Perhaps we will now get a more reasoned and public debate about the credibility of anthropogenic climate change, since hackers have exposed the secrecy and un-scientific practices at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia.
If the sientific method is followed, conclusions should be unprejudiced and repeatable. The scientists at CRU have consistently denied outsiders access to their raw data, which they have manipulated without giving details of the algorithms used. Hence their results cannot be repeated or verified - this is bad science.
The science of climate is incomplete and extremely complicated; temperature data is unreliable; climate models are far too simplistic (and they start with the assumption that CO2 is driving temperature.)
Unfortunately political interests have taken this incomplete and uncertain science, and inflated it into a global crisis. Yes we do need to take care of the environment, and look for alternative energy sources for many good reasons , but man-made climate change is not one of them.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Tuesday, 17 July 2007
Global warming - hot air?
Like most people I guess, I was somewhat shocked after watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" - what struck me was the amazing correlation between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere ( trapped gas bubbles in the Vostok ice core record the history of atmospheric CO2 concentrations for over 400,000 years ), and temperature variation (the same ice cores also reveal the fraction of heavy oxygen and hydrogen in snowfall which is an indicator of annual mean temperature).
The next surprise is when you look in detail at the graphs - the correlation is unarguable, but it is clearly the change in temperature which precedes the change in CO2 levels- by about 800 years. It seems that this is well known and well documented, yet the graphs are still being used as "proof" that CO2 levels drive temperature variation! If there is cause and effect, how can the cause be after the effect? Models of climate change have an inbuilt assumption that increasing CO2 levels cause global warming..... The evidence is not convincing. The oceans in fact are the biggest reservoirs of CO2 - which they release as the temperature warms up......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
The next surprise is when you look in detail at the graphs - the correlation is unarguable, but it is clearly the change in temperature which precedes the change in CO2 levels- by about 800 years. It seems that this is well known and well documented, yet the graphs are still being used as "proof" that CO2 levels drive temperature variation! If there is cause and effect, how can the cause be after the effect? Models of climate change have an inbuilt assumption that increasing CO2 levels cause global warming..... The evidence is not convincing. The oceans in fact are the biggest reservoirs of CO2 - which they release as the temperature warms up......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)