There Is No Man-Made Global Warming

Again...the geological record has shown us that CO2 has been higher in the past and there was no harmful effects from higher CO2 levels...

Instead try to concentrate on cleaning up rivers, or on the other real polluters....

CO2 is not a pollutant, and it is not the cause of the current warming cycle.

The Times They Are A-Changin' Come gather 'round people wherever you roam And admit that the waters around you have grown accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone your time to you is worth savin' you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone, For the times, they are a chang - in'The Other VersesCome writers and critics who prophecise with penAnd keep your eyes wide the chance won't come againAnd don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spinAnd there's no telling who that it's namingFor the loser now will be later to winFor the times they are a-changin'All Words and Music By Bob Come mothers and fathers throughout the landAnd don't criticize what you don't understandYour sons and your daughters are beyond your commandYour old road is rapidly agingPlease get out of the new one if you can't lend a handFor the times they are a-changin'Come senators, congressmen: please heed the callDon't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hallFor he that gets hurt will be he who has stalledThere's a battle outside and it's ragingIt'll soon shake your windows and rattle your wallsFor the times they are a-changin'The line it is drawn the curse it is castThe slow one now will later be fastAs the present now will later be pastThe order is rapidly fadingAnd the first one now will later be lastFor the times they are a-changin'Words and Music By Bob Dylan

Originally posted by MuaddibCO2 is not a pollutant, and it is not the cause of the current warming cycle.

I agree almost 99%, I wish I could point to the UN paperwork I was reading about the Carbon Sink effect in North America. It pointed out some good ideas about plant growth and such with elevated CO2 levels.

One thing none of those promoting global climate change have addressed. Why was it 30 years ago it was an ice age that was the threat?

Why the switch?

To those that say the science has already proved it, I beg to differ, it has not. You are telling me that these models that can not even predict weather to a great degree of accuracy 15 days in advance can now predict temperatures 100 years in advance.

No this is not concrete, but to keep pushing it is politically correct.

Originally posted by edsinger
One thing none of those promoting global climate change have addressed. Why was it 30 years ago it was an ice age that was the threat?

Why the switch?

There was no major support for an oncoming ice-age. A few researchers raised concerns, it was mainly media hype. And this has been addressed numerous times.

The reason for this line of thinking was that; (1) we are in an interglacial period and eventually it will end - an ice-age is the next part of the cycle, (2) at that point in time, climate was showing a slight cooling trend, this was seen as due to human activity (effects of aerosols), if we continued to emit large amounts of cooling aerosols, it was thought by some this could intitiate the next ice-age.

However, this was not widely accepted and major assessments in the 70s concluded that we didn't know enough about climate variables to make a prediction about future trends.

To those that say the science has already proved it, I beg to differ, it has not. You are telling me that these models that can not even predict weather to a great degree of accuracy 15 days in advance can now predict temperatures 100 years in advance.

I mentioned this a while back and hoped it showed the difference between weather and climate, obviously never worked - I will be much more unlikely to be correct in predicting rain next wednesday than that a day in december will be colder than it is where I am today. One is more chaotic than the other.



[edit on 26-5-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

I mentioned this a while back and hoped it showed the difference between weather and climate, obviously never worked - I will be much more unlikely to be correct in predicting rain next wednesday than that a day in december will be colder than it is where I am today. One is more chaotic than the other.

Fair enough and I do understand your point. The question I ask again in the 'models' of the future, are they taking into account the solar activities which I think are more than the greater part of global warming or is it simply still man made CO2 emissions?

Originally posted by edsinger
Fair enough and I do understand your point. The question I ask again in the 'models' of the future, are they taking into account the solar activities which I think are more than the greater part of global warming or is it simply still man made CO2 emissions?

GCMs take account of the solar cycles that we know about. What can be said is that if all else holds constant, increasing GHGs will affect future climate, whether it will be catastrophic is debatable.

I agree CO2 can affect the climate, of that I am not questioning, what I question is to what degree? Will all these changes that are being forced down our throats on unproven science, prove to be no more than sticking our finger in the dike to stop the flood?

GCMs are merely computer models which are told "the higher the amount of CO2, the higher the temperature will be", hence GCMs will show an exponential increase in temperatures...but guess what?, they had to change most, if not all, of the GCMs predictions....simply because they are wrong.

This is a response from Dr. Akasofu to Dr. Pielke about the validity behind the predictions of GCMs.

Dear Dr. Pielke: I am very pleased to learn that my blog contribution stimulated much discussion on climate change (as many as 117 comments!). Unfortunately, I cannot respond to them individually now, so that I have prepared a general response.

The reason for my contribution was to point out some serious deficiencies in the recent IPCC Report. I would like to emphasize: (i) natural components are important and significant, so that they should not be ignored, (ii) it is insufficient to study climate change based on data from the last 100 years, (iii) it is difficult to conclude about causes of the rise after 1975 until we can understand the rise from 1910 to 1940, (iv) because of these deficiencies, the present GCM models cannot prove that the present warming (0.7°C/100 years) is caused by the greenhouse effect, and thus (v) future prediction is uncertain.

If most of the present rise is caused by the recovery from the Little Ice Age (a natural component) and if the recovery rate does not change during the next 100 years, the rise expected from the year 2000 to 2100 would be 0.5°C. Multi-decadal changes would be either positive or negative in 2100. This rough estimate is based on the recovery rate of 0.5°C/100 years during the last few hundred years. [Please note that the greenhouse effect shown by GCMs should be carefully re-evaluated, if the present rise (0.7°C/100 years) is mostly due to natural components, such as those I suggest.]

climatesci.colorado.edu...

Climatologists are "assuming" their computer models are correct, but the fact of the matter is that we understand very little what happens in the atmosphere. GCMs are based on that assumption that "we understand completly what happens on Earth's atmosphere", but we don't.

Hey Muaddib, did you catch this?

NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming

hmmm seems the word is NOT totally on board yet......

Actually I was not aware of that article.

Thanks for posting it.

[edit on 31-5-2007 by Muaddib]

link

Dear All

I hope this link is not too long and if it is I apologise to the mods.

I am posting it hoping that it will be read and for those people who do not bother to read please do not post. Please note the link backs up the content with visible calculations and facts.

This links to a couple of articles in the Sunday Telegraph (a well respected Newspaper in the UK) and shows an interesting point of view different from the current so called "consensus" on man made global warming, the UK Stern Report and the subsequently published IPCC report. If you do not agree please provide data not opinion.

I have not yet seen anyone argue the points concerning the MWP and the debate over lambda made in this article to any logical counter point. If you have a contrary position or understanding I will be very pleased to see it and debate it with you.

Enjoy

Originally posted by Deharg
I am posting it hoping that it will be read and for those people who do not bother to read please do not post.

Kind of a strange ultimatum to make, don't you think? I didn't realize you set the rules of who can and can't reply to your posts.

But as far as debunking goes, I think this article does it better than any of us could.

But I guess maybe we should take the word of Christopher Monckton, a journalist, over the majority of the scientific community.

But don't post until you've read the article I linked to, as it debunks Lord Monckton's fancy graphs and charts in their entirety.

Athenion

Christopher Monckton is NOT a journalist and if you had read the articles you would know this.

Athenion

It was not an ultimatum. Those sentences usually have an "or else" at the end. There was no or else. I was merely asking people to use facts, read the article before replying. Don't be so defensive...! what have you got to lose? Read the linked articles as they are interesting, then use facts to argue your points is all I asked for. What have you got against that?....

As an alternate view, would you like people to post a reply without first reading the subject of that reply?.. I don' t think so...

Tell you what ... when the facts change, I change my mind ... What do you do ?

Originally posted by Deharg
Christopher Monckton is NOT a journalist and if you had read the articles you would know this.

Aye, he is a former journalist.

Originally posted by Deharg
Read the linked articles as they are interesting, then use facts to argue your points is all I asked for. What have you got against that?....

As an alternate view, would you like people to post a reply without first reading the subject of that reply?.. I don' t think so...

Tell you what ... when the facts change, I change my mind ... What do you do ?

Oh, don't worry, I'm not defensive. It's just the tone of your response was a bit humerous to me. I totally understand the frustration of people not reading what you post. I'm with you there. I was just pokng fun at your comments. Sorry, I didn't mean to offend.

But I do beg to differ and Mr. Monckton's career. For example, if you simply look him up on wikipedia you would read that:

The eldest son of the 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Monckton was educated at Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge and University College, Cardiff. He joined the Yorkshire Post in 1974 and then worked as a press officer at the Conservative Central Office from 1977–79. In 1979, he became the editor of the Catholic newspaper, The Universe, and then as managing editor of The Sunday Telegraph's Magazine in 1981.

In 1983 he returned to the Conservative offices again, this time as Margaret Thatcher's policy advisor. Three years later, he became assistant editor of the newly-formed (and now defunct) newspaper, Today. His final job in journalism was as a consulting editor of the Evening Standard from 1987–92.

Monckton has since been a director of his own, namesake publishing company, Christopher Monckton Ltd since its founding in 1987. He is also a member of the Worshipful Company of Broderers, an Officer of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and a Knight of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

In 1999, he created the eternity puzzle, a geometric puzzle which involved tiling a dodecagon with 209 irregularly shaped polygons called polydrafters. A £1m prize was won after 18 months. By that time, 500,000 puzzles had been sold. A second puzzle, Eternity II, is to be launched in July 2007, with a prize of $2 million.

Upon the death of his father in 2006, Monckton inherited his title.

Monckton has been in the news in recent months due to his scepticism of global warming. In November 2006, he published in the The Daily Telegraph a widely publicized article critical of the prevailing climate change opinions. After U.S. Senators Rockefeller and Snowe wrote a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of ExxonMobil asking him to stop funding scientists who reject global warming, Lord Monckton wrote a letter to the senators reminding them of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and calling on them to reverse their position or resign.[1] In February 2007, he published an analysis and summary of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on climate change. It is important to recognize that Monckton does not have any semblance of background training in atmospheric physics or any other scientific field.

Now, if you go back and read the article I posted in response, it thuroughly debunks what he wrote, with facts, as you requested. And he is not a trained atmospheric physicist, or a scientist of any caliber. So sorry, but when hard core scientists debunk his work, I'm going to be pretty enclined to believe the scientists in leiu of a failed journalist trying to stay in the lime light by posting controversial, and ultimately incorrect information.

What do you do?

Hi Athenion

Is this one of the facts you spoke of ?

Schmidt points out that Monckton also forgets, in making his calculations, that "climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept": in other words that there is a time-lag of several decades between the release of carbon dioxide and the eventual temperature rise it causes. If you don't take this into account, the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide looks much smaller. This is about as fundamental a mistake as you can make in climate science.

Errrm this is not an assertion supported by the geoplogical record and is, I believe one of the main reasons we are having this debate. You believe that this is true (ala IPCC) and I do not. In fact some of the scientists in the IPCC data analysis team now do not also. The graph in the IPCC report showing Carbon dioxide levels rising before temperature increased after the last ice age is innacurate(I believe). You do not and that's fine of course.

If by equilibrium you mean a dynamic one then history shows something different. How can you have an equilibrium with a constantly shifting reference point?

It is interesting the article you linked to was in the Gardian. An august newspaper I used to read many moons ago...The rivalry between this newspaper and the Telegraph should not be underestimated...

I would not call Monckton a "serious Journo" under any circumstances, more of a dabler I would say....The point I was trying to make (and very badly thanks Melatonin) is that we (the public) are asked to chose between two differing interpretations of facts as presented by two groups with fundamentally opposed agendas.

We are not asked to be scientists but to see and comment on what these pepople have to say. You, me, muadib and melatonin all are asked this as is Monckton, why is his opinion less valid than yours or mine ? Just because he tried and failed to make it in mainstream journalism...

Your linked article was good but it doesn't quite ring the bell as I am sure you are aware. Both articles refer to half truths etc (black body radiation etc) NASA pronouncements. They try to debunk the other without following up on what the differences pointed out actually mean. Do you know what the difference between the radiation reflected from the earth and that from a black body differs by ?? exactly.. see what I mean ?

Anyway I am glad we can disagree in a friendy way and hope to contiue to do so .. Have a nice Sunday ...

controversial? you bet.

incorrect?


well, just one Q: has the Antarctic ice shield increased in size since 1970 ?

Yes or No ?

They call this a consensus?

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."
So said Al Gore ... in 1992.

But is this REALLY the case these days? Hmmm

Statistics needed The Deniers -- Part I

Warming is real - and has benefits
The Deniers -- Part II
.
.
.
.
.
.
The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
.
.
.
.
.

Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX

There is some good science here and now you may understand that the consensus is not as some would have you believe.

Maybe you could point out some of this good science. How about explaining why cosmic rays are such a good explanation?

Sami Solanki is actually not what one would call a denier, especially when he says things such as:

"Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.

www.mpg.de...

same with Landsea:

In an interview on PBS, Christopher Landsea said "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming.

Dr Nigel Weiss was not impressed by the hack who created these articles:

Apology To Dr. Nigel Weiss

Nigel Weiss, professor of astrophysics at the University of Cambridge, believes that the warming trend in Earth's climate is caused by greenhouse gases produced by human activity, and that the effect of a potential future reduction in solar activity would not reverse or cancel out that trend, but might have a small effect in mitigating it. He has held these views for several years. Incorrect information appeared in a column in the Financial Post on Feb. 2. The National Post withdraws any allegation that Dr. Weiss is a global warming "denier" and regrets the embarrassment caused him by the Feb. 2 column and a further column on Feb. 9.

From what I see you have the usual suspects, some who are not really 'deniers', and an economist.

The consensus is that CO2 is a significant factor in current warming trends and that if CO2 continues to rise and all else remains constant, so will temperatures. Other details, such as Hurricanes, are still being thrashed out.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by melatonin]