See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Temperatures are normal, it’s the Politics that are Wrong
Source:
canadafreepress.com
URL Source: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12865
Published: Jul 14, 2009
Author: Dr. Tim Ball
Post Date: 2009-07-14 20:53:03 by farmfriend
Keywords: None
Views: 57
Comments: 1
Don't confuse me with facts I'm saving the world, Global temperatures are declining but politicians keep speaking of warming By Dr. Tim Ball Temperatures are normal. In a massive irony President Obama spoke of global warming at the G8 on July 8, the same day his political hometown of Chicago recorded the coldest July 8 in 118 years. Global temperatures are declining but politicians keep speaking of warming. After sea level rise the biggest alarmism and misinformation is about global temperatures. Unlike sea level threats temperature data is more easily understood and difficult to ignore, but that doesn’t stop extremists or politicians with a narrow political agenda. A few events are easily dismissed as weather, but a pattern indicates a climate trend. Reports of record cold began in the Southern Hemisphere 20 years ago but became global over the last 10 years. This contradicts predictions of warming and indicates the claimed cause of human produced CO2 is wrong. Official predictions are Consistently Wrong and Getting Worse Temperatures declined between 1940 and 1980. From the mid-1980s to 1998 temperatures rose and the cause was identified as human addition of CO2. But the biggest temperature rise in the 20th century was prior to 1940 when human production of CO2 was minimal. Then temperatures declined when human CO2 production was increased most after 1940. The claimed mechanism did not match the data. They claimed it was addition of sulfates that caused the cooling. The problem is sulfate levels continued to rise after warming resumed in the 1980s. Every Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) temperature prediction has been wrong. Why? For accurate predictions the temperature data is not adequate, you must know the physical causes. Clearly the IPCC understanding is wrong. 2008 Limited Data is Only Part of the Problem In the specialist publication, “Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics” Essex, Andersen and McKitrick have a paper titled, ”Does a Global Temperature Exist?” The first sentence of the abstract supports Whitehead’s warning. ”Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming.” Proponents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that human CO2 is causing global warming are moving the goalposts again. The shift from global warming to climate change was partly forced by evidence that in every record temperature change preceded CO2 change. It was also the drop in temperature after the anomalous warm year of 1998 as shown here. Figure 2: The peak in 1998 attributed to El Nino and the decline in 1999 and 2000. Selected portion of graph in Figure 2 by T Ball. They argued the decline was an artifact caused by the exceptionally high year of 1998--a reasonable argument because the record is short. However, there was also the problem of CO2 levels rising contradicting their theory temperature cannot decline if CO2 is rising. Temperatures rose slightly in 2001 but began to level off and then decline after 2002 as Figure 2 illustrates. CO2 continued to rise. Figure 3: CO2 level continues to rise, but temperature levels to 2007. Now we come to the problem identified in the next two sentences of Essex et al., abstract which says, ”While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere.” There are two points; if you don’t know the underlying cause (physical principles) you can apply any mathematical or statistical technique you want; and depending on the now legitimately chosen technique you can show virtually any trend including opposite ones. Bruce Richardson illustrates this beautifully in Figure 3. Figure 4: Various methods of determining temperature trends, especially after 1998. The key point is the trend is determined by the beginning and end points chosen particularly with simple linear trends. A more meaningful measure is given with a longer moving average (red), although this one is not a standard method. This graph covers from 1979 to the present and even the moving average indicates overall warming but that can change as you extend the time period. Temperature sources are divided into three general types: the instrumental record, the historic record and geologic/biologic record. These are almost all proxy data, which are secondary indicators of change caused by changing weather patterns. The construction of a continuous temperature record over time is a major problem because sensitivity changes with method. Degrees of accuracy are a problem when linking data from one source to another to produce a continuous temperature record. Tree rings offer an opportunity because they span all three types. The infamous “hockey stick” did this but among other mistakes assumed tree rings represent temperature. In reality they are as much or more about precipitation. They’re also used to establish an annual temperature when they really reflect the growing season conditions. What Temperature Can we Expect? Every source of data provides a measure of varying temperatures. Whatever the source it falls prey to statistical and mathematical manipulation unless you know the underlying physical principles as Essex et al., noted. You cannot extend the simple linear trends in Richardson’s graph, but what about the red moving average? AGW proponents including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim the underlying physical principle is CO2 but it continues to rise as the temperature declines. So what will happen in the future? CO2 is not the underlying physical principle but there’s another problem. They only consider annual temperatures, but even a simple division into summer and winter shows a different pattern. Generally all the warming from 1680 to the 1990s was in winter temperatures. Figure 5 is a plot of winter temperatures for the last 17 years in the US. Figure 5: Declining trend in US winter temperatures. Variation in sunspot numbers is the physical principle most closely related to temperature change. The IPCC ignore it claiming there’s no mechanism. This is incorrect. The Svensmark Cosmic Theory provides the mechanism between sunspot numbers, solar magnetism, cosmic radiation and low cloud formation. This acts like a screen in the greenhouse causing temperature variations.¬† Sunspot numbers are decreasing and are anticipated to decrease therefore temperatures will decrease. The relationship between sunspot numbers and temperature is a good indicator but the length of time between each solar cycle is a better predictor. We’re currently in Cycle 23 and the longer it takes to enter Cycle 24 the colder the predictions become. Current conditions suggest temperatures similar to those associated with the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830.¬† David Archibald says, a temperature decline of the order of 1.5¬i4;C can be expected based on the temperature response to solar cycles 5 and 6. However if the onset of cycle 24 is delayed much further we can anticipate temperatures associated with the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age whose nadir was in the 1680s. It is no longer possible to argue the cooling was due to the drop after the peak of 1998. They now dismiss it as a brief trend but this contradicts the IPCC 90% certainty claim that CO2 is almost the sole cause of warming of the last 20 years. That is clearly wrong yet it is the basis of all political planning, although many are having second thoughts. Don’t confuse me with facts I’m saving the world But nothing stops Obama as his comments in Italy show. His purpose parallels a wonderful comment about exploiting environmental misinformation for social engineering toward more government control. Christine Stewart, Canada’s former Minister of the Environment said in 1998, “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits....Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” It also provides a massive source of revenue. “Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”
Temperatures are normal, it’s the Politics that are Wrong
Monday, July 13, 2009 There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain. - A.N.Whitehead.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, *Agriculture-Environment* (#0)
forgot the ping list.
… in the past CO2 (or water) was pumped, at some cost, into depleting oil and gas fields to get out more. This will continue, but the taxpayer will contribute to these costs as the oil companies will be paid for taking the unwanted stuff off governments emission balance sheets! No wonder the oil companies are keen on CCS…
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest