See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Farce
Source:
realclearpolitics.com
URL Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar ... global_warming_is_a_farce.html
Published: Dec 25, 2009
Author: Alexander Cockburn
Post Date: 2009-12-25 01:43:05 by farmfriend
Ping List: *Agriculture-Environment* Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*
Keywords: None
Views: 924
Comments: 65
By Alexander Cockburn The global warming jamboree in Copenhagen was surely the most outlandish foray into intellectual fantasizing since the fourth-century Christian bishops assembled in 325 AD for the Council of Nicaea to debate whether God the Father was supreme or had to share equal status in the pecking order of eternity with his Son and the Holy Ghost. Shortly before the Copenhagen summit, the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) were embarrassed by a whistleblower who put on the Web more than a thousand e-mails either sent from or received at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, headed by Dr. Phil Jones. The CRU was founded in 1971 with funding from sources including Shell and British Petroleum. It became one of the climate-modeling grant mills supplying tainted data from which the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concocted its reports. Deceitful manipulation of data, concealment or straightforward destruction of inconvenient evidence, vindictive conspiracies to silence critics, are par for the course in all scientific debate. But in displaying all these characteristics, the CRU e-mails graphically undermine the claim of the Warmers that they command the moral as well as scientific high ground. It has been a standard ploy of the Warmers to revile the skeptics as whores of the energy industry, swaddled in munificent grants and with large personal stakes in discrediting AGW. Actually, the precise opposite is true. Billions in funding and research grants sluice into the big climate-modeling enterprises and a vast archipelago of research departments and "institutes of climate change" across academia. It's where the money is. Skepticism, particularly for a young climatologist or atmospheric physicist, can be a career breaker. Many of the landmines in the CRU e-mails tend to buttress longstanding charges by skeptics (yours truly included) that statistical chicanery by professor Michael Mann and others occluded the highly inconvenient Medieval Warm Period, running from 800 to 1300 AD, with temperatures in excess of the highest we saw in the 20th century, a historical fact that makes nonsense of the thesis that global warming could be attributed to the auto-industrial civilization of the 20th century. Here's Keith Briffa, of the CRU, letting his hair down in an e-mail Sept. 22, 1999: "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. ... I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago." Now, in the fall of 1999, the IPCC was squaring up to its all-important "Summary for Policymakers" - essentially a press release, one that eventually featured the notorious graph flatlining into nonexistence the Medieval Warm Period and displaying a terrifying, supposedly unprecedented surge in 20th-century temperatures. Briffa's reconstruction of temperature changes, one showing a mid- to late-20th-century decline, was regarded by Mann, in a Sept. 22, 1999, e-mail to the CRU, as a "problem and a potential distraction/detraction." So Mann, a lead author on this chapter of the IPCC report, simply deleted the embarrassing post-1960 portion of Briffa's reconstruction. The CRU's Jones happily applauded Mann's deceptions in an e-mail in which he crowed over "Mike's Nature trick." Other landmines include e-mails from Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. On Oct. 14, he wrote to the CRU's Tom Wigley: "How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geo-engineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!" Only a few weeks before Copenhagen, here is a scientist in the inner AGW circle disclosing that "we are no where close to knowing" how the supposedly proven AGW warming model might actually work, and that therefore geoengineering - such as carbon mitigation - is "hopeless." This admission edges close to acknowledgment of a huge core problem: that "greenhouse" theory violates the second law of thermodynamics, which says that a cooler body cannot warm a hotter body without compensation. Greenhouse gases in the cold upper atmosphere cannot possibly transfer heat to the warmer earth, and in fact radiate their absorbed heat into outer space. (Readers interested in the science can read Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner's "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics," updated in January 2009.) Recent data from many monitors including the CRU, available on climate4you.com, show that the average temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans near the surface of the earth has decreased significantly across the past eight years or so. CO2 is a benign gas essential to life, occurring in past eras at five times present levels. Changes in atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with human emissions of CO2, the latter being entirely trivial in the global balance. The battles in Nicaea in 325 were faith based, with no relation to science or reason. So were the premises of the Copenhagen summit, that the planet faces catastrophic warming caused by manmade CO2 buildup, and that human intervention - geoengineering - could avert the coming disaster. Properly speaking, it's a farce. In terms of distraction from cleaning up the pollutants that are actually killing people, it's a terrible tragedy.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Farce
December 24, 2009
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 43.
#6. To: farmfriend (#0)
This continues a decades-long trend of warmer-than-average temperatures. If the warming pattern persists throughout the remainder of the year, it will mark the 33rd consecutive year of above-average global temperatures. The Earth's temperature record dates back to 1880. The data center reports that warmer-than-average conditions were measured in January-March across most of the land areas of the world, especially in central Asia, central Africa, Europe, and south-central North America, as seen on this map. The areas with cooler-than-average temperatures include parts of Alaska, southern Canada, northern Australia, and central and eastern Russia. For March, the globe was the 10th-warmest since records began, with a temperature of 55.87 degrees, which is about a degree above the 20th-century average of 54.9 degrees. The warmest above-average temperatures during March 2009 were recorded across Mexico, Europe, most of Asia, South America, and the contiguous USA. Cooler-than-average temperatures occurred across north-central and northwestern USA, southern Canada, southern Alaska, and central Russia. Weak La Nina conditions — a cooling of tropical ocean waters in the central Pacific Ocean that can affect global temperatures and precipitation— continued in March. However, a transition toward temperatures that are closer to average — known as "ENSO-neutral conditions" — are expected this month, reports the Climate Prediction Center. And while the March snow cover extent in the Northern Hemisphere was near average, Arctic sea ice coverage was at its sixth-lowest since satellite records began in 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. But in Antarctica, March sea ice extent was at its 4th-highest level of the 31-year period of record. Since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent for March has increased at an average rate of 4.7% per decade. _ Still some hope on the horizon Meanwhile, earlier this week, some encouraging news came in from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). In a study using climate models, scientists reported that the threat of global warming can still be greatly reduced if the world's nations cut emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by 70% this century. Carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere have increased from about 284 parts per million (in the pre-industrial era) to more than 380 ppm today. This study assumed that the globe's CO2 levels could be maintained at 450 ppm through the century, if the world quickly adapts conservation practices and new green technologies to cut emissions dramatically. If unchecked and kept at their current levels, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could skyrocket to 750 ppm by 2100. While global temperatures would continue to rise, the most dangerous potential aspects of climate change, including massive losses of Arctic sea ice and permafrost and significant sea-level rise, could be partially avoided. The study will be published next week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union. "This research indicates that we can no longer avoid significant warming during this century," says NCAR scientist Warren Washington, the study's lead author. "But if the world were to implement this level of emission cuts, we could stabilize the threat of climate change and avoid catastrophe.
Lovely chart showing the Dalton minimum. Of course we are warmer than the Dalton minimum. Nobody has said other wise and for your information, CO2 lags temp it does not lead it.
Thanks for pointing that out. The significance of your statement means that you agree with me .... that increasing temperatures are occurring, correct?
No, incorrect. I agree that temps have increased since the Dalton minimum. I was pointing out that temperature always leads CO2 increases. A cause can not follow an effect therefore CO2 is not the cause of the recent temp increase. Temperatures have stabilized and started to fall with the decrease in solar activity while CO2 has continued to rise. It just remains to be seen how much they will fall. We are heading into the Landscheidt minimum.
Temperatures have stabilized and started to fall with the decrease in solar activity while CO2 has continued to rise. It just remains to be seen how much they will fall. Isn't your post contradictory? How can CO2 continue to rise when you simultaneously claim that temperatures are falling?
It's not contradictory. CO2 only roughly correlated with the latest rise. It was not the cause. The fact that temps are starting to fall while CO2 continues to rise points this out quite nicely.
Temperatures are (indeed) rising. We know this FACT because sea-levels are rising, too. When water is heated it expands and as a result can be measured. See chart below:
Actually sea levels have dropped because the oceans have cooled. Your science is lagging.
Prove your contention anyway you can.
‘Sea level in the Arctic is falling’—Sea level is a surprisingly complicated thing
The FACTS are simple to understand about the general trends in measured (and documented) ways to objectively see the exposure of and about heightened sea levels around the globe as opposed to spitting out some local phenomena. You see, around the globe no matter where you go the levels are generally rising not falling. And using the Arctic region as a perspective to support lower sea level measurements is fictitious since that region is normally cooler anyway. BTW, who lives in the Arctic region that would be affected in their local way of life: a pile of scientists and a few hunters. Little crop development occurs in that specific Arctic region.
Actually that is not true. In areas that were heavily covered in ice during the last ice age the continent is still rebounding and consequently sea levels are falling. As for other areas, levels are rising 2 to 3 mm per year. This has remained unchanged since prior to the supposed temp increase.
I see that you have acquiesced to using the Arctic region as a basis for further rebuttal concerning your own defense. So, moving along ..... using the past Ice Age (as you vividly point out): And to further demonstrate your poor perspective: Now, what is your rebuttal? Using Al Gore's BS as a political weapon about facts while entertaining fantasy?
I acquiesce to nothing. Off to Grandma's for dinner. Merry Christmas my friend.
Merry Christmas, my friend. I love you. I love your debating spirit.
Thanks! And I don't care what anyone says about you, I think you are sweet.
Knock it off!
Ron Paul on Global Warming: note, he doesn't dismiss GW ... he discusses failed government intervention plans.
He is a politician of course. I like Ron Paul. I've heard he is planning on running for Pres again.
We need to differentiate FACTS about GW, certainly from geophysics and lame political attempts at the control of the phenomena. Just because a pile of political lamers think they can run the world addressing a FACT such as global warming, doesn't dismiss the truth. I don't think we can turn the phenomena back as in the attempt within the recent Copenhagen conference. We are doomed no matter what we attempt to do.
I disagree. We are in a natural cycle. CO2 is irrelevant.
That brings up a question: are you "regular" on a day to day basis? Without answering, what do you imagine happens to the Earth when 6,500,000,000 humans take a dump each and every day? Absolutely no impact to the Earth's fragile eco-system?
It recycles nutrients back into the eco-system. Next question?
How is methane broken down? By majick faeries entertained within your own mind?
How is methane broken down? By majick faeries entertained within your own mind? Methane, a.k.a. Natural Gas, (CH4) is an organic molecule. In many different combinations it forms compounds which are extremely useful and common in the environment. Your question makes no sense, and illustrates your lack of knowledge, as it is a building block organic chemical.
#45. To: Original_Intent (#43)
CH4(g) + 2 O2(g) ------> CO2(g) + 2 H2O(l) H = –891 kJ; compounded by 6,500,000,000 dumps a day. Your noxious and casual point doesn't address the serious issue that affects all of us.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest.... show that the average temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans near the surface of the earth has decreased significantly across the past eight years or so.
Earth's temperature 8th-warmest on record so far in 2009
The Earth's temperature from January-March 2009 was the 8th-warmest on record, according to data released Thursday from the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The global temperature of 55.04 degrees for the year's first three months was almost a full degree above the 20th-century average of 54.1 degrees.
#8. To: buckeroo (#6)
#9. To: farmfriend (#8)
... CO2 lags temp it does not lead it.
#10. To: buckeroo (#9)
that increasing temperatures are occurring, correct?
#11. To: farmfriend (#10)
I agree that temps have increased since the Dalton minimum. I was pointing out that temperature always leads CO2 increases. A cause can not follow an effect therefore CO2 is not the cause of the recent temp increase.
#12. To: buckeroo (#11)
Isn't your post contradictory? How can CO2 continue to rise when you simultaneously claim that temperatures are falling?
#13. To: farmfriend (#12)
#14. To: buckeroo (#13)
#15. To: farmfriend (#14)
#16. To: buckeroo (#15)
Yes, a new study using Europe's Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite has determined that over the last 10 years, sea level in the Arctic Ocean has been falling at an average rate of about 2 mm/year. This is very new and very interesting news, though it is preliminary and not published in any peer-reviewed journals yet.
#17. To: farmfriend (#16)
#18. To: buckeroo (#17)
You see, around the globe no matter where you go the levels are generally rising not falling.
#19. To: farmfriend (#18)
In areas that were heavily covered in ice during the last ice age the continent is still rebounding and consequently sea levels are falling. As for other areas, levels are rising 2 to 3 mm per year. This has remained unchanged since prior to the supposed temp increase.
The Wisconsin glacial began around 110,000 years ago, while the prior interglacial lasted about 20,000 years starting 130,000 years ago. Certain periodic changes in Earth's orbital motions, referred to as a group as Milankovitch Cycles, tend to usher glacial and interglacial periods in and out during the course of an ice age. These cycles have periods of 40,000 and 100,000 years. Scientists believe, based on the Milankovitch Cycles, that the current interglacial is likely to end roughly 50,000 years from now, barring excessive human disruption of natural patterns of climate change.
During the peak of the Wisconsin glacial glaciers covered almost a third of Earth's land surface, as compared to about 11% today. At the time of the last glacial maximum, about 20,000 years ago, sea levels were about 122 meters (400 feet) lower than they are today. As global temperatures began to rise and the ice began to recede, sea levels rose relatively rapidly at an average rate of about 10 mm/year (a meter per century) between 15,000 and 6,000 years ago. This rate of sea level rise is about 5 to 10 times as rapid as the rise we are currently experiencing. A vertical rise of sea level by a meter per century may not seem an especially radical change. However, recall that coastal plains and continental shelves have shallow slopes; so a vertical rise of one meter corresponds to a change in location of the coastline of roughly a kilometer in many places.
#22. To: buckeroo (#19)
I see that you have acquiesced
#24. To: farmfriend (#22)
#28. To: buckeroo (#24)
Merry Christmas, my friend. I love you. I love your debating spirit.
#29. To: farmfriend (#28)
#30. To: buckeroo (#29)
Knock it off!
#31. To: farmfriend (#30)
#32. To: buckeroo (#31)
#33. To: farmfriend (#32)
#34. To: buckeroo (#33)
#35. To: farmfriend (#34)
We are in a natural cycle.
#38. To: buckeroo, farmfriend (#35)
That brings up a question: are you "regular" on a day to day basis? Without answering, what do you imagine happens to the Earth when 6,500,000,000 humans take a dump each and every day? Absolutely no impact to the Earth's fragile eco-system?
#41. To: Original_Intent (#38)
It [mother nature] recycles nutrients back into the eco-system.
#43. To: buckeroo, farmfriend (#41)
It [mother nature] recycles nutrients back into the eco-system.
Replies to Comment # 43. Natural Gas
End Trace Mode for Comment # 43.