This is the beauty of ‘scientific theories’!
In order for something to qualify as a ‘scientific theory’, it must include a set of predictions of ‘actions or reactions’, which will prove or disprove said theory. Though not usually well understood, this is what makes ‘scientific theories’ ‘respectable’.
The IPCC’s report formulated a theory. This theory predicted that due to human activity, there has been (and continues to be) an increase in the Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere, AND that this difference is CAUSING specific, observable changes in world climate. It then makes a set of specific predictions of how the climate will change as a result of this.
OK. So far, so good.
Now, back when it came out, there were a LOT of us criticizing the IPCC’s report. Whether it was: their methodology, their underlying data – whatever the causes, there was much criticism. This was answered by the supporters of the IPCC report in various ways, which were not always satisfactory. Much bickering ensued.
But, all this is slowly and surely becoming irrelevant, thanks to the IPCC’s report itself. WHY? Because of the predictions it made. The very ones which – if observed to occur – will confirm that the IPCC report was accurate and the critics were full of dingo’s kidneys. If, on the other hand, observations are made which are NOT in agreement with the IPCC report’s predictions, it proves the sceptics were correct and that the IPCC report itself is a load of dingo’s kidneys!
Well, over the last little while, much data has indeed been coming in. Like, loads of it. And, as many actua scientists (as opposed to advisors to policymakers) had predicted, the bits which ‘fail to support the IPCC report’s predictions’ are the ones most favourable to that ‘report’. Most of the data coming our actually directly contradicts it….
Here is just the tip of the iceberg:
‘Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered’
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:
- Radiative forcing ΔF;
- The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
- The feedback multiplier ƒ.
Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.
Just in case you like ‘graphic representations’, the article has some nifty graphs. Not as alarmist as Mr. Gore’s graphs were, but they DO show actual temperature measurements: please, follow the link to the article and look at them….using plain linear regression, they demonstrate the temperatures are going down…
According to the IPCC’s graphs, these should be going up. And, before you say ‘this is natural variation and does not prove anything’, let me point out that the IPCC’s predictions say these graphs cover a long enough period to demonstrate warming.
The article then inclused more colourful and pretty charts, diagrams and graphs, a ‘ton’ of actual physics, and comes up with this closing statement:
In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.
Thanks to Jenifer Marohasy for the story! But that site also had another interesting article: ‘Global Warming is a myth: a Note from Jim Peden’. It has a respected physicist, looking not at ‘climate change’ itself, but analyzing the physics of the very mechanism that the ACC crowd claims is responsible for ‘Greenhouse gasses’ causing ‘Global Warming’. This is how it starts:
As a dissenting physicist, I simply can no longer buy the notion that CO2 produces any significant warming of the atmosphere at any rate.
I’ve studied the atomic absorption physics to death, from John Nicol’s extensive development to the much longer winded dissertation by Gerlich & Tscheuschner and everything in between, it simply doesn’t add up.
In case you are not familiar with the claims made by the ACC crowd, they say that the atoms of ‘greenhouse gasses’ absorb energy in the visible and UV spectrum, break it down into smaller bits (heat) which they then release, and which are then ‘trapped’ in our atmosphere. Here, a physicist who specializes in atomic absorption (and is respected and recognized as an expert in this), calls their claims a load of dingo’s kidneys….
Gosh, I hope everyone loves kidney pie!
Please note: the original post contained an unjustified statement by me, where I jumped to conclusions instead of properly checking my sources. This was spotted by ‘tamino’, who commented on it. Many thanks for his help, as getting the correct information is essential. The incorrect claim has been removed.
IMPORTANT UPDATE: Viscount Moncton, author of the American Physical Society’s ‘Forum on Physics & Society’ article, which is the 1st of the articles I linked to and quoted from, has some questions for the American Physical Society…. (via SmallDeadAnimals and TheCorner)