Category Archives: Global Temperatures

The Weakness of the AGW Theory


The “American Thinker” blog has an article by John McLaughlin that shows the weakness of the man-made global warming (AGW) theory.  The article Global Warming ‘Science’ discusses the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sponsored by the UN, was ..

Since its inception in 1988, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has sought to evaluate the risk of climate change brought about by human activity.  There has never been a requirement to also evaluate potential natural causes.”

The author discusses the impact the infamous Hockey Stick Temperature Graph had on the IPCC reports.

Their reports include a graph derived from mathematical models showing average global temperatures back to 1000 AD.  The graph appears relatively flat for over 900 years.  Then, about 1920, temperatures begin to rocket upward with but a brief pause around 1970 before heading still higher with no relief in sight.  So startling was this graph when it first appeared, it became known as the “Hockey Stick” chart.  The IPCC concluded the graph’s sudden change in character during the early 20th Century correlated with the introduction and increasing use of fossil fuel energy in that period, and that production of carbon dioxide (CO2) represented the principal man-made greenhouse gas culprit.

hockey stick graph

The Hockey Stick Temperature Graph

(Note, no medieval warm period & the “hockey stick” jump in temperatures)


Then he walks you through the story of how the Graph was exposed as a fraud:

As political hysteria over “man-made” or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) increased, other scientists began checking the mathematical analysis and measurements behind the hockey stick chart because it did not correlate with other known historical temperature data.  In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the chart and finally debunked it as statistical nonsense.  They revealed how the chart was derived from “collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects” — substantially affecting the temperature index.

And perhaps worse,  the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics concluded that:

“……the statistical methodology underpinning the hockey stick version was, indeed, profoundly flawed.  The Wegman panel submitted a report to the U.S. House of Representatives (which should have been available to all House members including Rep. Waxman) which cited results of an earlier National Research Council panel endorsing the work and results of McIntyre and McKitrick.  Wegman’s work also found the McIntyre and McKitrick analysis independently verifiable, their observations of the IPCC flaws correct and “valid,” and their arguments “compelling.”

McLaughlin also demonstrates that man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) can not be a significant cause of global warming.

Numerous gases make up the Earth’s atmosphere.  Of these, nitrogen represents about 78% by volume,  oxygen comprises just under 21%, and other gases (including “greenhouse gases”) make up slightly over 1% by volume remaining.  Of the principal greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the most prevalent.  Second place belongs to carbon dioxide (CO2) at 0.04% with methane and nitrous oxide finishing a very distant third and fourth.

What complicates analysis of any manmade greenhouse effect is the relatively overwhelming prevalence of water vapor — a gas ignored by the IPCC.  The U.S. Department of Energy estimates water vapor makes up 95% of identified greenhouse gases and, of that amount, less than 0.001% can be attributed to manmade causes.  Thus, the IPCC and AGW proponents have focused on CO2 as the principal anthropogenic greenhouse gas.”

And :

Put another way, if accumulation of greenhouse gases has any impact on global warming, Department of Energy data indicates nearly 99.9% would have to be attributed to natural causes.  Nevertheless, AGW proponents blame approximately 1/1000 of all produced planetary CO2 — this trace gas  which, in its totality, comprises less than 4/10,000 of the atmosphere — as the principal cause of climate change because it provides the only way to link global warming to human activity.

Numerous scientists and climatologists point to the terrible flaw that the IPCC analysis totally ignores the impact upon climate of solar activity, water vapor, and effects of cloud formation on global air pressure, temperature and winds.  As Dr. Tim Ball, a former climate scientist at the University of Winnipeg, put it:  “The analogy that I use is that my car is not running that well, so I’m going to ignore the engine (which is the sun) and I’m going to ignore the transmission (which is the water vapor) and I’m going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel (which is the human-produced CO2) … the science is that bad!

He discusses that fact that actual data regarding global warming and sea level rise contradict the alarmists’ scare stories;  the fallacy of the “Consensus “ argument; and finishes with conclusions that contradict the thinking ChairmanWaxman used to justify the House of Representatives passing of the Cap and Trade bill.  To read the article in its entirety,  click here

Many things have recently come to light that further contradict the man-made global warming theory.    I will try to bring those to you in future blogs.

See    The Weakness of the AGW Theory-Part 2

The Weakness of the AGW Theory-Part 3

Cbdakota

August CO2 Report


The Science and Public Policy Institute’s monthly CO2 report is now available.   It contain articles on OCEAN HEAT BUILDUP,  SEA LEVELS,  PREDICTIONS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATIONS IN 2100,  THE QUITE SUN, WHY THE GREAT ICESHEETS WONT COLLAPSE,  ARCTIC  SEA  ICE  AREA, ETC.

Click here to read the report.

Cbdakota

4 Billion Years of Climate Change


For the past several weeks, I have been planning on sending the link to  “The Grand View: 4 Billion Years Of Climate Change”.  The article is from the book “The Resilient Earth” by Doug Hoffman and Allen Simmons. It is really informative and for those of us that can’t keep on geological Eras, Periods, or the years relating to them straight,  it is a reference you might want to keep.

early_bombardment-500 Early Earth–From “The Resilient Earth

To give you a taste of what is covered, look at the following:

Observations

That concludes our whirlwind tour of Earth’s climate history. There are a number of observations that can be made from our overview of the Phanerozoic:

Earth’s temperature is always changing.

Over time there have been periods when it has been colder than it is today.

For most of the Phanerozoic it has been much warmer than it is today.

Life has persisted during periods both hot and cold.

There is no one “right” temperature.

Carbon dioxide has always been present in Earth’s atmosphere.

Over time there have been periods when CO2 has increased and decreased     naturally.

For most of the Phanerozoic it has been much higher than it is today.

Life has persisted during periods with high CO2 and low CO2.

CO2 levels will change with or without human contributions.

Over time there have been a number of ice ages—Life has endured multiple ice ages.

For most of the Phanerozoic there have been no persistent polar ice caps.

eras_and_periods-250

Eras and Periods from The Resilient Earth

To read the  article   click here

Cbdakota

Science and The Obama Administration—OSHA and the EPA


President Obama has stated he wants to “restore science to its rightful place”.   Now we are left to wonder how he squares that statement in view of his promotion of the man-made global theory  (see Cap and Trade).   Moreover,  it seems that he will tolerate more anti-science doings in his administration—-specifically in OSHA.   David Michaels is Obama’s nominee to head OSHA.

A Washington Times Editorial tells us that in the Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals all 9 justices …”agreed that trial judges could hold hearings without juries present to determine if proposed ‘expert testimony’ is “relevant and reliable,” based on objective criteria such as use of scientific method and peer reviews.  This way, a trial can be protected from being polluted by hired guns who may look and sound impressive enough to sway a jury that has no particular scientific expertise but who actually are peddling bogus theories or trumped-up evidence.”

Michaels has railed against this, saying that the ruling created a social imbalance away from the interests of plantiffs and their lawyers.  He also heads a group funded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute.  The group, Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy, was initially funded by a trust fund created from the silicone breast transplant scare (which subsequent studies have shown the scare was unfounded).

See the full story here.

Which brings me to the EPA.  A suit was filed by Massachusetts against the EPA saying that the EPA had to regulate greenhouse gases.  In a surprise ruling, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner had a good case and the EPA was charged by the Supreme Court to make a finding that CO2 was or was not a hazard.   The EPA‘s preliminary finding was that it is a hazard and should be regulated.  The EPA admits that they did not do any scientific study of their own but relied upon the IPCC 2007 report that concluded that man-made warming will result in a global catastrophe in the future. The EPA is soon to issue final ruling.

I don’t know what is more threatening,  passage of a Cap and Trade bill in the Senate to go along with the one passed in the House of Representatives or letting the EPA come up with regulations on how to reduce atmospheric CO2.  I have been predicting that the legislators would not enact cap and trade because they would be in danger of not being re-elected when the cost of that legislation was felt by the US citizens.  So, they would take the easy way and let the blame fall on the EPA if things turned out badly.

Now enter the US Chamber of Commerce which argues that the before a final decision is made that the EPA must be required to defend it scientific conclusions in front of an administrative law judge.  The EPA has said they don’t see the necessity of this. The following is statement by Senator James Inhofe, (Ok-R):

“Why would anyone oppose a full, open, transparent hearing to determine whether evidence supporting the most consequential regulatory decision of our time—affecting schools, hospitals, farms, apartment buildings, restaurants, nursing homes, and thousands of other sources—is up-to-date, accurate, and reflective of the best available scientific research? And why wouldn’t the Obama Administration, and its supporters in the environmental community, faced with a decision potentially imposing billions of dollars of costs on consumers and small businesses, favor a process that ensures maximum public participation and stakeholder input?”

“The answer is simple: in dismissing the Chamber’s petition as “frivolous,” EPA has made clear that, even before finalizing its regulation and considering thousands of public comments, it has already decided the question of endangerment. And in so doing, it has ignored, either deliberately or through omission, reams of scientific data, which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has rigorously identified, undermining the case that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare.

EPA has also made clear that it doesn’t want to hear dissenting voices on this important question. This runs contrary to President Obama’s speech last December, in which he expressed his views on scientific integrity in the administrative process. As he said, “It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient.” (Emphasis added by Cbdakota)

Read Senator Inhofe’s full comments here.

Now that the President is on record for “restoring science etc……”  and “…..listening even when it is inconvenient”  shouldn’t you let him know that you want him to direct the EPA to have the hearing.

Cbdakota

Global Warming, Politics and Economy by Dr Akasofu


Translated from Japanese, Dr Syun Akasofu’s article “20 points of context on global warming, politics and the economy of the world” has been put online.  Dr Akasofu works at the International Arctic Research Center at the U of Alaska.  In his article he says that future global warming conferences, like the upcoming December Copenhagen Conference,  should be postponed until we know more science.  He has many more interesting comments such as:

8. One problem in this particular discipline of science is that scientists who base their research on computer simulations have become too arrogant, saying that they can predict the temperature in 2100, although too much is still unknown about the earth system. Ignoring natural causes of climate change and even unknown aspects of cloud physics, they rely on computer work in predicting the temperature rise in 2100. However, a computer is like a robot. It can perform only what it is instructed to do by the programs produced by the human brain. If a computer program is incorrect or inaccurate, the output will also be incorrect or inaccurate. In science, incorrect programs or hypotheses (produced by one or a group of scientists) are criticized by other scientists and can thus be improved. That is the way science should progress. However, the IPCC regards those who criticize them as “skeptics”, or “deniers”, etc., and brought this newborn and immature science to the international stage. They stated in 2007 that scientists have done all they can and that the science is settled, and the rest of the task should be in the hands of policy makers. Such a statement is very irresponsible.

10. The Obama administration is promoting wind power and solar power. However, there is no way to supply more than 10% of the US power needs (Obama says that they should try for 20%, but has he estimated the cost involved?) It is only about 2.5% at present. In any case, 80-90% of future electric power has to be found.

20. We should bring back the science of climate change to a basic science, avoiding interferences by policy makers and the world mass media. Only then can this particular science proceed in a scientifically healthy way. Only then can we discuss any global warming hypothesis as proponents and opponents (instead of as “believers” and “skeptics” or “deniers” in the religious sense), regardless of one side being in the majority or minority. In science, unlike in politics, a minority can be right.

While Dr Akasofu’s belief maybe accurate that Pres.Obama really wants to promote nuclear power, his left wing environmentalists don’t.  They will oppose with every lawsuit they can muster, every attempt at new nuke facilities.  While their success is not certain to stop these facilities, these environmentalists will delay startup and raise the cost.

Read all of Dr Akasofu  comments here

Cbdakota

Sea Surface Temperatures–Record Warmth?


The National Climate Data Center said that the average global ocean temperature in July was 62.6 degrees and that was the hottest since recording keeping began in 1880.  Seth Borenstein’s column on this reported record says:

Breaking heat records in water is more ominous as a sign of global warming than breaking temperature marks on land.  That’s because water takes longer to heat up and doesn’t cool off as easily, said climate scientist Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria British Columbia.   “This is another yet really important indicator of the change that’s occurring,” Weaver said.

Sometimes the alarmist seem eager to overreach in order to be,  well , alarmists.  The real issue is that measuring sea surface temperature (SST) is only one piece of the information needed to measure OCEAN HEAT CONTENT.  Ocean heat content is the only way to know if our vast oceans are warming or cooling.  The record shows that the oceans have slightly cooled.

This claim that July 09 SST  is the hottest on record does not seem to be true.  Roy Spencer has a post discussing this and he shows that this is not a record.  And if you look at the data he provides, you can see that 1998 was a significant period of SST warming.  Spencer says “None of this represents proof that July 2009 was not a record warm month in ocean surface temperature, but it does cast significant doubt on the claim.  But the focus on a single month misses the big picture: recent years have yet to reach the warmth of 1998. “

Read Dr Spencer’s full post here

Spotless Days


As of today, 26 August, 2009, the sun has not had a sunspot  for 47 days.  Since 1849, this is the 5th longest period without sunspots. If there are no sunspots in the next two days,  the new total of 49 will put this period in 4th place.   The number 1 period was 92 days long without a sunspot and that occurred in 1913.  See chart below for other long periods without sunspots.

The sun’s activity remains low with the 10.7 solar radio flux at 67. If you are unfamiliar with this measurement, the following from my entry   “Sun and Climate—an  Essay”  should help:

Another indicator of the Sun’s activity is the 10.7 cm (2800 MHz) radio flux.  This measurement is the amount of solar noise that is emitted by the sun at 10.7 cm wavelengths. Some consider it to be better than Sunspots as an indicator of solar activity.  The solar flux is measured and reported at approximately 1700 UT daily.   It can vary from values below 50 to values in excess of 300 (representing very low solar activity and high to very high solar activity respectively). Values in excess of 200 occur typically during the peak of the solar cycles.

PERIODS WITH SPOTLESS DAYS (>20DAYS) SINCE 1849

Courtesy of Solaemon’s Spotless Days Page

Spotlessoverview

Cbdakota

SPPI Monthly CO2 Report–July 2009


The July  SPPI CO2 Report has been issued.  This  monthly report, edited by Christopher Monckton, is the best place to find all of the usual “markers” of the state of global climate change.  You will find the latest charts for atmospheric temperature, ocean temperature, atmospheric CO2 levels,  sea level, Arctic and Antarctic ice extent, solar activity, and more.

It is evident from these charts that global warming continues to be global cooling.  To read this report click here.

Cbdakota