by Bruce McQuain
May 15, 2011
David Evans is a scientist. He has also
worked in the heart of the AGW (Anthropogenic
Global Warming) machine.
He consulted full-time for
the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate
Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling
Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and
He has six university degrees, including a
PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University.
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions
and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a
scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the
evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.
And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and
methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent
global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by
empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too
big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political
careers, and the possibility of world government and total control
riding on the outcome.
So rather than admit they were wrong, the
governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously
maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
He makes clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a
“greenhouse gas”, and makes the point that if all else was equal
then yes, more CO2 in the air should and would mean a warmer planet.
But that’s where the current “science” goes off the tracks. It is
built on an assumption that is false.
But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given
increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s
temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These
calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics
have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.
The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which
changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes
more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang
around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere,
or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980,
when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew.
The alarmists guessed that it would
increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would
warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a
But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet
as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that
theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by
the alarmist crowd.
This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit
of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing
three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models
amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three - so
two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and
other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and
misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on
this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no
evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their
What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s,
many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict
that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over
the tropics about 10 kilometers up, as the layer of moist air
expands upwards into the cool dry air above.
During the warming of
the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot
spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that
the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly
overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
Evans is not the first to come to these conclusions.
year, in a post I highlighted, Richard Lindzen
said the very same
For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The dominant
role of cumulus convection in the tropics requires that temperature
approximately follow what is called a moist adiabatic profile.
requires that warming in the tropical upper troposphere be 2-3 times
greater than at the surface. Indeed, all models do show this, but
the data doesn’t and this means that something is wrong with the
data. It is well known that above about 2 km altitude, the tropical
temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the horizontal so that
sampling is not a problem.
Below two km (roughly the height of what
is referred to as
the trade wind inversion), there is much more
horizontal variability, and, therefore, there is a profound sampling
problem. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that
the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend
at the surface is about 60% too large.
Even the claimed trend is
larger than what models would have projected but for the inclusion
of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol cooling. The discrepancy
was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al (2007).
Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a
small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data.
Evans reaches the natural conclusion - the same conclusion Lindzen
At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science.
In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how
much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence
disagree, real scientists scrap the theory.
But official climate
science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other
subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their
carbon dioxide theory - that just happens to keep them in
well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great
political power to their government masters.
And why will it continue? Again, follow the money:
We are now at an extraordinary juncture.
Official climate science,
which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a
theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known
Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the
only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend
government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a
world scale might even lead to world government - how exciting for
the political class!
How extraordinarily unexciting for the proletariat who will
be the ones stuck with the bill if these governments ever succeed in
finding a way to pass the taxes they hope to impose and extend even
more government’s control over energy.
While you’re listening to the CEOs of American oil companies being
grilled by Congress today, remember all of this. They’re going to
try to punish an industry that is vital to our economy and national
security, and much of the desire to do that is based on this false
“science” that has been ginned up by government itself as an excuse
to control more of our energy sector, raise untold revenues for its
use and to pick winners and losers.
All based on something which is,
according to Evans and other scientists, now demonstrably false.