Climate change seems indisputable, but it is not. If someone searches enough, he will see that specific dogmas (“innocent” assumptions? – see the MOTIVES at the end of the article) hide behind all the climate models used by the IPCC (mark the words, only by using these in Google will you be able to find any truly valuable article related to the theme).
Earth is heated by the Sun and radiates energy back to space (known as “
flux”). If the energy radiated is equal to the energy sent from the Sun, then the temperature stays the same.
And here comes the important part: the role of clouds (
cloud feedback). Many people think CO2 is the main greenhouse gas, but they are wrong: water vapor is. (
1) Clouds can have two types of feedback in global warming: positive or negative.
Positive feedback: Some warming leads to a decrease in clouds due to the increase of the atmosphere’s ability to hold more dispersed evaporated vapor. (
2) This decrease in clouds, leads to more Sun radiation reaching Earth’s surface and, thus, in an increase in warming. (
3)
Negative feedback: Warming leads to an increase in clouds which act as a shield for Sun’s radiation, thus leading to less warming. (
3)
Now here comes the important part: IPCC takes for granted that the clouds have POSITIVE feedback. This assumption makes all of their climate models show this relation between the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) and to changes in radiation flux (
4):
Now let’s take a look at the actual data we have from satellite measurements (
4):
See also
here or
here on why the clouds have negative feedback after all or
here for how scientists are starting to realize the mistake from IPCC. Could it be possible that cloud feedback is dependent on the area we analyze? (see
here)
Get it?
IPCC is using climate models which do not model the climate correctly (
5). And then they go on and attribute their wrong models poor performance to human made warming that (supposedly) their models did not predict!
Every time you look at a temperature increase diagram, pay attention to its scale (is the increase so HUGE or have we just magnified a small change?), check which are the
uncertainty bounds in the diagram (could it be possible that within the error limits we do not have any change?), but MOST IMPORTANTLY: LEARN THE ASSUMPTION ON WHICH THE DIAGRAM IS BASED!
Assumptions rule our world.
Assumptions rule science.
Assumptions rule philosophy.
And when we forget we use them, they turn into a much more dangerous thing: DOGMAS.
But WHY? Why would anyone use wrong assumptions in such a way? Does Al Gore want our good?
The reason is simple: All this effort to stop global warming is the perfect excuse to keep developing countries… developing! (and some people gain money through the COS stock exchange in the process)
Science has lost its innocence a long time now.
And it is difficult to earn back something like that...
From that point of view, the world is really becoming cold. Too cold...
Related articles
PS. ScienceNews publishes a related article immediately after me? [see
here] How more pioneering can Harmonia Philosophica be?
