Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?
Among the ever-growing mountain of informed criticism of the IPCC’smethods, a detailed study by an Australian analyst John McLean (to find
it, Google "Prejudiced authors, prejudiced findings") shows just how
incestuously linked are most of the core group of academics whose
models underpin everything the IPCC wishes us to believe about global
The significance of the past year is not just that the
vaunted "consensus" on the forces driving our climate has been blown
apart as never before, but that a new "counter-consensus" has been
emerging among thousands of scientists across the world, given
expression in last March’s Manhattan Declaration by the so-called
Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.
repudiates the IPCC process, showing how its computer models are
hopelessly biased, based on unreliable data and programmed to ignore
many of the genuine drivers of climate change, from variations in solar
activity to those cyclical shifts in ocean currents.
it was put by Roger Cohen, a senior US physicist formerly involved with
the IPCC process, who long accepted its orthodoxy: "I was appalled at
how flimsy the case is. I was also appalled at the behaviour of many of
those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who
"In particular I am referring to the arrogance, the
activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications;
the mindless defense of bogus science; and the politicisation of the
IPCC process and the science process itself."
GLOBAL COOLING HITS BRITAIN
Raw Arctic winds have left Britain shivering in its coldest start to winter for three decades. According to the Met Office, the average temperature for the first third of December has been 1.7C (35F), well down on the long-term average for this time of 4.7C (40.5F).
The bitter cold is a rude reminder of what winter used to be like and in stark contrast to the recent run of remarkably mild winters, when trees hung on to their leaves well into December and frogs were seen spawning in ponds. An early taste of winter came with the freakish snows of October, and this month could prove to be the worst month of the year for underpar temperatures.
The last time that the country suffered such an outrageous early winter bout of cold was in December 1976, when the average temperature was a bonechilling 0.8C (33.4F).
""There is also the matter of solar irradiance," adds Pesnell. "Researchers are now seeing the dimmest sun in their records. The change is small, just a fraction of a percent, but significant. Questions about effects on climate are natural if the sun continues to dim." ~Quote from first article.
I don’t claim to know a lot about sun spots, but if this is true (that global temperatures are being pushed down by low levels of solar activity) that is disturbing. Here’s why: a number of effects mask the upward pressure that CO2 is putting on global temperatures. Solar dimming is one (which is air pollution reflecting some of the sun’s energy back into space). If the solar dimming effect is further helped by a low in sunspot activity, that means the effect of greenhouse gases are even larger than we’ve already measured.
So if a lull in solar activity is happening right now, it will keep temperatures lower now than they would be (good in the short run), but once the sun returns to a normal level of activity, the temperature will jump up.
The top scientists, of the world, take into account the variations (cycles) of solar activity regarding the data collected for the consensus on Global Warming. They may not take into consideration all (minor) variables, but this one they have…
If I put myself, my whole life, into researching, going to every corner of the world and drowning myself into my work, then I’d be pretty pissed if anyone conspired to sabotage my work to further their own agenda. At this point, I’d be ready to start a personal war with whoever crossed my path, who did not legitimatelyalter my findings. Now, what major scientist, after all their years living for their life’s work, has come forth to retaliate against people who would conspire against these scientists? I can’t think of any top scientist who has gone through this. I am open to anyone who can find this for me. Considering the extent to which these scientists must go through to obtain this type of information and has not come forth to claim they’ve been blackmailed by authorities to alter their findings shows me the probability that there is no conspiracy theory about "Global Warming". Those who are skeptical might want to find "people of nature" or indigenous peoples who will claim the same things, i.e., that their food is disappearing, their land is slowing receding, their water contains far less species (The Great Barrier Reef and all of it’s organisms that contained a necessary symbiotic relationship with other species), and etc.
I’m just saying that if I spent my life, for my work, then I doubt I’d forego anyone’s malevolent intentions of undermining my research… realistically speaking.
I get so tired of the poorly informed and intentional deniers……
Hmmmm from "Daily digest nov 21
Sheesh, I’m sorry I stepped into this subject. This will be my final post on the subject of AGW.
Yet here you are again, without responding to my analysis of your posted link
No change in troposphere temperature for 20 years
[quote]hewittr, gearloose, et al,
Sorry I suggested reading. I made that mistake because that’s what I’ve done to arrive and my conclusions. That, and argue with denialists like some of you. If you truly have an open mind on the subject, try to understand the real science. Don’t take my or anyone else posting on the internet at face value. Go to the IPCC website and realclimate.org. They have the most up to date comprehensive science on the subject. Yes, it involves a lot of heavy reading. But if you’re interested in learning about the subject and not just denying, do yourself a favor.
AGW is not why I come to this blog. I’ve gone through the learning process and am moving on. The subject is, at any rate, peripheral to the focus of this blog. [/quote]
Again you have me confused.
One minute you apologize for "suggesting reading" and then you go and suggest we wade through more the same type, but different cluster, of articles.
The article I looked at earlier in response to your suggested reading happened to cite an article from realclimate.org
That article was hardly "heavy reading", and was far from "comprehensive science". [/quote]
[quote]Before you keep posting more articles with lots of links, might it not be prudent to either
1 prove my contention in (currently ) Post #51 wrong ( viewing options threaded list -expanded date oldest first )
2 Check your citations for objective logical reasoning and accurate data before quoting them.
Cheers Hamish [/quote]
[quote]Yet here you are again, without responding to my analysis of your posted link [/quote]
Yes you’re right, I did comment again. My bad.
The truth is that your posts were confused that it wasn’t clear to me what point you were trying to make. Assuming it was the point made by Hewittr about too little CO2 in the atmosphere, but that you took credit for, the following is pretty much the state of the science:
[quote]Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2
The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the ‘fast feedbacks’ have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the ‘slow’ feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.). Given that it doesn’t matter much which forcing is changing, sensitivity can be assessed from any particular period in the past where the changes in forcing are known and the corresponding equilibrium temperature change can be estimated. As we have discussed previously, the last glacial period is a good example of a large forcing (~7 W/m2 from ice sheets, greenhouse gases, dust and vegetation) giving a large temperature response (~5 ºC) and implying a sensitivity of about 3ºC (with substantial error bars). More formally, you can combine this estimate with others taken from the 20th century, the response to volcanoes, the last millennium, remote sensing etc. to get pretty good constraints on what the number should be. This was done by Annan and Hargreaves (2006), and they come up with, you guessed it, 3ºC. [/quote]
Bottom line is that, next to water vapor, CO2 is the most powerful ghg in the atmosphere today. However, there is the possibility that CH4 could increase dramatically with continued warming and consequent melting of permafrost and emergence of vast under sea stores of CH4. It is a much more volatile ghg, but it’s persistence in the atmosphere is not as great as that of CO2.
I am open minded on AGW, but tend towards the sceptical at the moment. I would however make the following observations:
1. Regardless of the hot air proceeding from the proponents of AGW, and the way most governments in their public pronouncements support the "sky is falling" rhetoric, none of them are acting as if the "crisis" is real.
2. AGW has overtones of a religion, whether or not the science is valid. i.e. we have the hair shirt brigade, talk of heretics and deniers and an activity in "offsetting" and "tradeable emissions" with about the same validity as the selling of indulgences by a medieval Pope.
3. I question the morality that underpins the whole environmental movement. What is sustainability? Why is sustainability important anyway? No one disputes that the Earth and all that is on it is finite on some timescale. Why therefore is it AUTOMATICALLY considered of greater moral value for man to live several millions of years smeared in woad and eating turnips as the (mostly middle class) "raffia mafia" would have it, than to go out in a few thousand years having squandered everything on a massive technological party? Technological partying may even throw up the possibility of infecting the rest of the universe with our insatiable entrepreneurial spirit, and certainly has a better chance in the short term of alleviating real poverty and suffering in the here and now.
Ok there is obviously a long continuum between the two extremes in 3, but there is seriously no moral problem with either, given that in the long run we are all dead anyway. I think it must stem from a misguided belief in the immortality of the race / species or even the individual. You see the same attitude extant in all the health scares. People don’t rationally believe they will be immortal if they don’t smoke / drink / eat the wrong diet, but I think subconciously they actually do! Environmentalism is a miserable, puritanical philosophy, and at its heart is a sad lack of self worth. Some of these people even believe that animal life, or any life for that matter is intrinsically worth more than (usually other peoples’) human life. Now I’m not advocating cruel exploitation or wanton pollution or anything like that – clearly there is a place for good stewardship and fairness, but I think environmentalism sells humankind well short when there is so much that is both good, altruistic and sustainable.
Since the 1970s rivers are cleaner, the air is cleaner, the amount of energy per unit of GDP has fallen. It is likely we will find a (pseudo) sustainable future – but the future is teamwork and rational thought – Not a new religious Gaia fetish.
All good arguements but my position is –
For every climate chart I see regarding global warming – the end result is sudden global cooling. Though I had some reserevations about how the ice cores are "read" since warm years could melt away data from certain cool years, the end result is a return to cooling.
No one is mentioning the sulfur levels which are another cooling trend. Sulfur is seen in the beautiful red sunrises and sunsets we’ve been enjoying as of late. Atmospheric sulfur brought on the Dark Ages hence the red skies. The red sunsets are a good indication – colder weather is coming.
Do I care if GCC is man-made or natural? . . . nope.
Should I follow the logic board and take action? . . . yeap.
Historically, a mini-ice age could last 7 – 50 years and that will take planning on every social level. And, if it doesn’t happen – well then we’ll just be better off in the long run.
Please allow me to pose an important question to you. Why are we going to spend trillions of dollars sequestering CO2 to mitigate global atmospheric warming, while our empirically-tested temperature models (e.g., see “Greenhouse Gases and Greenhouse Effect”, published in the last issue of Environmental Geology, or “Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission”, published this year in Energy Sources Journal) shows that increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere causes cooling rather than warming?
In the dense earth’s troposphere, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred by convection, approximately 67%. Radiation accounts for approximately 8%. Why is this important fact ignored by most scientists?
Also, why do peaks in the solar irradiation precede the peaks in the CO2 concentration in atmosphere? The answer is that as the temperature increases, CO2 evaporates from the ocean water, which is a great storehouse of CO2. Is the cause and effect reversed in the mind of many scientists? What is the common cause of “simultaneous” warming on Earth, Mars, Pluto and Jupiter? This is more than coincidence.
Any attempts to mitigate undesirable climate changes using restrictive regulations are doomed to failure because the global forces of nature are at least 4-5 orders of magnitude greater than the available human controls (e.g., see recently published, 2007, book by Elsevier Publishing Co. entitled "Global Warming and Global Cooling. Evolution of Climate on Earth").
This is a critical issue because to misappropriate limited financial resources will create a deeper global economic crisis and pull away sorely needed moneys that currently help underdeveloped nations and the poor around the world.
When Silvio Berlusconi brilliantly stated that fighting global warming is like battling windmills, he was obviously referring to Don Quixote de la Mancha fighting imaginary monsters based on distorted perceptions.
Unfortunately the “Global Warming” issue has become an emotionally-, politically-, and economically-motivated issue that has warped into a form of religious dogma founded on erroneous perceptual beliefs in the face of contradicting facts. Like a religion, it is becoming a sacred cow, impossible to touch.
As far as alternate sources of energy are concerned, do the proponents of this issue realize that all alternate sources of energy put together will satisfy only around 35% of the World demand for energy?
The reality is that in order to survive we will need to take, at the minimum, 2 tracks simultaneously. The first one is to tap all available sources of energy: oil shales, geothermal, gasification and liquefaction of coal, expanding drilling for oil and gas offshore and in Alaska; also adapting cars to run on natural gas and hydrogen. The second one is to explore alternate sources of energy, but not because of combating global warming. Most importantly, clean energy is necessary for health reasons (e.g., respiratory and other health related issues).
Finally, we must also plan to eventually stop burning petroleum in our cars because it is a far more valuable resource than human kind currently appreciates. Petroleum is a critical component for medical and other highly valued applications, in particular plastics. Is it an understatement to state that if we run out of petroleum we will be in great trouble?
As a petroleum engineer and geologist, I can assure you that drilling for oil and gas offshore and in Alaska can be done in an environmentally safe manner.
from Prof. George Chilingar [[email protected]], one of the best-known petroleum geologists in the world and the founder of several prestigious journals in the oil and gas industry