Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
My last article chastised leaders for their apparent inability to understand or even question the evidence that shows CO2 is causing global warming. I can understand the reluctance to express public opinions about such a complex scientific issue, especially coming from the UN and with such universal acceptance. Well, here are easily understood facts from the UN reports that allow anyone to express public opposition to the world view on global warming. When you consider them, you will understand why so many experts happily identify as global warming deniers.
Greenhouse gases are approximately 6% of the total atmosphere. Water vapour is 95% of that total, and CO2 is only 4%. That means CO2 is only 0.04% of the total atmosphere. Water vapour varies a great deal in volume and location than any other gas, so estimates of changing volume are poorly measured or understood. It is probable that a 2% variation in water vapour, which is not uncommon, equals all the effects of CO2 on global temperature. The reality is we don’t know. In light of these observations consider the improbable precision of claims made for CO2 induced global warming.
There are no useful measurements of global temperature. We only have temperature measurements for approximately 15% of the earth’s surface. Everything you read about are computer model estimates; there is no empirical data to support the warming claims. Indeed, all of the computer model estimates of global temperature that began in 1990 have been wrong. Recent research shows all the models consistently overestimate future temperatures. The fascinating point is that even with these exaggerations, their forecasts pose no threat to anyone or anything.
Based on contrived pseudoscience that isolated CO2 as 95% of the cause of global warming since 1950, the UN created the Kyoto Protocol as policy action. A major player in the pseudoscience and political creation was Tom Wigley in his role as Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. In 1998, he estimated that even if Kyoto were to be 100% successful in meeting its targets, it would only reduce temperatures by an estimated 0.05 degrees Celsius by 2050. Since Wigley was and is a strong supporter of Kyoto, this was a significant admission. Kyoto was a crazy waste of money, and the only politicians who did a true cost/benefit analysis were the US Senate. They avoided a direct vote on Kyoto by asking, in the Byrd/Hagel resolution, if the application to only developed nations was fair and what impact on US jobs and economy would eventuate. They voted 95-0 against approving Kyoto. It didn’t matter. Kyoto was exposed when emails of major players who produced the science reports leaked from the CRU.
Within two years they introduced a full replacement called the Green Climate Fund (GCF) through the UN process. The GCF was scheduled for and received ratification at the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015. Here is what statistician and climate specialist Bjorn Lomborg says would happen with implementation of the entire GCF program.
“If we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030 and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.”
A complete application of the Paris Climate Agreement would achieve virtually nothing, but even that is not happening. The United States canceled its involvement, and the GCF is receiving virtually no other money. Hopefully, world leaders will realize that they don’t need to do anything, and that is a secure and logical path.
“There are no useful measurements of global temperature.”
There are no useful measurements of AVERAGE global temperature.
When the average goes up you simply don’t know whether minimum temperatures went, whether maximum temperatures went up, or if the average went up due to a combination of the two! And it gets even worse when you recognize that the average temperature varies wildly based on geographical location.
When the AGW alarmists, the media, and the politicians start talking about regional average maximum and minimum temperatures then perhaps some actual strategies to address any problems can be developed. The one-size-fits-all global attack on CO2 is idiocy.
A. dry good article. Thanks; but I have one beef:
You say that we don’t know much about the effects of water vapor. Quote: “The reality is we just don’t know “.
Engineers do know but are considered lessor mortals by scientists so the science and behaviour of water gets ignored.
Water is only a greenhouse gas in the absence of phase change. At phase change the situation markedly reverses mainly due to two factors; namely first that at phase change absorbed energy is converted to Latent Heat at CONSTANT temperature, thus there is no additional radiation due to temperature. Secondly the molecular structure of the vapor is such that it is lighter than dry air and therefore possesses considerable buoyancy which drives the Latent Heat up through the atmosphere (and CO2) for dissipation in the clouds and beyond to space. This without a temperature difference which drives convection.
The confabulation of convection with buoyancy leads to error.
In fact the Hydro Cycle operates as the Rankine Cycle. Very well understood in engineering circles.
One of the interesting factors in this Rankine Cycle is that providing the temperature and the pressure are constant any input of energy results in an acceleration of the the cycle where the energy output equates to the input. (Well that’s how steam power generators work)
In the Hydro Cycle the pressure is determined by gravity and is more or less constant. the temperature is again fixed by the behaviour of water responding to the pressure. I won’t go into details here as a bit complex for a mere comment.
All in all the result is that at this phase change water becomes strongly negative as feedback. Which challenges the view that water feedback is positive when the net figure is calculated. ( For info., the Latent Heat which is being driven upwards is in the order of 680 Watthrs per kilogram – a tidy amount when compared with the GHE.
OK all very simplified and subject to pedantic debate. Just hope that someone with better brains than me takes these concepts on board and quantifies the vagaries. (My maths has somewhat deteriorated over the years!)
There are a lot of scare-mongers out there putting out forecasts of accelerating warming, or accelerating sea level rise, which (according to them) would lead to some kind of disaster in 50 or 100 years, although there is no evidence that these trends are accelerating. Just like the hockey stick, if past data is extrapolated with a parabola or exponential curve, one can predict some runaway trend that is very unlikely to occur, and try to justify some massive expense to try to “prevent” what probably would not occur if nothing was done.
One of the major concerns of warming alarmists is sea level rise–in X years Y square miles and Z cities will be inundated, if sea level rise accelerates. But sea level rise, currently running at less than 2 mm per year, shows no sign of accelerating, so it would be reasonable to extrapolate the current trend linearly. In that case, is it reasonable to spend trillions of dollars to avoid burning fossil fuels, or more reasonable to build an 8-inch high seawall around coastal cities over the next 100 years, which would be much cheaper?
Global-warming alarmists accuse skeptics of “denying science”, but computer models which have over-estimated trends in the past are unreliable in predicting the future. Everyone can admit that sea level is slowly rising, but we should be discussing the most effective way of protecting our coastal cities.
Archeologists suggest that sea levels thousands of years ago were low enough for a land bridge over which people migrated from eastern Siberia to Alaska. Mankind was unable to prevent the ocean from flooding this bridge and forming the Bering Strait, but they did develop ships able to cross the Bering Strait and the Pacific Ocean. Mankind needs to make a similar adaptation now, rather than throw away the fossil-fuel-based technology that has enabled tremendous advances in our standard of living.
I’ve been arguing these points with the local hippies- how many times are we going to get ‘just 5/10/whatever years before the end of the world’? I’ve been hearing this for at least 30 years, yet here we still are….
Dear Tim Ball; thanks for your contributions to this forum. I always look forward to reading your articles.
Steve.
“There are no useful measurements of global temperature. We only have temperature measurements for approximately 15% of the earth’s surface.”
Are the satellite measurements not useful?
Are you referring to surface station measurements?
The satellites are not measuring temperature.
They are measuring up-swelling IR radiation …… but don’t know exactly what the source is.