"I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion."
Read the rest here.
This piece explores in particular the distorted tree ring analysis allegedly showing that temperatures were stable until the 20th century, when they started rocketing upward, in the shape of a hockey stick. Researchers just threw out the data from a large number of tree rings that did not show exceptional global warming in the 20th century, relying on a few unusual tree rings that did seem to show unusual growth (hence unusual warming).
If the data does not fit the theory, just throw it out!
Friday, October 2, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Cap and Trade's creators think it's a poor way to regulate CO2
From the Wall Street Journal:
"In the 1960s, a University of Wisconsin graduate student named Thomas Crocker came up with a novel solution for environmental problems: cap emissions of pollutants and then let firms trade permits that allow them to pollute within those limits.
"Now legislation using cap-and-trade to limit greenhouse gases is working its way through Congress and could become the law of the land. But Mr. Crocker and other pioneers of the concept are doubtful about its chances of success. They aren't abandoning efforts to curb emissions. But they are tiptoeing away from an idea they devised decades ago, doubting it can work on the grand scale now envisioned..."
"In the 1960s, a University of Wisconsin graduate student named Thomas Crocker came up with a novel solution for environmental problems: cap emissions of pollutants and then let firms trade permits that allow them to pollute within those limits.
"Now legislation using cap-and-trade to limit greenhouse gases is working its way through Congress and could become the law of the land. But Mr. Crocker and other pioneers of the concept are doubtful about its chances of success. They aren't abandoning efforts to curb emissions. But they are tiptoeing away from an idea they devised decades ago, doubting it can work on the grand scale now envisioned..."
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Cap-and-trade bill's effects: one twentieth of a degree
Someone ran the numbers through a government-funded computer climate model (known as MAGICC -- the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change) to determine how much warming we could offset by implementing the new cap-and-trade climate bill soon to be voted on in the US House of Representatives. You can run this model from your own computer, by the way.
"By the year 2050, the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result in a global temperature 'savings' of about 0.05ºC regardless of the IPCC scenario used—this is equivalent to about 2 years’ worth of warming. By the year 2100, the emissions pathways become clearly distinguishable, and so to do the impacts of Waxman-Markey. Assuming the IPCC mid-range scenario (A1B) Waxman-Markey would result in a projected temperature rise of 2.847ºC, instead of 2.959ºC rise— a mere 0.112ºC temperature “savings.” Under the IPCC’s high-emissions scenario, instead of a projected rise of 4.414ºC, Waxman-Markey limits the rise to 4.219ºC—a 'savings' of 0.195ºC. In either case, this works out to about 5 years’ worth of warming. In other words, a full implementation and adherence to the emissions restrictions provisions described by the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result only in setting back the projected rise in global temperatures by a few years—a scientifically meaningless prospect.
"...The bottom line is that a reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of greater than 80%, as envisioned in the Waxman-Markey climate bill will only produce a global temperature 'savings' during the next 50 years of about 0.05ºC. Calculating this isn’t all that difficult or costly. All it takes is a little MAGICC."
At 1200 pages, the bill is turning into a monstrosity of regulation, special favors to special interests, and the end result is higher cost for consumers of any kind of energy, with almost undetectable effects on global temperature.
"By the year 2050, the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result in a global temperature 'savings' of about 0.05ºC regardless of the IPCC scenario used—this is equivalent to about 2 years’ worth of warming. By the year 2100, the emissions pathways become clearly distinguishable, and so to do the impacts of Waxman-Markey. Assuming the IPCC mid-range scenario (A1B) Waxman-Markey would result in a projected temperature rise of 2.847ºC, instead of 2.959ºC rise— a mere 0.112ºC temperature “savings.” Under the IPCC’s high-emissions scenario, instead of a projected rise of 4.414ºC, Waxman-Markey limits the rise to 4.219ºC—a 'savings' of 0.195ºC. In either case, this works out to about 5 years’ worth of warming. In other words, a full implementation and adherence to the emissions restrictions provisions described by the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result only in setting back the projected rise in global temperatures by a few years—a scientifically meaningless prospect.
"...The bottom line is that a reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of greater than 80%, as envisioned in the Waxman-Markey climate bill will only produce a global temperature 'savings' during the next 50 years of about 0.05ºC. Calculating this isn’t all that difficult or costly. All it takes is a little MAGICC."
At 1200 pages, the bill is turning into a monstrosity of regulation, special favors to special interests, and the end result is higher cost for consumers of any kind of energy, with almost undetectable effects on global temperature.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Global Warming 101: Essential Reads
I've seen Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist from the University of Alabama, on TV and read some of his comments, but until today I had not visited his website.
Spencer has a brief article, Global Warming 101, which is the most clear and concise explanation of the global warming conundrum I have ever seen. Well worth the time, even if it needs to be read twice. I will try to put this into memory, because it really does distill the whole question down into the most basic parts.
In short, energy coming in from the sun equals energy out, radiating from the earth. However, various factors can change the equilibrium for a time. That's what all the debate is about.
Greenhouse gases (water vapor is the biggest factor along with a related factor, clouds) retard the flow of energy back into space. CO2 is a factor, but by itself this is minor. The slight warming caused directly by CO2 can be amplified by water vapor or diminished by clouds. The degree of warming will be highly dependent on the latter two factors, which are in dispute.
Now we come to the issue of mathematical computer climate models. The warming predicted for our future, which global warming alarmists to inflame the media and the public, will depend greatly on how the H2O amplification factor and the cloud formation factor are represented in the mathematical model.
Dr. Spencer does a Climate Model Reality Check in another web page that packs the essential information into a short essay. A few quotes:
"...virtually everyone now agrees that the direct warming effect from extra CO2 is relatively small – too small to be of much practical concern."
"...the main reason the models produce so much warming depends upon uncertain assumptions regarding how clouds will respond to warming. Low and middle-level clouds provide a ‘sun shade’ for the Earth, and the climate models predict that those clouds will dissipate with warming, thereby letting more sunlight in and making the warming worse. [High-altitude (cirrus) clouds have the opposite effect, and so a dissipation of those clouds would instead counteract the CO2 warming with cooling..."
The key here appears to be the response of clouds to higher temperature. The earth has been warming slightly over the past century. What has happened to cloud cover and what will happen to cloud cover as a result is simply unknown. Therefore at the heart of the climate models predicting global warming is a factor for a decrease in clouds (amplifying CO2 warming or other causes of warming) which is a huge question mark. A giant "guess factor." That factor may in fact be at odds with observations of clouds via satellite.
And forget about cloud response to global warming. What caused the slight warming in the first place?
Guesswork. It's all guesswork. A savvy and honest scientist will say, "We don't know." Period.
Spencer has a brief article, Global Warming 101, which is the most clear and concise explanation of the global warming conundrum I have ever seen. Well worth the time, even if it needs to be read twice. I will try to put this into memory, because it really does distill the whole question down into the most basic parts.
In short, energy coming in from the sun equals energy out, radiating from the earth. However, various factors can change the equilibrium for a time. That's what all the debate is about.
Greenhouse gases (water vapor is the biggest factor along with a related factor, clouds) retard the flow of energy back into space. CO2 is a factor, but by itself this is minor. The slight warming caused directly by CO2 can be amplified by water vapor or diminished by clouds. The degree of warming will be highly dependent on the latter two factors, which are in dispute.
Now we come to the issue of mathematical computer climate models. The warming predicted for our future, which global warming alarmists to inflame the media and the public, will depend greatly on how the H2O amplification factor and the cloud formation factor are represented in the mathematical model.
Dr. Spencer does a Climate Model Reality Check in another web page that packs the essential information into a short essay. A few quotes:
"...virtually everyone now agrees that the direct warming effect from extra CO2 is relatively small – too small to be of much practical concern."
"...the main reason the models produce so much warming depends upon uncertain assumptions regarding how clouds will respond to warming. Low and middle-level clouds provide a ‘sun shade’ for the Earth, and the climate models predict that those clouds will dissipate with warming, thereby letting more sunlight in and making the warming worse. [High-altitude (cirrus) clouds have the opposite effect, and so a dissipation of those clouds would instead counteract the CO2 warming with cooling..."
The key here appears to be the response of clouds to higher temperature. The earth has been warming slightly over the past century. What has happened to cloud cover and what will happen to cloud cover as a result is simply unknown. Therefore at the heart of the climate models predicting global warming is a factor for a decrease in clouds (amplifying CO2 warming or other causes of warming) which is a huge question mark. A giant "guess factor." That factor may in fact be at odds with observations of clouds via satellite.
And forget about cloud response to global warming. What caused the slight warming in the first place?
Guesswork. It's all guesswork. A savvy and honest scientist will say, "We don't know." Period.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Global cooling: cause unknown
[Global] Warming Might be On Hold, Study Finds
"Earth's climate continues to confound scientists. Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat.
"'This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950,' Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. "Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one.'"
If scientists don't understand what is causing current cooling, it is axiomatic that they do not understand what controls warming, either.
"Earth's climate continues to confound scientists. Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat.
"'This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950,' Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. "Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one.'"
If scientists don't understand what is causing current cooling, it is axiomatic that they do not understand what controls warming, either.
Friday, February 27, 2009
We don't understand where CO2 comes from or where it goes!
We cannot understand the effect of CO2 on climate change, and it is folly to attempt to regulate it, if we do not know all the sources and sinks of CO2. The USA launched a satellite to study the issue -- a satellite which failed to reach orbit. Canada already has a functioning satellite to try to find answers to this essential question.
"The problem is that where carbon dioxide comes from, and where it is sucked out of the atmosphere, remains poorly understood.
"Clearly, if we're going to do something about climate change, we need to understand where CO2 is produced and particularly where it's absorbed.That's much less clear,' Quine said." [Ben Quine, the director of space engineering at York University]
article here
"The problem is that where carbon dioxide comes from, and where it is sucked out of the atmosphere, remains poorly understood.
"Clearly, if we're going to do something about climate change, we need to understand where CO2 is produced and particularly where it's absorbed.That's much less clear,' Quine said." [Ben Quine, the director of space engineering at York University]
article here
Monday, February 16, 2009
An astronaut skeptic
Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming.
"I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
read the rest in The Boston Herald
"I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
read the rest in The Boston Herald
Saturday, February 14, 2009
No sea level rise
While global warming alarmists continue to spout shocking predictions about our coasts being inundated by rising sea levels, the best data given current interpretations is that the sea levels have not risen for several years.
An article by Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist Josh Willis describes a project for measuring sea level from 3000 autonomous ocean floats maintained by the Argo project.
Willis is an ardent believer in global warming, caused by man. Note: "Now that humans have become a major force in the Earth’s climate, it is of paramount importance to build and maintain observing systems that can keep track of our ever-increasing impact." He has accepted the dogma that humans are a "major force" in earth's climate.
Willis also believes that the oceans will give us the easiest and best guage of global warming. "The most sensitive yardstick of human influence on the climate is the rise in globally-averaged sea level. On climate-relevant time-scales, total sea level rise equals the sum of the melt water from glaciers and ice sheets, plus the thermal expansion of seawater caused by absorption of excess heat. The first effect represents the response of the ice to a warming atmosphere. The second is directly related to the balance of incoming and outgoing energy of the Earth as a whole. That’s because 80 – 90% of the excess energy from anthropogenic forcing winds up warming the oceans (Levitus et al., 2005)."
Nevertheless, earlier data showed a rapid drop in sea levels, a fact reported by Rush Limbaugh, to the consternation of the "consensus" that man was causing dangerous warming.
With greater care to reduce software and measuring biases, a corrected result has been obtained. Sea level measurements when corrected for these errors no longer show rapid global sea level decline (and therefore global cooling). On the other hand, they show no sea level rise, either. Assuming that the glaciers are melting into the oceans, which would normally cause sea level increases, sea volume (per equivalent mass of H20) must be shrinking by an amount that counteracts the added glacial melt. Why? Because there is no rise in sea level from 2003 to 2006.
Josh Willis' article is a cautionary tale about the difficulty of accurately measuring anything that relates to global climate. It is also sobering for global warming alarmists. Sea levels may not be falling. But they do not appear to be rising, contrary to the shrieking of scientists and activists trying to convince us that we are destroying the planet with greenhouse gases.
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- the scientific "consensus" -- predicts a sea level rise of 0.18 - 0.59 meters ( 7 - 23 inches) by the year 2099, depending on the models and assumptions used. If sea levels were to rise 0.5 meters (approximately 18 inches), that would require an average increase of 5mm/year sea level rise. However, past measurements have shown only a 3mm annual rise, and recent measurements show no rise at all. It appears that even conservative predictions have been overly alarmist.
Either the glaciers are not melting, or the oceans are not warming. How else can one explain the non-rise in sea levels? Possibly both conditions are occurring.
Global surface air temperatures have been in decline for ten years.
The Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing.
Glaciers that have been melting for over a century are now growing. (Actually, on average, glaciers have been melting for over 10,000 years, but that could change. A look at temperature trends over the past 400,000 years indicate we are overdue for a return to a long ice age.)
The melting of Greenland ice is not accelerating, perhaps slowing.
It is time to follow the advice of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "Don't panic!" The people who are trying to incite panic are trying to sell you something.
An article by Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist Josh Willis describes a project for measuring sea level from 3000 autonomous ocean floats maintained by the Argo project.
Willis is an ardent believer in global warming, caused by man. Note: "Now that humans have become a major force in the Earth’s climate, it is of paramount importance to build and maintain observing systems that can keep track of our ever-increasing impact." He has accepted the dogma that humans are a "major force" in earth's climate.
Willis also believes that the oceans will give us the easiest and best guage of global warming. "The most sensitive yardstick of human influence on the climate is the rise in globally-averaged sea level. On climate-relevant time-scales, total sea level rise equals the sum of the melt water from glaciers and ice sheets, plus the thermal expansion of seawater caused by absorption of excess heat. The first effect represents the response of the ice to a warming atmosphere. The second is directly related to the balance of incoming and outgoing energy of the Earth as a whole. That’s because 80 – 90% of the excess energy from anthropogenic forcing winds up warming the oceans (Levitus et al., 2005)."
Nevertheless, earlier data showed a rapid drop in sea levels, a fact reported by Rush Limbaugh, to the consternation of the "consensus" that man was causing dangerous warming.
With greater care to reduce software and measuring biases, a corrected result has been obtained. Sea level measurements when corrected for these errors no longer show rapid global sea level decline (and therefore global cooling). On the other hand, they show no sea level rise, either. Assuming that the glaciers are melting into the oceans, which would normally cause sea level increases, sea volume (per equivalent mass of H20) must be shrinking by an amount that counteracts the added glacial melt. Why? Because there is no rise in sea level from 2003 to 2006.
Josh Willis' article is a cautionary tale about the difficulty of accurately measuring anything that relates to global climate. It is also sobering for global warming alarmists. Sea levels may not be falling. But they do not appear to be rising, contrary to the shrieking of scientists and activists trying to convince us that we are destroying the planet with greenhouse gases.
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- the scientific "consensus" -- predicts a sea level rise of 0.18 - 0.59 meters ( 7 - 23 inches) by the year 2099, depending on the models and assumptions used. If sea levels were to rise 0.5 meters (approximately 18 inches), that would require an average increase of 5mm/year sea level rise. However, past measurements have shown only a 3mm annual rise, and recent measurements show no rise at all. It appears that even conservative predictions have been overly alarmist.
Either the glaciers are not melting, or the oceans are not warming. How else can one explain the non-rise in sea levels? Possibly both conditions are occurring.
Global surface air temperatures have been in decline for ten years.
The Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing.
Glaciers that have been melting for over a century are now growing. (Actually, on average, glaciers have been melting for over 10,000 years, but that could change. A look at temperature trends over the past 400,000 years indicate we are overdue for a return to a long ice age.)
The melting of Greenland ice is not accelerating, perhaps slowing.
It is time to follow the advice of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "Don't panic!" The people who are trying to incite panic are trying to sell you something.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Carbon credits/trading "a scam"
President Obama and John McCain both campaigned on instuting a system of trading carbon credits ("cap and trade") as a means to reduce CO2 release. But rabid promoters of the global warming scare say such a system is a poor way to accomplish the goal.
"Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning," says James Lovelock, originator of the GAIA theory, and longtime environmental alarmist.
About carbon sequestration, another technique President Obama wants to promote, Lovelock says, "That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea - and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done."
James Hansen, the "famous NASA scientist" who has been raising global warming alarm for many years, dissented from the current plans of Democratic Party environmentalists on their plans to deal with carbon release. From the Wall Street Journal:
"...Mr. Hansen endorses a straight carbon tax as the only 'honest, clear and effective' way to reduce emissions, with the revenues rebated in their entirety to consumers on a per-capita basis. 'Not one dime should go to Washington for politicians to pick winners,' he writes."
While Hansen may have lost his head when describing trains delivering coal to power generating plants as equivalent to the Nazi death trains bringing Jews to concentration camp crematoria, he seems to be clear on the incestuous relation between politicians and industry that would be fostered by "cap and trade."
What is cap and trade? Wikipedia gives a good overview. "A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed." Al Gore's company and others like it will make millions brokering such trades.
Again, from the Wall Street Journal: "[Washington politicians prefer] posturing that disguises the cost of rising energy prices, such as cap and trade. This 'subterfuge,' as Mr. Hansen terms it, shifts the direct burden onto businesses, which then pass it along to consumers. Congress may flatter itself that it is saving mankind, but what the Members really want is a cap-and-trade windfall that they can redistribute in the green pork of Mr. Obama's 'new energy economy,' whatever that means."
It's all about money. Government money, regulations, and tax breaks benefitting big corporations and businesses. Pork. Now it becomes green pork. Haven't we had enough reckless spending already?
"Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning," says James Lovelock, originator of the GAIA theory, and longtime environmental alarmist.
About carbon sequestration, another technique President Obama wants to promote, Lovelock says, "That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea - and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done."
James Hansen, the "famous NASA scientist" who has been raising global warming alarm for many years, dissented from the current plans of Democratic Party environmentalists on their plans to deal with carbon release. From the Wall Street Journal:
"...Mr. Hansen endorses a straight carbon tax as the only 'honest, clear and effective' way to reduce emissions, with the revenues rebated in their entirety to consumers on a per-capita basis. 'Not one dime should go to Washington for politicians to pick winners,' he writes."
While Hansen may have lost his head when describing trains delivering coal to power generating plants as equivalent to the Nazi death trains bringing Jews to concentration camp crematoria, he seems to be clear on the incestuous relation between politicians and industry that would be fostered by "cap and trade."
What is cap and trade? Wikipedia gives a good overview. "A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed." Al Gore's company and others like it will make millions brokering such trades.
Again, from the Wall Street Journal: "[Washington politicians prefer] posturing that disguises the cost of rising energy prices, such as cap and trade. This 'subterfuge,' as Mr. Hansen terms it, shifts the direct burden onto businesses, which then pass it along to consumers. Congress may flatter itself that it is saving mankind, but what the Members really want is a cap-and-trade windfall that they can redistribute in the green pork of Mr. Obama's 'new energy economy,' whatever that means."
It's all about money. Government money, regulations, and tax breaks benefitting big corporations and businesses. Pork. Now it becomes green pork. Haven't we had enough reckless spending already?
Monday, December 29, 2008
Physicists may save us from climate alarmists
The physics community is starting to move into the global warming fray in a more public way. 2008 saw two physics publications endorse more debate and skepticism about the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- especially claims that we are facing catastrophe of some sort.
These catastrophic predictions are based on computer models, which are essentially complex mathematical formulas. These formulas are the product of educated guesswork about how factors like sunlight, water vapor, the reflectivity of the earth's surface, CO2, methane, aerosols, and a few other factors act and interact with each other to increase or decrease global temperature. Physics is a field that is built on the bedrock of mathematics. Physicists are starting to intensely analyse and critique the models that climate scientists are using to predict disaster ahead as a result of man's fossil fuel usage.
Most recently, an editorial in Physics Today concluded, "Although the radiative [i.e. warming] effect of CO2 cannot be ignored, the science of climate change is more complex than presented by the IPCC." Author Roger A. Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science, continues, "Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond... CO2." (Physics Today, November 2008) In other words, the climate models are not sufficient to account for the many effects (both warming and cooling effects) of human activity.
Earlier this year in the Forum on Physics & Society, an online publication of the American Physical Society (the second largest organization of physicists in the world), an editorial announced, "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that [man-made] CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con." Whereas Al Gore says that the debate is over, a large group of qualified physicists still feel that debate is essential, because limiting carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases could have serious impact on our economy, and may be unnecessary. In short, many physicists and scientists in general do not agree that it is certain humans are primarily responsible for global warming.
Serious debate in scientific journals is needed. Such debate has started in the physics community. We need to understand climate before we think about attempting to manipulate it. So far, a "considerable presence within the scientific community" feel that we do not have that level of expertise and understanding.
These catastrophic predictions are based on computer models, which are essentially complex mathematical formulas. These formulas are the product of educated guesswork about how factors like sunlight, water vapor, the reflectivity of the earth's surface, CO2, methane, aerosols, and a few other factors act and interact with each other to increase or decrease global temperature. Physics is a field that is built on the bedrock of mathematics. Physicists are starting to intensely analyse and critique the models that climate scientists are using to predict disaster ahead as a result of man's fossil fuel usage.
Most recently, an editorial in Physics Today concluded, "Although the radiative [i.e. warming] effect of CO2 cannot be ignored, the science of climate change is more complex than presented by the IPCC." Author Roger A. Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science, continues, "Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond... CO2." (Physics Today, November 2008) In other words, the climate models are not sufficient to account for the many effects (both warming and cooling effects) of human activity.
Earlier this year in the Forum on Physics & Society, an online publication of the American Physical Society (the second largest organization of physicists in the world), an editorial announced, "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that [man-made] CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con." Whereas Al Gore says that the debate is over, a large group of qualified physicists still feel that debate is essential, because limiting carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases could have serious impact on our economy, and may be unnecessary. In short, many physicists and scientists in general do not agree that it is certain humans are primarily responsible for global warming.
Serious debate in scientific journals is needed. Such debate has started in the physics community. We need to understand climate before we think about attempting to manipulate it. So far, a "considerable presence within the scientific community" feel that we do not have that level of expertise and understanding.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Media Thought Police: Global Warming Skeptic Banned From TV
"FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV.
"A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.
"His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. "
Read the rest...
"A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.
"His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. "
Read the rest...
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Obama ignores the facts about climate change
Obama Addresses Global Warming Summit
"'Few challenges facing America -- and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change,' he says in the video. 'The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season. Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.'"
Sea levels (global mean, measured by satellite) rose 42mm in the 12 year period from 1994-2006. 42 mm. That's 1.7 inches. Are you frightened yet? I thought not. Also, notice on this graph that sea levels seem to have started a slight decline since 2006. This corresponds with falling global temperatures. (Sea levels are an expression mainly of volume, which expands or contracts with rising/falling temperature.) Generally speaking, sea levels have been rising for about 18,000 years, without any help from man. The general trend, has been up, and continued to be up in the 20th century.
"'[Leadership on climate change] will start with a federal cap and trade system,' he says. 'We will establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 percent by 2050. Further, we will invest $15 billion each year to catalyze private sector efforts to build a clean energy future. We will invest in solar power, wind power, and next generation biofuels. We will tap nuclear power, while making sure it’s safe. And we will develop clean coal technologies.'"
Solar and wind cannot economically compete with nuclear. I favor nuclear, but I question Obama's commitment to it, given his inconsistent statements. Clean coal? He cannot wave a magic wand and make it happen. Maybe it can be done, maybe it can't. If not, Obama wants to destroy the coal industry or at least raise prices on electricity (through this cap and trade system) for all of us depending on coal-generated electricity.
Obama: "This investment will not only help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil, making the United States more secure. And it will not only help us bring about a clean energy future, saving our planet. It will also help us transform our industries and steer our country out of this economic crisis by generating five million new green jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced."
Increasing domestic energy supply is a worthwhile security goal. But Obama's statements about climate change are not correct. Earth's surface temperatures have been cooling since 1998. The atmosphere does not show the signature warming of the air approximately 10 miles up that should be evident if the warming we have seen (small as it has been in the past 100 years) were really due to greenhouse gases. Warming is seen mainly at the surface.
100 years from now, people will look back on this era and either laugh, or shake their heads in dismay, because we seemed unable to put real scientific data in perspective and exercise caution about making draconian changes in our economy on the basis of our primitive understanding of a very complex system -- global climate.
"'Few challenges facing America -- and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change,' he says in the video. 'The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season. Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.'"
Sea levels (global mean, measured by satellite) rose 42mm in the 12 year period from 1994-2006. 42 mm. That's 1.7 inches. Are you frightened yet? I thought not. Also, notice on this graph that sea levels seem to have started a slight decline since 2006. This corresponds with falling global temperatures. (Sea levels are an expression mainly of volume, which expands or contracts with rising/falling temperature.) Generally speaking, sea levels have been rising for about 18,000 years, without any help from man. The general trend, has been up, and continued to be up in the 20th century.
"'[Leadership on climate change] will start with a federal cap and trade system,' he says. 'We will establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 percent by 2050. Further, we will invest $15 billion each year to catalyze private sector efforts to build a clean energy future. We will invest in solar power, wind power, and next generation biofuels. We will tap nuclear power, while making sure it’s safe. And we will develop clean coal technologies.'"
Solar and wind cannot economically compete with nuclear. I favor nuclear, but I question Obama's commitment to it, given his inconsistent statements. Clean coal? He cannot wave a magic wand and make it happen. Maybe it can be done, maybe it can't. If not, Obama wants to destroy the coal industry or at least raise prices on electricity (through this cap and trade system) for all of us depending on coal-generated electricity.
Obama: "This investment will not only help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil, making the United States more secure. And it will not only help us bring about a clean energy future, saving our planet. It will also help us transform our industries and steer our country out of this economic crisis by generating five million new green jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced."
Increasing domestic energy supply is a worthwhile security goal. But Obama's statements about climate change are not correct. Earth's surface temperatures have been cooling since 1998. The atmosphere does not show the signature warming of the air approximately 10 miles up that should be evident if the warming we have seen (small as it has been in the past 100 years) were really due to greenhouse gases. Warming is seen mainly at the surface.
100 years from now, people will look back on this era and either laugh, or shake their heads in dismay, because we seemed unable to put real scientific data in perspective and exercise caution about making draconian changes in our economy on the basis of our primitive understanding of a very complex system -- global climate.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Science vs. science: NASA rewriting temperature data?
War of the surface temperature readings:
On the one hand, we have the "HAD-CRUT" record of global temperature, from the UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Research Center for Climate Studies, which shows temperatures decreased since 1998.
The temperature-sensing satellites cataloged by the University of Alambama at Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) show a similar decrease.
NASA's Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS) data on Global Temperature Land-Ocean Index seems to show accelerating warming since the late 1990s. How can they disagree? Are we getting warmer or cooler?
The NASA data is managed by Dr. Hansen who is Al Gore's chief science advisor, and perhaps the most vociferous global warming advocate in the scientific community. Could they be massaging the data? Indeed they are.
This article at The Register ("Is The Earth Getting Warmer, Or Cooler?"), graphs and compares the global surface temperature records discussed above and shows how NASA is publishing temperature graphs today that differ from their 1999 graphs. NASA lowered temperature readings prior to 1970, making the increase in global temperatures since 1970 seem greater. At the same time, temperatures on the NASA graph since 1970 seem to have become subtly higher, making the recent increases look greater than before.
Obviously, when you see a graph from NASA (GISS), they are not reporting actual temperature readings. They are reporting "real" thermometer readings corrected for... what? (There are a number of reasons for corrections, but these are all subject to interpretation. You are not getting pure, unvarnished data. You are getting massaged data, for better or worse.) For example raw temperature readings from NASA's Arctic sensing stations have been massaged upward by approximately one-half degree in recent years.
Is the time coming when we will view official climate data from the government with the same degree of disbelief that we receive official economic statistics? Perhaps that time has come.
The Register author concludes: "Both of the satellite data sources, as well as Had-Crut, show worldwide temperatures falling below the IPCC estimates. Satellite data shows temperatures near or below the 30 year average - but NASA data has somehow managed to stay on track towards climate Armageddon. You can draw your own conclusions, but I see a pattern that is troublesome. In science, as with any other endeavour, it is always a good idea to have some separation between the people generating the data and the people interpreting it."
On the one hand, we have the "HAD-CRUT" record of global temperature, from the UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Research Center for Climate Studies, which shows temperatures decreased since 1998.
The temperature-sensing satellites cataloged by the University of Alambama at Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) show a similar decrease.
NASA's Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS) data on Global Temperature Land-Ocean Index seems to show accelerating warming since the late 1990s. How can they disagree? Are we getting warmer or cooler?
The NASA data is managed by Dr. Hansen who is Al Gore's chief science advisor, and perhaps the most vociferous global warming advocate in the scientific community. Could they be massaging the data? Indeed they are.
This article at The Register ("Is The Earth Getting Warmer, Or Cooler?"), graphs and compares the global surface temperature records discussed above and shows how NASA is publishing temperature graphs today that differ from their 1999 graphs. NASA lowered temperature readings prior to 1970, making the increase in global temperatures since 1970 seem greater. At the same time, temperatures on the NASA graph since 1970 seem to have become subtly higher, making the recent increases look greater than before.
Obviously, when you see a graph from NASA (GISS), they are not reporting actual temperature readings. They are reporting "real" thermometer readings corrected for... what? (There are a number of reasons for corrections, but these are all subject to interpretation. You are not getting pure, unvarnished data. You are getting massaged data, for better or worse.) For example raw temperature readings from NASA's Arctic sensing stations have been massaged upward by approximately one-half degree in recent years.
Is the time coming when we will view official climate data from the government with the same degree of disbelief that we receive official economic statistics? Perhaps that time has come.
The Register author concludes: "Both of the satellite data sources, as well as Had-Crut, show worldwide temperatures falling below the IPCC estimates. Satellite data shows temperatures near or below the 30 year average - but NASA data has somehow managed to stay on track towards climate Armageddon. You can draw your own conclusions, but I see a pattern that is troublesome. In science, as with any other endeavour, it is always a good idea to have some separation between the people generating the data and the people interpreting it."
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Thirty years of warming reversed. Poof! It's gone!
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx
Average global temperatures increased in the first part of the century until World War II. Then temperatures declined until around 1980. Since then we have experienced a slight global warming, up until the early 2000s.
The trend is down. All the warming experienced before has reversed in the last two years. The temperature is back where we started at the beginning of this recent warming trend in 1980.
The earth warms. Poof! It cools. Al Gore knoweth not why.
Average global temperatures increased in the first part of the century until World War II. Then temperatures declined until around 1980. Since then we have experienced a slight global warming, up until the early 2000s.
The trend is down. All the warming experienced before has reversed in the last two years. The temperature is back where we started at the beginning of this recent warming trend in 1980.
The earth warms. Poof! It cools. Al Gore knoweth not why.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Thank God for global warming
Take a look at the temperature graph on this page -- displaying temperatures for the past 400,000 years. Note that in previous times when the earth came out of an ice age -- approximately 120,000 years, 230,000 years, and 320,000 years ago -- the temperature spiked and then declined rapidly. Now notice the warming that occurred from approximately 15,000 - 10,000 years ago. The temperature did not spike up and then start to decline. It has risen about 10 degrees to the present level, and stayed fairly stable for many thousands of years. The temperature has reached and maintained some sort of plateau.
Can you imagine what life in North America and Europe might be like if the current natural warming trend had followed past patterns? It would be getting very cold indeed.
Science does not have a clear understanding of the reasons for this temperature plateau -- the oasis of warmth we've been enjoying in a history of much colder temperatures. Thank God for global (natural) warming!
Another feature of interest is to compare the CO2 levels to the temperature levels. Temperature increases clearly precede CO2 increases. CO2 did not initiate global warming in the past. Causes do not follow effects. This is illogical. At least in the past, CO2 did not cause rapid global warming.
Can you imagine what life in North America and Europe might be like if the current natural warming trend had followed past patterns? It would be getting very cold indeed.
Science does not have a clear understanding of the reasons for this temperature plateau -- the oasis of warmth we've been enjoying in a history of much colder temperatures. Thank God for global (natural) warming!
Another feature of interest is to compare the CO2 levels to the temperature levels. Temperature increases clearly precede CO2 increases. CO2 did not initiate global warming in the past. Causes do not follow effects. This is illogical. At least in the past, CO2 did not cause rapid global warming.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Cooler global forecast, but fears of warming persist
Although we are bombarded almost daily with stories of the melting North Pole, other details oddly do not get reported.
"Global temperature for 2008 is expected to be 0.37 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C, the coolest year since 2000, when the value was 0.24 °C..."
And then, the excuses:
"These cyclical influences can mask underlying warming trends with Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, saying: 'The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000.'"
Sure. Makes perfect sense. The warming is happening, but it is masked. Global warming's there, but you won't see it because of the global cooling. Trust us.
"Global temperature for 2008 is expected to be 0.37 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C, the coolest year since 2000, when the value was 0.24 °C..."
And then, the excuses:
"These cyclical influences can mask underlying warming trends with Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, saying: 'The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000.'"
Sure. Makes perfect sense. The warming is happening, but it is masked. Global warming's there, but you won't see it because of the global cooling. Trust us.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Going Underwater, But Who Is To Blame?
Kiribati atoll slowly sinking under the waves
Of course, the cause is "climate change." This phrase has come to automatically mean an implication of mankind and industrialization. Yes, climate changes. Sea levels have been rising for 10,000 years. Why blame man? They were rising faster in the previous decade than they are in this one!
Of course, the cause is "climate change." This phrase has come to automatically mean an implication of mankind and industrialization. Yes, climate changes. Sea levels have been rising for 10,000 years. Why blame man? They were rising faster in the previous decade than they are in this one!
...sea level is certainly rising – of course, it has been rising for the past 10,000 years. During the last glacial period, sea level dropped 400 feet as water was tied up in ice, and as we have moved out of the cold glacial period, sea level has recovered. The question for climate change experts is not “Is sea level rising” but rather “Is sea level rise accelerating?” In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected”, while in 2007, IPCC wrote “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear.” To say the least, the IPCC has been very cautious on the issue of accelerated sea level rise.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Join the Flat Earth Society!
On CBS 60 Minutes program last weekend, Al Gore compared those who don't believe in man-made global warming to members of the Flat Earth Society, and conspiracy theorists who claim the moon landing was a hoax.
Perhaps so, but if you fit into that group -- doubters in global warming caused by humans -- you join a rarified group of scientists, including:
Dr. Edward Wegman–former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences–demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich–president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology–says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”
Prof. Paul Reiter–Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute–says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes–director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute–states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea–past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones–says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.”
Dr. Antonino Zichichi–one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter–calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.”
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski–world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research–says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad–head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo–says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.”
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu–founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.”
Dr. Claude Allegre–member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”
Dr. Richard Lindzen–Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov–head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”
Dr. Richard Tol–Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent.”
Dr. Sami Solanki–director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”
Prof. Freeman Dyson–one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen–director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
(list from The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon in The National Post, as noted by commenter "Michael G" in the New York Times Dot Earth blog.)
Perhaps so, but if you fit into that group -- doubters in global warming caused by humans -- you join a rarified group of scientists, including:
Dr. Edward Wegman–former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences–demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich–president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology–says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”
Prof. Paul Reiter–Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute–says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes–director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute–states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea–past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones–says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.”
Dr. Antonino Zichichi–one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter–calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.”
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski–world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research–says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad–head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo–says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.”
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu–founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.”
Dr. Claude Allegre–member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”
Dr. Richard Lindzen–Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov–head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”
Dr. Richard Tol–Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent.”
Dr. Sami Solanki–director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”
Prof. Freeman Dyson–one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen–director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
(list from The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon in The National Post, as noted by commenter "Michael G" in the New York Times Dot Earth blog.)
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
More global cooling documented
It is almost getting tiring documenting all the evidence of global cooling. Here we go again, from NPR:
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
Note how the story headline implies that we are still in the midst of global warming, it's just that the heat is "missing." LOL. Send out a search party! We've got to find that warming! The dog ate my global warming! I suppose that when all measures of global climate start showing unmistakable cooling, they will still find some way to attribute it to global warming, which we know is occurring, because the consensus told us so.
Ah well, back to the drawing board to cook up another computer model.
You have to read further into the article to find a more plausible hypothesis.
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
Note how the story headline implies that we are still in the midst of global warming, it's just that the heat is "missing." LOL. Send out a search party! We've got to find that warming! The dog ate my global warming! I suppose that when all measures of global climate start showing unmistakable cooling, they will still find some way to attribute it to global warming, which we know is occurring, because the consensus told us so.
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.But the mass of the air on the planet is insignificant compared to the mass of the oceans. Also, I'm not sure this is even an honest statement, i.e. that the air is warming. In fact the article states "it is possible" the air has warmed. Anything is possible, but air must have warmed in the places we aren't measuring it, because where we have measured the air, it is NOT warming. As you can see from the temperature record on this graph, the global air temperature in 2006 and 2007 was not as high as in 2002, 2003, 2004, or 2005.This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."
In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.
Ah well, back to the drawing board to cook up another computer model.
You have to read further into the article to find a more plausible hypothesis.
Recently the founder of The Weather Channel suggested that Al Gore should be sued for fraud. I'd like to get a piece of that action.But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?
Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.
That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.
"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
