1

I was reading an article referenced by the No Agenda show on Dr. David Evans of Australia pointing out a flaw in the equation now, either I'm thinking of this too simplistically, he is thinking about it too simplistically or it's being reported wrong.

Is there just one climate change model or are there many, if there are many, are there any corollaries that no one has yet challenged common across all models that are even possible to be proven wrong?

(I would think if you could determine CO2 and Temperature rate of change from ice cores, tree rings, satellites, etc... you would have fundamentally different starting points, but that's just an assumption)

  • 2
    I think "the equation" is only the journalist's simplification. Dr Evans talks about "the model". And, yes, you are thinking too simplistically. – GEdgar Oct 5 '15 at 15:45
  • 1
    I don't think this is a question that can be addressed by skepticsSE. There are plenty of blog articles out there that explain the errors in David Evan's argument (e.g. andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/10/04/…), but not e.g. peer reviewed articles as Evan's argument is a bit in the "not even wrong" category, so scientists working on the models wouldn't consider it interesting. A better approach would be to get a standard textbook on the subject of climate models, e.g. ISBN-10: 111994337X . – Dikran Marsupial Oct 5 '15 at 15:57
  • To give an idea, the article says "In 2012, he wrote in a piece for Fairfax that cloud and humidity actually cause two thirds of global warming, a fact he claimed was not well known by the public.". This is actually well known and has been for a long time, wikipedia gives a figure of "36–70%", so it doesn't cast any question at all on the mainstream position, but many reading the article will infer that they have been misled. The article has several other errors as well. However there is no notable claim AFAICS. – Dikran Marsupial Oct 5 '15 at 16:11
  • Actually, the quote is misleading as cloud and humidity don't cause two thirds of global warming, the account for about two thirds of the greenhouse effect. That is not the same thing as we have about 33K of greenhouse effect in pre-industrial times. "global warming" (climate change is a better term) is the added warming on top of that (i.e. the enhanced greenhouse effect). However it should still be well know to anybody that has taken the trouble to find out the basics. – Dikran Marsupial Oct 5 '15 at 16:42
  • IT might be better to rework the question around one of Dr Evans (many) theories, rather than just a badly written news article, so that there is at least a specific claim. However if the interest is in how climate model work (not the war Dr Evans think they do) then the EarthSciencesSE would be a better venue. – Dikran Marsupial Oct 6 '15 at 8:25

Browse other questions tagged .