Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade? (1 of 2)

According to the best data we have, from our latest instruments and from impeccable sources, all the main predictions of the climate models are now decisively wrong. If the recent global warming was due to CO2 our models would work well, but they don't. So it's not CO2 that is the main cause of the global warming.

• Category

  Science & Technology

[TheGodlessGuitarist]

The first non-crook 'denial' vid I have seen. However, it's only addressing CO2 based climate models, whcih arent worth a toss on their own IMHO. It doesnt address the proposition that the changes we are seeing are largely mad-made, other than his statement that we are affecting the climate. On that proposition can someone please address the climate article linked on my channel? If I'm wrong I want to know!

[David Evans]

Yes. All the video shows is that it's not our CO2 emissions that are the *main* cause of the warming.

The correlations between the sun's magnetic field and temperature on earth (the cosmic ray link), on yearly or longer time scales, are strong (50% of variability explained), much higher than the correlations of CO2 and temp. So it's probably that, but is not proven yet.

Cheers

David

[TheGodlessGuitarist]

Hi David, thanks for the reply. Could you take a look at my article? It's hardly science paper stuff but it's short and it does address the central proposition of AGW, and I want to know whether the startling correlation I 'disovered' is missing something drastic. Not asking for a peer review or anything, just pointers really. As I said I want to know if I'm wrong. Will have a look at the correlations you mention in the meantime. Kind regards.

[David Evans]

"Global Warming Confirmed By Koch Funded Researchers"??

All Muller did was take the raw data from the land thermometers and processed it himself, in a fairly transparent fashion, to get roughly the same answer as the other bodies that use that data -- GISS, HadCrut, NCDC.

The problem is the land thermometers. Most of them are in artificially warming locations, like airports, car parks, etc. In the video I used the satellite data -- they measure nearly the whole planet, 24/7, and are unbiased.

[TheGodlessGuitarist]

The dataset I used was the Michael Mann set, which is a reconstruction from natural sources; tree rings, lake sediments and so forth. I'm not referring to sensor data. I realise Mann will have had to have tied these up to modern sensor data somehow in order to get a datum, but that has nothing to do with the curve so far as I can tell.

Dont know anything about Koch 'researchers'. I would trust anyone's research if they are funded by oil magnates.

[David Evans]

Mann's dataset is worthless, because he puts higher weights on data sets that are hockey-stick shaped. He weights most inputs down to insignificance. His data is dominated by the bristle cone pine tree ring data, an unusual species whose growth is CO2-limited.

The most comprehensive collection of temperature proxies is by Ljungqvist in 2010. It agrees with the IPCC before Mann and with historical accounts, but is very different from Mann's

[Annelise E. Barron]

David, I am a Stanford professor in bioengineering, and I found your logic and your interpretation of the data to be convincing. So, what do we do about it? Well, for starters, I brought your YouTube video to the attention of Stanford's Dean of Engineering, Jim Plummer. He's a very reasonable guy--and you got your Ph.D. in his department! Got to start somewhere...

[Yves de Lyle]

What you state is excellent, however, what about the possible tipping points in the climate models?

[maunaowakea777]

I would be very careful with the selective bias of choosing an analysis with a start date beginning at the strongest el nino event ever recorded (1997-1998) This very abnormally high sea surface temperature skews the record. I am sure that, as a professor, you understand selectivity bias. . .if he had picked a start date of only 3 years earlier he would see appreciable warming. (though less due to a decade long negative pacific decadal oscillation.

[Aanthanur DC]

and also the latest reconstruction from PAGES confirmed Mann's and the other reconstructions. this Mann bashing is geting old and is pretty laughable. and if you were only half as scientific as you like your viewers to believe, you would have set up a proper scientific paper and submitted it to one of the big journals, they would be very intersted in the groundbraking discovery that AGW is not happening. but in the scientific community the do not jump on to conclusions as fast as you do.

[Aanthanur DC]

Ljungqvist's reconstruction confrimerd Mann's reconstruction, like most others did and are all listed in the IPPC AR4. there is nothing wrong with Mann's reconstructiona t all, which was shown by investigation, and even the msall changes in the statistical method did not change his reconstruction. the Mann's hockey stick recon. is worthless is the usual denier nonsense.

[1000frolly]

After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of multidimensional datasets,inserting decentred proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors,we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projections,which we then averaged.We utilized a liberally unprincipled component analysis to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a hockey stick,which gave an unequivocal prediction,(95%+probability) that we are totally screwing all of you

[Dariusz Kolodziejczyk]

Yeah U R right BUT given air of temp from Argo satellite ;) If global temp isn`t rising, ocean`s temp isn`t rising why Arctica is melting down?:-) U know better than me that CO2 levels are indicating no human activity but phitoplanton changes( that`s why O2 levels are decreasing in air). U know that, smth`s wrong and any average statistics won`t change that simple.

[macmarine]

By far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; the AGW myth is a red herring that helps to hide this truth. Activists feeding this AGW myth have effectively been co-opted or neutralized. Scientists and agencies are funded to study only the problems that do not threaten corporate interests. So, it's no surprise that they "attack" global devastation from resource extraction via the CO2 back door.

[grindupBaker]

This was a nice deconstruction of the poor quality of the "climate models". Not sure yet whether I agree with his conclusion that because the models projections are crummy, CO2 is a minor factor. More likely that the bods doing the modelling just aren't up to the job based on my years of computer programming and seeing how some people buggered up the code. At 5:36 he shows air temperature but other bods' graphs usuallu show land/ocean (or a mix of the lot). I don't expect he's trying to mislead