"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. "
For the skeptics among us, fed to me again by A.
It got me thinking: I'm an environmental scientist, but I've never had time to review the "evidence" for the anthropic causes of global warming. I operate on the principle that global warming is a reality and that it is human-made, because a lot of reliable sources told me that, and because I read it in learned journals. When I said, in my opening speech for the launch of UNEP's Global Environment Outlook-4 in Beirut: "There is now irrevocable evidence that climate change is taking place..." I was reading from a statement prepared by UNEP. Faith-based science it may be, but who has time to review all the evidence? I'll continue to act on the basis of anthropic climate change, but I really need to put some more time into this.
+081.jpg)
Posts
12 comments:
Hello.
I wonder if you read Michael Crichton's fiction "state of fear". It raised so many questions about this "certitude". But the problem is: do we have the time to wait for evidence and discussion if an eventual outcome is "catastrophic changes".
Yes, we do have time to wait for evidence. And we must do so. Otherwise we are acting out of fear and guesswork, and the results of our actions may be worse than if we had not acted at all. I have recently written an article that addresses just this question. You can find it here:
Profits of Doom
Hi Rami -- I found your blog because of a link that included this statement from Inhofe aide Marc Morano (referring to you):
"Take a look at this post, an environmental scientist admits he never looked at evidence of man-made climate fears, he just parroted the UN's line. Because of the new Senate report of over 400, he is now reconsidering his views."
Welcome to global warming politics, U.S.-style! Read the rest to get the full flavor.
Actually this characterization is illustrative how Morano cooked up that list of 400 (which after a bit of weeding for e.g. TV meteorologists reduces down to pretty much the few dozen usual suspects). FYI Morano was a key player in the infamous (in the U.S., anyway) 2004 "swiftboating" of presidential candidate John Kerry. Senator Inhofe himself continues to refer to global warming as the greatest hoax in history.
Anyway, it's obvious you know where to find the detailed literature, but I wanted to mention that the (physical) climate scientist-run RealClimate blog is a good source for up-to-date material expressed in a form more easily digested by non-specialists.
Point of clarification: I think Morano did not read correctly what I wrote. I repeat: "I will continue to act on the basis of anthropic climate change". I find it healthy to challenge one's own convictions, and to seek information to strengthen them. In any case, I dislike the consumerist approach to life (usually associated with high levels of energy use) and I'm a proponent of frugality as a self imposed discipline to preserve resources and environment and to foster social equity.
Yes, that was very clear. I was trying to point out that Morano's list of 400 has a fair number of people on it via the same sort of willful misreading.
I completely agree with your point about the value of understanding the physical science aspects of global warming. Speaking from personal experience, the difficulty for someone outside the field (many fields is more like it) is that it takes a major effort to get a firm grasp of even the basics. It's like asking a physicist to learn the basics of ecology: They can certainly do it, but it's going to take some time.
BTW, I have to say that after reading through the most recent few dozen posts I'm very happy to have found your blog. I'll do what I can to promote it around.
From Marc Morano:
Thanks Professor Zurayk. I will clarify your comments. As for Bloom's claims that the list of over 400 scientists is somehow not valid or there are 'misreadings' of the scientists views, I urge you and your readers to spend the time to actually read the report and not depend on skewed interpretations from propaganda websites like Grist or RealClimate.
Full Senate report available here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Professor Andrew Dessler has monumentally embarrassed himself by recently claiming there were only two dozen scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears. Dessler is now frantically trying to salvage his unsupportable assertions over at Grist with increasingly shrill and humorous posts trying to discredit the Senate report.
Thanks for your blog and have a great new year.
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
www.epw.senate.gov
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
These organizations also agree with the consensus:
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Akureyri
University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House
US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality
National Economic Council
Office of Management and Budget
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Engineers Australia
American Chemical Society
American Association of Blacks in Energy
World Petroleum Council
The Weather Channel
National Geographic
The following companies agree with the consensus:
ABB
Air France
Alcan
Alcoa
Allian
American Electric Power
Aristeia Capital
BASF
Bayer
BP America Inc.
Calvert Group
Canadian Electricity Association
Caterpilliar Inc.
Centrica
Ceres
Chevron
China Renewable
Citigroup
ConocoPhillips
Covanta Holding Corporation
Deutsche Telekom
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited
Duke Energy
DuPont
EcoSecurities
Electricity de France North America
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
Endesa
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd
Energy East Corporation
Energy Holding Romania
Energy Industry Association
Eni
Eskorn
ETG International
Exelon Corporation
ExxonMobil
F&C Asset Management
FPL Group
General Electric
German Electricity Association
Glitnir Bank
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola
ING Group
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Interface Inc.
International Gas Union
International Paper
International Power
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company
MEDIAS-France
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Munich Re
National Grid
National Power Company of Iceland
NGEN mgt II, LLC
NiSource
NRG Energy
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Reykjavik Energy
Ricoh
Rio Tinto Energy Services
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rolls-Royce
Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group)
Stora Enso North America
Stratus Consulting
Sun Management Institute
Swiss Re
UCG Partnership
US Geothermal
Verde Venture Partners
Volvo
In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO's of the following companies:
A. O. Smith Corporation
Abbott Laboratories
Accenture Ltd.
ACE Limited
ADP
Aetna Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
AK Steel Corporation
Alcatel-Lucent
Allstate Insurance Company
ALLTEL Corporation
Altec Industries, Inc.
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express Company
American International Group, Inc.
Ameriprise Financial
AMR Corporation/American Airlines
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Applera Corporation
Arch Coal, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company
ArvinMeritor, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Avery Dennison Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
BNSF Railway
Boeing Company
Brink's Company
CA
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Case New Holland Inc.
Ceridian Corporation
Chemtura Corporation
Chubb Corporation
CIGNA Corporation
Coca-Cola Company
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Convergys Corporation
Con-way Incorporated
Corning Incorporated
Crane Co.
CSX Corporation
Cummins Inc.
Deere & Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Delphi Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
EDS
Eli Lilly and Company
EMC Corporation
Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
Fannie Mae
FedEx Corporation
Fluor Corporation
FMC Corporation
Freddie Mac
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Harman International Industries, Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Home Depot, Inc., The
Honeywell International, Inc.
HSBC - North America
Humana Inc.
IBM Corporation
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Textile Group
ITT Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
KPMG LLP
Liberty Mutual Group
MassMutual
MasterCard Incorporated
McGraw-Hill Companies
McKesson Corporation
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
MetLife, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Motorola, Inc.
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
National Gypsum Company
Nationwide
Navistar International Corporation
New York Life Insurance Company
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Nucor Corporation
NYSE Group, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.
Pactiv Corporation
Peabody Energy Corporation
Pfizer Inc
PPG Industries, Inc.
Praxair, Inc.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble Company
Prudential Financial
Realogy Corporation
Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Ryder System, Inc.
SAP America, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
SAS Institute Inc.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Schneider National, Inc.
ServiceMaster Company
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
Springs Global US, Inc.
Sprint Nextel
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
Tenneco
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Textron Incorporated
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
TIAA-CREF
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International Ltd.
Union Pacific Corporation
Unisys Corporation
United Technologies Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
USG Corporation
Verizon Communications
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Western & Southern Financial Group
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Williams Companies, Inc.
Xerox Corporation
YRC Worldwide Inc
I'll take this "consensus" over the 400 "scientists" handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.
From Marc Morano:
Let me get this right, all those organizations had their members vote on the "consensus," correct? Oh, I am sorry, they actually did not. Organizations like the AMS and NAS only had about 2 dozen governing board members vote on these so called consensus statements. Many of the 400 scientists are from the very organizations you are touting as "proof." BTW: The 400 scientists were not hand picked, they are merely a sampling of scientists who spoke out publicly in 2007.
As for your four climate change "facts", alas, the latest peer-reviewed research does not support your claims.
We are well within natural climate variability. Two studies in 2007 confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current temps. Also, Greenland was as warm or warmer in 1930's and 40's than current temps. Yes, sadly for you, Greenland has essentially cooled since the 30's and 40's. (Note 80% of man-made CO2 came after this time)
See below for complete debunking of your woefully misinformed opinion of climate science. Below are but a sampling of recent peer-reviewed studies showing that man-made climate fears are unsustainable.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Sampling of inconvenient scientific developments in 2007 for proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming: [Updated - 12-24-2007]
A September 26, 2007 report from the international group Institute of Physics’ found no “consensus” on global warming. Excerpt: “As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level UN meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world's most renowned scientists urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the ‘science grapevine’, arguing that their understanding of global warming is still far from complete. Recognizing that powerful computer-based simulations are a key element in predicting climate change, a new Institute of Physics (IOP) report, published on 26 September 2007, shows that leading climate-physicists' views on the reliability of these models differ. The IOP is also urging world leaders ‘to remain alert to the latest scientific thought on climate change.’” (LINK)
A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Geophysical Research found that "solar changes significantly alter climate." Scafetta and West conclude that: “if we assume that the latest temperature and TSI secular reconstructions, WANG2005 and MOBERG05, are accurate, we are forced to conclude that solar changes significantly alter climate, and that the climate system responds relatively slowly to such changes with a time constant between 6 and 12 years. This would suggest that the large-scale computer models of climate could be significantly improved by adding additional Sun-climate coupling mechanisms.” (LINK) & (LINK)
A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 - 2002. The analysis appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research and was authored by Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels and Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor at the University of Guelph. The study concluded that the temperature manipulations for the steep post-1980 period are inadequate, and the [UN IPCC] graph is an exaggeration. McKitrick believes that the United Nations agency promoting the global temperature graph has made "false claims about the quality of its data." McKitrick reports in this new, peer-reviewed study that data contamination problems "account for about half the surface warming measured over land since 1980." (LINK) & (LINK)
A December 2007 peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." Climate scientist Dr. David Douglass of the University of Rochester, co-authored the December 2007 peer-reviewed paper published in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found the evidence for human influence for warming temperatures lacking in the atmosphere. "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," said Douglass, the paper's lead author on December 10, 2007. The paper was co-authored with Physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer, Climatologist Dr. John Christy and Benjamin D. Pearson. (LINK)
A November 2007 study published in Energy & Environment found the Medieval Warm Period "0.3C warmer than 20th century" The study was authored by C. Loehle and titled “A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies." (LINK) & (LINK)
A June 29, 2007 scientific analysis by Gerd Burger of Berlin’s Institute of Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine challenged a previously touted study claiming the 20th century had been unusually warm. Excerpt: “Burger argues that [the 2006 temperature analysis by] Osborn and Briffa did not apply the appropriate statistical tests that link the proxy records to observational data, and as such, Osborn and Briffa did not properly quantify the statistical uncertainties in their analyses. Burger repeated all analyses with the appropriate adjustments and concluded “As a result, the ‘highly significant’ occurrences of positive anomalies during the 20th century disappear.” (LINK) Burger's technical comments in Science Magazine state: “Osborn and Briffa (Reports, 10 February 2006, p. 841) identified anomalous periods of warmth or cold in the Northern Hemisphere that were synchronous across 14 temperature-sensitive proxies. However, their finding that the spatial extent of 20th-century warming is exceptional ignores the effect of proxy screening on the corresponding significance levels. After appropriate correction, the significance of the 20th-century warming anomaly disappears.” (LINK)
A November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found "Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes." Harvard-Smithsonian Center Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, authored the new study. The study concluded: "[L]ong-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes, from both orbital variations and intrinsic solar magnetic and luminosity variations... There is no quantitative evidence that varying levels of minor greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 have accounted for even as much as half of the reconstructed glacial-interglacial temperature changes or, more importantly, for the large variations in global ice volume on both land and sea over the past 650 thousand years. ... [C]hanges in solar insolation at climatically sensitive latitudes and zones exceed the global radiative forcings of CO2 and CH4 by several-fold, and ... [therefore] regional responses to solar insolation forcing will decide the primary climatic feedbacks and changes." (LINK)
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” (LINK)
A September 2007 peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age. Excerpt: Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science. Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records. “There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express. “You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.” Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause. < > “The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.” (LINK)
Harvard-Smithsonian Center Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon co-authored with Dr. Art Robinson and Noah Robinson, a November 2007 study that found mankind's emissions are not harming the atmosphere. The paper, published in journal of American physicians and Surgeons was titled, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." The study reported: "A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that in creases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly in creased plant growth." The study also found, "There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape." (LINK) & (LINK )
An August 2007 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. (LINK)
An August 2007 peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate - The paper, authored by Richard Mackey, was published August 17, 2007 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. (LINK) & (LINK)
An October 2007 Danish National Space Center Study concludes: “The Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.” The report was authored by Physicist Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen. (LINK) Several other recent scientific studies and scientists have debunked a media hyped UK study alleging there has not been a solar-climate link in the past 20 years. UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn confirmed the Danish study and also debunked the “No Solar-Climate Link Study” on July 14, 2007. Excerpt: “[The study claiming to prove a] ‘refutation’ of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the world’s temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sun’s activity,” Corbyn, who heads the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather Action, wrote. (LINK) Other studies and scientists have found also confirmed the solar-climate link. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)
An April 2007 study revealed the Earth’s climate “seesawing” during the last 10,000 years, according to Swedish researchers Svante Björck, Karl Ljung and Dan Hammarlund of Lund University. Excerpt: During the last 10,000 years climate has been seesawing between the North and South Atlantic Oceans. As revealed by findings presented by Quaternary scientists at Lund University, Sweden, cold periods in the north have corresponded to warmth in the south and vice verse. These results imply that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. < > We can identify a persistent "seesaw" pattern. When the South Atlantic was warm it was cold in the North Atlantic and vice versa. This is most certainly related to large-scale ocean circulation in the Atlantic Ocean. The main current system - "the Great Ocean Conveyor" - is driven by sinking of dense, relatively cold and salty water in the northern North Atlantic. This results in southward-flowing deep-water that is replaced by warm surface water brought to high northern latitudes from the tropics and ultimately from the South Atlantic, says Svante Björck. < > Our results from Nightingale Island in the Tristan da Cunha island group, between South Africa and Argentina, for the first time give evidence of warming of the South Atlantic associated with cooling in the north. This is a major breakthrough in palaeoclimate research. (LINK)
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.” (LINK)
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. (LINK)
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. (LINK) & (LINK)
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." (LINK) [EPW note: 80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. (LINK) ]
Numerous U.S. temperature collection data errors exposed by team of researchers led by Meteorologist Anthony Watts in 2007 (LINK) - “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. (LINK)
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. Excerpt: "Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955. A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies." [See July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt – (LINK) ]
Antarctic ice GROWS to record levels, in 2007. Excerpt: While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent. < > This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. (LINK) & (LINK)
A February 2007 study reveals Antarctica is not following predicted global warming models. Excerpt: “A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models." The research was led by David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. [See: Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions - (LINK) ]
A NASA study published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters on October 4, 2007, found Arctic winds blew "older thicker" ice to warmer southern waters. Despite the media's hyping of global warming, Ignatius Rigor a co-author of the NASA study explained: "While the total [Arctic] area of ice cover in recent winters has remained about the same, during the past two years an increased amount of older, thicker perennial sea ice was swept by winds out of the Arctic Ocean into the Greenland Sea. What grew in its place in the winters between 2005 and 2007 was a thin veneer of first-year sea ice, which simply has less mass to survive the summer melt." (LINK)
In September 2007, it was announced that a soon to be released survey finds Polar Bear population rising in warmer part of the Arctic. Excerpt: Fears that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will die off in the next 50 years are overblown, says [Arctic biologist] Mitchell Taylor, the Government of Nunavut’s director of wildlife research. “I think it’s naïve and presumptuous,” Taylor said. < > The Government of Nunavut is conducting a study of the [southern less ice region of the] Davis Strait bear population. Results of the study won’t be released until 2008, but Taylor says it appears there are some 3,000 bears in an area - a big jump from the current estimate of about 850 bears. “That’s not theory. That’s not based on a model. That’s observation of reality,” he says. And despite the fact that some of the most dramatic changes to sea ice is seen in seasonal ice areas such as Davis Strait, seven or eight of the bears measured and weighed for the study this summer are among the biggest on record, Taylor said. “Davis Strait is crawling with polar bears. It's not safe to camp there. They're fat. The mothers have cubs. The cubs are in good shape,” Taylor said, according to a September 14, 2007 article. (LINK) [EPW Note: In a case of observed reality versus unproven computer model predictions, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic highs.’]
In 2007, even the UN IPCC cut sea level rise estimates significantly 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. (LINK)
Geologists Dr. George Chilingar, and L.F. Khilyuk of the University of Southern California authored a December 2006 study in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Geology which found warming temperatures were due to natural factors, not mankind. "The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately 0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century)," the paper concluded. "Recalculating this amount into the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission in grams of CO2, one obtains the estimate 1.003×1018 g, which constitutes less than 0.00022% of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle during geologic history. Comparing these figures, one can conclude that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth's climate," Chilingar and Khilyuk added. Chilingar is a professor of civil and petroleum engineering at UCLA and is the former president of the U.S. chapter of the Russian Academy Sciences. (LINK) & (LINK)
(Also See August 2007 Report: "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" - LINK )
# # # #
For some unknown reason and without my consent I made Morano's list of 400 who "are skeptical." Wrong !! The trend of man-caused warming is clear. Morano cherrypicks his support and presents it out of context. With such blatant dishonesty our society may fall victim to this very warming.
I don't know why this Marano or Sen. Inhofe are so worried. We are not doing anything significant as a society to address global warming. It's consumption as usual all over the world. So if Marano and Inhofe and the head-in-the-sand-skeptics are right, then we have nothing to worry about and things will go along fine.
If they are wrong, then we are cooked.
What are the skeptics so worried about? What are climate change proponents going to do that will harm the skeptics or the world so much? Because I don't see that America is funding public transit extra, or rebuilding trains, or cutting back on plastic use, or reorganizing food production to cut down on carbon emissions.
Yeah we're told to conserve and there are cool solar and wind energy projects going up here and there.
And guess what, Chevron has a whole alternative energy division (a good friend runs the wind energy unit) that's building big projects worldwide.
How bad can any of this be? It's just diversifying our energy portfolio.
I really don't see what the "climate change skeptics" are so afraid of.
Seems to me that if the climate change scientists are correct, our civilization is going to transform (collapse?) no matter what Senator Inhofe says. We will adapt or we won't survive.
Those of us considering how to adapt have a leg up on the SUV-driving ostriches on the skeptics side of the aisle. If California doesn't drop into the sea, or dry up from drought, we will be better prepared to cope than Inhofe and his gang.
Harumph.
From Marc Morano
Insurance Policy?
There is no such thing as an "insurance" policy against warming when it comes to current proposals. The Kyoto Protocol would not have had a detectable impact on temperaures if fully complied with. The upcoming cap-and-trade Lieberman-Warner bill in the U.S. Senate would not have a detectable impact on global temps, but will cost poor and middle class Americans huge amounts in higher energy bills. All economic pain for no climate gain.
Would you buy and insurance policy that had a huge up front premium for absolutely no payout at the end of the term? If you would, then by all means support all of the current climate bills. But if they were "insurance policies" they would be shut down for insurance fraud for taking money and not paying any benefits.
Cleaner burning technology and wealth creation go hand and hand. Saddling our economy with UN mandates and new layers of federal bureaucracy will only make us poorer and not 'solve' the "climate crisis."
After attending the last four UN climate conferences in a row, I can tell you unequivocally that if we were facing a man-made climate "crisis' and the UN were our only hope to "solve" it, we would all be doomed.
"I really don't see what the 'climate change skeptics' are so afraid of."
If you drove 2 mph to work because you were afraid that driving 55 mph would make your car eventually explode. Maybe your car wouldn't explode, but you would always get fired for never getting to work on time. Psychologists call this kind of behavior paranoia.
This person, driving 2 mph, could always argue:"Just in case my car might blow up, I'd rather be safe than sorry." In the mean time, the rest of us look at him like he is a lunatic.
Post a Comment