| LONG ANSWER: |
| 1. |
Historic variations in temperature correlate poorly with
changes in carbon dioxide levels. Temperatures supposedly rose from 1915 to 1945, fell from 1945
to 1976, rose until 1998, then fell for a few years and then increased
again, but during all this time the concentration of
carbon dioxide was supposedly increasing. (At
first the absence of an increase in temperature until
1976 despite an increase in carbon dioxide from 1958
was explained as the heating going into the water, but
then the reason became sulphates in the atmosphere,
but no conclusive proof has been shown for either
option.) |
| 2. |
The above paragraphs says "Temperatures supposedly rose" because
there are plenty of reasons to doubt the accuracy of the estimated average global temperatures
based on near-surface measurements. The mean temperature being used is the average of the
minimum and maximum temperature but this is easily distorted by a few hours without cloud
when most of the day is cloudy. Temperatures at sea are taken from a few metres below the
waterline but on land they are taken in air and above the ground. Temperatures are estimated
in regions where no direct observations exist, but the agencies that provide this data use
different methods which unsurprisingly produce different results. For the last 10 years 20%
(i.e. one-fifth) of the Earth's surface has been beyond the reach of even the methods of estimation
but prior to 1960 the figure exceeded 50%. Satellite based
measurements provide data which
is more easily calibrated to other methods of measurement and
this data indicates a peak for
the 1998 El Nino and a slight rise in 2002 and no subsequent fall. This data does not show
the sustained warming that exists in the averages derived from near-surface thermometer
measurements and it is suspected that the latter is greatly contaminated by the Urban Heat
Island effects that are caused by cities and towns. |
| 3. |
Extreme weather is less common, not more common, although weather paranoia may
suggest otherwise. If the strength of hurricanes is directly related to the difference in
temperatures between the poles and the tropics the recent warming in the Arctic is reducing this
difference and reducing hurricane strength. The financial impact of extreme weather may be
worsening but that is due to the increasing population in areas prone to such events. An
expanding population has increased the infrastructure (buildings etc.) in those areas but also
the cost of that infrastructure continues to increase. |
| 4. |
Computer models used for climate predictions have never been proven to be accurate
in their programming and in there results. None can predict El Nino events but 1998 showed that
global temperatures are susceptible to these events. The IPCC would like us to believe that these
models are accurate and yet the IPCC reports consistently show that many climatic factors are poorly
understood. |
| 5. |
The IPCC tries to claim that a consensus has been reached on the cause of global warming
(but as shown above, the existence of this warming is debatable). A consensus belongs in law and politics,
not in Science because there are numerous examples of one person successfully challenging the
scientific consensus of
the day. The recently released IPCC reviewers'
comments make it clear that substantial dissent did
exist but chapter authors rejected much of it, sometimes
without any reason. |
| 6. |
Fundamental assumptions about the warming power of carbon dioxide have been shown to be
false. The theoretical warming caused by carbon dioxide will reduce as the concentration increases. We are
at the point where an increase in carbon dioxide of 100ppm (from the current 385 ppm) will theoretically
cause warming of slightly less than 0.1C degrees and every subsequent increase of 100 ppm will cause less
and less warming. But this is theory and no-one can be sure whether the climate system will balance itself
(e.g. by increased cloud causing more shading and therefore cool the planet) or if other forces will
increase the amount of warming.
|
| 7. |
Climate changes vary greatly between
regions and localities. This sits badly with the notion
that carbon dioxide is dispersed relatively evenly
around the entire Earth. Observed temperature increases are often a consequence
of the local environment (eg. expanding towns and cities) and changes in local
heat generation (eg. more traffic). At the other
end of the scale cooling is reported for central
Greenland and for the 90% of the Antarctic which is not
in the Antarctic Peninsula, which seems rather odd when
carbon dioxide levels in those places continue to
increase. |
| 8. |
Research continues into many aspects of climate because, as the IPCC readily admits, the level of
scientific understanding of many climate factors is still low. In particular researchers are finding strong correlations
between meteorological observations and solar activity and human activity can hardly be driving the sun. The actual
mechanisms have not yet been determined but there's a very strong possibility that climate has little or nothing to do
with human activity except in a very localised sense of cities, town and land-use changes. |