Defining doomsday down

I thought the science was settled…

Climate Scientists: Previous Warming Estimates Were ‘On The Hot Side’

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and one of the study’s authors told The Times: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

According to The Times, another of the paper’s authors, Michael Grubb, a professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admitted his earlier forecasting models had overplayed how temperatures would rise…speaking to The Times he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as [John Maynard] Keynes said.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

The original study is here.

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

So, the debate is over, eh?

00473-10104_0

Anthropogenic global warming?

Not happening. I have been asked, ‘Are you arguing with science?” Well, here is some science.

This article by Mike van Biezen, a physics professor at Loyola Marymount University, full of facts and data, blows holes in the anthropogenic theory.

I can’t copy the whole article, but here are his major points:

Before we begin, let’s establish what we know to be correct. The global average temperature has increased since the 1980’s. Since the 1980’s glaciers around the world are receding and the ice cap of the Arctic Ocean has lost ice since the 1980’s, especially during the summer months. The average global temperature for the last 10 years is approximately 0.35 degrees centigrade higher than it was during the 1980’s. The global warming community has exploited these facts to “prove” that human activity (aka burning of fossil fuels) is the cause of these increasing temperatures. But no direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity. The link is assumed to be simply a fact, with no need to investigate or discuss any scientific data.

1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.

2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly.

3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years.

4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980.

5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations.

6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. [Not the other way around]

7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes.

8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution.

9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years. [The Exit Glacier, visited by President Obama this summer, has been receding for 200 years]

10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming.

Please read his discussion of each of these points, and take a look at the charts at the end. I especially like the discussion of point number 7.

President Barack Obama speaks to reporters during a hike at Exit Glacier in Kenai Fjords National Park in Alaska.

Polar ice is NOT receding

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

Which should be no surprise, since there has been no global warming since 1996.

If you are interested, the data is here.

earth-140_1

More Countries Caught Manipulating Their Climate Data

Weather agencies in Australia, Paraguay and Switzerland may be manipulating temperature data to create a sharper warming trend than is present in the raw data — a practice that has come under scrutiny in recent months.

Most recently, Dr. H. Sterling Burnett with the Heartland Institute detailed how the Swiss Meteorological Service adjusted its climate data “to show greater warming than actually measured by its temperature instruments.”

In his latest article, Sterling wrote that Switzerland’s weather bureau adjusted its raw temperature data so that “the temperatures reported were consistently higher than those actually recorded.” For example, the cities of Sion and Zurich saw “a doubling of the temperature trend” after such adjustments were made.

But even with the data tampering, Sterling noted that “there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data- tampering.”

Global-Warning

Climate change: New claims ‘murky’ global warming statistics are ‘GUESSED AT’

What do you do when you need a temperature and there is no weather station? Guess

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), chaired by former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson, has recently launched an inquiry into the reliability of global surface temperature records, with a group of international “eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians” set to probe current data.

With different sets of results appearing to conflict each other, the GWPF say they have received questions and concerns about which records are accurate and why some adjustments in temperatures are made over the years.

polar-bear-clinging-onto-cracking-ice

22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths

Read them all:

1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4)

2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?

3. The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 9)

fd2631f25bff7e6fba3445fd3d04aaef

Greenpeace co-founder–“Why I am a climate change skeptic”

Greenpeace co-founder and leader in international environmentalism Patrick Moore, PhD:

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Also:

Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it.

I can’t post the entire article here, so please read the whole thing.

Lianas in Interior of Lowland Rainforest, La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica