Hard fact: global temperature has not risen as the models predicted – not even close! Conclusion: models are fundamentally flawed. Watch the following well-done video:
Hat-tip: Rog Tallbloke.
I left a link to this video at a PIK Twitter comment, and will see if it gets deleted or not. I wouldn’t be surprised if Youtube takes it down.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy
The anonymous speaker tells the listener several times that the physical theory of greenhouse gas action is well proved by serious scientists namely by laboratory results and thousands of “feedbacks”.
I am very sorry, but I would like to see just one of them. Although I work very hard for more than ten years on that subject, I was not been able to find just one in any paper. Nor in the plenty IPCC literature nor elsewhere. The few experiments made to prove or reject this thesis (f.e. by Wood and others) showed that there is no detectable impact. None, nil, zero, nothing! So it remains a rather plausible but nevertheless only an unproven thesis without support by observations, rather than a proven theory.
Therefore may I cite John Mitchell IPCC Lead author and Director of MetOffice. Mitchell et al. (2007)51
“It is only possible to attribute 20th Century warming to human interference using numerical models of the climate system.”
John Mitchell, Julia Slingo, David S. Lee, Jason Lowe & Vicky Pope: ‘CLIMATE CHANGE Response to
Carteret al.’, World Economics, 8 (1): 221228. And he is right!
And the great physicist and nobel laureate Richard Feynman told us: “Regardless how nice a new theory (law) is, regardless who developed it, regardless how elegant it may be, regardless who supports it, if it is not supported by observations, it is w r o n g!
Perhaps it’s true that CO2 has no greenhouse impact on the atmosphere. I’m no expert who can neither confirm nor deny that. However, my experience with the literature says that your claim appears false because CO2 does indeed trap certain wavelength spectra. But I think it is not important in the broader discussion. Whether CO2 has a modest impact, little impact, or no impact, is not the main point of the discussion. The real question is: “Does it have a major impact as the alarmists claim it has? Or does it have only a small (or no impact) as the skeptics claim? To me the claim that CO2 does nothing is just a distraction from the real debate. Personally I agree with what Richard Lindzen is telling us: it has a modest impact. And we both agree that it is not a serious problem of any kind for the planet.
“However, my experience with the literature says that your claim appears false because CO2 does indeed trap certain wavelength spectra.”
The word “trap” is an Orwellian word creation by the warmists, and unphysical. Avoid it. According to Kirchhoff’s Law, in local thermal equilibrium absorption and emission must always be equal (proof by contradiction; you can construct a machine that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics if it were not the case).
An absorption line is always as well an emission line.
CO2 in the atmosphere therefore distributes LWIR. It does not “trap” it.
Thanks. Next time I’ll be more careful with the choice of words. Under the bottom line, the lower atmosphere ends up a tad warmer.
To cite Sir Isaac Newton: “It is only possible to attribute the fall of an apple to gravity using numerical models of the universe.”
Great, well balanced movie. One remark, the speaker mentioned the run-away temperature on Venus. Thought experiment: swap the gas of venus from Co2 to e.g. nitrogen, main ingredient of the atmosphere of earth. Keep the presure the same of about 90 atmosphere. Temperature will not change a lot then. The impact of CO2 on Venus as greenhouse gas does exist, but it is around 30 degrees at most
[…] 12-Minute Video Clip Clearly Shows Why “Climate Models Are Fundamentally Flawed”! […]
Hi Pierre,
it was not my intention to verify or falsify the greenhouse gas theory. In its theoretical description it looks very plausible, therefore it might be true, or not. The problem, so far no evidence was presented to support it. Only models which are made for supporting this thesis. So it´s an circle evidence.
But as long as there is no observation supporting this theory it´s nothing else than an thesis.
Even more worse it is falsified by various observations some of them shown in the movie, at least in its obviously too simple form.
Personally, I was surprised by the complete lack of warming since 2000. In the 90ies I got used to the navel-free fashion of those German Techno girls. I didn’t expect the return of the trenchcoat.
And the CO2 theory sounded plausible. I actually had to read quite a bit, including about Svensmark’s and Miskolczi’s ideas, until I understood what was going on – which is, no significant warming. Most Germans still have to make that leap and dump their current belief. They still believe Mojib Latif and Schellnhuber because they’re in the dummy box.
Mentioned at the beginning of the video, the speaker not anonymous. It is Dr David Evans, Jo Nova’s husband.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2013/08/06/12-minute-video-clip-clearly-shows-why-climate-models-are-fundame… […]