The mainstream media love to lecture us daily about the coming apocalypse as a result of catastrophic climate change, but are we being told the complete story?
There is little doubt amongst the scientific community about the warming effect of CO2, both those who accept and those who reject the climate change hypothesis agree on this undisputed fact, they even agree as to how much CO2 is capable of warming. But according to the International Panel on Climate Change, CO2 only accounts for half of the expected warming in the computer models. The assumption is that the rising temperature attributable to CO2 will result in increased atmospheric water vapour as a result of evaporation, which will further amplify the warming of CO2. The IPCC believes that the positive feedback from increased water vapour will double the effects of any temperature increase attributable to CO2.
This is clearly stated by the IPCC in their 2007 AR4 report:
‘In GCMs [global climate models], water vapour provides the largest positive radiative feedback (see Section 184.108.40.206): alone, it roughly doubles the warming in response to forcing (such as from greenhouse gas increases).’
‘Under such a response, for uniform warming, the largest fractional change in water vapour, and thus the largest contribution to the feedback, occurs in the upper troposphere. In addition, GCMs find enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere, due to changes in the lapse rate (see Section 9.4.4).’
In summary, the IPCC states that positive feedback from water vapour accounts for half of the warming in their computer models, and that this should manifest itself in the form of the mid/upper troposphere warming at a faster rate than the lower troposphere/surface.
Source [full article with links]: What the Media Aren't Telling You About Climate Change – Daily Media Review.
The IPCC made a prediction in their AR4 that was supposed to account for 50% of the warming, and this prediction has been empirically falsified by the empirical scientific data from all temperature records in their subsequent AR5 report. Without the upper troposphere warming at a faster rate than the lower troposphere there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour.
No tropospheric hotspot = no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour = no anthropogenic global warming (well, nothing to worry about anyway). There have been claims that there is missing heat hiding in the oceans, but if this is true that makes the case for positive feedback from water vapour even weaker. So even if it has warmed over the last 18 years, it certainly isn’t as a result of our CO2 output.
So where did all the extra evaporation go when it was warming prior to the current 18 year warming ‘hiatus’, and why hasn’t it been amplifying as predicted? The IPCC have recorded slightly higher rates of precipitation over the years which suggests that, although there is increased water vapour, it has manifested in the form of lower level cloud cover and rain. Lower level water vapour is thought to have a negative or neutral feedback (i.e. cooling effect), as clouds tend to reflect the radiation back into space, and they release any stored heat when it rains.
But what about the ‘97% of scientists’ who believe in global warming?
As far as I know 100% of scientists believe in global warming and that CO2 contributes towards it, including those sceptical of anthropogenic global warming. What they don’t agree on is what happens after CO2 warms the planet, i.e. water vapour, clouds, feedbacks, etc. – that is the real debate in climate science, not that you’d ever know about it reading the stories in the mainstream media.
So, if a vital 50% of the anthropogenic global warming theory has failed a major empirical test, why does the media neglect to mention it?
There are several possibilities:
They only read the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, which is written by politicians who negotiate every word, and avoid the actual science that is in the Working Group I section.
They’re incapable of understanding the science so just accept what they’re told by others.
They’re environmental activists masquerading as journalists, and are too busy pushing an agenda to report the truth.
It’s too difficult to report science in a form that the general populace can understand.
They need dramatic headlines to sell papers, and they’re told what to write by their editors as a result.
I personally think it’s often a combination of all five, although I have to say that amongst certain ‘ journalists’ some points are more relevant than others (to put it politely).