Scientists: Global Warming Models are Wrong!

That’s right, cabal of unnamed United Nation scientists are reporting that a significant percentage of global warming models are just plain wrong and have skewed average result. They explain that all of the models that predict less warming are incorrect and, therefore, there is to be more warming and more horror than they ever imagined.

As the planet marked its fourth hottest year on record, a study published in the journal Nature found increasing levels of carbon dioxide will lead to thinner ocean clouds and reduce their cooling impact, causing temperature rises of at least 5.6F (3C) over the course of the century.

The team of scientists said the findings show some climate models have been too “optimistic” and previous estimates of a minimum temperature rise of only 2.7F (1.5C) could now be discounted. The optimistic models did not properly assess the impact of water evaporation, which sometimes rises only a short distance into the atmosphere and causes updraughts that reduce cloud cover, the study found.

They are saying that increasing CO2 causes and increase in water vapor which causes fewer clouds.

How to think about that? Let’s review. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. Even if it tripled, it wouldn’t cause the horror that climate alarmists insist is coming. C02 offers a diminishing increase in greenhouse effect as it increases. Eventually it flatlines. This is beyond debate. In order for the horror that alarmists insist is our future to occure, CO2 must cause the “forcing” of other, more potent greenhouse gasses. All catastrophic AGW models include this forcing. Here is how that works…

Though C02 is a weak greenhouse gas, the little warming it creates will cause more water vapor; which is a strong greenhouse gas. More water vapor will cause even more water vapor which will cause even more water vapor which will cause even more water vapor.. you get the picture. These are positive feedbacks and the result is a runway effect. A little nudge by atmospheric CO2 causes a cascade of horrors.

The question you have to ask is this: If the system is that unstable, why didn’t runaway global warming occur eons ago? If all it takes is a tiny little nudge of C02 to cause a runaway water vapor greenhouse effect, how come it didn’t happen when C02 levels were greater in the past? Why didn’t the Earth become an 800 degree hothouse like Venus ages ago? How is it that the system has been relatively stable for hundreds of millions of years?

Increases in C02 do cause increases in the greenhouse effect. This likely does result in increased water vapor. But, contrary to the findings of the unnamed scientists in the linked article, the water vapor probably results in increased cloud cover which reflects more of the sun’s energy. Increased water vapor probably also results in increased precipitation as snow which also reflects the sun’s radiant energy. Increased water vapor likely results in lower clouds allowing the Earth to cool more efficiently.

In this way, the system stabilizes. If water vapor, a strong greenhouse gas, results in clouds, the effect of the greenhouse effect is mitigated: A sheet is tossed over the greenhouse.

These scientists are telling us it ain’t so. They are saying a nudge of weak CO2 creates more powerful water vapor which causes fewer clouds. The earth’s climate isn’t stable at all. A little nudge of C02 and the whole damned thing explodes. They are arguing that a tiny nudge by a weak greenhouse gas is enough to create a cascade effect from which the global climate can never recover. The global climate isn’t a stable three-legged stool. It is a precarious stool balanced on a single tiny leg. Even the slightest nudge will tip it over.

So ask yourself this: Do you believe that a global planet that over the eons has been subject to continental drift, the eruption of super volcanoes, impacts by mass extinction causing space rubble and lashings by huge solar flares and yet has maintained a life supporting atmosphere for billions of years is so unstable that a tiny increase in a weak greenhouse gas will cause a runaway greenhouse effect? Or, alternatively, do you believe that the system must be relatively stable and there must be some type of stabilizing negative feedback that prevents this?

Then, when you are finished thinking about that, look at this. The lines in the graph below represent various climate models. The circles and squares plot observed reality. Now ask yourself: Have the climate models been “too optimistic” and global warming worse than modeled?