Friday, 27 December 2013

"There is no debate"

 Following a twitterati reply 'There is no debate' yet again, I must provide a short climate summary.

The global warming theory arose in the 80s in its current form, and like now relied 100% on amplification of the 1C from a doubling of CO2 as that alone was totally harmless. With 25 years or so of observations it has been very easy to see the results of a 50% rise, and do not support amplification as the temperatures have risen far less than 1C meaning they cannot reach 2C or more when it rises the remaining 50%.

Two major errors were present from day one. Firstly they assumed positive feedback (amplification) even though it had never been observed in nature, and secondly the models they used to create the projections couldn't include the major negative feedbacks, ie cloud cover and aerosol dust. 25 years later the temperatures predicted by the models are all above reality, which was virtually inevitable if it wasn't possible to factor in the cooling influences. But satellites show an increase in cloud cover so by direct observation it is the most powerful feedback from the little oceanic evaporation added, and also the added CO2 was found to displace water vapour where it counted, which is also a coolant effect.

Therefore even if they find global warming does come back in 10, 20 or 30 year's time as some are trying to claim, firstly the only certainties are what we have already observed, and secondly it is not reliable to trust unknown futures at a distant later date. Even if temperatures rose again it would be certain natural causes reduce it and mean the overall average rise could never catch up to meet 2C or more by 2100, and there was no delay expected for the amplification so if it hasn't happened now there is no known physical process to hold it back.

But of course they're all certain and nothing anyone can observe is relevant, is it?

No comments:

Post a Comment