The knockout blow to AGW

1
The knockout blow to AGW
The hotspot is missing
Dr David Evans
2
Signatures Are Important

• Most global warming debating
• points do not matter much.
• Signatures
• Are evidence about causes (rare!)
• Can rule out causes
• Can confirm or falsify IPPC Climate models
  quickly and definitively

3
No One Knows About Signatures

• AGW proponents quiet about them
• 1999 Data collected
• 2003 Earliest tech. publications
• 2007 First public outing
• Never published in media
• If signatures supported AGW, we
• would have heard ALL about them

4
Causes Leave Clues

• Each cause of global warming heats up the
  atmosphere in a distinctive pattern its
  signature
• Not all signatures are unique

5
Observed Warming Pattern 1979 - 1999
No Hotspot
Broad stratospheric cooling
Height (km)
Pressure (hPa)
Broad tropospheric warming
This is ALL the data
6
IPCC Models 1890 - 1999
Volcanoes
Increased solar radiation
Increased greenhouse gases (other than water
vapor)
Ozone depletion
Aerosol emissions
Sum of Signatures What IPCC models say happened
7
IPCC Models 1958 - 1999
8
Unknown Signatures

• Signatures of some leading possible causes of
  global warming are unknown
• Examples
• PDO, cosmic rays

• IPCC produces signatures, but vigorously ignores
  non-human causes and so does not calculate
  signatures for them

9
Conclusion 1. AGW is wrong
IPCC Models (AGW) 1958 - 99
Observed Warming 1979 - 99

• AGW predicts a hotspot
• There is no hotspot
• ? AGW is wrong

10
Conclusion 2 CO2 is Innocent
Observed Warming 1979 - 99
IPCC Models 1958 99 Signature of warming due to
increased (non-water vapor) greenhouse gases

• To the extent that climate theory is correct in
  predicting a hotspot due to extra greenhouse,
  carbon emissions were not the main cause of the
  recent global warming.

11
IPCC Attacks the Data

• The missing hotspot
• Kills AGW
• Undermines the theory that carbon emissions cause
  global warming
• Normally theory yields to data
• Too much money and power at stake, so...
• The IPCC chooses to attack the data and preserve
  their theory without modification

12
Santers Objection

• Stretches error bars
• Complex statistical argument that the hotspot
  might be present yet went undetected

• But while an individual radiosonde might miss
  hotspot, collectively hundreds could not
• Radiosondes detect 0.1C, hotspot gt 0.6C

13
Sherwoods Objection

• Throws away the radiosonde thermometer data
• Uses radiosonde wind gauge data instead

• Says the results cannot rule out a hotspot
• But thermometers are designed to measure
  temperature, so its a bit of a stretch to claim
  that wind gauges are accidentally better at it.

14
Objections are Plainly Weak

• IPCC scientists do not claim that the hotspot
  was found, only that we might have missed it

What hotspot?
15
The Obvious Conclusions

1. There was an increased greenhouse effect due to
   rising CO2 levels, but its effect was so small
   that its hotspot was not detectable by the
   technology employed in the 1980s and 90s
2. The increased greenhouse effect and its hotspot
   were probably overwhelmed by larger forces on the
   global temperature

16
Water Vapor Feedback
The Heart of AGW

• Climate theory Any heating of the earths
  surface causes a hotspot, due to water vapor
  feedback

Increasing solar radiation by 2
Doubling CO2 levels
Theoretical Signatures From the GISS Model
17
Responsible For Most of the Predicted Temperature
Rises

• IPCC Climate theory
• Water vapor feedback amplifies any surface
  warming twofold

• Journalist Christopher Monckton has heroically
  pieced together the most recent published
  opinions of the IPCC into a single climate system
  diagram

18
dT ? dF / (1 b?)
? 0.313, dF 3.4 Wm-2 for a CO2 doubling
IPCC Values If b 1.80 - 0.84 0.26 0.69
0.25 2.16
then dT 0.313 3.4 / ( 1 2.16 0.313) 3.3
C
Low water vapor feedback If b 0.20 - 0.42
0.26 0.69 0.25 0.98
then dT 0.313 3.4 / ( 1 0.98 0.313) 1.5
C
19
Turn Down the Water Vapor Feedback In the IPCC
Models

1. Weak hotspot, compatible with the observed data
2. Reduce the temperature rises predicted by the
   IPCC by more than half
3. IPPC climate models much more stable

20
What Next with Signatures?

• Nothing
• Problem known for years
• Press wont touch it
• Even most skeptics dont understand why it is
  important
• Maybe alarmist scientists will announce that the
  missing hotspot shows temperature rises wont be
  so bad ? lose funding, jobs, status??? Ha ha

21
Science Was Always Irrelevant

• Science behind AGW was always weak
• Only evidence was old ice cores, 1985 to 2000!
• By 1998 Kyoto, bureaucracy, roadmap
• Ice core data reversed by 2003. Ignored, even in
  Gores 2005 movie.
• Missing hotspot contradicts AGW. Ignored.

So what is going on?
22
Follow the Money

• Skeptics and big oil
• 2 million per year on anti-AGW
• Big government and greens
• 2 billion per year on AGW
• Finance industry
• 120 billion traded last year, exploding

23
Who Benefits from Emission Trading?

• Emission permits are created by fiat, out of thin
  air, yet have value
• Trading favors the well-informed and those who
  can move the market. Big financial firms will
  routinely plunder the pockets of others.
• The rest of us, one way or another, will pay for
  the emission permits and the trading profits

24
Banks The Big Picture

• 1. Fractional reserve banking 1694
• Banks create bank money
• Fiat currencies 1971
• Govts create base money
• Carbon trading 2010?
• Govts create emissions permits

We dont need any of these things, but they will
always be with us.
25
Alarmist Science Used

• Skeptical scientists always ignored. Mainstream
  never taken us seriously.
• But alarmist scientists also irrelevant now. They
  have been used.
• Example James Hansens current call for a carbon
  tax is correct and fair. But they are ignoring
  you now Dr Hansen your baby is no longer yours!

26
Missing Hotspot
Paper and Powerpoint available from

• sciencespeak.com