Global Warming Science - www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming

 

About this Web Site

 

[last update: 2009/12/13]

 

 

This web site is written by Alan Cheetham. I can be contacted at:   

I am an engineer with 30 years experience including extensive scientific training, data analysis, modeling and statistics. I have several published papers dealing with data modeling. Although I am not a "climate scientist" by trade, my knowledge and training enables me to scientifically evaluate the data and the scientific studies.

 

When I began to look into the science behind the global warming issue, I started to realize that the scientific debate is not over (the political debate may be over, but it shouldn't be) -- because the science doesn't match the scary scenarios portrayed by the media. So I started documenting my findings on this web site.

 

Unfortunately, the media do not provide a balanced portrayal of the issue -- the media are in the business of selling fear, and if global warming is not the end of the world, there is no story.

 

 

Science and the Scientific Method

 

Science: study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment (Dictionary)   


   Scientific Method: The scientific method involves four steps geared towards finding truth:

 

  1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.  

  2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena - usually in the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

  3. Use of the hypothesis to quantitatively predict the results of new observations (or the existence of other related phenomena).

  4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

 

In the case of global warming science, political ideology has now overcome the scientific method -- steps 3 and 4 have been thwarted by those with too much to gain from the scare stories. We are stuck with step two: 1: warming has been observed; 2: CO2 has been hypothesized as the cause. Many scientists are currently involved in steps 3 and 4, but they are called "deniers" because they won't go along with the political bandwagon without scientific justification.

 

There are two basic types of scientific endeavor:

 

  1. Theoretical science – in which models are created based on the theory underlying the phenomenon (in modern times these are created as computer models to generate predictions). Knowledge of the underlying phenomenon is required.

 

  1. Empirical science – in which data observations are analyzed to create prediction models. Knowledge of data analysis and statistics is required.

 

In both cases, this represents step 2 of the scientific method and the science is not complete until proceeding through step 4.

 

Climate science as promoted by the IPCC is based on computerized theoretical climate models and running “scenarios” to predict the future. When the observations from the empirical side don’t match the models, they change the data. This is not real science.

 

According to the IPCC, the climate change until 1970 can be explained by the theoretical computer climate models based on natural climate forcings; after 1970 the models can only explain the warming based on anthropogenic CO2. This web site documents the science providing ample evidence that supports the rejection of the CO2 hypothesis.

 

 

 

The IPCC Attribution to CO2

 

The IPCC was set up in 1988 with the stated purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change” -- i.e. the human cause was built-in before the science was investigated.

 

Many in the media portray the global warming issue as “the global average temperature has increased 0.8 degrees during the 20th century”. But climate scientists do not claim that this was all due to CO2 – only since the 1970s. In a CRU email between Edward Cook and Michael Mann in May 2001, Cook stated: “most researchers in global change research would agree that the emergence of a clear greenhouse forcing signal has really only occurred since after 1970. I am not debating this point, although I do think that there still exists a significant uncertainty as to the relative contributions of natural and greenhouse forcing to warming during the past 20-30 years at least.” [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=228&filename=988831541.txt]

 

The figure below left shows the global average temperature anomalies (from the Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) which provides the data used by the IPCC [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]).

 

The figure below right superimposes the CRU temperature anomalies on the IPCC graph of model outputs. (IPCC 2007 AR4 Figure SPM-4 [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf]) In this figure, the blue shaded bands show the result climate model simulations using only natural forcings. Red shaded bands show the result model simulations including anthropogenic CO2.

 

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Summary_files/image001.jpg 

 

 

This clearly shows that prior to about 1973, the global warming is fully explained by climate models using only natural forcings (i.e. no human CO2). The models need input of CO2 only after about the mid-1970s – prior to 1970 all warming was natural, according to the IPCC. (There is no empirical evidence relating CO2 to the post-1970s warming as a causative factor. The only evidence is the fact that the computer models require CO2 to produce warming.)

 

 

 

 

Irrelevance – The Debate is Over

 

As I have studied the science involved with the global warming issue (and continue to do so), I have begun to realize the irrelevance of the science. As Al Gore said: "The debate is over." At first I misunderstood - I thought he was referring to the scientific debate (which has many dissenters and much debate is going on, even if it's not reported by the media). However, the political debate is over.

 

This is most disturbing - the science is irrelevant. The IPCC was set up as a political process. The political purpose of the IPCC can be summed up as the former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart put it in referring to the IPCC: "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." [Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998]. (See: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_History.htm)

 

However, I am in the minority that thinks science is relevant and that the political process should not subvert science in this manner.

 

On April 27, 2009, Obama addressed the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) at its 146th annual meeting in Washington, D.C. In his speech he said “Under my administration, the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over.” [http://www.pnas.org/content/106/24/9539.abstract]. What a liar.