Global Warming/Climate Change Info Packet

[IRRow]

An excellent overview that puts things into a proper perspective. If only the mainstream media would have the courage to actually investigate and question the UN reports. It is hard not to be cynical about motive. The UN appears to be trying to pin their future viability to this trojan horse - after food for oil and all the other failures.

Sort of like the Dion crowd!

[nigelf]

http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=6338516&nav=0RbQ
Forecaster blasts Gore on global warming

NEW ORLEANS A top hurricane forecaster says former Vice President Al Gore "doesn't know what he's talking about" in his warnings about global warming.

William Gray calls Gore "a gross alarmist."

The 77-year-old Gray is a professor emeritus at Colorado State University and a highly respected authority on hurricanes. And he has long opposed the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.

Gray's comments to The Associate Press yesterday came on the same day that an international panel of experts on climate change issued a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences unless nations adapt to climate change.

M-I-T professor Kerry Emanuel, who has battled with Gray on the issue before, says Gray has wrongly dug in his heels. Emanuel says there's ample evidence of global warming.

Gray delivered the closing speech yesterday at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans.

[styky]

<a href=http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/04/10/new-climate-and-environmental-change-weblog-launched/>New Climate and Environmental Change Weblog Launched"</a> - "A new weblog has been launched called <a href=http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/04/10/new-climate-and-environmental-change-weblog-launched/>Icecap.</a> Its mission, as they state on their website is “ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather. We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon." (Climate Science http://www.junkscience.com/

[DrWright]

Gray delivered the closing speech yesterday at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans.

Speaking of huricanes did you know there are fewer cat 3 ones lately.
http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=62

Now who to trust the "buy my carbon credits" Goracle or NOAA,...

[styky]

<a href=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010>Green_House_Conspiracy</a> This documentary is a good companion to the latest documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" recently shown on CH 4 UK and is available on Google video. The hoax of Global Warming / Green House was exposed 17 years ago by CH 4 UK in this documentary entitled Green House Conspiracy. (Google Video)
<a href=http://www.junkscience.com/>source</a>

[Beacon Hill]

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that we are experiencing global warming and that a good part of the reason for it is human activity. These scientist are not part of a great UN or Stephane Dion or Al Gore-lead conspiracy.

As one could find a few scientists who believe that smoking does not cause cancer or CFC don't deplete the ozone layer, one can find a few scientists - and it seems several psuedo-scientists - who don't believe in global warming.

The evidence is that global warming is a problem and that conservatives must be at the forefront of finding a solution.

[Shamus11]

The Cult of Climate Change

By

James Bredin

Pay attention to the activists and they may drive you mad,
Their global-warming and climate-change cults are the new fad,
As they shout and scream that hunger and misery will be widespread,
That we’re facing an apocalyptic future and we may end up dead.

Certain species such as frogs may be extinct in sixty years,
You too may be dead by then so we should have no fears,
And there’s no need for dialogue because they know the score,
It’s a new godless religion that we’ve never heard of before.

The rainforest may be gone so don’t forget to donate now,
As much money as you dare or your partner will allow,
And we’re all in this together so jump on their wagon,
They have this evangelistic faith of a fire breathing dragon.

Increased drought and water scarcity will lead to lots of hunger,
And we better do something now because we’re not getting younger,
The sea will rise up and flood the land so you should buy a boat.
And if you believe any of this you are definitely a goat.

Monday, April 16, 2007

[styky]

<a href=http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm>Carbon cycle modelling and

the residence time of natural and

anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:

on the construction of the

"Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma.</a>

A long read but well worth the time.

[styky]

Energy, Oxygen and CO2
Let’s All Take a Breath
By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., 4/21/2007 2:48:13 AM
Many people are asking about the details of energy production, pollution, global warming, and environmentalism. Confusion still reigns supreme in Hollywood, the Main Stream Media (MSM), and environmental organizations, and is more often dispensed in gigabyte quantities by people who have never seen a science book. The public is misled, deceived, and frightened by these industries that learned a long time ago that frightened people will buy more newspapers, news magazines, and watch more movies and “documentaries”. A frightened citizenry in turn makes for dangerous, uninformed, and costly public policy and wasteful fear-driven regulations.

The current scare story, the latest in the continuing 40 year series of such stories, is global warming. For some, it is an unfortunate war against fossil fuels which includes the 52% of the nation’s electricity that is produced from the burning of coal, as well as lesser amounts of natural gas, and oil. Others view it as a continuing the attack on the American economy, by attacks on its energy systems. Maurice Strong and others have told us as much:

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations. [The Environmentalists' Little Green Book, ISBN 0-615-11628-0]

With statements like this, members of the public, almost desperate for better information, are asking for the details of fossil fuel burning and the impacts on climate and the related production of CO2. The following provides much more context of the global CO2 situation.

First consider the global prevalence of CO2 and its significance. CO2 is essential for all plant life on the planet, including the entire agricultural industry. It is not a pollutant, regardless of the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the well-known process of photosynthesis performed by most plants, CO2 is combined with water to produce oxygen and cellulose. The process is actually much more complicated but certainly CO2 is an essential ingredient for this life giving process. That the process globally also generates billions of tons of oxygen (O2) for the atmosphere, and for us to breathe, the importance of photosynthesis to life on earth and the requisite CO2 cannot be overstated.

The media have convinced many that CO2 is a pollutant, which it is not. Their line of reasoning is that man-made CO2 is causing global warming. This effect is relatively small and is based upon questionable CO2 measurements from ancient ice cores. There are a number of other natural climate forcing functions, such as the sun, clouds, and aerosols, all of which have unknown and unquantified potentials for warming.

Then there are several key gases which combine to be called greenhouse gases (GHG). About 97% of the greenhouse gas inventory is water vapor. Given that 70% of the Earth’s surface is water, we shouldn’t be surprised. The next most prevalent GHG is CO2 which is about 1.9% of the total. There are lesser amounts of methane, and others making up the rest. The CO2 fraction is only 1.9% of the total. However, the man-made fraction of the total CO2 is even smaller, less than 3% of that 1.9%, or 0.06%.

Thus, another problem arises for the “global warmers”. They are left to explain why the tiny manmade fraction of CO2 is a warming problem but the much larger fraction of CO2 from natural sources is not, since the CO2 from both natural and manmade sources are chemically identical.

In spite of all the confusion about atmospheric CO2 it is still poorly understood: How much is man-made, how much is natural, and exactly where does the natural CO2 come from.

There are many sources of global CO2, including exchanges with ocean water, which are known to have huge capacities for both absorption and release of CO2. The capacity of the oceans to absorb atmospheric CO2 is enormous and has been ongoing for millions of years. ( http://tinyurl.com/yutcmm ).

There are many more climate uncertainties including the methods by which scientists have actually been measuring atmospheric CO2. The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) limits its CO2 considerations to readings taken on top of Hawaii’s Mauna Loa and ice core readings. In addition the ice core values of CO2 are likely incorrect because of analyses problems. ( http://tinyurl.com/yoqcts ).

Furthermore, more CO2 uncertainties stem from too few measurements being made over the land masses, where far different scenarios are apparent. As reported in Science Magazine October 16, 1998 atmospheric CO2 actually declines as air masses move from West to East. This suggests that CO2 is being removed (by photosynthesis, changes in land use, etc.) faster than it is being generated by cars and fossil fuels plants. This is a very interesting bit of research, and doesn’t fit the warming dogma. But for the IPCC to systematically ignore such measurements is not good science.

Likewise there are major problems in determining the temperature history too as we learned from the IPCC “Hockeystick” fraud ( http://tinyurl.com/27vu3v ).

Other people are asking about the negative aspects of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. These fuels all produce CO2, water vapor, and NOx (which is formed when the air (80% of which is N2) is heated to flame temperatures (3000-4000 degs F).

The situation with coal is somewhat more complicated since it can contain 10% ash or more. Also the heat content (energy per pound) of the coal can vary with the form of the coal. Various forms of coal include anthracite, bituminous coal, sub-bituminous, lignite. Some nations also burn the precursor fuel, peat.

Someone seeking an understanding needs to know the chemistry of the coal being burned to be precise about these emissions. Within the world of coal, the chemistry of the ash, such as its sulfur content, is another problem. The choice of coal use becomes very complex and difficult, no thanks to regulations. For example, the coal being used on site at the Centralia, WA power plants was bituminous, had a high ash content, low heat content. But its low sulfur content at the time made this coal desirable.

Consider that 2 large coal plants of 500 MW(e) each, could burn a total of 10,000 tons of coal per day, producing 1,000 tons of ash, 400 tons of sulfur, 80 tons of NOx, and 9000 tons of CO2 per day. Most of the ash (98%+) could be recovered in the off-gas cleanup systems, as could some of the sulfur. The rest went up the stack. The ash was collected in ash piles around the plants, and used as backfill in open pit mines where possible. By contrast the air emissions from two 500 MW nuclear power plants is zero.

The coal ash also contains small amounts of radioactive uranium and thorium, and dozens of radioactive decay products from them, like radon. Because of this more radioactivity is emitted from a coal plant than from an operating nuclear power plant. The amount of radioactivity is quite small and nothing to worry about. To even detect this small amount would require some very good detection equipment.

Coal ash is even being used in a number of consumer products, usually some form of ceramic or building material. None of these pollutants are any different from what has been in the atmosphere and the soil for millions of years. We might quibble about local variations but not with the overall geological history of the ash.

Some people get bogged down in the discussions of risk. The subject of risk analysis is fascinating since it involves advanced mathematics as well as human fear, emotions, and misconceptions.

For example, the health risk of electricity production is not a zero sum game. If we were to ban the burning of coal, we'd also be banning the huge human benefits from the electricity the coal plants produce.

If we were to ban all coal, nuclear, hydro, and natural gas, which some misguided or uninformed Americans seem to want, we would also lose all of the benefits from the electricity produced, which is about 98% of the total. If this were to happen we'd be reduced to a 3rd world nation (which some Americans and foreign “friends” want). The lack of low cost electricity almost defines a 3rd world country. There are considerable health and human benefits we've derived from the burning of coal and other fossil fuels, and we should keep them in mind.

Some have asked about the impact of these emissions on the ozone hole. As far as impacting the ozone holes I know of no research which suggests harm to the ozone hole from these emissions. The Antarctic ozone hole is largely a natural phenomenon. Because of the highly politicized nature of the subject, a prominent Yale scientist, William Happer even lost his job in Department of Energy. (see ( http://tinyurl.com/ythqfk ).


Vice President Al Gore fired him, when Happer’s solid scientific views were adverse to the environmental dogma of Gore and his green followers. Happer was asking too many questions about ozone holes, UV radiation, and proposing ozone science projects to resolve these scientific uncertainties, etc.

Because of the highly politicized nature of ozone hole studies, I have very little confidence in our understanding of the natural effects on polar ozone layers, and certainly that of the ozone in the stratosphere. Ozone holes seem to be part of a natural process in the Antarctic, and may be affected by man, maybe not.

Given the many sources of natural chlorine, which acts like a catalyst in ozone formation, I can visualize the process being essentially unaffected by man, and just going through its natural annual cycles. But people do run risks to their careers if they publish environmental information adverse to the dogmas of the powerful. It also helps keep government-funded scientists in line, avoiding certain lines of research.

Air temperature also seems to be involved in ozone formation. Air over the Antarctic is somewhat colder than over the Arctic. The colder air may explain why the ozone cycles are limited to Antarctic atmosphere.

People have also asked why the government allows the exaggeration of the risks of ozone holes, nuclear energy, global warming, Alar, DDT, dioxin, etc. Such people are naive politically. As has been told to me by elected officials, it would be political suicide for Congressmen and the leaders of regulatory agencies to insist upon serious science and engineering rigor in these matters. It all depends upon where the votes lie.

For example, for years members of environmental groups, thanks to their considerable political muscle, have been rewarded with key government positions in the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and in many state governments as well. The result is that science takes a back seat to public fear and propagandists.

There are laws on the books requiring the government to produce scientifically valid documents. For example, such a law might have prevented the US DDT ban of 1972 by the Environmental Protection Agency. This ban has now led to tens of millions of deaths from mosquito borne malaria, with hundreds of millions disabled, and we’re still counting.

The Federal Data Quality Act was actually signed by Clinton with the intention of improving the scientific quality of documents and reports coming out of the federal government. (While such a measure is needed badly by the state governments that is a different story). However, most Federal agencies have responded by ignoring the law, and no one seems to have the political will or clout to enforce it.

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter and a analysist for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and living in Kaneohe. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:foxm011@hawaii.rr.com

HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com

<a href=http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?eed082e3-21c2-4537-8ae6-2815f7497625>source</a>

[backhoe]

This may be of interest:<P>
<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821300/posts"><b>GREEN MYTHS (ENVIRO 'FACTS' THAT AREN'T) </b></a>--Max Schulz' full piece on the subject, Energy &amp; the Environment: Myths and Facts, is available <a href="http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/Energy_and_Environment_Myths.pdf">here</a><p>

[styky]

<a href=http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf>"The myth of dangerous human-caused climate change"</a> (.pdf) - "Brief analysis of greenhouse theory, and a critique of the climate alarmism of the IPCC" (Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, "New Leaders" conference, Brisbane, May 2-3, 2007, Proceedings p. 61-74.)

[Blue Canadian]

Here's an article detailing the Red to Green conversion of one of fathers of the modern, political, Global Warming(TM) movement - none other than Mikhail Gorbachev:

Unmasking Global Warming:
The Case of Mikhail GorbachevBy Vasko Kohlmayer

Friday, May 11, 2007

The most remarkable aspect of the man-made global warming claim is the lack of solid scientific evidence for it. Yet there are those whose apparent goal it is to advance this theory at all costs. Blatant in their disregard of the facts, they try to convince as many as would believe of the real nature of this alleged danger. But since this activism does not rest on scientific evidence or hard facts, it must be driven by motives other than those publicly stated. This much at least should be obvious, but sadly far too many people have failed to make this inference. Blinded by fear, they have not considered the possibility that those fanning the flames of hysteria may harbor ulterior motives.

To see just what those motives may be, we need to go no further than Mikhail Gorbachev whose remarkable political transformation offers a striking insight into the true character of the man-made global warming movement.

Formerly leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev is now one of the world's most vocal global warming activists. This is an unlikely role indeed for a man who during his years in power showed no inclination to address environmental issues. This could not have been for lack of opportunity, given that he presided over a country which suffered from extensive ecological damage wrought by years of gross disregard and mismanagement. Had he had the inclination, there was much to do about the lamentable state of his country's environmental condition. Gorbachev, however, not only did nothing, but brazenly continued the Soviet regime's ecologically disastrous policies.

But nothing revealed his true attitudes more glaringly than the explosion of a nuclear reactor at Chernobyl. His first reaction was not to launch a clean-up operation, but to conceal the fact. Initially he denied that anything happened at all. Then, when radioactive clouds reached countries hundreds of kilometers away, he claimed that it was only a 'minor' accident. It was only under the pressure of growing evidence that Gorbachev finally admitted the truth. While mounting the cover-up, the time and energy that could have been used to contend with the unfolding ecological catastrophe were irretrievably lost. But that was not all, for Gorbachev also decided to sacrifice the lives of thousands whom he refused to evacuate or even notify of the danger. Scores died and countless others suffered from diseases caused by exposure to radiation. Many could have been saved had Gorbachev done the decent thing. Chernobyl thus stands as tragic evidence of Gorbachev's disdain both for nature and human life which, sadly, is all too often found in those who espouse the communist worldview.

Yet today this man is one of the world's most prominent eco-lobbyists and an ardent proponent of global warming. The question is how we are to reconcile Gorbachev's past behavior of environmental destructiveness with his present-day activism. We would do well to ponder this, because the answer sheds light not only on a wily personal reinvention, but also on the motives of those responsible for the creation and spreading of the global warming hysteria.

The many interviews and statements made by Gorbachev since the collapse of the Soviet Union offer important clues. What they essentially reveal is that despite the ignominious fall of communism, Gorbachev has not changed his basic ideological convictions. In other words, this life-long party apparatchik remains an unrepentant communist to this day. This should surprise no one, since people rarely change their thinking later in life, especially if they are as willful and ideologically driven as Gorbatchev apparently was. After all, it was his ideological rigor that enabled him to successfully negotiate the dangerous waters of Soviet politics and emerge as his country's supreme leader barely a week after his fifty-fourth birthday.

But ejected from power less than seven years later, he faced a challenge. Unwilling to retire, he needed to find a new outlet for his political energies. This posed a problem, because Gorbachev could not afford to openly fly the banner of his communist convictions, since a declaration of allegiance to this well-discredited ideology would have resulted in his marginalization if not ridicule.

To remain credible, Gorbachev had to look for a more respectable platform from which to continue his efforts. This he quickly found in environmentalism and less than two years after his fall from power he founded Green Cross International, a Geneva-based eco lobby group.

It is not at all surprising that Gorbachev--like so many others on the left--has found environmentalism so attractive given that it in a furtive way tends toward the very essence of socialism. It is precisely this covert quality that makes this brand of activism so palatable to true believers in the post-communist era.

Environmentalism's socialist tendencies are already inherent in its starting premise which is that this world is headed for destruction because of the way modern societies conduct their life and affairs. The principal culprits are the business enterprise--whose relentless pursuit of profit has ecologically devastating consequences--and the masses whose excessive and irresponsible consumption exacerbate the already precarious situation. The only way to avert the looming catastrophe, then, is to rein in the greedy business and direct people's behavior in environmentally conducive ways. This naturally can only be done by a government properly equipped for the great task at hand. The net result of environmental activism is thus an empowered state exercising close oversight over the business and private spheres. In Marx's parlance, the means of production--and indeed nearly aspects of societal life--are placed under state control. This is nothing if not socialism rising, and since it also happens to be something Gorbachev has been striving for all of his life, it should come as no surprise that he has been an enthusiastic proponent ever since Marxism-Leninism became a byword for failure.

But while even the most basic forms environmentalism have proven themselves to be a potent vehicle for advancing socialist ideals, the potential of global warming has exceeded almost all expectations in this regard. All of the elements of the harrowing scenario it so vividly paints--its global scope, its imminence, its catastrophic potential--point toward the need for immediate and drastic measures on a wide scale. It should not take very long to realize that such a comprehensive response can only be mounted by a state armed with vast powers to decree, to regulate and to tax, powers which the devotees are only too eager to grant.

It is precisely for these reasons that the idea of man-made global warming so appeals to Mikhail Gorbachev who never did anything for the environment when he was in the position to do so. It is as paradoxical as it is revealing that this man who now parades as an angel of ecological salvation is by virtue of his actions at Chernobyl and elsewhere responsible for more environmental destruction than any other person alive.

The case of Mikhail Gorbachev carries an outstanding educational value, because it shows what the global warming alarmism is ultimately about. The glaring deceitfulness and duplicity on display here could well serve as emblems for the whole movement whose real objectives are sharply at variance with its promulgated goals.

We can only regret that President Reagan is no longer around to admonish Gorbachev for his spurious activism in the same way he chastised him for his dictatorial high-handedness by the Berlin Wall. One can almost picture Ronald Reagan standing in Kyoto's main square rebuking this old communist thus:

Mr. Gorbachev, if there is any honesty left in your heart, take off your mask. Do not exploit lies to further your devious agenda. Tell us candidly what your goals are so that we can have an honest debate. Stop erecting those bogus smokescreens and stop scaring the gullible with pseudo-science. Mr. Gorbachev, take off that ugly green mask.

And so should the whole man-made global warming lobby.

Born and raised in former communist Czechoslovakia, Vasko Kohlmayer is a naturalized American citizen. His work has appeared in The Baltimore Sun, The Washington Times, Frontpage magazine, The American Thinker, The Jewish Press, RealClearPolitics, and others. Email Kohlmayer at vasko_kohlmayer@msn.com

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/kohlmayer051107.htm

[styky]

June 15, 2007
On the Fundamental Defect in the IPCC’s Approach to Global Warming Research by Syun-Ichi Akasofu
by Syun-Ichi Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks

The purpose of this note is to point out that the method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion:

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Contrary to this statement on page 10 of the IPCC “Summary for Policy Makers” (2007), there is so far no definitive evidence that “most” of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. I believe that this baseless conclusion results from the scientific composition of the IPCC study group.

The IPCC study of the present global warming has fallen into a scientific gap between the meteorological approach and the climatological approach. A study of climate change, including a study of the present warming, should belong to climatology, as the name of the IPCC indicates.

One of the most important research areas for climatologists is past climate changes, from the time of the Earth’s beginning. Geologists are also interested in past climate change. Climatology has an element of archeology that is naturally not the main concern of most meteorologists, who are basically physicists. Thus, there is a fundamental difference in how meteorologists and climatologists seek to understand the present global warming, even if both are concerned about it.

Although the media often reports that the IPCC conclusion is based on the “consensus of 2500 world experts,” there are perhaps not more than a few hundred genuine climatologists in the world. A large number of the participating IPCC scientists are basically meteorologists, whose study areas are physical processes of weather phenomena, not necessarily weather forecasting; their main scientific interests do not include understanding climate change that has occurred in the past. There is also a large group of scientists in the IPCC study group whose primary expertise is in computer modeling.

Meteorologists identify and provide to the modeling groups the presently known climate forcing functions, such as the greenhouse effect, effects of solar output changes, and volcanic effects. Based on this input, modelers attempt to simulate climate change during the last 100 years. They simulate climate change based on the known forcing functions under the assumption that the computer is programmed to accommodate all the basic elements of weather/climate processes. For this particular reason, they also run their models without the known forcing functions and interpret what the computer output gives as “natural change”. However, this interpretation of the computer output is doubtful and is perhaps incorrect.

Following this methodology, since none of the known forcing functions are able to accurately reproduce the observed temperature rise (0.6°-0.7°C/100 years), the modelers “tune” parameters associated with the greenhouse effect (with some justification) and claim that their models can reproduce reasonably well the observed temperature rise of about 0.6°-0.7°C during the last 100 years in terms of the greenhouse effect. An important point here is that the answer (0.6°-0.7°C/100 years) is given at the start. In the past, much of the criticism of climate modeling has focused on this “tuning” procedure.

However, there is a more fundamental problem inherent in the IPCC approach. If natural changes with unknown causes are occurring, they obviously cannot be included among the known forcing functions in the modeling. This is a more serious problem than the “tuning.”

In the present modeling, natural changes of unknown causes, including the Big Ice Ages, the interglacial periods, Medieval warming, the Little Ice Age and some multi-decadal changes, are mostly beyond the consideration of many participating meteorologists and modelers. Even if they knew all the forcing functions, their positive or negative feedback processes may be too complex to comprehend in applying them to the Earth system.

I am aware that many climatologists and geologists are deeply concerned about the present trend in the study of global warming, since they are aware of many known climate changes with unknown causes. However, they can contribute little to the discussion of present warming, because they cannot offer concrete forcing functions, other than changes in the Earth’s orbital path around the sun, so that many remain as a silent minority. Further, their main interests seem to be focused on climate change that occurred before the present interglacial period, such as the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and the Younger Dryas period.

As mentioned earlier, it is important to recognize that studying any period of climate change, including the present warming, belongs to climatology, more than meteorology. A serious defect of the present IPCC approach is that it does not pay much attention to the possible presence of natural changes, which are so obvious as one examines climate changes even during the last several hundred years. This is simply because, by training, the participating meteorologists do not know how to deal with forcing functions of unknown natural causes; some of them may believe that all the forcing functions are well understood. Nature is far more complex than they seem to be willing to admit.

Unfortunately, most meteorologists and modelers tend to concentrate only on details of the known forcing functions. Indeed, most of them are concerned only with the greenhouse effect during the last 100 years, since the physics of the greenhouse effect is well established and aerosol effects may be dealt with. As a result, they do not examine previous climate change, even as recently as during the last several hundred years. They are also afraid of dealing with ‘low quality’ data in the past or of taking too much effort to gather them (compared with satellite data). However, these are what climatologists have to face. This is why I mentioned earlier that climatology has an element of archeology. In some sense, ‘low quality’ data are more valuable in studying the present climate change than accurate satellite data of the last 20-30 years.

If the IPCC had paid careful attention to the view of genuine climatologists about climate change during the last several hundred years, they should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term “most” in their conclusion is baseless. Actually, it seems that the IPCC report attempts to make the case that the present warming is extremely unusual. It seems that the IPCC is still influenced by the so-called “hockey stick” figure that was prominently displayed in their 2001 report, even though it was discredited and is not in the 2007 report.

Even a casual study of climate change during the last few hundred years, based on the well-known literature, shows that there is a possibility that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. This recovery may explain much warming due to unknown causes that has occurred even during the present interglacial period; the warming rate of this recovery may be as much as 0.5°C/100 years from about 1700 to the present*. This is comparable with the rate of 0.6°-0.7°C/100 years, which the IPCC claims to be due to the greenhouse effect. The cause of the Little Ice Age is not known; in consequence, the cause of the temperature rebound is also not known. Therefore, it cannot be included as a forcing function. Nevertheless, it exists. Many glaciers in the world began to recede starting about 1700, and sea ice in the Arctic Ocean began to recede starting in 1800, so these phenomena began long before 1940 when CO2 began to increase rapidly.

Thus, it seems that the IPCC study of the present global warming has fallen into the gap between the meteorological approach and the climatological approach.

In addition, there was one obvious temperature rise from 1920 to 1940, and even a decrease from 1940 to 1975, at the same time as CO2 began to increase rapidly. It is inconceivable that the IPCC did not carefully examine the rise between 1920 and 1940. The rate and magnitude of the increase was similar to those after 1975; note that there is the superposed linear increase associated with the rebounding from the Little Ice Age and others, two together making the temperature rise highest in recent years. Their conclusion “most” should be very tentative until the causes of the 1920-1940 rise can be identified. There is no conclusive evidence that the rise after 1975 is different from the 1920-1940 rise.

The computers are “taught” that the temperature rise during the last hundred years is due mostly to the greenhouse effect. If the truth is that only about 10% of the present warming is caused by the greenhouse effect*, the computer code must be rewritten. If the rebounding from the Little Ice Age should continue during the next hundred years, it will contribute a temperature rise of about 0.5°C by 2100. In addition, the greenhouse effect may contribute an additional rise of about 0.5°C by 2100, so the expected temperature rise is about 1°C by 2100. In addition, the multi-decadal oscillation might be either positive or negative in 2100. For these reasons, it may be said that the present state of global warming study is not advanced enough to become the basis of global policy-making based on the temperature rise by 2100 that is predicted by the IPCC.

There are many clear and serious reasons to reduce the usage of energy in the future, completely aside from the IPCC’s incomplete and alarming reasons. It is also very curious that so little has been done to reduce the release of CO2, in spite of the great outcry about global warming and the countless numbers of national and international conferences and negotiations.<a href=http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/06/15/on-the-fundamental-defect-in-the-ipcc’s-approach-to-global-warming-research-by-syun-ichi-akasofu/>source w/comments</a>

[styky]

New NASA Temperature Data Yet Another Reason to Re-Assess Global Warming Scare
Faulty data abounds in the foundational arguments of climate change zealots.

By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris
Business & Media Institute
8/22/2007 1:08:01 PM



Imagine basing a country’s energy and economic policy on an incomplete, unproven theory – a theory based entirely on computer models in which one minor variable is considered the sole driver for the entire global climate system.



This is precisely what Al Gore, Senate Environment Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer and others want their nation to do.



They expect Americans to accept on blind faith the thesis that human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing catastrophic climate change. Boxer, Gore and their allies readily resort to emotional bullying against anyone who dares question this dogma.



Their pronouncements – Boxer’s juvenile “the American people have the will to slow, stop and reverse global warming” is a prime example – are merely displays of arrogance that expose their lack of basic science understanding (and their complete disrespect for public intelligence). The policies they advocate are wholly unjustified scientifically and have extraordinarily damaging economic implications for the developed world.



The scientific method, which even grade-schoolers know, provides that science advances through hypotheses based on a set of assumptions. Other scientists challenge and test those assumptions in what philosopher Karl Popper called the practice of “falsibility.” Trying to disprove hypotheses is what real science is all about.



Yet the hypothesis that human addition of CO2 would lead to significantly enhanced greenhouse warming was quickly accepted without this normal scientific challenge.



As Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences said, consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Adherents to the hypothesis began defending the increasingly indefensible by launching personal attacks, essentially trying to frighten scientific opponents into silence.



Much to the frustration of alarmists, however, solid scientific evidence continues to mount against the flawed notion that human CO2 emissions are a problem.



For instance, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) just made significant changes to its temperature records, downgrading the magnitude of recent rises.



This was precipitated by discovery of errors in NASA methodologies by Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre, already well-known for his debunking of the now-infamous “hockey stick” temperature graph that was a fundamental pillar of the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report.



Dr. James Hansen, as director of GISS, is responsible for NASA temperature records. An ardent Gore supporter, Hansen often plays conflicting roles simultaneously. Within one week of the change to the NASA record, he posted a blog diatribe – not officially through his employer’s channels, but as a private citizen.



In his blog post, he claimed the temperature changes were insignificant (in reality, they are highly significant) and likened climate warming skeptics to “court jesters” paid by industry.



Hansen also played this duplicitous game when he made a sensationalist climate change presentation to Congress – also as a private citizen. Such strongly held and outspoken views likely influence, and so are inconsistent with, his activities as a scientist/executive at NASA.



Before McIntyre’s discovery, NASA considered 1998 the warmest year in the continental U.S.; now it is 1934, with 1998 second and 1921 third.



Four of the 10 warmest years on record are now acknowledged to have occurred when human production of CO2 was minimal, in the 1930s. The past decade now includes only three of the 10 warmest years. Will Gore withdraw “An Inconvenient Truth” pending necessary corrections?



A second “proof” of human CO2-caused warming, according to the U.N.’s IPCC, was a claimed increase in global temperatures of about 1°F over 130 years. This was asserted to be outside natural variability. But the uncertainty in the measurements was more than ±0.3°F, meaning possible values could vary by as much as 66 percent of the total change.



The source of this temperature calculation, University of East Anglia’s Professor Phil Jones, has refused to disclose which temperature records were used and how he “adjusted” them. Clearly, the IPCC’s conclusions must be viewed with considerable suspicion until they provide full disclosure on the Jones data.



The meaning of these revelations is clear: computer models are the basis of all forecasts used by alarmists. These models used temperature data that is now known to be suspect or completely wrong. Will Gore, Boxer and the IPCC call for a rational re-evaluation of the global warming scare?



Don’t bet on it – accurate science was never a hallmark of this crusade.







Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Tom Harris is an Ottawa-based mechanical engineer and NRSP Executive Director. Ball and Harris serve as guest columnists for the Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/comment ... 30511.aspx

[styky]

<a href=http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=163&Itemid=1>ANALYSIS OF UNIPCC 4AR DISPELS MYTH OF "THOUSANDS" OF SCIENTISTS </a>
Analysis shows just 5 reviewers, none with impeccable credibility, explicitly endorsed the critical Chapter 9 or WG1 of UNIPCC's 4th Assessment Report which claims that humans have a significant influence on climate.

<a href=http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ipcc_review_updated_analysis.pdf>link to download pdf</a>