Climate Science

[RetiredGySgt]

Lets be honest, the science is limited. While it can and does predicted OBSERVED climate and projects it fairly accurately out several weeks the science is totally incapable of make realistic estimates out over any length of time.

The claims as to what will happen in years are wild guesses, the science has NO ability to make reasoned informed scientifically backed estimates.

There are so many unknowns that any estimate made without direct observation is no more than a guess.

The claims that computer models can predict future weather and temperature is patently false. The models are real good at predicting based on information provided, the problem is no one knows the right information.

Clouds, for example, play a crucial role in a lot of weather and even temperature levels and events. Yet no one can predict how or when clouds will form. The science knows what clouds are made of, but totally lacks any ability to determine why, when and what type of clouds will form. Except on observed data.

No one knows IF man is contributing to global warming, and if he is how much. Yet they plug in wild guess into the computers and come up with wishful thinking estimates based not on science but the whims and prejuidices of the team that programed the computer. Furthermore no one knows exactly what is supposed to be contributing to Global warming. One theory being CO2, but that is in doubt based on a check of historical levels of CO2 in the past and the temperatures known to exist then.

And then we have this....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070510/ap_on_sc/hot_future

 

[Diuretic]

Weather is about what's happening now and in the immediate future.

Climate is about the past, the present and an extrapolation to the future.

Try here - http://www.bom.gov.au/silo/products/cli_chg/index_global.shtml

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The point is still valid, symantics aside. No one has the science to accurately predict 2 months in the future much less 80 years. Computer models are only as good as the data inputted and only do what they are told. If you can't tell it the right information you wont get any realisticly sound prediction out of it.

This was part and parcel of the problem in the 70's when our scientists were telling us we were all going to freeze.

The argument that we can predict the "climate" in 10 years or 80 years is based on smoke and mirrors. Rather then waste money on these worthless predictions and pointless use of computer time we should be working on improving our abysmal lack of knowledge on what makes the "climate".

Nature has already shown us that just because temperatures are apparently increasing ( at a miniscule rate I might add) now doesn't mean 10 years from now that will still be true.

Nature has no "Normal" state. It is constantly in flux.

 

[Superlative]

Climate Science is basically fortune telling, instead of a crystal balls they use computers. Predicting climates so far in the future is futile to say the least.

 

[Diuretic]

However despite the misgivings expressed by you both, scientists will continue to work on predicting climate change and governments will continue to discuss policy in the light of those findings.

 

[bobn]

Climate models are our best understanding of how climate works. They don't have to be run on computers - the physical processes and laws they are made up from are written in textbooks, it's not just numbers fed into a computer. Early climate models before computers existed were done with pen and paper. Computers are used as a tool simply to speed up the computation - models contain so many physical processes now that it would take far too long for even a team of people to do with pen and paper. As computer power has increased more realistic processes have been added to the models.

The claims as to what will happen in years are wild guesses, the science has NO ability to make reasoned informed scientifically backed estimates. There are so many unknowns that any estimate made without direct observation is no more than a guess.

There are lots of knowns, so it's not true that science has "no" ability to make reasoned informed scientifically backed estimates.

 

[red states rule]

Leonardo DiCaprio Film Claims Global Warming Could Cause Human Extinction
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 20, 2007 - 00:32.
Honestly, the arrogance of some Hollywood liberals knows no bounds. As they live in their million dollar mansions, and jet-set around the world in a manner that 99.99 percent of the population can’t fathom, these folks have the gall to tell others how they should alter their lives for the benefit of the planet.

The most recent example is Leonardo DiCaprio, the 32-year-old actor that has absolutely no formal training in geology, climatology, meteorology, or anything in any way related to complex earth sciences.

In fact, in the picture to the right, DiCaprio could easily be answering a question about just how much education he has in these or related subjects, as according to Wikipedia, Leo never attended college.

Yet, he has the unmitigated audacity to claim in his new film that if we don’t listen to him and other scientifically uneducated folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, we’re all going to die.

As reported by The London Paper (emphasis added throughout):

Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio sent out a message about global warming at the Cannes Film Festival.

The heartthrob has made a film, the 11th Hour, warning that human beings face extinction as a result of the environmental crisis.

Imagine that. These alarmists haven’t been able to get enough attention by threatening famine, stronger hurricanes, droughts, floods, malaria, and all manner of unrest with their unwarranted hysteria. So, I guess the next step is to suggest that we’re all going to die if we don’t listen to them.

Isn’t that special?

Yet, the most delicious hypocrisy was still to come:

DiCaprio defended Gore from criticism over the amount of energy he has been reportedly using to jet around the world and to run his home.

"Don't shoot the messenger", he said. "This person is trying to relay a message to the public and the way that he travels should not be splayed out like that."

Yes, Leo, but his message to the public is that we all should radically alter our lifestyles to save the planet. Why should we do that if the messenger appears not to be?

Of course, given his apparent lack of advanced education, this hypocrisy is clearly eluding our boy Leo. But, it doesn’t end there:

The US star said he took steps in his own life to reduce global warming, telling the famous film festival: "I do try to live my life in a green manner. I have installed solar panels in my house and the car that I drive is a hybrid one.”

Sure, Leo. Here’s an overhead picture of your house in Bel Air, California. Can you tell the class how much energy you use to heat, light, and air condition it each year?

Please, be precise, Leo, and tell us how many kilowatts of electricity you use each month, along with natural gas and/or heating oil, and don't forget to include the water to irrigate your intricate landscaping.

Also, tell us how you’ve specifically altered your lifestyle since you took on this cause? What’s YOUR carbon footprint, and are you willing to take Senator Inhofe’s Personal Energy Ethics Pledge to reduce your energy use to that of the average American's in twelve months?

If not, honestly Leo, regardless of your charm, your money, and your good intentions, you’re just another rich, “Do as I Say, Not as I Do” Hollywoodan who should be seen and not heard.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12878

 

[onedomino]

As ecosystems move up mountainsides, and climate scientists accumulate more data, the evidence for global climate warming continues to pile up. Important questions are whether the warming is caused or accelerated by human activity, and whether humans can do anything about it. Regarding the last question, a goofy idea has popped up recently. It involves cutting down the pine forests in Russia and Canada. The theory is that the resulting huge white areas of ice and snow would then reflect more solar radiation back into space, thereby cooling the planet. Here’s an article on the idea. Oh, check out the automated link at the bottom of the page. It says, “Save 50% on Global Warming...” http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=547482007

BTW, long-term weather data seems to support the idea that global warming exists. Some insist this warming trend correlates well with increased CO2 emissions:

http://whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Lets be honest, the science is limited. While it can and does predicted OBSERVED climate and projects it fairly accurately out several weeks the science is totally incapable of make realistic estimates out over any length of time.

The claims as to what will happen in years are wild guesses, the science has NO ability to make reasoned informed scientifically backed estimates.

There are so many unknowns that any estimate made without direct observation is no more than a guess.


The claims that computer models can predict future weather and temperature is patently false. The models are real good at predicting based on information provided, the problem is no one knows the right information.

Clouds, for example, play a crucial role in a lot of weather and even temperature levels and events. Yet no one can predict how or when clouds will form. The science knows what clouds are made of, but totally lacks any ability to determine why, when and what type of clouds will form. Except on observed data.

No one knows IF man is contributing to global warming, and if he is how much. Yet they plug in wild guess into the computers and come up with wishful thinking estimates based not on science but the whims and prejuidices of the team that programed the computer. Furthermore no one knows exactly what is supposed to be contributing to Global warming. One theory being CO2, but that is in doubt based on a check of historical levels of CO2 in the past and the temperatures known to exist then.

And then we have this....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070510/ap_on_sc/hot_future

I'm going to hazard a guess that you know absolutely nothing about computational fluid dynamics.

Or very much about science at all.

 

[Vintij]

I dont think it is right to say that advocates of anthropogenic climate change have zero evidence. That is just a flat out lie. Try thousands of years of evidence, to make accurate predictions that can not be proven, but are the best predictions based on data that anyone can make.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I dont think it is right to say that advocates of anthropogenic climate change have zero evidence. That is just a flat out lie. Try thousands of years of evidence, to make accurate predictions that can not be proven, but are the best predictions based on data that anyone can make.

Not to mention the fact that we know these three facts

a) CO2 traps heat
b) man has been producing exponentially more and more CO2 for the past hundred or so years
c) we have measured an exponential increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past hundred or so years

would lead any rational person to believe that it is at least possible for man to create a greenhouse effect.

There is very little room to doubt fact a), this is just chemistry and physics

Nor is there room to doubt b), unless you want to pretend that industrialization doesn't require smokestacks

c) is simply a measurement. We can measure atmospheric Co2 in ice cores, and directly for the past several decades.

 

[TheStripey1]

As ecosystems move up mountainsides, and climate scientists accumulate more data, the evidence for global climate warming continues to pile up. Important questions are whether the warming is caused or accelerated by human activity, and whether humans can do anything about it. Regarding the last question, a goofy idea has popped up recently. It involves cutting down the pine forests in Russia and Canada. The theory is that the resulting huge white areas of ice and snow would then reflect more solar radiation back into space, thereby cooling the planet. Here’s an article on the idea. Oh, check out the automated link at the bottom of the page. It says, “Save 50% on Global Warming...” http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=547482007

BTW, long-term weather data seems to support the idea that global warming exists. Some insist this warming trend correlates well with increased CO2 emissions:

Global climate change doesn't need anyone's permission to be. Arguing over what is causing it will do absolutely nothing to help us save our civilization. We need to start thinking about how to protect our infrastructure now, before it's too late.

The experts claim that Global Climate Change creates extremes in weather.... heat waves... droughts... flooding... intense tropical systems.... severe weather....

did I mention floods? seen any of those lately?

 

[ReillyT]

Ouch! RGS, you just got your ass stung.

 

[Angel Heart]

Floods... They've been happening since the dawn of time. I know towns that flood regularly. Every community has to prepare for their 100 year floods. Wonder why they call them 100 year floods? Maybe because bad flooding happens in all areas every 100 years?

Flooding isn't a sign of anything more than bad city planning.

 

[MysticPhD]

Sorry about the no links problem . . . I still am not authorized to use them. But this should pretty well squelch the anthropogenic warming contribution. Askyourselves why we haven't heard about it in the MSM.

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Posted By Marc Morano - "[email protected]" - 4:44 PM ET

Washington DC - An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming "bites the dust" and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be "falling apart." The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.

"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned "in one fell swoop" the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System," was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

"Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D." Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.

"Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 - 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2," he added.

Climate fears reduced to 'children's games'

Other scientists are echoing Wilson's analysis. Former Harvard physicist Dr. Lubos Motl said the new study has reduced proponents of man-made climate fears to "playing the children's game to scare each other."

"Recall that most of the 1.1 degree - about 0.7 degrees - has already occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. This fact itself is an indication that the climate sensitivity is unlikely to be much greater than 1 Celsius degree: the effect of most of the doubling has already been made and it led to 0.7 K of warming," Motl wrote in an August 17, 2007 blog post.

"By the end of the (CO2) doubling i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 -- assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time -- Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only - a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to," Motl explained.

"As far as I can say, all the people who end up with 2 or even 3 Celsius degrees for the climate sensitivity are just playing the children's game to scare each other, as [MIT climate scientist] Richard Lindzen says, by making artificial biased assumptions about positive feedbacks. There is no reasonable, balanced, and self-consistent work that would lead to such a relatively high sensitivity," Motl concluded.

Overturning IPCC consensus 'in one fell swoop'

The new study was also touted as "overturning the UN IPCC 'consensus' in one fell swoop" by the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) Joel Schwartz in an August 17, 2007 blog post.

"New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth's climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes," wrote AEI's Schwartz, who hold a master's degree in planetary science from the California Institute of Technology.

The study's "result is 63% lower than the IPCC's estimate of 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 (2.0 - 4.5 degrees C, 2SD range). Right now we're about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on Schwartz's results, we should expect about a 0.6 degrees C additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn't seem particularly alarming," AEI's Schwartz explained.

"In other words, there's hardly any additional warming 'in the pipeline' from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth's average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing," he added.

"Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore's claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz's results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC's scientific 'consensus', the environmentalists' climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world's environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?" AEI's Schwartz concluded.

UK officially admits: Global warming has stopped!

Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the "tipping point" of man-made global warming fears. A progression of peer-reviewed studies have been published which serve to debunk the United Nations, former Vice President Al Gore, and the media engineered "consensus" on climate change.

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.

"The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),"

In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections of the future. They now claim climate computer models predict "global warming will begin in earnest in 2009" because greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability.

Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, who launched the skeptical website in 2007, recently declared the "global warming movement [is] falling apart."

"A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won't start until 2009," Conklin wrote in an August 10, 2007 blog post on his website.

But the credibility of these computer model predictions took a significant hit in June 2007 when Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. In addition, Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former CEO and director of research for the Netherlands Royal National Meteorological Institute, recently compared scientists who promote computer models predicting future climate doom to unlicensed "software engineers" who were "unqualified to sell their products to society."

Sampling of very recent inconvenient scientific developments for proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming:

New peer-reviewed study on Surface Warming and the Solar Cycle: Excerpt: The study found that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2 degrees C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note. Authors: Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung: Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. Source: Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL030207, 2007

Belgian weather institute's (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming: Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder said. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2," he added.

New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes: Published in Geophysical Research Letters: Excerpt: "Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily - "Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts"

New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming: Excerpt: This study published on August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that climate models fail test against real clouds. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Dr. Roy Spencer said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

New peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth's climate - The paper, authored by Richard Mackey, is published in the Journal of Coastal Research - Excerpt: "According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun's gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth's variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth's climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex.

A July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics. Excerpt: "There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm."

Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian's 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2's impact on warming may be "excessively exaggerated." Excerpt: "The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change," the two scientists concluded.

Several recent scientific studies have debunked a media hyped UK study alleging there has not been a solar-climate link in the past 20 years. Excerpt: "The earth temperature does respond to the solar cycle as confirmed by numerous studies. The 11 year solar cycle is clearly shown in sediment cores obtained from Effington Inlet, Vancouver Island, B.C. by Dr. Tim Patterson, and in records of the Nile River , to name just two studies."

An August 2007 NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to 1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began. Revised data now reveals four of the top ten hottest years in the U.S. were in the 1930's while only three of the hottest years occurred in the last decade. Excerpt: "NASA has yet to own up fully to its historic error in misinterpreting US surface temperatures to conform to the Global Warming hypothesis, as discovered by Stephen McIntyre at ClimateAudit.org." [EPW Blog note: 80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940.

Numerous U.S. temperature collection data errors exposed by team of researchers led by Meteorologist Anthony Watts in 2007 - "The (U.S.) National Climate Data Center (NCDC) is in the middle of a scandal. Their global observing network, the heart and soul of surface weather measurement, is a disaster. Urbanization has placed many sites in unsuitable locations - on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills! The data and approach taken by many global warming alarmists is seriously flawed. If the global data were properly adjusted for urbanization and station siting, and land use change issues were addressed, what would emerge is a cyclical pattern of rises and falls with much less of any background trend," Meteorologist Joseph Conklin wrote in an August 10, 2007 blog post.

Team of Scientists Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature' - The study was published in Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics. Excerpt from a March 18, 2007 article in Science Daily: "Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada." The Science Daily article reads: "It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate." He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate.'" The article concludes: "Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out."

A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise. In addition, the latest scientific study reveals Antarctica is not following predicted global warming models. [See July 30, 2007 - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt - ]

Even the alarmist UN has cut sea level rise estimates dramatically since 2001 and has reduced man's estimated impact on the climate by 25%. Meanwhile a separate 2006 UN report found that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than all of the CO2 emissions from cars and trucks.

A May 2007 Senate Environment & Public Works report detailed a sampling of scientists who were once believers in man-made global warming and who now are skeptical. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research - ]

An upcoming Fall 2007 blockbuster U.S. Senate report is set to be released that will feature a sampling of peer-reviewed studies and hundreds of scientists (many current and former UN scientists) who have spoken out recently against Gore, the UN, and the media engineered climate "consensus." Please keep checking this blog for updates.

Prominent scientists speak out to calm CO2 emission fears

Many prominent scientists have spoken out in 2007 to debunk many fears relating to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball recently explained that one of the reasons climate models are failing is because they overestimate the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2's warming impact diminishes. "Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint," Ball explained in a June 6, 2007 article in Canada Free Press.

Boston College paleoclimatologist Dr. Amy Frappier recently explained how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cease to have a warming impact. Frappier noted in a February 1, 2007 article in Boston College's newspaper The Heights, that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere do not consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, but the impact of the gases instead stabilize and cease having a warming effect.

"At some point the heat-trapping capacity of [CO2] and its effect gets saturated," said Frappier, "and you don't have increased heating." "The geologic record shows that many millions of years ago, CO2 levels were indeed higher - in some cases many times higher - than today," Frappier, who believes mankind is having an impact on the climate, explained. According the article, Frappier criticizes Gore because "the movie (An Inconvenient Truth) fails to mention any ancient incongruity between carbon dioxide and temperature."

Spitting outside has 'same effect' as doubling CO2

In May 2007, the "father of meteorology" Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin, dismissed fears of increased man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.

"You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide," Bryson, who has been identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world, said. "All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air," Bryson added.

'Temperature drives CO2'

Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, the chair of Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, recently spoke out against fears of rising CO2 impacts promoted by Gore and others. Giegengack does not even consider global warming among the top ten environmental problems.

"In terms of [global warming's] capacity to cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10," Giegengack said in an interview in the May/June 2007 issue of the Pennsylvania Gazette. Giegengack also noted "for most of Earth's history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler." "[Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun's heat. That's just wrong ... It's a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa," Giegengack explained. "It's hard for us to say that CO2 drives temperature. It's easier to say temperature drives CO2," he added.

"Certain 'feedback loops' naturally control the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A warmer temperature drives gases out of solution in the ocean and releases them," he continued. "[Today, humans] are putting 6.5 billion tons of fossil-fuel carbon into the atmosphere, and only 3.5 billion is staying there, so 3 billion tons is going somewhere else. In the past, when the Earth's climate rose, CO2 came out of the ocean, the soils, and the permafrost. Today as temperatures rise, excess CO2 is instead going into those and other reservoirs. This reversed flux is very important. Because of this, if we reduced the rate at which we put carbon into the atmosphere, it won't reduce the concentration in the atmosphere; CO2 is just going to come back out of these reservoirs ... If we were to stop manufacturing CO2 tomorrow, we wouldn't see the effects of that for generations," Giegengack said.

Man-made CO2 equivalent to linoleum on first floor of 100 story building

Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, explained how miniscule mankind's CO2 emissions are in relation to the atmosphere.

"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor," D'Aleo wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog on his website

"Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038%). Only 2.75% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1% a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (+0.45%/year). We are responsible for just 0.001% of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor. This is likely because the oceans are a far more important sink for excess carbon dioxide than generally accepted," he explained.

NASA's James Hansen calls climate skeptics 'court jesters'

In the face of this growing surge of scientific research and the increasing number of scientists speaking out, NASA scientist James Hansen wrote this past week that skeptics of a predicted climate catastrophe were engaging in "deceit" and were nothing more than "court jesters."

"The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present," Hanson wrote on August 16, 2007. [EPW Blog Note: It is ironic to have accusations of 'deceit' coming from a man who conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of "extreme scenarios" to dramatize global warming "may have been appropriate at one time" to drive the public's attention to the issue --- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist. Also worth noting is Hansen's humorous allegation that he was muzzled by the current Administration despite the fact he did over 1400 on-the-job media interviews. ]

If the scientific case is so strong for predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming, why do its promoters like Hansen and his close ally Gore feel the need to resort to insults and intimidation when attempting to silence skeptics? [EPW Blog Note: Gore and Hansen are not alone - See: EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to 'Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic - ]

Media continues to ignore growing scientific evidence

The mainstream media's response to these recent scientific developments casting significant doubt on warming fears has been - utter silence.

In fact, the media is continuing to promote the unfounded scaremongering of both Gore and actor Leonardo DiCaprio. Both Newsweek and NBC Nightly News thoroughly embarrassed themselves recently with "news" items on global warming. (EPW Blog Note: Newsweek's cover article featured such shoddy reporting that the magazine was forced to debunk itself in the very next issue, as one of its own editors slapped the magazine down for a "highly contrived" and " fundamentally misleading" article on global warming. ]

 

[ReillyT]

Sorry about the no links problem . . . I still am not authorized to use them. But this should pretty well squelch the anthropogenic warming contribution. Askyourselves why we haven't heard about it in the MSM.

I read the article you posted, and I admit I was skeptical. I asked myself why it seemed to focus so much on just one study, with only peripheral mentions to other studies that do not directly (but do indirectly) support the proposition that there is no "anthropogenic warming contribution." It seemed odd to me that with so many organizations supporting the notion that humans play a role in climate change, that this study was likely to definitively establish anything without receiving any press.

I am not a scientist, so I say to myself, what can I do?

Perhaps I will check the source. Who is this Marc Morano?

This is what I find when I google him.

Marc Morano is communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committe under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change sceptics.

Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine." [2]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

He also is the insightful and objective investigator who has authored such fabulous articles as:

- Greens Praise ExxonMobil for Efforts to Save Tiger, 11/22/02
- Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question, 1/13/06
- Jerry Brown to World's Poor: Let Them Eat Cake, 9/3/02
- Greens 'Obsessed' with Stopping Arctic Drilling, Says Conservative, 3/14/03

Hmmmm... I don’t know if I can fully trust the objectivity of this world-class reporter from CNSNews.com. Considering he served as an aide to Sen. Inofe, perhaps he is not the most neutral source for information about climate change.

What does the establishment have to say on the issue? I will check Wikipedia.

Here is what I found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

To the proposition that man is inducing global warming (in at least some respect)

Statements by concurring organizations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
U.S. National Research Council, 2001
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

Statements by dissenting organizations
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)

Hmmmm..... Interesting.

Perhaps you will have to excuse me if I don’t feel this “squelches” the issue of human contribution to climate change. Perhaps there could still be more to discuss.

 

[ReillyT]

I may have been a little harsh with the condescension in that last post, for which I am sorry. Yours was a good post. Thanks. Perhaps the study you mentioned is correct and we have nothing to worry about. I hope that it is the case. However, it is only one study amongst hundreds (thousands?). Let us try to keep open minds and see where the weight of the evidence takes us.

 

[TheStripey1]

Floods... They've been happening since the dawn of time. I know towns that flood regularly. Every community has to prepare for their 100 year floods. Wonder why they call them 100 year floods? Maybe because bad flooding happens in all areas every 100 years?

Flooding isn't a sign of anything more than bad city planning.

maybe so... but alot of those communities flooding now are calling them historic flooding... the WORST they have ever experienced...maybe the worst ever is normal in your neck of the woods, but... it's not in mine.

The experts say these extremes will soon be our norms... I don't know about you, but I don't have the plans for building an ark... or space...

 

[TheStripey1]

Sorry about the no links problem . . . I still am not authorized to use them. But this should pretty well squelch the anthropogenic warming contribution. Askyourselves why we haven't heard about it in the MSM.

laffs...

got anyone more credible? maybe a scientist or a climatologist instead of just another political hack?

Marc Morano

Marc Morano is communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committe under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change sceptics.

Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine.

 

[jodylee]

The problem with it now is, theres so much money in global warming in order to get funding a scientist would find it favourable to study global warming or include global warming in their own projects. computer models can be manipulated by altering a variable here and there, and to talk against the view of environmentalist, is as bad as denying the holcasut or evolution, and probably damages careers. so its in the interest of the scientist to lean in one dirrection, so who do you belive.