Sunday, June 2, 2013
The Real "Inconvenient Truths", Part 1
a) That the most intense warming effects of CO2 are in the first 20 ppm, and that with each additional 20 ppm, the effects are logarithmically reduced.............b) That the climate models of the early '90s (even those that had factored in significant reductions in CO2) all predicted significantly higher warming than we've had (there's been virtually zero increase in warming since 1998).............c) That there are nearly 1,900 studies on the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age - the vast majority of which have stated that these time-frames were real, global, and possessive of temperatures that are different from those of today.............d) That there are numerous geological studies which have shown that CO2 levels have quite often been higher than those of today and that there has never been a runaway greenhouse effect (in fact, some of the time-frames have actually been glaciations).............e) That there has been no significant change (over the past 100 years) in the number and/or intensity of tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, etc. (yes, there's been more coverage due to the fact that we have more media, more people who are willing to reside in harm's way, etc. but, no, no significant changes have been noted).............f) There has been no significant reduction in global sea ice (this, per the University of Illinois's Arctic Science Research Center) and no significant increase in sea level (this, per the NASA satellites).............g) That the satellites have actually been measuring more escaping radiation from the stratosphere, not less.............h) That the world's polar bear population has actually been increasing and it is currently approximately 300% over what it was in the '70s.............i) That there is no geological evidence of global warming ever having triggered a mass extinction on earth (global cooling, asteroids, and gassing are all far more likely to cause extinctions).............j) That in almost every instance of CO2 and warming coexisting, it is the warming which plainly precedes the the increases in CO2.............k) By almost any calculation possible, it will be far less costly to adapt to global warming than it will be to prevent it (not that humans can necessarily control the planet's thermostat anyway, mind you).............l) That wind energy will more than likely never be a viable alternative to fossil fuels (it is far too inefficient and intermittent and has far too low of a power density ratio).............m) That the United States is already one of the most energy efficient countries on the planet and that this has largely happened because of market forces and not because of government mandates, U.N. agreements, etc..............n) That the correlation between solar cycles/ocean patterns and global warming is far more positive than the one which exists between CO2 and warming.............o) That the largest percentage of 20th Century warming took place prior to 1940, at a time when atmospheric CO2 was still well under 300 ppm.............p) That there have been zero hot-spots noted in the lower troposphere of the equator (yep, yet another untrue prediction by the IPCC/computer models).............q) That James Hansen literally did away with (via his various "adjustments") 35 years of global cooling (this, after having championed it in the '70s); 1940-1975.............r) That nearly half of those
supposed 2,500 scientists who signed the IPCC report weren't actually
scientists but reviewers and/or bureaucrats, and that, even of the
scientists involved, a fair number of those actually disagreed with the "findings"
and requested (mostly to no avail) that their names be removed (Paul
Reiter actually sued the United Nations and won) from the document.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
You know Will, I already live in the middle of a dry,hot dessert and warm really isn't that bad.Although I don't devote a minutes thought to climate control or global warming I am impressed by your research into the subject....never let it be said Will Hart isn't a bulldog.
I just don't like the way that the whole thing has been politicized. In the words of CBC's Rex Murphy, "Science has gone to be with advocacy and both have had a very good time."
Will,I have the ideal subject for one of your postings.Check out an interview Michael Douglas recently gave and his reason why he developed throat cancer four years ago.
For instance, with the 1st IPCC report - Before the bureaucrats got their hands on it - "When will an anthropogenic effect on climate change be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, 'we don't know.'"............And after the bureaucrats got their hands on it - "The body of evidence now points to a discernible human influence on global climate."......And all within the span of a month or two, Russ.
Will: This is what Galileo had to put up with.
Don't tell me, global warming? I mean, it's gotta be either that or Bush did it.
Hey Dan.....do you really friggin care? If you really do I will put a jar on the counter of a local 7-11 to gather collections for you to get a life.....
Rusty: That's more information about Catherine Zeta Jones than I ever wanted to know. I will make sure to keep my T-Mobile phone at least 18" inches from my mouth when using it from now on.
Shudders...
Id bet she was plenty pissed off when Gordon Gekko broke this story during an interview.
Thanks for the interesting leads, Dan. I'll definitely check them (as well as your blog) out.......P.S. Environmentalist, Peter Taylor, in his book, "Chill: A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory", also looks at cloud cover and seems to come to some similar conclusions. I'm seriously considering ordering that bad boy from Amazon.
I'm finally up to speed on this one, Russ, and all that I can say to Mr. Gekko here is, TMI.
"Id bet she was plenty pissed off when Gordon Gekko broke this story during an interview."
That'll learn that lizard to keep his tongue in his mouh.
Will- You are welcome and thanks for your comments at my blogs.
I haven't found anyone else who has discovered the excellent explanation for the average global temperature trajectory that the time-integral of sunspot numbers does. The book by Taylor sounds interesting.
Dan, within the AGW skeptic community, there seem to be the solar guys and the ocean guys and I really like the way that you've seemingly fused the two.......Another distinction seems to be between those who think that CO2 has zero effect on climate (guys like meteorologist Piers Corbyn and geologists like Ian Clark and Ian Plimer) and those who think that it has a modest effect (guys like climatologists Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and Patrick Michaels and guys like former Australian modeler David Evans). Me, I guess that I kind of go with the latter group but, yes, fully understanding that going from 26 thousandths of 1% to 39 thousandths of 1% is hardly going to cause us Armageddon.
Will - I very carefully try to always use the word 'insignificant' to allow a value more than zero. The calculations including the influence of CO2 showed a 7.5% effect for CO2 but no significant increase in R2. I'm sticking with 'insignificant' until something different is demonstrated.
Have you seen a number for what is meant by 'modest'?
Rusty - Yes I care. Humanity has wasted over 100 billion dollars in failed attempts using super computers to demonstrate that added atmospheric CO2 is a primary cause of global warming and in misguided activities to try to do something about it. That waste continues. The time and treasure could be better spent.
I discovered what actually drives average global temperature and have made my findings available to the public. You have time to post snarky comments on blogs. Apparently we each have our lives.
Rusty's comment did seem out of character. Perhaps he is a closet warmist.
You are WAY ahead of me on the science, Dan. My reasoning on this is based on a couple of things; a) that controlled experiments show a 1 degree Celsius increase for every doubling of CO2 and b) that the satellite data (as interpreted by Spencer and Lindzen) appears to show a negative feedback loop of approximately .4-.6 (so, instead of a 1 degree increase per doubling of CO2 you get a half of a degree). This leads me to think that there is SOME warming from CO2 being added to the atmosphere but probably not a lot (though, yes, the fact that we've apparently had elevated CO2 levels during times of glaciation makes me think that guys like you and Piers Corbyn could definitely be on to something).
Have you ever seen Corbyn? He kinda looks like a mad scientist but he's really smart as well.
I've seen pictures. I don't disagree.
Dan, are you going to do some additional posts on this subject? I really think that you should.
I will update http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ periodically.
I may update and post a paper that I did in 2010. The 2010 version is at http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Mistakes%20made%20by%20the%20Consensus.pdf
A lot of my earlier papers are at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true They stopped accepting new stuff.
I went through some of your articles and they're great. I also enjoyed the one by Lomborg on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. I probably need to go to that site more often and maybe to Icecap, too.
Post a Comment