måndag 5 september 2011

The Basic Scientific Errors of IPCC

Proof by IPCC of the existence of the Loch Ness monster of global warming.

IPCC CO2 alarmism is based on an estimate of climate sensitivity of 1.5 - 4.5 C with a best estimate of 3 C as the global warming from doubled CO2. This estimate is based on the following argument chain:
  1. Radiative forcing dQ from doubled CO2 = 4 W/m2 from the formula dQ = 6.3 log(2).
  2. No-feedback climate sensitivity dT = 1 C by Stefan-Boltzmann in the form dQ = 4 dT.
  3. Feedback factor 1.5 - 4.5 resulting in dT = 1.5 - 4.5 C with mean value dT = 3 C.
In the previous post I gave evidence that the formula dQ = 6.3 log(2) does not fit with observation of radiation spectra, which instead indicate that dQ < 1 W/m2. So 1. is incorrect
and accordingly the formula dQ = 6.3 log(2) has no scientific motivation.

Next, 2. is simply a definition without specified connection to reality since Stefan-Boltzmann's
law for an ideal blackbody is not a model of global climate with any predictive value. So 2. has no scientific meaning beyond a definition and thus says nothing about reality.

Finally, the feedback factor of about 3 is simply invented and has no scientific support.

The net result is none of the steps of the argument chain 1. - 3. underlying CO2 alarmism can be motivated on scientific grounds, and thus that the IPCC alarm of 3 C is three-fold without scientific value, as little scientific value as a picture of the Loch Ness monster.

1 kommentar:

  1. Climate scientists (and radiation transfer physicists) should be ashamed not to take heed of the definitive observational evidence on these points, which is the comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth that I have done:

    Venus: No Greenhouse Effect

    The temperature-vs-pressure (T-P) curve of Venus, when its closer distance from the Sun is taken into account, essentially lies right on top of Earth's T-P curve, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures. Venus's atmosphere has over 11 doublings of Earth's CO2 (96.5% vs. 0.04%), yet its T-P curve is not even 1°C higher than Earth's, which means the CO2 climate sensitivity is substantially less than 0.1°C per doubling -- essentially zero, within the uncertainty in the Venus data, and of course, no feedbacks (indeed, no albedo or surface effects, at all) indicated. No one in academic science seems to want to face the Venus/Earth comparison, properly done, because it amounts to a very embarrassing baby on the public doorstep of science; my analysis should have been done nearly 20 years ago, and the greenhouse effect dropped from science back then (except the IPCC had been formed, 3 years before the Venus data was obtained, to push just that hypothesis, and so the political fix was in and all of science failed to correct climate science when it should have). A huge blot on science, and in the public eye.