December 20th 2008
No Consensus: Warmie Hysterics Ignore Reality
“I
am a skeptic,” says Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever in a new report on U.S. Senate report. “Global warming has become a new religion.”
So one Nobel Prize winner doesn’t sign onto the Warmie hysteria. Big deal; there’s still the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report with its “thousands” of scientist signers-on. Actually, Sen. James Inhofe’s new Senate Minority Report points out that his list of 650 scientists challenging man-made global warming claims made by the IPCC and former VP Al Gore is now more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The new report is a treasure trove of quotes from eminent scientists and links to peer reviewed papers that question the fundamentals of Warmie “science,” all showing that the debate on global warming is far from over – and that decisions to capitalize huge initiatives to stop it are premature at best. I’ll intersperse a few of the quotes with a few of the papers here:
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.
That’s atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Note the sinister tone of the quote’s lead-in; only now that she is not affiliated or funded can she speak frankly … this is science?
Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100, which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly.
However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenario for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5 ° C (1° F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001). Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age.
That’s an excerpt from the article Global Cooling is Here: Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades, by Prof. Don J. Easterbrook of the Department of Geology, Western Washington University, published in Global Research.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.
That’s Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an IPCC member and an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
Recently published observational and theoretical research suggests that climate sensitivity might be considerably less than that exhibited by all of the climate models taking part in the most recent IPCC summary. It is argued that climate models’ hypersensitivity could be the result of confusion between cause and effect when researchers analyze natural climate variability, which then finds its way into the models through improper cloud parameterizations.
That’s the abstract from Global Warming: Recent Evidence for Reduced Climate Sensitivity by Dr. Roy W. Spencer from the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.
That’s Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, the author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse,” says renowned Russian geographer Andrei Kapitsa. “It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round.”
Russian researchers made this discovery while studying ice cores recovered from the depth of 3.5 kilometres in Antarctica. Analysis of ancient ice and air bubbles trapped inside revealed the composition of the atmosphere and air temperature going back as far as 400,000 years.
“We found that the level of CO2 had fluctuated greatly over the period but at any given time increases in air temperature preceded higher concentrations of CO2,” says academician Kapitsa, who worked in Antarctica for many years. Russian studies showed that throughout history, CO2 levels in the air rose 500 to 600 years after the climate warmed up. Therefore, higher concentrations of greenhouse gases registered today are the result, not the cause, of global warming.
That summary is from a news report.
Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.
That’s one of the world’s leading solar physicists, Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo and author of more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth. And speaking of the sun:
The authors looked at 750 years worth of the local ice core, especially the oxygen isotope. They claim to have found a very strong correlation between the concentration of this isotope (i.e. temperature) on one side and the known solar activity in the epoch 1250-1850. Their data seem to be precise enough to determine the lag, about 10-30 years. It takes some time for the climate to respond to the solar changes.
It seems that they also have data to claim that the correlation gets less precise after 1850. They attribute the deviation to CO2 and by comparing the magnitude of the forcings, they conclude that “Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun.”
Well, the word “only” is somewhat cute in comparison with the “mainstream” fashionable ideology. The IPCC said that they saw a 90% probability that “most” of the recent warming was man-made. The present paper would reduce this figure, 90%, to less than 50% because the Sun itself is responsible for 1/2 of the warming and not the whole 50% of the warming could have been caused by CO2 because there are other effects, too.
That’s from a write up of a peer reviewed study, A. Eichler, S. Olivier, K. Henderson, A. Laube, J. Beer, T. Papina, H. W. Gäggeler, and M. Schwikowski: Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing.
And finally:
I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.
That’s Dr. Will Happer, Princeton physics professor and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy. He’s published over 200 scientific papers and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences. No lightweight, and no mincing of words.
The last time Inhofe issued a report like this, in 2005 with 400 scientists named, critics jumped on the report for various perceived errors or misrepresentations of the scientists included. That’ll be hard to do this time since the report is not a mere list of scientists, but rather, a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, bibliographies of their papers and links to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and Web sites.
Warmie fundamentalists will continue to deny the existence of scientific opposition to anthropogenhic global warming, but their strident denials are merely more evidence of their desperate absolutist position.
Hat-tip: Jim
Posted in Global warming | 7 Comments » | |
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply
[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 am
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Comments
December 20th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
The word is “anthropogenic” global warming, not “anthropomorphic.” Other than that it is good. I would be perfectly willing to listen to the AGW fanatics so long as their fears do not result in foolish policy. Kyoto has been a miserable failure, not only because of non-compliance of the signatory nations, but because the climate has not complied with the predictions made if Kyoto was not implemented. We should be seeing excessive warming from non-compliance with Kyoto, but the opposite seems to be true. The over-reliance on computer modelling that cannot predict the past and has not, to date, predicted the future, would seem to be a foolish basis for such Draconian measures.
December 21st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
That’s twice you’ve caught me making that dumb mistake. I don’t know where “morphic” comes from in my scattered head! Obviously the root is “genic!” Thanks.
December 21st, 2008 at 5:02 pm
It appears that the wheels on the global warming bandwagon are getting wobbly and about ready to fall off. Why then is Obama appointing so many warmies to key energy- and environmentally-related posts in his administration?
December 21st, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Here’s another thought — something I have yet to find in all the blathering about the “problem” of so much CO2 in the atmosphere:
Consider that even if we completely eliminated all combustion of fossil fuels on earth, it would not remove a single molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere — not one!
There are only two ways that any significant amount of CO2 can come out of the atmosphere: (1) absorption in the oceans and (2) absorption by plants.
We can influence only one of these mechanisms. How come we don’t hear calls from the warmies to plant more trees and stop cutting down the rain forest?
December 21st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
<B>We can influence only one of these mechanisms. How come we don’t hear calls from the warmies to plant more trees and stop cutting down the rain forest?</b>
Cause they need those forests for the newspapers…