Total Pageviews

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

If actual temperature data contradict your 1979 CO2 assumptions, still used in 2018 climate models, then just ignore the data -- that's how modern climate junk "science" works !

The last twenty years, 
from 1998 to 2018,
had no statistically 
significant warming, 
based on UAH 
weather satellite data.

There was a large 
El Nino Pacific Ocean 
heat release in 1998,
which happened to be
almost identical to the 
late 2015 / early 2016
El Nino heat release.

El Nino's have nothing 
to do with Carbon Dioxide,
so I prefer not to use them
as a starting or ending point 
of any time period used to 
study the average temperature.

I prefer to compare 2003 with 
2018 -- and there was very little
global warming in those 
15 years, in spite of a large 
increase of atmospheric CO2.

The mainstream media
make sure 
you don't know
that fact.

A flat global
temperature trend 
was not supposed
to happen,
according to 
climate models,
that were using,
and are still using, 
1970's-era 
assumptions
about CO2.

It's very obvious 
the climate
computer models
are just complicated
computer games, 
that make wrong 
climate predictions.

In modern climate
junk "science",
a scary prediction 
about global warming 
is much more important 
than a correct prediction !


The following 
two points 
summarize
modern climate
junk "science"

(1) The models 
      must be "right" !

(2) So the actuals
        ( measured temperature data )
      must be "wrong" !




Sixty years 
of weather balloon 
observations show
the atmosphere 
is not warming 
as predicted, 
originally 
documented 
in the 1979 
Charney Report. 

So just ignore the
weather balloon data !

In fact, ignore all 
temperature data 
that contradict
the 1970's “theory” 
of CO2 warming,
unchanged since 1979,
and used in all the reports 
of the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel 
for Climate Change 
(IPCC) 
and the 
US Global Change 
Research Program 
(USGCRP). 




The 1979 Charney Report 
speculated about 
two types of energy flow, 
from Earth's surface, 
through the atmosphere, 
and then into space: 

(1) 
Carbon dioxide, 
absorbing some 
of the outbound 
long-wave infrared 
radiation from the 
surface to space,
as Earth cools off, 
and 

(2) 
Increased water vapor 
in the atmosphere,
as a positive feedback to (1),
absorbing even more 
outbound long-wave 
radiation. 

"We estimate
the most probable 
global warming 
for a doubling of CO2 
to be near +3°C., 
with a probable error 
of ± 1.5°C."

"Our estimate 
is based primarily 
on our review of 
a series of calculations 
with three-dimensional 
models of the global 
atmospheric circulation ... "



The actual 
warming rate 
since 1950, 
has been about 
+1.0 degrees C.
per doubling of CO2, 
not +3.0 degrees C.
( if you assume
CO2 was responsible 
for ALL the warming
since 1950, which is
a worst case assumption ).

So what does modern climate 
junk "science" do when actual 
warming is only one-third
of their predicted warming?

Just ignore all
the temperature data,
and never change
the climate models !


We now have 40 years of 
weather satellite knowledge 
of temperature trends 
in Earth's atmosphere, 
excluding small 
extreme polar regions, 
that shows warming, 
measured by the 
weather satellites 
since1979, 
is occurring 
much slower 
than envisioned
by the climate models. 

So ... just ignore 
weather satellite data !



The atmosphere is not 
warming significantly, 
per weather satellites,
unlike what the computer
climate models predicted.

Surface thermometers 
measure more warming 
than weather satellites 
measure in the troposphere.

Since greenhouse 
gas warming 
takes place 
in the troposphere,
the warming 
of Earth's surface
is indirect -- the surface
is warmed by the 
warming troposphere.

The rate of 
surface warming, 
INDIRECTLY caused by 
greenhouse gases, 
can't be greater 
than the rate of
troposphere warming
DIRECTLY caused by 
greenhouse gases 

In fact, 
physicist Will Happer
has estimated that
if greenhouse gases 
are causing 
the surface warming, 
then the rate of 
atmospheric warming 
must be 20% greater 
than the rate of 
surface warming.


Surface thermometers
show faster warming
than weather satellites
in the troposphere,
which capture everything
except for two small 
extreme polar regions.

So surface thermometers
may be wrong -- 
one likely reason 
is that over half
of our planet's surface 
has no thermometers,
so temperatures there 
are wild guessed
by government 
bureaucrats
to compile a global 
average surface 
temperature.

Perhaps the 
surface thermometers
are right, and the surface
is warming faster 
than the troposphere
-- if so, there must be 
another cause
of surface warming, 
unrelated to 
greenhouse gases.