Sunday, February 27, 2011


More Warmie Science Failures

Here is a graph from Warmie founder James Hansen in the late 80s predicting what he thought would happen to global mean temperatures. He had numerous scenarios--CO2 increases faster than predicted, CO2increases as predicted and CO2 does not increase because humans heeded his call and cut their energy use. That's last is the C scenario line, and of course the C scenario didn't happen. So what has accurately measured, world mean temperature (red line) done? It hasn't even reached the C scenario line.

Really the only 'evidence' the Warmies have regarding a world mean temperature increase in this century is computer models and when the reality of measurement and data show the model predictions to be wrong, you'd think the scientists would start to question the underlying theory. You'd think.

Another prediction was that there would be a hot spot about 10 kilometers up over the tropic. As shown here, the Warmies are 0-2.

Although the exact slope of the flat part of the graph of the effect of CO2 on world mean temperature is debated, no real scientist thought that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause more than 2 degrees C. rise by 2100, just 89 years from now. However, the mid-range of IPCC temperature prediction in 2100 was higher than that, at 3.5 degrees C. and the high estimates were at or about 5.7 degrees C. How was that supposed to happen? By amplification, specifically by a positive feed back system regarding the most important green house gas, water vapor. It was rational to suppose that with increased temperature, even one or two degrees over the century, the extra heat would cause more of the water in the oceans, lakes and streams to evaporate and there would be more water vapor in the air and more greenhouse heating of the planet. (This supposition completely ignored the cooling from clouds (made from atmospheric water vapor) and rain, but let's just stick with the basic premise, CO2 warming leading to more water vapor in the air). How's that been going based on real measurement and data?



The total water in the atmosphere, as measured by satellite since 1983, has declined from 2.5 to 2.25 cm. Both the relative and specific humidities (I won't pretend to know the difference between the two), as measured by weather balloon, etc. from 1948, have fallen and it is only near the surface where it has remained about the same. There has been no rise in humidity or water vapor in the air at all since CO2 was much, much closer to the pre-industrial average of 280 ppm. Now the CO2 is almost 390 ppm, a 40% increase and the expected extra water vapor has failed to show up, indeed the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has actually declined.

So, who's up for continuing to believe a theory that is, in very important ways, 0-3 vis a vis the real world of data and measurement?

(h/t The Hockey Schtick)


If you find the debate about climate change, or AGW, or whatever happens to be the acronym du jour, interesting, then you might like Warren Meyer, who typically blogs about small business and other things at Coyote Blog. He has also blogged for several years about AGW at Climate Skeptic. Have you stumbled onto that one yet? Warren's got a blind spot when it comes to illegal immigration, but otherwise he's a pretty good read.

and here:
Thanks for the info. I'll go read him.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?