Flawed forecasting

Perhaps another way to judge the arguments about melting glaciers s to glance at the sea height data. If drastic change was occurring then you would think it would show up in measurement of sea levels. Compiled by the university of Colorado through various satellites the results don't show much, and certainly no marked acceleration in the rise of sea levels. Despite all the fuss we are still looking at an increase of about 0.3 millimetres a year or 0.3 metres in a century, if the trend shown on the Colorado site continues.

One of the responses that accelerated greenhouse warming proponents have to the rather bleak lack of results is that the earth will warm because it’s inevitable; it’s all in the physics. The problem is that physics dictates that the warming effect of CO2 is limited. Engineers who deal in greenhouse systems point to a classic text book Heat Transmission by William H. McAdams (McGraw-Hill, 1954), still used in the design of industrial furnaces, which discusses that limit (which has to do with the radiation bands on which the gas absorbs heat). Why nothing more recent? Because the physics has not changed, and the point is not in dispute at all. It’s just never mentioned. The climate models forecast increases well beyond any natural CO2 warming of 0.6C, as I understand it, by adding in a feedback or amplifying factor mainly through changes in cloud cover. However, it is not my job to defend the models.

Whatever you may make of these forecasts, and there are plenty of scientists prepared to dismiss the above doubts, there is one forecast I can make which I expect to be proved - gasp! I forecast that all the efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will come to nought, and that we are going to find out whether the IPCC forecasts have any relevance, whether we like it or not. So if you really believe the forecasts then I suggest you start stocking up on sun block - your grandchildren will need it.

* Further note. Recently the media highlighted claims by senior scientists that rising carbon dioxide emissions are turning the oceans acidic and thereby destroying marine life, including corals. What? You mean if CO2’s share of the atmosphere increases from 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere to 0.055 per cent (or perhaps 0.08 - the whole debate is essentially about that change) this will turn the oceans acid and disrupt fishing? By backtracking through previous media stories I believe the distinguished scientists may be alleging that a small change in the acidity of the topmost level of ocean will disrupt the food chain by restricting growth rates in certain sea creatures. At least, I think that’s what they mean, but it would be nice if the scientists concerned were more specific, instead of permitting the claim to be reported as oceans turning acid. This is the sort of wild-eyed story that discredits the green case.

Stop Climate Change Today (sponsored link).