Those familiar with AGW theory will know that since industrial times, all warming is caused by CO2, while all cooling is natural. There's a paper to that effect described on WattUpWithThat explaining that the current pause in warming is, of course, all natural and merely masks the AGW warming that would otherwise occur.
...links to this paper:
But actually it's warmed naturally many times before since significant human CO2 emissions from 1950, such as 1859 to 1879,
and 1910 to 1945:
There was a slight warming from 1976 to 1998 that was supposed to be due to human emissions of greenhouse gases.
But there's nothing to suggest that the temperature increase is entirely natural and not related to human emissions which, as I say, have only been significant since about 1950.
But there's nothing to suggest that the temperature increase is entirely natural and not related to human emissions which, as I say, have only been significant since about 1950.
I noticed this dubious graph on page 20:
The authors claim it proves the logarithmic nature of CO2-induced warming. The problem is, CO2 emissions haven't risen linearly since 1880 when this graph starts.
Humans have only been adding relatively modest amounts of carbon dioxide since about 1950:
Source:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
There were no significant human greenhouse gas emissions before 1950, so the idea that these emissions were responsible for any temp rise from 1880 to 1950 is just plain wrong.
Putting a line on a graph like that, whether it's on a log scale as this one is, or is linear, is dodgy anyway because the choice of starting and ending points completely influences the slope of the trend line.
I could choose different start and end points, especially if we had more data, and come up with an entirely different result. Temperature just varies up and down, naturally. That's what temperature does.
The trend lines they have chosen amount to wishful thinking on the author's parts; they're going to show global warming at all costs!
The above graph is based on another dubious equation, equation 1:
They've arbitrarily made up the values of natural warming Tnat and the amount of human-made warming. Then they say there's a 20 year lag in warming because the oceans have to warm up first before the air can actually warm up. Hard to believe.
Then they subtract the arbitrary level of greenhouse warming together with the also arbitrary 20-year ocean lag, and get this graph:
See? The warming's all AGW, and not natural at all! When you can just arbitrarily determine the level of natural warming, based on assumption, science becomes easy!
I wish I could be payed to come up with this sort of stuff too. But unfortunately I'm not on the climate science gravy train.
There were no significant human greenhouse gas emissions before 1950, so the idea that these emissions were responsible for any temp rise from 1880 to 1950 is just plain wrong.
Putting a line on a graph like that, whether it's on a log scale as this one is, or is linear, is dodgy anyway because the choice of starting and ending points completely influences the slope of the trend line.
I could choose different start and end points, especially if we had more data, and come up with an entirely different result. Temperature just varies up and down, naturally. That's what temperature does.
The trend lines they have chosen amount to wishful thinking on the author's parts; they're going to show global warming at all costs!
The above graph is based on another dubious equation, equation 1:
They've arbitrarily made up the values of natural warming Tnat and the amount of human-made warming. Then they say there's a 20 year lag in warming because the oceans have to warm up first before the air can actually warm up. Hard to believe.
Then they subtract the arbitrary level of greenhouse warming together with the also arbitrary 20-year ocean lag, and get this graph:
See? The warming's all AGW, and not natural at all! When you can just arbitrarily determine the level of natural warming, based on assumption, science becomes easy!
I wish I could be payed to come up with this sort of stuff too. But unfortunately I'm not on the climate science gravy train.
No comments:
Post a Comment