Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
to this by explaining why the reality is different from the models. Theirs is not science, but
the continual re-writing of a narrative and always after the event—there is always a story
to explain why their models fail, but also why we should all expect catastrophic climate
change nonetheless.
Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science, observed and defined this quite clearly.
A theory has to be tested—he called this falsification. This requires making a prediction
and then testing it. Rather than rejecting a failed theory, scientists might adapt their theory
to include the anomaly in the testing. This he called fortification—if the theory fails, adapt
it, fortify it until it fits. The problem with fortification is that you cannot keep doing it for
ever—eventually there are too many patches and band-aids to support it.
The most important thing to note is that this lack of warming was not predicted by
climate models. This is because climate models are built predicated on the assumption that
increased CO 2 leads to increased water vapour and together, through a positive feedback
loop, lead to runaway global warming because of a runaway increase in downward
longwave radiation.
The NASA energy balance data appear to lead us to reject this hypothesis. The
temperature data themselves lead us to reject climate models as accurate simulators of the
global climate. Instead climate scientists speculate about flood and droughts, mostly in
ignorance. They also speculate about everything else that could be impacted by climate.
The fervour with which some speculate following natural climate disasters is in stark
contrast to the ability to attribute these events to atmospheric CO 2 concentrations. In their
frustration, many now claim all events are influenced (we just don't know by how much).
A more scientific approach is to directly test the hypothesis by directly measuring the
proposed mechanism, specifically, the energy balance of the planet. The results to date,
whilstonlysuggestive,dopointtoamuchmoreconservativeroleofCO 2 ininfluencingthe
energy balance than the climate models predict. Consequently, predictions of catastrophic
climatechange(aboveandbeyondnaturalcatastrophicclimatevariability)seemsomewhat
premature, if not grossly exaggerated. Above all, there is no insight gained by speculating
on individual floods, droughts or even their short-term trends.
I do recall one study some years back that claimed that a species of chicken was
becoming smaller as local temperatures rose. One author of the study ruefully commented
tothemedia'Ifclimatechangecontinueslikethis,thenonedayyou'llbeabletofitthemin
yourpocket'.Iassumethatatleastthisscientistcouldseetheabsurdityofsuchspeculation.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search