same conclusion in regards to his home country of Australia that I do in regards to the United States:
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.
Still think AGW is real? Prove it.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Well said!! I couldn’t agree more. TIme to get this information out so people can read it. Just looks easier to preach the doom and gloom not actual fact.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Proving anything on a global scale is not an easy task; there are so many systems that come into play on a massive scale like this that humans may never fully understand them. Does human activity have consequences and the ability to affect the ‘environment?’ Well, it would seem that it does; one light bulb is no big deal, but the light pollution from a whole city-full blots out the stars. There’s also smog, coastal dead zones, the Dust Bowl, and other problems that seem to be the result of human activity. Whether or not global warming is real or has human cause is irrelevant - the facts are that the ongoing climate change (particularly the loss and lack of replenishment of sea and glacial ice in many parts of the world, and droughts in others)
has the potential to affect life as we know it. The possibility for disaster is unprecedented as the worlds economy and civilization as we know it are based on agricultural surplus. No food equals no civilization…
Fortunately, the issue is out of human control, as there’s nothing that can be done to remedy changes that are occurring, so we will just have to ride it out. Either we’ll make it or we won’t so there’s no point in worrying about it.
Cheers,
Dan
August 8th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Dan,
The end of your comment is what I’m really getting at. It’s not something we can control, so it’s silly to destroy our economy trying to act like we can. We ought to be studying the climate for any changes that are coming and working to adapt to them, not just prevent them from happening. There’s actually quite a bit of evidence that some warming will help agriculture overall. While it may make some equatorial areas less productive, it’ll make some higher latitude areas more productive as they have been in the distant past. A warming of the climate is not universally bad, but it will change how we live on the planet. Let’s get to work preparing for the real changes that are coming and quit trying to convince ourselves that it’s our fault and we should try to undo them.
Thanks for the comment!