Reply To: Cap and Trade

[Brian H]

-cont-

But this is not surprising because as Lord Monckton notes,

“… the laboratory experiments in which evaluation of the CO2 forcing is attempted are of limited value when translated into the real atmosphere.” And of the claim that,”… the 3.7Wm–2 CO2 forcing at doubling is determined by the underlying physics” he says. “If only it were!”

Reality Provides the Ugly Fact.

All computer models have the positive feedback mechanism built in so warming predictions are no surprise. The problem is the real world is not cooperating. Richard Lindzen demonstrated this clearly at the Third International Conference on Climate Change, (June 2009). He presented this diagram that compared model predictions (top left graph) with real world data.

http://tinyurl.com/WaterCO2TempGraph

As Lindzen noted, “What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.” He then identified the real problem. “In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own – quite removed from science.”

Thomas Huxley said, “The great tragedy [miracle] of science – the slaying of a beautiful [an ugly] hypothesis by an ugly [a beautiful] fact.” The hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming is slain because they essentially ignored the role of water vapor in the atmosphere, but when used it was done incorrectly. Of course, none of this speaks to clouds, the other major water problem in the atmosphere for the global warming hypothesis and computer models. Now the world is in a blind alley with energy and economic policies based on predictions from climate models that omit major elements and use false assumptions.