Klimaat: zwarte zwanen

In de discussie met met mijn reguliere kritische (maar nochtans gewaardeerde) respondenten heb ik hen al vele keren tegen de haren in gestreken met de stelling dat volgens mij de AGW-hypothese (AGW- Anthropogenic Global Warming) overtuigend is weerlegd.

Er is maar één zwarte zwaan nodig om de bewering te logenstraffen dat alle zwanen wit zijn. Op klimaatgebied zijn er echter vele 'zwarte zwanen'.

Onder de titel, 'Four pieces of evidence' heeft heeft de multidisciplinaire wetenschapper David Evans op de website van Jo Nova er vier behandeld (er zijn er in feite nog véél meer).

David Evans:

It has superficial plausibility. Yes, global warming is occurring. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and levels are rising. And yes, every molecule of carbon dioxide we emit causes some global warming. Many non-scientists think that proves the case, but it doesn’t. In particular, it doesn’t rule out the possibility that carbon dioxide is merely a minor or insignificant player, and that something else is the main cause of global warming.

Here’s a clue: the world has been in a warming trend since 1680, the depth of the Little Ice Age. It has warmed steadily since then, at half a degree per century. Within the trend there is a pattern of 25 – 30 years of warming followed by 25 – 30 years of mild cooling. We just finished a warming period that started in 1975, so chances are we’ll have mild cooling for the next couple of decades. But there were no SUV’s in 1680. Human emissions of CO2 were miniscule before 1850, nearly all come after WWII, and a quarter since 1998. Yet the warming trend was as strong in the 1700s and 1800s as it was in the 1900s.

The theory of man-made global warming doesn’t stand up to even casual scrutiny. It requires believers to ignore or deny overwhelming evidence that it is bunk. The believers have to be schooled by massive propaganda not to notice certain things, and to ignore and revile anyone who points out those things. There is in fact no empirical evidence that global warming is mainly man-made. If there was, we would have heard all about it.

Tens of billions of dollars has been spent looking for it. Climate scientists readily concede that there is no direct evidence that global warming is caused by our carbon dioxide. Instead, they say that our knowledge of how the climate works is embodied in their climate models, and the climate models say that global warming is man-made. Models are logically equivalent to someone punching in numbers and doing sums on a calculator – models are calculations, not evidence. The problem is that the models contain many guesses and assumptions about how things work, and some of them are wrong.

Tot zover de inleiding. Dan gaat Adams verder met zijn zwarte zwanen..

Here are four bits of evidence that the climate models are fundamentally flawed.

First, they have a track record of greatly exaggerating temperature increases. The global warming scare was started by James Hansen in his presentation to the US Congress in 1988, and comparing his predictions then to what actually occurred, the actual temperature rises are about a third of what he predicted. Remember, they have been saying the “science is settled” since the early 80’s, and the models now are essentially the same as they were then.

Second, the climate models predict the oceans should be warming. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since 2003, using the ARGO system. In ARGO, a buoy duck dives down to 2000m, slowly ascends and reads the temperatures on the way, then radios the result back by satellite to HQ. Three thousand ARGO buoys patrol the oceans constantly. They say that the ocean temperature since 2003 has been basically flat. Again, reality is very different to the climate models.

Third, the climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming. In particular, the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the so-called “hotspot”. But we have been measuring atmospheric temperatures by weather balloons since the 1960s, and millions of weather balloons say there was no such hotspot during the last warming from 1975 to 2001.

Fourth, satellites have measured the outgoing radiation from the earth and found that the earth gives off more heat when the surface is warmer, and less heat in months when the earth’s surface is cooler. Who could have guessed? But the climate models say the opposite, that the Earth gives off less heat when the surface is warmer, because they trap heat too aggressively (positive feedback). Again, the climate models are violently at odds with reality.

Conclusie:

Those are four independent pieces of evidence that the climate models are fundamentally flawed. Anyone one of them, by itself, disproves the theory of man-made global warming. There are also other, more complex, pieces of evidence. Remember, there is no direct evidence that man causes global warming, so if the climate models are wrong then so is the theory.

Hoe komt het dat deze evidente zwarte zwanen niet bij een breed publiek bekend zijn?

David Evans:

Now let me explain how they prevent the scam from being revealed. The trick is that they never put any alarmist climate scientist in a position where they have to answer to a knowledgeable critic. To defend their theory in public, the alarmist climate scientists typically send out people . who know next to nothing about how climate models work. Then, when confronted with evidence, these believers immediately just say “but the climate scientists say”. They argue from authority.

Alarmist climate scientists do make public appearances, but never in a situation where they come under sustained questioning or criticism from anyone who understands models. They have avoided any real debate in public for decades – these alarmists have never been held accountable, they’ve never had to answer to people who knew the problems with their theory. They have never faced an audit, an inquiry, a Royal Commission, or even a hostile interview – yet they get paid megabucks and presume to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

Lees verder hier.

Dat is de situatie in Australië. In Nederland is de situatie echter inmiddels totaal veranderd. Mede dank zij steun vanuit de politiek, is de dialoog tussen AGWers van de officiële instituten, zoals het KNMI en het PBL, en klimaatsceptici goed op gang gekomen en verloopt deze zakelijk en respectvol.

Opvallend is echter dat de publieke belangstelling voor klimaat aan het wegebben is. Zo trok een aangekondigd debat tussen enkele AGWers en één klimaatscepticus, Marcel Crok, op de VU (Amsterdam) zo weinig belangstellenden, dat het moest worden afgelast. Wat zou daarvan de oorzaak kunnen zijn geweest? De toegangsprijs (want er moest een luttel bedrag voor worden betaald)? Of is dit een indicatie van het feit dat het publiek zich inmiddels heeft bevrijd van de klimaathysterie? Misschien is er wel sprake van een zekere klimaatmoeheid. Immers, de laatste internetklimaatcampagne van Al Gore heeft ook al zeer weinig bezoekers getrokken. Mogelijk hebben ook Climategate en andere IPCC-schandalen onherstelbare schade toegebracht aan het klimaatalarmisme. En ook Moeder Natuur wil niet meewerken. Immers, de gemiddelde wereldtemperatuur vertoont nog steeds een vrij vlak verloop en het aantal wetenschappers dat een lange afkoelingsperiode verwacht neemt nog steeds toe.

Het officiële klimaatbeleid is echter nog steeds niet aangepast aan de veranderende inzichten. Geen enkele automobilist zou het in zijn hoofd halen om zijn stuur vast te zetten als hij van A naar B zou willen rijden. Wat het klimaatbeleid betreft doen overheden echter niet anders.

PS,

Voor een overzicht van mijn 'postings' en de reacties daarop zie hier. 

#446688;">http://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/users/hans-labohm/track