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


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • 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.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.