- Home
- Toetsing van de menselijke broeikashypothese aan waarnemingen
Toetsing van de menselijke broeikashypothese aan waarnemingen
The great tragedy of Science the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
Thomas Henry Huxley
Onder de titel, 'AGW theory has failed all tests, so alarmists return to the consensus hoax', heeft Joseph DAleo de 'voorspellingen' van de aanhangers van de menselijke broeikashypothese (AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming) vergeleken met de waarnemingen. Daaruit bleek dat die niet met elkaar klopten.
Ik pik een aantal elementen uit zijn overzicht, dat in totaal 25 punten omvat.
(1) Warming not global. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only.
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s.
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios.
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10
En dan komen er nog 15 punten, waarna D'Aleo vervolgt:
Given the failures of global warming science, just a few mentioned here, the most disreputable alarmists like Oreskes, Cook and Trenberth and the demagogue party have tried to convince the uninformed by using the consensus argument. See the latest failed attempt here. It was also described on Forbes here.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because youre being had. Lets be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.
Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology.
Lees verder hier.
Als dit niet voldoende is om de AGW-hypothese op de schroothoop van de geschiedenis te dumpen, wat dan wel?
Voor mijn eerdere DDSbijdragen, zie hier.
Ga verder met lezen
Dit vind je misschien ook leuk
Laat mensen jouw mening weten
