Posts Tagged ‘Model’

CFCs caused recent warming, not CO2

Saturday, January 9th, 2010

University of Waterloo professor Qin-Bin Lu recently published a paper in peer-reviewed journal, Physics Reports that showed that the warming of the last few decades up to 2000 were caused by CFCs. And since the level of CFCs in the atmosphere is starting to drop because of a worldwide agreement in 1987, the temperature is now starting to drop.

Professor Lu, a path-breaking scientist in the field of ozone protection, made his CO2 discovery by accident — he was looking for culprits in the formation of the ozone hole over Antarctica. A chief suspect was CO2: Climate models produced by climatologists showed that CO2 would have devastating effects on the ozone layer, significantly enlarging the ozone hole over Antarctica and dramatically enlarging it over the Arctic. But when Dr. Lu compared the imagined output of the climate models with the actual measurements taken real-time by satellites and weather balloons, the models turned out to be soaring failures.

“I didn’t see any CO2 effect on temperature or ozone depletion over the South Pole from 1956 to 2008,” explained Dr. Lu, surprised at how totally different the real-world measurements were from those that the climate model predicted. The real-world measurements showed CO2 to be largely irrelevant -”the global warming on Earth’s surface between 1950 and 2000 is pretty much due to CFCs,” he concluded. “The models say that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas but the facts show otherwise.”

In contrast, CFCs have long been known to be a greenhouse gas that, on a molecule per molecule basis, is 10,000 times more potent than CO2. Professor Lu’s satellite and balloon measurements showed that factor of 10,000 to have been a gross underestimate!

Had CFCs never been widely used in our air conditioners and refrigerators, Dr. Lu believes, the Earth would not have warmed in the last century. And had CFCs not been banned, he would not be predicting a period of global cooling.

But with the CFC ban, and the subsequent phase-out of this ozone destroying chemical, global warming stopped and, early this decade, a period of global cooling began. This cooling will last “at least 50 years, and possibly 70 years” as the global temperatures return to their pre-CFC levels, he explains, barring the rise of an alternative to CFC, or the introduction of another greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

The cooling, he predicts, will be gentle -”after 2010 or so, the globe temperature will experience a small bounce back but a general declining tendency will not change.” Neither will the new levels be worrisome -Earth will find itself back at the levels of the 1950s, which themselves hadn’t changed much over the previous century.

His only concern right now is that some aspects (although not the main conclusions) might be suspect because he used data (as did many others) from the U.K. Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University which is now suspect.

Source National Post

Temperature data does not support climate scare

Sunday, December 13th, 2009

Every now and then, we need a touch of reality.  There are quite accurate measurements of actual global temperature available – they are taken from satellites and measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere.   Roy Spencer, climatologist  and former NASA scientist collects this data regularly and produces this graph.

Global temperature - 1979 - Nov 2009

Global temperature - 1979 - Nov 2009

What does this mean?  It does not mean we currently have global warming as predicted by IPCC.  If you follow the redline, you can see that its centre line is at 0.2 deg  for the period 2001 to 2009.  This is a lot less than what has been claimed.  If this trend continued, in another 30 years (2039) there would be 0.4 deg  and it would take 300 years to reach 2.0 degrees.

And still, the only reason given for the idea that even this small amount is caused by man is a computer model that scientists say they don’t fully understand (ask them about feedback) yet they use it to project warming.  They can’t even make a model to accurately predict short term weather – why would we believe they can predict it long term?  Why are we all bamboozled by scientists twisting models and data to prove something they have decided in advance?

Top Climate Scientists agree Models are not yet accurate

Friday, September 11th, 2009

One of the prestigious magazines in the scientific world is New Scientist.  They have long supported the establishment cause of Global Warming and only quote scientists who would be accepted by others in their field.  And in an article published Sept 4, New Scientist said: “Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world’s top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.”  “People will say this is global warming disappearing,” he told more than 1500 of the world’s top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN’s World Climate Conference.  “I am not one of the sceptics,” insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. “However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it.”

It should be noted that Latif is the lead author on the IPCC and not easily dismissed.

According to New Scientist,

This is bad timing. The UN’s World Meteorological Organization called the conference in order to draft a global plan for providing “climate services” to the world: that is, to deliver climate predictions useful to everyone from farmers worried about the next rainy season to doctors trying to predict malaria epidemics and builders of dams, roads and other infrastructure who need to assess the risk of floods and droughts 30 years hence.

Dr. Mojib Latif - Lead author of the IPCC Report

Dr. Mojib Latif - Lead author of the IPCC Report

But some of the climate scientists gathered in Geneva to discuss how this might be done admitted that, on such timescales, natural variability is at least as important as the long-term climate changes from global warming. “In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year,” said Vicky Pope from the UK Met Office.

Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. “But how much? The jury is still out,” he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.

Latif said NAO cycles also explained the recent recovery of the Sahel region of Africa from the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s. James Murphy, head of climate prediction at the Met Office, agreed and linked the NAO to Indian monsoons, Atlantic hurricanes and sea ice in the Arctic. “The oceans are key to decadal natural variability,” he said.

Another favourite climate nostrum was upturned when Pope warned that the dramatic Arctic ice loss in recent summers was partly a product of natural cycles rather than global warming. Preliminary reports suggest there has been much less melting this year than in 2007 or 2008.

And further, they admitted that you can’t trust models. What?  They agree with what sceptics have been saying?

In candid mood, climate scientists avoided blaming nature for their faltering predictions, however. “Model biases are also still a serious problem. We have a long way to go to get them right. They are hurting our forecasts,” said Tim Stockdale of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK.

The world may badly want reliable forecasts of future climate. But such predictions are proving as elusive as the perfect weather forecast.

Next they’ll be saying that any warming is not caused by man’s actions at all.  Certainly they are saying that man’s impact is very small compared to the impact of mother nature.  Otherwise man’s impact would over-ride nature’s effects.  They are also saying that long term climate predictions are about as hard as long term weather forecasts.

Sourced from New Scientist.  Also more from the National Post here.