Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Seven answers to John Rennie @ Scientific American

Link: here

First, serious critics don’t argue about the amount of CO2 vs the amount of natural trace gasses. This is a non-issue. However, the experiment that is quoted didn’t prove 6 °C but rather 0.6°C from CO2 ALONE. How often do Sceptics have to emphasize that CO2 ALONE only raises temperatures to about 0.6 °C with the difference in ppm we now have. The rest of this assumed warming comes from consequences due to these higher temperatures. What about the temperature increase due to increased Methane ppm in the athmosphere, this is a much stronger greenhouse gas.

The argument about natural amounts of CO2 is also not very convincing when he concludes that 95% is natural but that is ok, because the eco-system somehow handles it (offset). Again, then how to explain big chances in levels of CO2 in the past? And why does CO2 follow Temperature and not the other way round?

It is also not quite fair to measure CO2 levels in a little Ice Age as a prove for unprecedent amounts of trace gases.

Also, we don’t argue about leaving “water vapor” out of the models, we argue that water vapor is not yet well understood because we can’t even model cloud covers. Also, the amount of water vapor should be a result of heating oceans, which are flat when it comes to temperature.

As to the Gavin Schmidt comment, he is right, water vapor is much more dynamic, but this doesn’t mean that it will be a major positive feedback agent, because he rightly said it caps its effect out quite fast.

We don’t have to explain this, the scientists have to explain why they think CO2 is the driving component. We just show that there are possible alternatives. The burden of proof is on the scientists not on the sceptics.

Now there is a lot of groudn covered in this article. But the important points are not mentioned. The points that are questioned or posed as a question by serious scientific sceptics:

  • We agree that CO2 can amplify temperatures by at least 1°C depending on future levels of warming. This is a physical fact and proven. No sceptic (real ones) does question that. But what about 6 °C where do they come from?
  • There are not many reports about acidic seas due to increased temperature or CO2. I even think that the issue is wrongly represented, because the chemistry shows not a fixed direction equation but an equilibrium reversible equation.
  • The data integrity of surface-based temperature measurement stations is abysimal to say the list. Just ask Anthony Watts and his amateur project on site maintenance and positioning.
  • Satelite Records of recent temperature changes don’t fit predictions from models! (Compare Hansen 88 to current records)
  • Tree-ring records seem to have several problems, so historical reconstructions are under scrunity (vanishing MWP)
  • Warming is not unprecedent if reconstruction is correct, because the same momentum of warming has been observed some 1000 years ago.
  • There is a close fit between CO2-related temperature rise + Pacific decadal oscillation and the temperature record, disproving major historical warming due to CO2.
  • Temperature levels today are not unprecedent, why hasn’t the positive feedback not kicked in during earlier periods?
  • If we can forecast 6°C+ positive feedback effects, the back-casting has to work, too. It doesn’t. Instead it is in the range of 0.6C degree warming per century.

These are just some of the major issues which are NOT covered in his “answer”-list to critics.

I am sorry, but this is perhaps a statement about his position on climate warming but not an answer to sceptics points.

No comments: