 |
| Climate Change and Global Warming ( text superimposed on sketch by C.F. Hall) |
Yesterday there was a news item by BBC
describing how an advisor to the Australian Prime Minister mentioned that climate
change theories are a hoax. To quote from it,
"It's a well-kept secret, but 95% of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error." Mr Newman said the public had been "subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years", and swallowed "dud predictions" from weather bureaus who presented "homogenised" data to suit narratives. He also said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which reviews and assesses scientific work relevant to climate change for the UN, had been exposed "repeatedly for misrepresentation and shoddy methods". The UN, he said, was spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on "futile climate change policies". "The real agenda is concentrated political authority," he said. "Global warming is the hook."The believers have been scandalized and quote Climate Scientists, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change etc. in support of climate change in general and in particular the role of carbon emissions in contributing to global warming through the greenhouse effect of such emissions.
However there is one serious problem here, consulting
climate scientists on the issue is like consulting a brain surgeon for problems
of the heart. One might get a guess about it from the brain surgeon but only a
cardiologist could give a definite answer. Some such thing is happening with
the climate change issue too. While climate scientists know a lot about climate
that is not the precise issue at hand and this author is speaking about this as a
scientist, being one himself (see
this) and not as a general blogger now. Let us frame the key scientific
question that needs an answer precisely. It is this,
“If carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere increases in the range of 0.01 percent to 0.1 percent (the relevant range spanning 100 ppm to 1000 ppm) how much will be the temperature increase in the atmosphere due to addition of to these gases, by greenhouse and any other effect.”
Now, if this question was put to a climate scientist he
could only make an educated guess about it but it is a heat transfer scientist
that can carry out the precise calculation. Even amongst heat transfer
scientists there are different ones specializing in different aspects and this
task requires a heat transfer scientist specialized in atmospheric radiation
heat transfer, not just one, but rather a panel of them. Therefore what is
needed is an intergovernmental panel of Atmospheric Radiation Heat Transfer
Scientists not one on climate change. It may be mentioned that there are very
few such in the world.
Has such a calculation been made? If so, this author would
appreciate receiving a reference. He himself is a heat transfer scientist but
not one primarily in radiation heat transfer but rather foremost in convective heat
transfer in enclosed spaces. He has some associated knowledge of associated heat transfer areas as some breadth of knowledge is necessary for any scientist, including atmospheric radiation heat transfer and can only make approximate calculations about it
but better than what a climate scientist might do through statistical
correlations that are merely a mathematical guess, not a scientific answer. As a first estimate this author fails to see how a 0.02 percent rise in carbon dioxide would lead to any significant effect, especially when another green house gas, water vapor is often present in the atmosphere in a magnitude that is a hundred times greater.
However, it is important to note that most all agree that climate change is happening and that it is due to human activity. If it turns out from further study and analysis that activity is not carbon emission then there are two other human activities to be zeroed in on that play a huge role. First is the depleting green and forest cover on the planet and the second is an expansions of cemented and paved urban spaces that are heat sinks. that is why it is warmer in and around cities than in a forest. Add together the cities of the world and depletion of forests and it makes a big difference to global temperatures.
While the precise impact of carbon emissions on climate is not yet known, it is known with certainty that restoring forests on the planet will improve climate, environment and the planet as a whole.
UPDATE October 2015
In several earlier posts of this blog including this one
this blogger has consistently maintained that while climate changes are taking
place and they do seem to be from human causes, this cause cannot be due to
carbon dioxide. Its level of 400ppm or 0.04% is simply too small to cause a
significant change in temperature as a greenhouse gas. A recent study has
validated the author’s claim.
Dr David Evans ONE of the world's leading climate change
experts claims to have discovered mathematical anomalies which effectively
'disprove' global warming.
He said he "mapped out" the architecture of the
climate models used and found, that while the physics was correct, it had been
"applied wrongly".
He claims to have found two reasons for it being wrongly
applied, the first being a vastly over estimated impact on our temperature from
CO2.
For more details see:
This author still maintains that the human cause that is
significantly influencing climate and causing climate extremes is the large
scale deforestation that has taken place on the planet over the last century. In fact deforestation also contributes to climate extremes It is well know fact that surface roughness such as forests create on the surface of the earth serve to dampen atmospheric turbulence and therefore also extreme climate phenomenon.
Comments