Most of what I post on this blog are summaries written for non-scientists. While such summaries are useful and informative, there is the big problem that many scientists with a vested interest in perpetuating the "global warming" and other Greenie myths often make deceptive claims. So this is an area where there is a real need to give the intelligent layman direct access to the science involved. I therefore reproduce below the front page of Douglas Hoyt's site. By logging on to the original site here you can follow up in detail most of the scientific issues involved. Hoyt was the author of the letter in reply to Greenie academic John Holdren that I put up in my postings yesterday.
Douglas V. Hoyt is a solar physicist and climatologist who worked for more than thirty years as a research scientist in the field. He has worked at NOAA, NCAR, Sacramento Peak Observatory, the World Radiation Center, Research and Data Systems, and Raytheon where was a Senior Scientist. He has conducted research on issues related to climate change, changes in solar irradiance on all time scales, and the sun-climate connection. His most recent publication is the book "The Role of the Sun in Climate Change" . He has published nearly 100 scientific papers on solar irradiance variations, the greenhouse effect, atmospheric transmission, aerosols, cloud cover, sunshine, radiative transfer, radiometers, solar activity, sunspot structure, sunspot decay rates, and the history of solar observations. He has received no funding from any fossil fuel entity or government entity. His work is influenced only by the data and the study of the scientific literature.
PROBLEMS WITH THE GREENHOUSE WARMING THEORY
There are several problems with the theoretical underpinnings of the standard IPCC theory of global warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases (AGHG). These problems are listed here with more discussion in the links.
1. The IPCC theory has a roughly 3.5 W/m2 decrease in outgoing thermal radiation from a doubling of carbon dioxide. The number is based upon an instantaneous doubling of carbon dioxide and assumes no change in the continuum radiation. This topic is discussed further here.
2. The sensitivity of climate without any feedbacks is (33 C / 148 W/m2) or 0.22 C/W/m2, so the basic change in climate is 0.22 * 3.5 C or 0.7 C for a doubling of carbon dioxide. Recently Schwartz has deduced empirically that the climate sensitivity is approximately 0.25 C/W/m2, and equilibrium time is 2-3 years (Requirements for empirical determination of Earth's climate sensitivity by S. E. Schwartz at the AAAS Annual Meeting, Denver CO, February 14-18, 2003 http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/abstracts/Empirical.html). Most empirical determinations of climate sensitivity place it somewhere between 0.07 and 0.26 C/W/m2.
In contrast, the IPCC says a doubling of carbon dioxide will cause a warming of 1.5 to 4.5 C and have a climate sensitivity between 0.43 and 1.29 C/W/m2. They get these high numbers by assuming a number of positive feedbacks exist including changes in water vapor, cloud cover, and snow and ice cover. The water vapor feedback is incorrect and is discussed here.
3. The sum total of all feedbacks is assumed to be positive. Recent published work shows they are negative and these results are reviewed here.
4. IPCC economic models overestimate the rate at which carbon dioxide will enter the atmosphere over the next century. It leads to farfetched warming numbers such as 5.8 C. A critique is offered here.
5. Some easily modeled effects such as an increase in depolarization factor of air with more carbon dioxide are totally neglected in the climate models. Further discussion here.
Summary: Based upon the first three points above, the upper limit on warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide is 0.7 C and it is probably much less. The high numbers used by the IPCC are not supported by measurements.
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE RECENT WARMING
According to the surface measurements, climate has warmed by about 0.18 C/decade since 1979. Many people attribute all this warming to AGHGs, but alternative explanations exist. They are listed below with links to further discussion.
1. The sun may have warmed over the last 25 years and caused most if not all the warming as discussed here.
2. The albedo of the Earth has decreased (the planet is getting darker and absorbing more radiation). This will warm the planet and is discussed here. Land use changes are also discussed here.
3. Contrails have increased in recent years and will lead to a warming on regional and perhaps a global scale as discussed here.
4. Fossil fuel burning releases heat directly to the atmosphere and will cause a warming over the continents. It is discussed here.
5. Urban heat islands (UHI) are substantial (several degrees Celsius in many cases and larger than the predicted AGHG warming). Placing thermometers near cities and downwind of cities may lead to a warming that is falsely attributed to AGHGs. The effect is substantial and is discussed here along with a mention of land use changes.
6. Other explanations for the recent warming include:
a. Decrease in explosive volcanic eruptions in recent years.
b. Increased intensity of El Nino in the last few years.
c. More carbon aerosols (soot) in the atmosphere.
d. Soot on snow.
e. Decreased stratospheric ozone.
f. Internal changes in circulation such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and Arctic Oscillation (AO).
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment