My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Global warming is cancelled....

The IPCC gets some of the science wrong...
This is why I felt so lucky to be in the right place at the right time when I heard Roy Spencer speak at the New York conference on climate change in March. At first I thought this was just another paper setting out observations against the forecasts, further confirming Evans' earlier work.

But as the argument unfolded I realised Spencer was drawing on observations and measurements from the new Aqua satellites to explain the mechanism behind this anomaly between model forecasts and observation. You may have heard that the IPCC models cannot predict clouds and rain with any accuracy. Their models assume water vapour goes up to the troposphere and hangs around to cook us all in a greenhouse future.

However, there is a mechanism at work that "washes out" the water vapour and returns it to the oceans along with the extra CO2 and thus turns the added water vapour into a NEGATIVE feedback mechanism.

The newly discovered mechanism is a combination of clouds and rain (Spencer's mechanism adds to the mechanism earlier identified by Professor Richard Lindzen called the Iris effect).

The IPCC models assumed water vapour formed clouds at high altitudes that lead to further warming. The Aqua satellite observations and Spencer's analysis show water vapour actually forms clouds at low altitudes that lead to cooling.

Furthermore, Spencer shows the extra rain that falls from these clouds cools the underlying oceans, providing a second negative feedback to negate the CO2 warming.

This has struck the alarmists like a thunderbolt, especially as the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Spencer agreeing that he is right!

There goes the alarmist neighbourhood!

The climate is not highly sensitive to CO2 warming because water vapour is a damper against the warming effect of CO2.

That is why history is full of Ice Ages - where other effects, such as increased reflection from the ice cover, do provide positive feedback - while we do not hear about Heat Ages. The Medieval Warm Period, for example, is known for being benignly warm - not dangerously hot.

We live on a benign planet - except when it occasionally gets damned cold.

While I have done my best to simplify these developments they remain highly technical and many people distrust their own ability to assess competing scientific claims. However, in this case the tipping point theories are based on models that do not include the effects of rain and clouds.

The new Nasa Aqua satellite is the first to measure the effects of clouds and rainfall. Spencer's interpretation of the new data means all previous models and forecasts are obsolete. Would anyone trust long-term forecasts of farm production that were hopeless at forecasting rainfall?

The implications of these breakthroughs in measurement and understanding are dramatic to say the least. The responses will be fun to watch.


Blogger Johnathon said...

Great post, but the leftist media would never cover this topic.

How was the conference?

Did you enjoy it?

Anything else you learned that people might be interested in.

12:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...



2:56 PM  
Anonymous Lore_Weaver said...

Downside is, this would shake the public confidence in the scientific method, and give an opening for fundamentalism to take over, thus plunging us into a dark age.

The only thing that would stop this is if more skeptical scientists came forward to thwart the growing group that so-called science is marginalizing.

4:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very fascinating -- thank you. Your coverage of this issue is excellent. Unfortunately, I concluded some time ago that the environmental alarmists are not at all interested in rational arguments -- nor, apparently, is the media. I am not sure where that leaves things. I don't believe that any of the sensible responses to AGW or new credible information that challenges the theory will have an impact. I think that the histeria will have to run its course -- unfortunately, lots of damage while real environmental issues are ignored. I think it will take a generation before common sense kicks in.

11:08 PM  
Blogger Louise said...

I don't get it. Why would this shake public confidence in the scientific method? I would think it would do just the opposite. Not only that, but it would "shake public confidence" in the UN and all idiots on the left who want to declare the science to be settled.

5:08 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home