An article I came across about Global Warming. Seems pretty much to support the idea that Global Warming is not happening and the idea that carbon emissions is to blame is just plain wrong. Read the article . . . what do you think?

No smoking hot spot
David Evans | July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and 
maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005

Yes. I've seen many good articles like this. A better term is Global Deception.

Do a little research...this person is not an expert in the field, has no credentials to back up assumptions, is not peer reviewed, etc, etc. Not exactly someone you would want to quote.

Here is just one site with questions about his abilities... Web Site

Thanks for the heads-up on this one. I did feel like the article was not using much to back the ideas. However, there is a lot to ponder on either way you think. Global warming and carbon emissions . . . I would like to see the evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. Can anyone point me to an article proving that carbon emissions is the culprit?

But there is little question about the bias of that web site--




If one begins with the assumption that whatever is "stalling action on global warming," arises from "confusing the public," the question has already been begged.

I did my own research on David Evans and his claims. He is not a climate scientist, he is a mathematician and computer modeller. The modelling he did for the Australian government did not involve climate at all, it involved the amount of carbon in things on the ground such as soil and vegetation. So his appeal to his work in the field to back up his claims about climate science is shaky. His gratuitous slaps at the Labor party in the last couple of paragraphs betray his political agenda. And, after a very thorough literature search, he is the only person I can find talking about the magical missing hot spot.

Right. He's just a computer modeler. And since global warming is all about computer models, what could he possibly have to say about that particular group of computer models.

No question about it. The guy obviously has nothing to offer in this area.

Yes, it is biased, just as his assumptions are! As I said, it was only one of many links that lead a person to know that he had nothing to substantiate his claim. The sites remarks about his credentials are true!

That 'just' in your first sentence is all yours, ichabod. I do not doubt his expertise in the field of computer modelling. My point was that he has not done any computer modelling of climate, so his claims about climate are not backed by his expertise. In other words, they are really no more relevant (and, importantly, no less) than the opinions of any other lay person.

So then, to the specific claims. As I noted, his claim is that there is a particular test of whether greenhouse gases are causing climate change - the tropical hot spot. If this claim were the 'smoking gun' that demonstrates that greenhouse gases do not cause climate change, or are not causing the current climate change, don't you think the massive skeptical community would be trumpeting it to the skies? But do a search: the only person you'll find talking about it is... David Evans.

So he has no expertise that would back up a radical new theoretical and empirical claim, and he has not drawn it from anyone else either. Whatever your opinions on the broader issues, it's hard to see how his claim could count as any kind of definitive - or even productive - answer to the question posed.

It's certainly more effective to question his credentials than to answer his arguments.

The ice core data, in particular, are quite problematic for the whole anthropogenic global warming cult.

Which is why I switched to his arguments in the second paragraph.

His third claim is simply not true, unless 1998 is taken as the baseline of the comparison, and 1998 was anomalously hot for a number of reasons, so it is scientifically dishonest to take it as the baseline. The data actually show global temperatures still increasing over the past decade, but at a slower rate than in the preceding decade. This is not an opinion, this is what the data show.

The ice core data do show increases in CO2 that occur after warming in the climate record. This is not disputed. That is not a reason to worry less, it is a reason to worry more, because it means that when temperatures rise, nature releases more CO2. If we raise temperatures artificially with our pollution - an event that has never before occurred in earth's history - there is very likely to be a 'positive feedback' that exacerbates the effects even further.

The ice core data are well discussed, by climate scientists, here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

(Of course, that site is also easy to dismiss if you so choose.)

But I can't answer his arguments or conclusions since I do not have access to his data or the expertise to argue about it. I am merely pointing out that he does not seem to be a credible source. I would point that out no matter the side of the issue. Lack of credibility hurts either side of the issue and does little to arrive at the truth. The issue becomes side tracked!!

By the way, I am still reading and listening to both sides of the argument....a bit undecided!

That is an assumption, and one at the center of the controversy. A recent study (2008) indicates that precipitation acts as a sort of thermostat which prevents that positive feedback.

And I point out again, Evans is in fact a computer modeler. Since computer models are also the very heart of the issue, he might be more knowledgeable than the typical climatologist, who is not a computer modeler.

Now I am even more confused. It seems like both sides have problems in showing anything by the data that exists. I have now seen both sides destroy the other by attacking credentials and attacking the data. It seems that you can make the data say what you want in this field.

I am no longer so sure about global warming . . . does it really exist. AND I am no longer so sure that we as people have anything much to do with global warming. It seems that the earth is a larger place than what we can totally destroy.

On the other hand, it seems that both sides of the issue have their problems in making the data work for or against the issue.

The earth *is* a huge place. But we have put so much CO2 in the atmosphere that we have increased the concentration from 290 parts per million to 380 parts per million: a more than 30% increase. That's an incredible scale of change from one species, and completely unprecedented in earth's history. CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the far past (assuming you believe there is one), but that was due to natural processes and happened on a scale of tens of thousands of years, not a hundred years.

On credentials: would you take medical advice from me? I'm a doctor, after all (and so are you, if your nick is serious). But I'm a doctor of philosophy in science education, not a medical doctor. I wouldn't take medical advice from me.

Despite Ed's protestations, I think I'll listen to a climate scientist when the issue is climate, not a computer modeler (who incidentally doesn't have a PhD).

doctorj


You've got it just about right. The data can be interpreted different ways. In fact, as Roy Spencer (a Ph.D. and a climatologist whom Bravus will no doubt discount) has written:



And Bravus argument about Ph.D. vs. M.D. misses the mark.

Despite Bravus' obfuscations, if there's a problem with my x-rays, I'd be interested in the input of both an M.D. and the x-ray machine repair man. If the spot on the x-ray is due to machine malfunction, the repair man-- who may not have a college degree--might have knowledge more pertinent than the M.D., who assumes the image is correct.

And that's the point about the computer modeler. If the model is faulty--and, just as most M.D.'s are not x-ray machine experts, neither are most climatologists computer modelers--a computer modeler might be able to point out problems the climatologist couldn't see.

The whole 'global warming'--oops, now it's 'climate crisis'-- is so disingenuous. We are shown alarming video and statistics about ice melting on the antarctic peninsula--all the while failing to mention the fact that overall the ice in antarctica is increasing.

And everything supposedly indicates global warming--er, climate crisis. If the winters are cold-- it's because global warming causes greater extremes (even though, so far, most of the actual warming has been at night, making for less, not more variation). If we have more storms, ditto. If we have fewer storms, that's weather, and not an indication of anything to do with climate--unless the weather is hot.

Quite right Ich.

That whole "Global warming" deal is so transparent.

As a RT working in the hospital, some decisions regarding health care are made dependant upon the outcome of the X-ray...Since I work with the Xray Techs, and are friendly with them, I get to decide who among the tech can read the Xrays as well as the docs....But I also know the doctors and what they have to go thru to be able to read those xrays. Sloppy Xray docs are known pretty quick in the hospital, and they are few and far between...very few....As for techs, they know they have not the expertise of the docs, but they can say, "Yup, there something there, alright."...and as I have said, you have to be VERY choosy as to which of the techs can say that or not.

As for your xray repairman, sorry, he only knows electronics, not pictures...

But I get what you are getting at, Ichy. But your illustration is on shaky legs. If given a choice between a tech and a doc, I choose the doc. And even the good techs will only say "Yup, there is SOMETHING there" and will even have the audacity to say "I don't know.", to confirm the RT suspicion that something is going on in the chest...

[and yes, RTs have been trained to read Xrays of the chest. But we also know, we are not proficient at it and don't need to be ]

ich

My point, actually. If he electronics are faulty, then so will be the x-rays.

And computer modelers understand computer models.

And since it seems to be difficult to follow the logic, if the model is faulty, then the conclusions based on it will be faulty, no matter the erudition of the one making the conclusions.

Correct. But is David Evans commenting on the computer models? i.e. are his claims based on claiming there are flaws in the computer models?

It's hard to know what to believe. The scientists who do not believe in global warming are certainly in the minority, particularly worldside. Most scientists around the world do believe it is happening. And some of the studies done in the U.S. that supposedly show it is not true have been sponsored by the oil companies, which is not to say they aren't accurate, but they need to be taken with a grain of salt. And even if it is true, then whether it is man-made or a natural cycle thing is another question.

To me, it makes sense that all the pollution we have put out over the last century can't be good. It causes disease and death in human bodies, so why would it be different with plants or the atmosphere or whatever...

It makes sense that if you drop two objects from the same height at the same time, the heavier one will fall faster.

It just doesn't happen to be true.

It's fairly uncontroversial to say that (a) oil is a finite, non-renewable resource but (b) recent discoveries mean it is a larger finite resource than we first thought. We've been saying for almost 50 years that we might only have about 50 years' oil left... and that might tend to lead to the conclusion that that will keep happening forever... but it won't. And demand is about to go through the roof: 4 times the population of the US in China and another 3 times the population of the US in India are going to start using resources at a rate closer to the rate they're used in the US (and Australia - three fingers pointing back at us, for sure).

So *even leaving aside climate change entirely* it makes a lot of sense to move quickly away from our use of fossil fuels. So in one sense the 'is it true or not' argument is moot: there are other very compelling reasons to change our habits and change them quickly.

There are other, large points to be made about the nature of scientific knowledge, the nature of climate knowledge in particular, risk and certainty. These are in some ways new sciences and new approaches to scientific questions, and they are not simple. I'm not trying to pretend that they are.

But really, one of the legacies of the 60s is a lot of relativism, even among those who believe they're immune to it. The refuge of most of us, in one way or another, from the deluge of data and opinion and information that would otherwise tend to overwhelm us is to select the voices we will listen to.

That's part of why the issue of credentials is important: when selecting from among a wide variety of positions and perspectives and voices, knowing whether someone is speaking from a position of knowledge is important. A devaluation of expertise and expert knowledge has been another legacy of the 60s, but whether we like it or not, some people do simply know more than others about some topics.

But we will also tend to select the voices that agree with our existing positions and beliefs, and to find ways to ignore those that disagree. This is part of the human condition, and I know I'm far from immune to it.

I do try to apply scientific methods when looking at arguments on this and other scientific issues. One of those methods is peer review. GIven the claim (untrue, I believe, but widely accepted) that the mainstream scientific community is a vast conspiracy against any evidence that climate change is not (at least in part) human-caused, the standard can be relaxed so that it doesn't mean publication in peer reviewed journals, it just means that other scientists or commentators share the same view.

That's why it's important to note that no-one other than David Evans is talking about the missing hot spot.

Yes I have read this article (on the website as quoted above) and heard a debate on Radio with Dr Evans and a pro carbon trading & global warming scientist. I am still not convinced at all and believe Dr Evans information is far more believable. The alarmists have a major reason for supporting their argument with no real proof. They are basing their proof on 1996 data which is no longer correct. The latest data disproves this.

Some of my reasons:-

• All of the pro scientists who believe that carbon emissions are the cause of global warming are employed in the industry in investigating the carbon emissions and implementing changes. Their livelihood and jobs depend on them supporting this theory. The government hands out huge grants for these scientists to do their work. 50 billion has already been spent…….
• There is no real proof it is all a theory. Do we implement major changes to our lifestyle which will cost on average an extra $2000 per person because carbon emissions may affect global warming ?
• If the government was serious what are they doing about other alternate sources of energy to replace oil and coal ? Absolutely nothing because they are making too much money.

Even if one believes that carbon emissions are causing global warming if Australia makes all the changes to reduce carbon emissions (Aust emits approx 1-2%) and no other country especially the major polluters (USA, China & India) what difference will it make ? Unless the majority of countries implement changes to reduce carbon output then what Australia does will have absolutely no affect on our environment.

Nice try, Ichy, but according to your origional post, the goal was to get pictures.



Now you switch goals...you want to understand the electronics of the Xray machine. Well, let's put it simply. In real life, if the machine is faulty, it aint gonna produce Xray picture.

Come on, Ichy...admit that your logic, while logical, is based upon faulty presumptions, poor illitrations and just plain "hide the head in the sand" arguments....

doctorj: it's true that Australia produces only about 1.5% of the world's CO2. But to put that into perspective, it has only about 0.33% of the world's population. So by that measure we produce about 4.5 times as much as the 'average' human on the planet.

So if we do nothing because 'others pollute more', and they do nothing because we didn't, and everyone does nothing... nothing happens. Since we are among thw world's worst polluters it makes sense for us to move, and to encourage others to move.

The question is not 'do we do an experiment based on a theory'. The question is 'we are already doing the largest experiment the planet has ever seen - is it smart to keep on doing it?'

I suppose you have got a point there. Regardless of whether emissions causes global warming, it would be best not to create pollution that we see hanging around our cities and fouling the air. Therefore it is a good thing that we move to encourage industry and private car owners to reduce pollution.