The foloowing link will give you information that will make you more
informed. There are several other links there, enough to keep you busy
for a very long time.

It's why I don't take much stock in the hysteria over Global warming.


http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/

Check out the scorecard for the predictions the loonies have been
making.

Remember, the same conditions that are supposed to be causing GW, were
supposed to be causing Global Cooling during the 70's.

This is one of my favorites:

In a recent issue of Climatic Change (vol. 37, p. 390), Curt Covey and
Martin I. Hoffert make the following comments: "Rather, the test should
be whether a theory is false. As Sir Karl Raimund Popper, philosopher
of science and developer of the doctrine of falsibility, put it. 'our
belief in any particular natural law cannot have a safer basis than our
unsuccessful critical attempts to refute it' (Popper, 1979). So far,
the climate models used by the IPCC have passed this falsibility test."
(Note: this section was mostly written in1997-98.)



As our "Greenhouse Warming Scorecard" shows, the IPCC models are false
in many ways. Let's just highlight a few things where the models
disagree with observations:



1.The models predict the recent warming due to greenhouse gases should
occur equally during the day and night. Observations show most of the
warming is occurring at night, so the observations falsify the models.
A discussion of the diurnal temperature range (DTR) can be found here.
The changes in DTR are caused by changes in surface properties rather
than atmospheric properties. Removal of this non-climatic effect
reduces the warming of the twentieth century from 0.6 C to about 0.3 C.
The climate models get a warming which when plotted versus time and
compared to observations appear to parallel each other, but this
parallelism is only superficial and does not confirm the models.



2.Several models now published have model global temperatures and
measured temperatures paralleling each other over time remarkably well.
These models "explain" the warming to 1940 by anthropogenic carbon
dioxide, the cooling from 1940 to 1970 by anthropogenic sulfate
aerosols, and resumed warming from 1970 to the present by the
anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming again become dominant. These
models make an implicit unstated (and frankly bizarre) assumption that
without these anthropogenic forcings, the natural climate would have
been perfectly flat for 100+ years. No century has ever had such a
stable climate, but for the anthropogenic forcing models to work, this
assumption must be made. The probability of a flat background natural
climate is less than 1 in a million; hence, the statistical
significance of these apparently successful models is also less than 1
in a million.



3.Many of the climate models predict that cloud cover should be
decreasing (while at the same time they the total water content of the
atmosphere is increasing), and, in fact, such a cloud cover decrease is
crucial to amplify the greenhouse effect so it becomes the "enhanced"
greenhouse effect. On the other hand, for any of the models to have a
chance at explaining the diurnal temperature variations, they must
invoke increases in cloud cover such that they decrease the predicted
global warming by a factor of 5 to 6.



4.The models predict that the global annual cycle of temperatures
should have decreased by 0.5 to 1.1 C during this century if greenhouse
gases are forcing climate change. Measurements show only a 0.1 C
decrease, thus invalidating the greenhouse warming hypothesis.



5.The models attribute the cooling from about 1940 to 1970 to sulfate
aerosols. The quantity of aerosols they used are not based upon
measurements, but are themselves model results. One prediction of this
model is a maximum amount of aerosols in central Europe. Observations
of atmospheric transmission in Davos Switzerland, right in the middle
of the region where the model maximum in sulfates presumably existed,
show no change in atmospheric transmission, contrary to the IPCC
predictions. Observations in Belgium, Ireland, and other locations also
falsify the IPCC modeled amounts of sulfate aerosols.



6.The models predict sulfate aerosols will cause a cooling forcing of
0.6 to 0.9 W/m2. Actual field measurements of the scattering properties
of sulfate aerosols show that the models overestimate their cooling
potential by a factor of 3 to 5. These measurements falsify the model's
radiative treatment of sulfates and show that the cooling from 1940 to
1970 cannot be attributed to anthropogenic aerosols.



7.The models neglect to include soot particles, which warm.
Measurements show that the warming by soot offsets any cooling by
sulfates, particularly in urban regions. These measurements falsify the
models treatment of anthropogenic aerosols, because the models are
incomplete. One cannot just select certain portions of reality to build
a model, while neglecting other portions of reality, and then call the
model true.



8.The models predict a warming of about 0.35 C per decade in the
mid-troposphere. MSU satellites, radiosonde thermistor, and radiosonde
pressure transducers show a warming of about 0.08 C (1979-2003), thus
falsifying the IPCC models. Furthermore, radiosonde observations for
1958-2001 show the temperatures are virtually identical for 1958 and
2001 (Seidel et al., 2004).



9.The models predict a warming of 1.0 to 3.0 C should have occurred in
the polar regions between 1940 and now. Thermometer measurements show a
cooling over this time period for the arctic as a whole, thus
falsifying the models. Proxy measurements also show about a 0.3 to 0.4
C cooling for this interval. Alaska has warmed, but this is probably
caused by a change in oceanic and atmospheric circulation called the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which alone does not confirm, nor
deny, the IPCC models.



10.The models predict the phase of the global annual cycle of
temperatures should have shifted by minus 1.7 days in the twentieth
century. Observations show a phase shift of +0.8 days, opposite in sign
to what the models predict, thus falsifying the IPCC models.



11.The models predict a 0.50 cm/yr rise in sea level. The
TOPEX/POSEIDEN observations show a 0.25 cm/yr rise (through 2003),
providing no solid confirmation of the IPCC models.



These eleven tests all falsify the IPCC climate models. There are many
additional ways the models fail, some of which are covered in the
scorecard. A common feature of these falsifications is that the models
tend to overestimate signals by a factor of 3 to 10. This suggests the
predicted warming of 2.5 C for a doubling of greenhouse gases will
really be between 0.25 and 0.8 C.


http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm