http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM&eurl=http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/

The predicted tropospheric hotspots that had been predicted by the IPCC failed to appear. When climatologist Dr David Evans

and Christopher Monckton found an error in the way that the IPCC had interpreted the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and applied

a revised (corrected) factor to the workings, they discovered that the temperature rise was as little as a third of what the World's government think tank had predicted.

The IPCC's computer models, used to predict the effects of global warming, it appears, failed to accurately predict the influence that water vapour has on the temperature of the earth. At the global climate change summit in Bali late last year, Dr Roy Spencer presented a paper to the IPCC, saying that rather than CO2 driving the formation of water vapour, which then drives up temperatures as a greenhouse gas, water vapour actually washes excess CO2 out of the atmosphere, dampening and balancing its effect as a greenhouse gas. This discovery was made thanks to weather satellites that showed water vapour forms a lot lower in the atmosphere than was initially suggested. Shock horror, the finely balanced system that is the global ecosystem is able to keep itself in balance… who'd have thought it?!

Apparently the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback (the word used to describe what effect – negative or positive – a gas has on the temperature) has written to Dr Spencer, agreeing that he is right.
CO2 output has a point of diminishing returns anyway, apparently the common analogy is painting over a window: the first layer of paint has a big impact on the amount of light let through, while each subsequent layer has a less obvious impact.

Meaning that, even without the dampening effect of water vapour, a 'tipping point' so often spoken about by alarmists like Al Gore, is actually a scientific impossibility.
A far more thorough summary is available in Owen McShane's column in the National Business Review , which contains gems like this quote: "The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet
will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along."

from http://www.crash.net

It seems that smog and water pollution has taken a back seat to global warming/climate change. Pollution is a directly observable and measurable reality.

I flew a small plane over my city ( a small industrial town) and noticed that the air layer closest to the ground was noticably brownish. The air above was a beautiful blue.

I couldn't help but wonder if this dirty air was responsible for the high numbers of allergy and asthma patients in the area.

Fossil fuels are a huge source of pollution. On local scales, it is obvious. There are thousands of small towns, and hundreds of huge cities spewing out similar pollutants around the world. Obviously, this has an effect on the global scale.

As for climate change: I believe that the change is natural, but human carbon emissions are throwing a monkey wrench into the cycle, and getting things off balance.

Even if our effect is marginal, we should still try to cut back on our fossil fuel use by seeking alternative, renewable, less polluting energy sources.

It makes sense economically and ecologically.

"I saw a show on History Channel about a few months ago about a mini Ice Age that started (if I remember correctly) before Medieval times and ended within the last couple hundred years.

Could this warming be related to the mini ice age?

Could it really just be a warming recoil because of that 500-700 year cooling?

How far back do the ice and sea floor samples that have been studied really go?

I'm not a Global Warming skeptic, but after I saw that show it made me wonder if the warming we're seeing is not only a consequence of our burning of fossil fuels, but also just the upswing of a global temperature cycle."

This would also make each previous ice age and interglacial warm period a mass extinction event as well.

Where is the evidence that on each of these occasions there was a loss of 50% of the animal species.

We did loose highly specialised animals such as the Mammoth. But the fossil record does not show mass extinctions of 50% of animal species.

Global warming is not real. It is a scare tactic dreamed up by the liberal media to get bigger ratings.

"If it bleeds, it leads". "If it's a scare, it's there".

The average global temperature is rising from year to year.

I say, the facts are that the actual change of temperature has fallen when looking at the cosmic view of a 4.5 billion year old Earth.
250 Million years ago the Earth was a virtual sauna with over 100 deg F as the average. Then the "Snowball" hit and it got very cold. Suddenly, the temp started up the scale again and all the ice melted away to a tropical world again. Then it got cold again in another ice age….then….
do you foolish global warming alarmist get the point?

The average global temperature is not warming when we get outside our measily little tunnel vision (called a lifetime) and see it as a whole.

The average global temperature is rising from year to year.

he UN released a report stating that there has been NO increase in average global temps for the past 10 years. Guess Global warming comes and goes as the politicians see fit.

The so-called "global warming" trend that everybody is talking about ended in 1998.

Even the UN committee on global climate change is now backing off of dire predictions! I wonder why? Could it be that the bunk science just doesn't add up?

In early March, a group of 400 or more of the worlds leading scientists had a conference on climate change. The consesus is that its not a problem it's a hoax resulting from inaccurate and faulty science perpetrated by people with a political agenda.

Pollution, OTOH, IS something that we should be paying attention to. When we poison our fresh water supplies, we will start dying of thirst.

On June 1, 2007 Hansen predicted that "the tipping point" would be reached in 2016 if nothing was done to correct our ways. Less than a year later that tipping point has been moved forward to today, eight years sooner.

What is it that has caused such an extreme altering of his prediction? Maybe the $250,000 from John Kerry's wifes foundation allowed some new research and something unusual was found this past year.

If anyone knows what that might be, please share it with the rest of us. Without knowing the data it sounds more like an emotional or political alarmist rather than an expert scientist.

Scientist warns climate change will impact beer production
at 3:44 on April 8, 2008, EST.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WELLINGTON, New Zealand – The price of beer is likely to rise in coming decades because climate change will hamper the production of a key grain needed for the brew – especially in Australia, a scientist warned Tuesday.

Jim Salinger, a climate scientist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, said climate change likely will cause a decline in the production of malting barley in parts of New Zealand and Australia. Malting barley is a key ingredient of beer.

"It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up," Salinger told the Institute of Brewing and Distilling convention.

Similar effects could be expected worldwide, but Salinger spoke only of the effects on Australia and New Zealand. He said climate change could cause a drop in beer production within 30 years, especially in parts of Australia, as dry areas become drier and water shortages worsen.

Barley growing parts of Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales would likely be harder hit than growing areas in New Zealand's South Island.

"It will provide a lot of challenges for the brewing industry," even forcing breweries to look at new varieties of malt barley as a direct result of climate change, Salinger said.

New Zealand and Australian brewer Lion Nathan's corporate affairs director Liz Read said climate change already was forcing up the price of malted barley, sugar, aluminium and sugar.

Read said that in addition to climate change, barley growers are grappling with competition from other forms or land use, such as the dairy industry.

Could this warming be related to the mini ice age?

Could it really just be a warming recoil because of that 500-700 year cooling?

How far back do the ice and sea floor samples that have been studied really go?

I'm not a Global Warming skeptic, but after I saw that show it made me wonder if the warming we're seeing is not only a consequence of our burning of fossil fuels, but also just the upswing of a global temperature cycle.

I'm astonished at how much debate this post has generated. I find myself asking, "why don't posts on other topics on the Universe Today generate this much arguing?"

There are two special things about climate change. The first is that it has policy implications. Depending on which policies are followed, enormous amounts of wealth could be made or lost by, or transferred between, many different people and organizations.

So, when I observe this type of debate, I always ask myself whether people are arguing the side that is the most logically sound, or the side that makes them the most money.

Climate change also has world view implications. People like to believe they are right, and consequently have a strong bias to listen to affirming statements, and discount contrary statements. In my experience, this tendency is strongest in people who are not accustomed to engaging in reasoned debate. Worse, some people deliberately take advantage of this innate human characteristic by constructing propaganda-style "arguments" that have little logical validity, for the sole purpose of swaying the masses.

So, the second thing I look for in controversial debates are signs of naive thinking that protects a world view that may be percieved as being under attack.

Brian

* Print
* Email
* Article Tools

*
Page 1 of 1

Over and over the public has been bombarded with the disaster that is global warming. We are told that unless immediate action is taken, the "global economy" could shrink by 20 percent and millions will be killed by rising seas, droughts, floods and water shortages. Yet those who challenge the science behind climate change are tagged as "climate change deniers," a not so subtle reference to the holocaust kind. Open debate is not wanted, because global warming is increasingly driven by fear, ignorance and bad science.

The science has become hopelessly politicized. Now climate change is a cover for anti-corporate and anti-development policies, and the billions of dollars that go into climate change research and green technology have created determined advocates (the billions given to global warmers and green technology dwarfs the funding for global warming skeptics). Science that contradicts global warming is neither heard nor wanted.

A classic example is the Mann hockey stick, a revolutionary development for warming fundamentalists. It purported to show temperatures as actually having been relatively flat over the last thousand years, before suddenly spiking in the 20th Century. It was featured prominently by Al Gore in his Oscar winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." Despite its numerous flaws, it was accepted immediately as gospel until finally it was totally disproved by fellow scientists within a few years. Yet almost no mention of this can be found in the media.

Mt. Kilimanjaro's disappearing snow cap is another commonly referenced event in the media concerning global warming. But research by Nature's Betsy Mason and climatologist John Daly, points to deforestation being the likely culprit. Satellites have recorded no measurable atmospheric warming since 1979 in the free troposphere between 1,000 and 8,000 meters.

Despite alarmists wanting to portray the scientific community as having moved past debate, dissenters are still speaking out. Dr. William Gray, the respected hurricane forecaster and professor of atmospheric science, slammed Gore as a fraud and accused his movie of "brainwashing children."

The response to these critics has been blistering. They have been accused of being lackeys for "Big Oil" (whatever that means), hacks and liars. Several warming zealots have called for "deniers" to face criminal charges for spreading lies. Ellen Goodman of The Boston Globe came out and said global warming deniers are "now on a par with holocaust deniers."

An insightful book by Bjørn Lomborg called "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalists Guide to Global Warming," attempted to step back from the hysteria. He argues that even if global warming is true, that does not mean it is the only priority of governments. Lomborg pointed out there are far better ways to spend taxpayers' money, such as HIV/AIDS research, preventing malnutrition and ensuring Third World drinking water standards. The message of keeping global warming in perspective is the book's most valuable contribution. Instead of a climate of fear and ignorance, we should encourage one of open and informed debate.

Jack Millman is a sophomore in political science and economics. He can be reached at millman.5@osu.edu.

I too love this website and have always kept and open mind about this subject. But, when "TIpping Point", and "consensus" get thrown out there, I get the message, but it's not what the sender intended for me. Neither of those strategies involve facts or science. It does remind me of the last time I had to buy a new car, though…..

Questions Ive always had and would like to ask this group:

Who said that the climate as it has been the past 10K years is the ideal 'norm", and should be protected? It seems to me that, geologically speaking, the ice caps are the abberation, not the norm. Loose some islands and present coastline, or have the norhern hemisphere covered by a 2 mile thick sheet of ice? And for those who will inevitably attempt it – no, you cannot have it both ways. That is another bad strategy.

The entirety of human emmisions from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to today equals one or two medium sized farts from one or two medium sized volcanoes. 1%-2% CO2- I should be worried about that because…. tipping point? hmmm. Explain this to me please.

> More important still is the refusal … to examine those ice-core samples… the latest data shows CO2 levels FOLLOW warming, and do not LEAD warming.

There has been no refusal to examine this data, in fact, rather ironically, Hansen was amongst those who predicted this finding back in 1990:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdf

Furthermore, for more details regarding why the lag does not contradict AGW, have a look at these:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/langswitch_lang/sw

> And the increase in CO2 in "the modern era" began its upswing before the automobile

As I noted in an earlier post, the recent substantial increases in atmospheric CO2 levels can be directly linked to human activities (not just a simple statement that humans emit CO2, therefore the increase must be down to us, but an objective measurement of the source of CO2).

If Cycle 24 is below expectations, the GCR infall will result in global cooling. If Cycle 24 is, as is expected by many, is a huge one, then there will be warming due to as much as a 50-60 percent deviation in GCR infall.

As to CO2? What is the optimum level of this gas in our atmosphere? Hansen claims it's 380 ppm, which is demonstrably lower still than the past, when it has been as high as 3000 to 7000 ppm, which life flourished.

More important still is the refusal by alarmists to examine those ice-core samples with the instruments available to us now. The apparent correlation between CO2 and past warming in the latest data shows CO2 levels FOLLOW warming, and do not LEAD warming.

And the increase in CO2 in "the modern era" began its upswing before the automobile, as well, as did the centuries-old mostly uptick in solar cycle peaks. Read the National Research Academy reports on GCRs and Solar Particle Events, and engage in the oldest and MOST important part of Science – investigation.

Proof against all criticism is contempt prior to investigation.

Sorry, Fraser. But the Solar activity swing of .04 percent between highs and lows in the 11 year cycle are not the smoking gun. The 50 to 60 percent clear correlation between GCR infall levels inverse to peaks in the cycles is the smoking gun.

Hansen should get busy getting rich with Al Gore selling Carbon credits before the market eventually drops out.

Im not arguing either side of this. Oil companies are bastards ripping off the entire human population. Humans do contribute to Global Warming, but I honestly dont think either side of the debate is telling the public everything. Nuclear power sounds good to me. Of course I would want to know more about it.

Oh, and in this you said "Americas southwest would become a desert".

Americas southwest IS a desert. Has been since long before any pilgrams came to America.

Cheers all