Inlägg
This story is huge. America’s prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and related government bodies found no greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere. Evidence shows the U.S. government held the smoking gun all along – a fresh examination of an overlooked science report proves America’s brightest and best had shown the White House that the greenhouse gas effect was not real and of no scientific significance since 1979 or earlier.O'Sullivan har rätt på ett sätt: om man söker i rapporten ifråga, Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment (1979), Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC), så hittar man ingenstans termen 'greenhouse gas effect'. Men redan på sida 1 i rapporten finner vi den här beskrivningen av hur en förstärkt växthuseffekt kommer att påverka klimatet:
The primary effect of an increase of CO2 is to cause more absorption of thermal radiation from the earth’s surface and thus to increase the air temperature in the troposphere. A strong positive feedback mechanism is the accompanying increase of moisture, which is an even more powerful absorber of terrestrial radiation. We have examined with care all known negative feedback mechanisms, such as increase in low or middle cloud amount, and have concluded that the oversimplifications and inaccuracies in the models are not likely to have vitiated the principal conclusion that there will be appreciable warming. The known negative feedback mechanisms can reduce the warming, but they do not appear to be so strong as the positive moisture feedback. We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3°C with a probable error of ±1.5°C. Our estimate is based primarily on our review of a series of calculations with three-dimensional models of the global atmospheric circulation, which is summarized in Chapter 4. We have also reviewed simpler models that appear to contain the main physical factors. These give qualitatively similar results.Bara för att NAS inte använde just uttrycket 'greenhouse gas effect' ('växthusgaseffekt') så betyder det inte att de ansåg att den inte existerade. Den första meningen i stycket här ovan beskriver just växthuseffekten.
Så vad kan man dra för lärdomar av det här, utöver att John O'Sullivan är en skojare? Jo, när en "klimatskeptiker" påstår att klimatvetenskapen har omkullkastats och hänvisar till någon officiell rapport eller vetenskaplig artikel, så bör man alltid kolla noga vad som faktiskt sägs i rapporten eller artikeln. Med andra ord: man bör vara skeptisk.
