TED Conversations

Geoffrey Maclean

Vice President of Marketing, Grey worldwide

This conversation is closed.

Climate models are fundamentally flawed as they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

Extract: Dr David Evans’ address to the Anti-Carbon-Tax rally, Perth Australia, 23 March 2011.

The core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three – so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

This is the core of the issue. All the disagreements spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere. There is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960’s. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up. Weather balloons have found no hot-spot. Not even a small one. This evidence proves the climate models are fundamentally flawed and they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming.

In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source.

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has leveled off.

So what is really going on with the climate?

The earth has been in a warming trend since the Little Ice Age around 1680. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 – 30 years at a go in each direction. Having just finished a warming phase, expect mild global cooling for the next two decades

Share:
  • May 3 2011: Hi Geoffrey, there are compelling arguments on both sides and the best option is to be informed of all the arguments presented and make you own decisions. The pro arguments are presented in various IPCC documents ( http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml ) and many of the con arguments are presented here http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html

    My own philosophy is that, even if anthropogenic activities do not contribute to climate change, this is no reason to use resources recklessly and poison ourselves and our home. I think that the way we treat ourselves and our environment is a direct reflection of our development as human beings. Hope the links help. Cheers :-)
    • thumb
      May 5 2011: Thank you everyone for your comments to date on this a very important issue. Julie Ann I will access the articles you have referenced, likewise Greg, much appreciated.

      I can see the general concensus is that for many reasons, of which increased Carbon Dioxide levels is just one, the global climate is warming and global ecology is changing, hence the obvious visual evidence of glaciers retreating and the Northern Passage opening around the top of Russia, etc.

      Further investigation by my other sources in Australia are beginning to paint a picture of the author of this article Dr. David Evans siding with 'big business' who are wanting to avoid the Australian Government's proposed 'Carbon Tax', hence his argument for Carbon Dioxide not impacting global warming.

      Thanks again for everyone's comments.
  • thumb
    May 3 2011: even if it is exaggerated (which i do not think is the case), climate change is still happening, at an excelled rate because of us. the ice caps are melting at rates never seen before, climate records are being broken all over the world and this is only going to get worse.

    denying and underestimating climate change will only make the situation worsen at an even faster rate.

    interesting question, which of the following is better for the planet:
    > exaggerating climate change so people act sooner and more aggressively to combat it?
    > underestimate the stats so the world finds itself putting off action?
    • thumb
      May 3 2011: How about neither of the above and giving us the facts without bias.
      • thumb
        May 4 2011: is what you believe is best for the planet?
        • thumb
          May 4 2011: Are you asking if 'facts without bias' is best for the planet? If so, yes. Exaggerating a problem takes valuable resources from other programs. And vice versa.
  • thumb
    May 4 2011: I am not an expert in this field but what I understand "Golbal Warming" due CO2 emission is just one face of the environemental mess created by ruthless behavior to nature by humankind.

    Did we not erase many species showing the path of extinction by this time , which was part of food chain & ecosystem ?

    Did we not destroy lot of vegetation for the reason of farming , urbanization , mining and so on ?Did we not shrunk enough groundwater level ?

    Are not also above factors contributing to the ecological disaster in the form of global warming or anything else?
    Want to refer here Newtons law of physics "every action has got equal and opposite reaction "

    So I feel nature will also react ( already reacting I feel).

    I agree with @ Davie about being cautious & proactive.............
  • thumb
    May 3 2011: On reading Dr. Evan's speech I was alarmed that everyone could have got this all so wrong.... that there is no global warming due to carbon dioxide.... there is no emperical evidence to support this? Why has this not been reported previously? Has anyone heard this line of argument before? What do you think?
    • May 5 2011: There is empirical evidence to support this. I refer you to the large volume of papers in the scientific literature since the effect of 'heat trapping' by CO2 was identified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (see http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm among other sources). If that still doesn't support your world view I would suggest any of the basic Physics courses at your local university would give you an understanding of why and how chemical bonds get to modify radiation (which after all, is what we are talking about - light and IR are merely forms of EM radiation), and then how that radiation is 'returned' (as a vibrating particle which we can call 'heat').

      After you've dismissed that, I refer you to the close parallelling between the observed temperature rises (use a single, long-term station if you like, but statistically that is ludicrous) and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The two parallel each other so closely that there is no other explanation. Water vapour is a much more abundant greenhouse gas, and contributes more to the effect than anything else, but the difference between what we should be (a frozen slush ball in orbit) and the observed is largely due to the limited effect of CO2. On top of that, the difference between the depths of the last ice age and now is only a few degrees - and since the industrial revolution we have added as much CO2 again as existed during the last glacial based on the gas concentrations trapped in ice cores.

      Finally, in response to your earlier comment, the hottest years on record were 2005 and 2010, and the fallacy of the post-1998 'cooling trend' is a load of bull... All climate data needs to be reviewed in long timescales - 30 years is recommended for a minimum. A 7 - 10 year period allows too much inherent variation. As to the fact that there are in the order of 5 to 10 times as many 'new warmest' records being made as 'new coldest' then the trend must show towards warming.