Scientist: Forget Global Warming, Prepare for New Ice Age

[gomer_tree]

OK, so I haven’t read this whole thread, and if I repeat a few things, I apologize. But I spend a lot of time poring over the actual data and looking at research in this area, and here’s what I see:

Since 1880, the earth has warmed, according to the NASA GISS temperature anomalies by a little less than 0.6 degrees Celsius per century. It is very evident when viewing the longer-term chart that there are cycles in the temperature that will slope up at higher levels and trend down at other times, with a long-term trend upward. The longer-term warming trend is basically a longer-term natural cycle that can be seen when examining a plot of temperature over the last century. Since the period of the “Maunder Minimum” and then the “Dalton Minimum” the earth has rebounded and warmed. Most of the warming of the last century is not anthropogenic. However, it cannot be ignored that there have been CO2 emissions that have increased the ppm to the current level of the upper 300s. The global ppm charts show this increase. What is often not relayed, however, is the logarithmic nature of warming due to incremental CO2. This means that the first 20 ppm led to a 1.2 degree increase in temperature, but the incremental imacts fall so dramatically after that such that the increments we are talking about now account for a tenth or two of temperature increase, and further emissions will account for less than that.

To understand this concept, think about covering an uninsulated house with a small layer of insulation. The first layer will have a dramatic impact. The second layer will have some impact. At some point, lopping on additional layers has virtually no impact. Greenhouse gases act in the same way. It’s simple physics.

From the 1970s to 2001, there was a high slope in temps. But even in the most favorable data, GISS NASA, temperature has declined since 2001. The more accurate satellite temperature readings (RSS MSU and UAH) show cooling since 1998. The issues with GISS include the fact that it is highly extrapolated surface-station data with a lot of assumptions. In addition, they pass the data through an algorithm such that historical temperature numbers continually change, even back to early in the century. GISS is the only data set that shows temperature peaks above 1998 levels of all the data sets. Dr. Hansen, not coincidentally, is a very vocal proponent of AGW, and is widely believed to have a dog in the race, and so many skeptics look at the GISS data skeptically, especially given completely unadjusted satellite data now exists that is at odds. The pro-AGW people will argue that it’s a difference between surface station and atmospheric readings, perhaps with some validity. But the overall trends should remain the same even if certain periods differ.

More importantly, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifted from a cooling phase in 1977 to a warming phase, and has just recently flipped again. This will most assuredly lead to cooling, even admitted by most AGW proponents. The current sunspot cycle 23 is still not over. Cycle 24 officially begins only when there are more cycle 24 spots than cycle 23 spots. That has not happened yet. There are studies that indicate temperatures following a solar cycle depend much more on the previous cycle length than the amplitude of its maximum. The impact is estimated to be 0.7 degrees cooler for each year past the average of 10.7 years. Cycle 23 has a real possibility of reaching 13 years, which doesn’t bode well for the next few years. If a weak cycle 24 follows, the effect will be exacerbated.

A paper by Theodor Landscheidt a couple decades ago explored the sun’s impact on our climate in terms of its torque (angular) momentum. There are very occasional periods where the angular momentum reaches zero in a location near the center of mass of the solar system. Without going into details, the only times in recorded history these incidents happened were followed by a minimum of one degree or another, which began with an 8-year lag from the incident. This study was done in the 1980s, and in 1990 one of those incidents occurred. The satellite data shows cooling since 1998, and now we have a long cycle with an extended minimum, with high potential of a weak cycle 24, a flipping PDO cycle, a flipping Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation cycle, and all indications point to cold weather ahead. Landscheidt predicted an impact, based on his calculations, of a Grand Minimum in temperature similar to the Maunder Minimum (The Little Ice Age) of the 1600s, by 2030.

But what do I know?

 

[The_Barbarian]

To understand this concept, think about covering an uninsulated house with a small layer of insulation. The first layer will have a dramatic impact. The second layer will have some impact. At some point, lopping on additional layers has virtually no impact. Greenhouse gases act in the same way. It’s simple physics.

So no matter how much more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, it couldn’t get much warmer, um?

Are you sure about that? That’s not a rhetorical question. Please tell us.

And all these other effects you’re mentioning that might be responsible for the global warming we see, isn’t it odd that they came about, just as CO2 (which we know does raise temperatures) increased just ahead of the temperature?

 

[gomer_tree]

So no matter how much more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, it couldn’t get much warmer, um?

Define “much.” As I said, the imapct is logarithmic. So, no, additional CO2 isn’t going to drive extreme temperature increase. In fact, it;s property as a greenhouse gas pales in comparison to methane, and is about equivalent to water vapor. Water vapor comprises about 95% of the GHGs in the atmosphere and has litte to nothing to do with us. AGW is real, but far overestimated based on the empirical analysis.

And all these other effects you’re mentioning that might be responsible for the global warming we see, isn’t it odd that they came about, just as CO2 (which we know does raise temperatures) increased just ahead of the temperature?

Actually, it’s not odd at all for a couple reasons. The PDO and AMO flips are cylical and can easily be traced back well before any concerns about CO2 both in cooling and warming periods. The same is true of the solar cycles, which have actually been well documented (though not with today’s technology) for hundreds of years. Landscheidt’s analysis has nothing at all to do with CO2. The point is not that CO2 has no warming impact at all, but that it is and will be outweighed by these other cycles. In fact, once ocean cooling is in full swing, we may well see a decline in CO2 ppm concentrations because if you look at the actual track record of CO2 versus temperature, you will see that temps actually tend to precede CO2 increases. Cooler weather may portend a reduction on CO2 at some point, though likely with a few year lag.

 

[Al_Masetti]

The Unholy Alliance that manufactured the Global Warming Hoax

Just came across this; there are previous parts to it.

Here’s the URL to access all seven parts of the analysis and the seven columns by Dr. Ball.

canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3151

---

Canada Free Press -

Dr. Tim Ball
Myth of human CO2 causing warming or climate change

The Unholy Alliance that manufactured Global Warming
*By Dr. Tim Ball**Wednesday, May 21, 2008

In previous parts of this series (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) I’ve shown how a political agenda took over climate science primarily through the UN and specifically the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).* The agenda was spread to the world at the 1992 Rio Conference. Periodic Reports from the IPCC maintained the focus on CO2 and increased the political pressure. Please understand I am not claiming a conspiracy, but rather a cabal, which is defined as a secret political clique pushing a political agenda; in this case, designed by Maurice Strong.*

Although the IPCC was the major vehicle other agencies got caught up quickly as governments became more involved. Results of the IPCC reports were skillfully propagandized so the issue took hold with the media and the public. It was also due to bureaucrats in each country carefully selected from weather related offices to serve on the IPCC. As MIT professor Richard Lindzen, former member of the IPCC said, “It is no small matter that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as ‘the world’s leading climate scientists.’ It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive of the process.” A political bias made a few of them especially supportive. The pattern of their machinations emerged early and continues.* A measure of this was how long many of them kept the Hockey Stick graph on official government web sites.

Contrary to popular belief politicians do listen. The problem is they usually hear if they think there is a consensus, whether right or wrong, or if the issue can garner votes.* Both these situations existed in the claims of global warming. In addition, most politicians don’t understand climate science and were forced to rely on the bureaucrats.*

The most notorious was the Hockey Stick (HS) in the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR). Despite its destruction by McIntyre and McKitrick confirmed by the Wegman committee reporting to the National Academy of Sciences, Michael Mann and his associates continue to claim their work was legitimate. Its omission from the 2007 IPCC Report told the real story.

While the Hockey Stick was exposed and rejected it drew attention away from a more insidious piece of ‘human signal’ evidence in the 2001 IPCC (TAR). This was the claim by P.D. Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that the global average annual temperature increased 0.6°C ± 0.2°C in some 130 years.* It was claimed the increase was beyond any natural increase with the strong implication it was caused by humans. The data is simply not adequate to make this conclusion. The first problem is the huge error factor of ± 0.2°C or 66%, which essentially makes the number meaningless. Imagine a political poll saying it was accurate plus or minus 33%. Besides, there are so many problems with the global data many consider it impossible to calculate the global temperature. Some of the problems explain why.

There are very few records of 130 years, indeed, few over 100 years.

The number of these stations is not representative of the world; they were even less so as you go back in history. Most stations are still concentrated in eastern North America and Western Europe as the Global Historical Climate Network shows (see map). This was even truer as you go back in time. Then, whole continents were excluded or at best represented by a single station. There are virtually no measurements for the oceans, the forests, deserts, mountains or Polar Regions.

Most of the older stations are the ones most affected by the Urban Heat Island Effect. This is an artificial increase in temperatures as a city expands around a weather station. There is considerable disagreement over how much adjustment is necessary.

There are serious questions and proven limitations of many of the stations…*

Two US authorities, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS) produced different global annual averages for the year 2007. GISS claimed it was the second warmest year on record while NOAA said it was the seventh warmest year, both ostensibly using the same data.

In 1999 the US National Research Council Report, expressed serious concern about the data “Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality and continuity of the records place serious limitations on the confidence that can be placed in the research results.” In response to the report Kevin Trenberth said, “It’s very clear we do not have a climate observing system…This may be a shock to many people who assume that we do know adequately what’s going on with the climate, but we don’t.” It has not improved. In fact, there are fewer global weather stations now than in 1960.

Roger Pielke Sr and Dallas Staley tested the 2007 Report, “To evaluate the IPCC’s claim to be comprehensive, we cross-compared IPCC WG1 references on near-surface air temperature trends with the peer-reviewed citations that have been given in Climate Science. We selected only papers that appeared before about May 2006 so they were readily available to the IPCC Lead authors.”(Author’s note; The IPCC used this cutoff date argument to ignore research such as the relationship between sunspots and global temperature. In that case they did it even though the research was in the literature as early as 1991).

They found, The IPCC WG1 Chapter 3 Report clearly cherrypicked (sic) information on the robustness of the land near-surface air temperature to bolster their advocacy of a particular perspective on the role of humans within the climate system. As a result, policymakers and the public have been given a false (or at best an incomplete) assessment of the multi-decadal global average near-surface air temperature trends.”

Gore’s movie trumpeted that 1998 was the warmest year on record. This is wrong. An error was found in the NASA GISS data and when corrected made 1934 hottest year on record, not 1998; 1921, became the third hottest year on record not 2006; three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred prior to 90 percent of the growth in human produced greenhouse gas emissions during the last century. If it was a genuine error then somebody should be fired, if it wasn’t there are more serious implications. Suspicions are raised by a pattern of ‘adjustments’ that make earlier years cooler thus making more recent years warmer. The procedures that cause this are explained in an article titled, “Rewriting History, Time and time again.”

The pattern of adjustments and failure to disclose methods is deeply disturbing and requires much more investigation. It parallels too closely what has happened at the IPCC and makes a mockery of their claim that, “Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).”

The 66% error factor is sufficient in itself to reject the argument that Jones’ figure represents an unusual increase. It is definitely inadequate to serve as the basis for a global climate and energy policy. But there is a more serious problem.

We can’t reproduce Jones’ results because he refuses to disclose which stations he used and how the data was adjusted. To a request for information from Warwick Hughes, an Australian climate researcher who has long studied the global temperature record, Jones wrote, “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” (Jones’ reply to Warwick Hughes, 21. February 2005; P. Jones later confirmed this to Alex von Storch.)

Jones was not alone in the practice of non-disclosure or denial of access to climate data. A series of attempts to obtain information from the University of East Anglia and from the joint enterprise of the Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit are well documented on the Blog site Other people involved in the reconstructions have also ignored requests to post their data and methods, even though much of it is paid for by taxpayers and is the required practice in all other areas of scientific research. For example, it appears NASA GISS doesn’t provide all the computer source code, formulae, or the correction used for the final temperature data. Scientists must be able to validate the work and claims of others for science to advance. It is even more important if your work is the basis for global climate and energy policies. But you may consider it unnecessary if you claim the science is settled and have a political rather than a scientific agenda.

Professor Wegman’s Committee for the National Academy of Science arbitrated the hockey stick debate and identified problems in one segment of climate science, namely paleoclimate. However his remarks identified problems that plague all of climate science and especially the IPCC.*

It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

These are devastating remarks for any committee to make, but especially a science committee. They illustrate the fine line so far drawn between culpability and incompetence. They appear to illustrate behavior patterns more in line with proving a theory than disproving it, which underlines political rather than scientific objectives. It is no coincidence that it was a child who observed that the Emperor had no clothes.

By the time of the Wegman report more people were starting to ask questions, but the momentum created by the unholy alliance of the IPCC, governments, media, and environmental groups was in full swing. But there is one more component beyond the control of process that the IPCC used to perpetuate the myth of human CO2 causing warming or climate change - the computer models.*

Global Warming Series:

Part 1: Environmental Extremism
Part 2: Historical and philosophical context of the climate change debate.
Part 3: How the world was misled about global warming and now climate change
Part 4: How UN structures were designed to prove human CO2 was causing global warming
Part 5: Wreaking Havoc on Global Economies
Part 6: The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria
Part 7: The Unholy Alliance that manufactured Global Warming

 

[The_Barbarian]

The articles seem to be full of hysterical warnings about “liberals” and “libertarians.”

And you’ve seen the corrections to the graph of warming. On the scale available on this board, you couldn’t even see the difference between the old and new data. Would you like me to post it again for you?

If that’s all they have, the game is up.

 

[lubczyk]

Farmers are reactive not proactive. You don’t know how much you’ll have to grow until next growing seasons. All European and American farmers have to do is increase crop yields next season and that’ll be the end of this bogus “food shortage.”

 

[gomer_tree]

The articles seem to be full of hysterical warnings about “liberals” and “libertarians.”

And you’ve seen the corrections to the graph of warming. On the scale available on this board, you couldn’t even see the difference between the old and new data. Would you like me to post it again for you?

If that’s all they have, the game is up.

You seem unable to look past an argument of correlation versus causation. Personally, I understand the concern with the global warming argument. It makes reasonable sense to be concerned that some correctible issue is causing a problem and should be addressed. Likewise, we should all be concerned with the environment. Too often, skeptics of AGW seem to also be arguing that what we do doesn’t matter. That is not my argument at all. Where economically feasible, we need to strike the balance between human progress and being good stewards. As time goes on, technology allows us to better filter air and water and not only reduce pollution already in the atmosphere, but reduce emissions of pollutants. That is a good thing, especially when done without overt stress on jobs and development.

My issue is spending trillions of dollars, instituting carbon taxes, and so on where the science is tenuous, the conclusions drwn are so over the top that they cannot be believed, and we have defined a naturally ocurring substance a pollutant. Before committing to this allocation of resources that couold do so much good in the worl, we had better be very, very sure that we are right.

I am convinced that we are not, and this would be a misallocation of resources. If it would not be for this, I would not care all that much about who is right and who is wrong. I don’t have any particular stake in the game. I want the best possible world for me and my kids and their kids. I woouldn’t be arguing against AGW for any purpose of politics or greed or anything else if I really thought it would leave the world worse off. Personally, I think the opposite is true. We could do real damage to the future by throwing all this money and implmenting tax policy and promoting zero population growth and everything else all because of fears of something that doesn’t truly exist.

Anyway, I am seeing in your posts very little in the way of substance. It seems as if you are convinced that AGW is real based on a couple charts you have seen. I suppose maybe you have read the IPCC reports and do not realize that one year later the PDO shift is now being implemented in climate models and even AGW proponents admit they missed it before. Or understand that the IPCC reports that show X degrees of warming do not take into account ANY negative feedbacks into the equation, while all other studies that take these into account reduce potential warming to a 1 degree per Century maximum with a doubling of CO2 from current levels.

There is a website that takes no particular side in the matter, where you can simply plot the information, and if you look at CO2 versus short-term temperature changes you will see that the CO2 change lags the temperature change: woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958

Many have studies the longer term relationship and found the same thing.

I encourge you to spend some time on that site and look at the relationships between all the different data sets and then tell me that it’s such a clear conclusion that only CO2 matters.

 

[gomer_tree]

Farmers are reactive not proactive. You don’t know how much you’ll have to grow until next growing seasons. All European and American farmers have to do is increase crop yields next season and that’ll be the end of this bogus “food shortage.”

The food shortage is not bogus, but neither is it a conclusion on climate change. We’ve always had periods of feast and famine.

China’s rice crop was hit very had this winter. The growing season does matter, and at least in the U.S. and Canada, it’s a late start this year, and if an early winter sets in there could be issues.

However, you are correct that there is some element of this that can be changed by what is planted and how much is planted. Not a small percentage of corn and other grains are being redirected to Ethanol - which by most accounts actually accomplishes nothing by the time the cost and energy of producing it along with lower MPG in efficiency. We really need to find a better way.

 

[The_Barbarian]

To understand this concept, think about covering an uninsulated house with a small layer of insulation. The first layer will have a dramatic impact. The second layer will have some impact. At some point, lopping on additional layers has virtually no impact. Greenhouse gases act in the same way. It’s simple physics.

Venus has a lot more CO2 in its atmosphere than the Earth does. Your theory says that it should be just a little warmer than the Earth is.

 

[The_Barbarian]

You seem unable to look past an argument of correlation versus causation.

You actually think that’s what the data says? No wonder you don’t like science; you don’t understand it.

My issue is spending trillions of dollars, instituting carbon taxes, and so on where the science is tenuous, the conclusions drwn are so over the top that they cannot be believed, and we have defined a naturally ocurring substance a pollutant. Before committing to this allocation of resources that couold do so much good in the worl, we had better be very, very sure that we are right.

So the argument is “We can’t afford it to be true, so it isn’t.”

Anyway, I am seeing in your posts very little in the way of substance.

You missed all the data, and the graphs, and the papers in the literature I cited and posted? Really?

I encourge you to spend some time on that site and look at the relationships between all the different data sets and then tell me that it’s such a clear conclusion that only CO2 matters.

Why would I tell you that? It’s your idea, not mine. CO2 is a critical component of warming in the atmosphere, and is driving the current rise, but I don’t think anyone said it’s the only thing that matters.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Venus has a lot more CO2 in its atmosphere than the Earth does. Your theory says that it should be just a little warmer than the Earth is.

I have no pretense to being a scientist, but I do observe that Venus is also closer to the sun. I don’'t think Venusian CO2 levels prove his argument incorrect.

Not being scientifically schooled, but having been taught some degree of good manners at my mother’s knee, I can observe that Gomer has some interesting things to say, and presents them like a gentleman. Sneering at him and others is not particularly persuasive to those of us who read these posts in order to learn.

As one gentleman to another, then, I suggest that we who are here to learn are more likely to do so if we are not distracted by personal affronts directed at those who present information. Please present your factual information and let’s move this along.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I have no pretense to being a scientist, but I do observe that Venus is also closer to the sun. I don’'t think Venusian CO2 levels prove his argument incorrect.

Venus is 0.72 AUs from the Sun. Earth is, of course, 1.0 AU. That means, according to the inverse square law, that Venus should receive a little less than twice as much energy from the sun.

The surface temperature of Venus is about 758 Kelvin. The average surface temperature of the Earth is a about 288 Kelvin. I used Kelvin, since that is calculated from absolute zero, and can thereby be used as an absolute temperature. This means that the amount of heat we should see on Venus, all other things being equal, would be about 578 degrees Kelvin.

As you see, the CO2 content is a significant factor.

Not being scientifically schooled, but having been taught some degree of good manners at my mother’s knee, I can observe that Gomer has some interesting things to say,

The concern is that they are rather blatant misrepresentations. A gentleman is careful to make sure his accusations are true before he makes them, something gomer neglected to do. Hopefully, he’ll be more careful next time.

Sneering at him and others is not particularly persuasive to those of us who read these posts in order to learn.

Perhaps he should be more careful about sneering at those he disagrees with, particularly if he hasn’t got his facts straight.

As one gentleman to another, then, I suggest that we who are here to learn are more likely to do so if we are not distracted by personal affronts directed at those who present information.

Hopefully, he’s figured out that accusing others of not posting anything of substance is a bad idea if he hasn’t actually checked to see it it’s true.

Maybe gomer has some factual information. If and when he presents it, we’ll deal with it.