1.0Has there been a GW trend in the recent past? Yes, a warming trend appears to have occurred over the last 130 years or so, from about 1880 AD on. The increase in average global temperature over this period appears to have been about 0.7 degrees Centigrade. Not all scientists agree on the magnitude of the increase in average global temperature, nor do they agree on the magnitude or direction of the change in average temperature predicted for the 21
st century. Here are the highlights of my findings on why there are still differences of scientific opinion on this:
- The temperature measurements used by the IPCC have been largely based on temperature gauges located on land.
- Most temperature gauges were located in the northern hemisphere.
- The predominance of temperature gauges in urban areas has biased average worldwide temperatures higher than they actually were.
- Temperature measurements by satellite do not agree with those taken by temperature measurements taken by temperature gauges on land.
- Global data from satellites does not show a GW trend since 2001, even though atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing.
- Satellite temperature measurements were initially not considered by the IPCC.
- The U.S average temperature has trended upward at about 0.5 degrees C per century over the last 130 years or so. This has included both GW and GC periods, each lasting approximately 30 years.
- The earth has experienced GW and GC periods in the last few thousand years.
- GW did occur in a medieval warm period from about 800 to 1200 AD, a period during which temperatures were higher than they are today.
- A little ice age occurred from about 1300 to 1880 AD.
- The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 30% since 1880.
- The amount of methane in the atmosphere has also increased in this period.
- Using CO2 “equivalency units” all GH gases have increased by about 60% in the period since 1880.
- IPCC predicts a warming of 0.2 degrees centigrade per decade for the next two decades based on its climate models. However, this assumes that GW increases will continue near current rates and that global cooling (GC) will not occur.
- There is no scientific consensus on the magnitude of temperature rise dependence on an increase in GH gases.
- We are now (2008) apparently entering a GC cycle that is expected to last for 15 to 25 years, based on Dilley’s gravitational models [see below.]
- The Monckton report indicates that even though CO2 concentration is increasing, the average global temperature is not increasing proportionally.
- IPCC’s 4th assessment report published in 2007 has lowered the projections for the GW temperature increase and sea level rise of the earlier IPCC reports.
IPCC’s projection for GW in the future is based on its climate models and assumes that the GW trend of the last 25 to 30 years will continue. The IPCC projection is at variance with projections made by the NIPCC, Easterbrook, Dilley [
see below], and others.
2.0Is GW due to anthropogenic causes, e.g. CO2? One of the key questions in the GW discussion is that of the cause of GW. It is agreed that the existence of GH gases in the atmosphere has some impact on the average global temperature. But the overriding question is – is GW anthropogenic (caused by man) or is GW controlled by natural causes? Is and will GW be harmful? Here are the highlights of my findings on this question:
- The “general consensus” is that the production of CO2 by humans burning fossil fuel is the main cause for the earth’s current (the last ~150 years) GW.
- IPCC considers the following GH gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFC, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
- IPCC does not consider water vapor to be a GH gas, but the NIPCC report does.
- There is a disagreement among climate scientists over whether water vapor should be a dependent variable or an independent variable in climate models.
- NIPCC has shown that the distribution of water vapor in the atmosphere can produce strong negative feedback effects on global temperature.
- Water vapor in the atmosphere holds 93 times more atmospheric heat than the CO2 does.
- IPCC does admit that water vapor and cloud cover are sources of uncertainty in the impact on climate change.
- There are so many sources and sinks of CO2 that it is difficult to determine with any accuracy how much of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to anthropogenic GH emissions.
- Many climatologists consider that GH gases are comprised of a) 95% water vapor, b) 4.7% ocean biologic, volcanos, plant/animal activity, and c) 0.3% human additions such as CO2.
- The IPCC climate model considers CO2 to be the major driver of climate change, but it does not consider solar irradiation as a significant cause of climate change.
- Studies by Arthur Robinson, et. al. have shown that computer model uncertainties in ocean surface flux, north-south heat flux by motions, humidity and clouds are far greater than any CO2 effects [see below.]
- Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by natural, not manmade, causes.
- CO2 in the atmosphere has increased during most of the 20th century at a fairly constant rate. However, we had a period of GC from 1940 to 1975 (even while CO2 concentrations increased) as well as a GW period from 1975 to the early part of this century.
- High concentrations of CO2 have been detected in the distant past without any apparent ill effects. This did not have an anthropogenic cause.
- In the past CO2 cycles have always happened in response to natural temperature cycles, even when man was not a factor in producing CO2.
- Global temperatures rose for a hundred years (~ 0.5 degrees C) before significant CO2 use by humans. There has been a steady increase in the use of CO2 by humans over the last 150 years, time that included warming periods (e.g. 1910-1940, 1972-2000) as well as a significant cooling period (e.g. 1940-1972).
- World glaciers have been retreating at a fairly steady rate for the past 200 years, well before the significant increased use of hydrocarbons by man.
- There has been a 7 inches per century sea level rise over the last 150 years, starting well before the significant increase in use of hydrocarbons by man.
- Past IPCC climate models based on anthropogenic causes for GW have not done a good job of predicting global temperatures.
The case made by the IPCC that GW is largely due to anthropogenic causes does not have wide support outside of the IPCC committee. It does not appear that human hydrocarbon use is causing significant increasing global termperatures.
3.0Is GW due to natural causes? A number of independent studies by climate scientists have shown that GW is due to natural causes. Climatologists have identified at least the following natural causes – variations in solar output, variations in the earth’s orbital characteristics and tilt, volcanic eruptions, atmosphere/ocean heat exchange, and the moon’s gravitational cycles. Here are the highlights of some of these studies. The details of these studies can be found in the references listed at the end of this report.
1.The NIPCC report has concluded that climate change (GW and GC) may best be explained by natural causes due to the complex interactions between the atmosphere and oceans, and perhaps stimulated by variations of solar irradiation.
2.NIPCC has determined that internal oscillations such as North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) play a major role in climate change. These oscillations are identified as internal oscillations of the atmosphere-ocean system by the IPCC.
3.The orbital influences on climate are well documented and widely accepted, but apparently not considered by the IPCC.
4.The sun has been shown to be a much more important climate driver than the concentration of atmospheric CO2.
5.Studies by Baliunas and Jastrow, and Friis-Christensen and Lassen, have shown that solar activity indicates a strong correlation with global temperatures. The solar activity includes sunspot cycle length, changes of solar ultraviolet or of the solar wind and its magnetic effect on cosmic rays and thus on cloud coverage.
6.Some solar physicists have suggested that the sun could have caused more than two thirds of observed GW in the past.
7.Solar activity is expected to decline for the next 50 years, resulting in GC.
8.A study by Easterbrook in 2008 has shown a strong correlation between the Glacial Decadal Oscillation (GDO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean, and global temperature records. In a similar manner the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) shows that we are entering a cooling period. These correlations are unrelated to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
9.Studies have shown a connection between PDO and cloud variations.
10.Easterbrook’s climate model matches the alternate 27-year warming/cooling cycles since about 1470, and predicted the cooling cycle that we are now entering. The IPCC climate model predicted increasing temperatures looking forward in time.
11.Easterbrook’s climate model indicates that global climate changes correlate well with a) changes in solar irradiance, b) number of sunspots and sunspot cycle length, and c) production of BE10 and C14 in the atmosphere from radiation.
12.According to Easterbrook’s studies, there appears to be “no correlation between CO2 and GW in the past. Half of the warming in the past century occurred before CO2 began to rise sharply. For 30 years after CO2 began to soar, GC occurred, rather than GW. Of the 25 past periods of GW, only the last one (the past 30 years) corresponds to rising CO2. 96% of GW periods in the past 500 years have no correlation with CO2.”
13.Meteorologist Dilley has determined that there is a very significant link between GW and the moon’s recurring gravitational cycles. They also apparently explain the cooling cycle that we are now entering.
14.Dilley has identified the gravitational cycles as the Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM) for Climate.
15.Dilley has also determined that the moon’s natural cycles explain the 50% increase in CO2 seen in the last 150 years, as well as over the past several thousands f years.
16.Dilley has determined that the magnitude of the current GW/CO2 cycle is due to the fact that the earth is presently at the peak of seven Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM) cycles (caused by the moon’s gravitational cycles), and not due to man-made CO2 emissions since the mid 19
th century.
17.Dilley’s model has about a 90% correlation with the average temperature data.
18.The “effect of sun irradiation on the ocean” model has about a 70% correlation with the average temperature data.
19.The assumption of GW caused by man-made CO2 has only about a 25% correlation with the average temperature data.
We must remember that warming does not tell us the cause of the warming, and that correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. However, we should pay attention to strong correlations that agree with postulated climate models. The natural causes of GW postulated by climate scientists need to be considered by the IPCC.
4.0Do we need to do something about GW immediately? The science behind GW and GC cycles is still in a state of flux. The debate is not settled. Thus it is too early to recommend a “solution” to address the driving functions behind climate changes. Here are some reasons why the science is not yet considered settled and why a solution to the perceived GW problem should not be implemented hastily:
- There is nothing unusual about the recent warming period when compared with historical periods of warming. GW and GC periods have occurred throughout the last few thousands of years with more extreme temperature changes than we have measured today.
- The last GC period ending in the 1970’s resulted in a GC scare.
- The IPCC study involved 52 scientists, not all of them climate scientists. The final IPCC reports were written by consensus among UN policy makers from many different countries, sometimes publishing results that were not approved by the IPCC scientists involved in the climate studies.
- The NIPCC report expresses significant variances from the IPCC report.
- More than 700 international scientists have expressed dissent in the U.S. Senate Minority Report over the man-made GW claims made in the IPCC report.
- More than 31,000 scientists have signed a GW Petition that expresses strong disagreement with the conclusions drawn in the final IPCC report.
- Meteorologist Dilley has put out a report based on 19 years of investigation that identifies the natural driving functions responsible for climate changes.
- Dilley’s models predict GC from 2008 to 2014, again from 2020 to 2025, with the coldest point being reached in 2050.
- Grant money to fund climate studies has overwhelmingly been made available to groups that are sympathetic to anthropogenic causes (e.g. burning of fossil fuels) for GW.
- A number of developed nations agreed to reduce CO2 emissions by a certain percentage according to the Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1997. None of these nations came anywhere close to meeting their goals. More aggressive goals are not likely to be met in the future.
- If the Kyoto Protocol were implemented and successful, GW would only be reduced by 0.07 degrees C by 2050.
- There is no scientific consensus that somewhat larger concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are harmful. Some researchers have shown that increased CO2 has been beneficial for agriculture and to have economic benefits.
- Major discrepancies still exist between temperature measurements and computer climate change models. Existing climate change models do not explain many climate observations.
- The IPCC’s past predictions for future catastrophic consequences of GW have not come to pass since the IPCC climate models were inadequate.
- The IPCC’s prediction of a large temperature increase by the year 2100 is not based on credible climate models.
- Al Gore has hijacked the good work of IPCC scientists and become an alarmist when it comes to GW. His movie “An Inconvenient Truth” has received wide publicity, but it has been shown to contain falsehoods. In October 2007 the High Court in London identified nine significant “errors” in his movie. Lord Christopher Monckton also wrote a paper pointing out “35 Inconvenient Truths” (errors and exaggerations) in Gore’s movie. The movie has done a great disservice to getting the truth out about the extent and causes of GW and the likely impacts that we can expect in the future.
- Al Gore has declared the GW debate over. This is a red flag when it comes to good science. If the debate were indeed over, Gore would be willing to debate protagonists, be able to articulate the causes for GW, and achieve general agreement from a majority of climate scientists – this has not happened.
- We do not understand the costs of implementing the “consensus” GW solution. When asked to address this issue, Al Gore refuses. It is imperative that the economic costs of any solution be addressed and understood.
- A recent poll indicates that GW ranks only 20th in a list of 20 major issues when prioritized by participants in the poll.
The IPCC report recommends a solution that assumes that GW is primarily due to anthropogenic causes, especially the emission of CO2. In contradiction, the NIPCC report concludes that there is no convincing evidence or observations of significant GW from other than natural causes. It appears the IPCC committee did not adequately consider the “second opinion” put forth by climate scientists outside of the IPCC “peer group” in drawing their conclusions and making their recommendations.
The recommended IPCC “consensus” GW solution involves:
- Reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by the year 2050.
- Establishing a cap-and-trade system to regulate conformance to the goals.
A number of analyses have been performed by different scientific groups to determine the probable causes of climate change, both anthropogenic and natural. We need to consider all of these analyses before drawing conclusions and determining what the best solution is for controlling the emission of GH gases, if indeed that is required. Implementing a solution for the perceived problem of GW before there is a strong consensus on the cause(s) of GW can do more harm than good.
5.0Is the “consensus” GW solution based on good science? It is my understanding the IPCC reports were put together by 52 or more scientists plus additional policy makers selected from UN member countries. The final versions of the IPCC reports were edited by UN policy makers who apparently did not seek approval for technical changes from the scientists who provided the information for the reports. Some of these UN scientists have since disassociated themselves from the final reports and asked their names to be removed from these reports. The resulting IPCC reports have apparently not received wide support from the climate science community for the following reasons:
1.The climate model used by the IPCC assumes that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of GW.
2.The IPCC reports lack the approval of some of the IPCC scientists who provided input for them, nor did they include minority reports to outline the areas of disagreement.
3.NIPCC input was not adequately considered or rebutted. NIPCC concluded that GW is controlled by natural causes and that GH gases do not play a significant role in GW.
4.Satellite data was not adequately considered in measuring average global temperatures.
5.Solar irradiation was not considered as a cause of climate change.
6.Various well-known long-term and short-term gravitational cycles controlled by the orbits of the moon were not considered as a cause of climate change.
7.The “hockey-stick” graph included in early IPCC reports was based on an inaccurate climate model. The publication and subsequent withdrawal of this graph did not help the credibility of the IPCC.
8.The IPCC reports appear to be designed to show support for anthropogenic GW, and finding evidence of a human role in climate change, without scientific rebuttal to data that show otherwise.
- The NIPCC report expresses significant variances from the IPCC report.
10.More than 700 international scientists have refuted the last IPCC report in the U.S. Senate Minority Report.
11.Dissent about the IPCC reports and the resulting Kyoto Protocol are expressed by more than 31,000 scientists who signed a GW Petition put out by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine.
12.The IPCC reports are apparently driven by a political agenda to find evidence for human causes for climate change.
13.Peer review has apparently been done by a select group of like-minded peers.
14.IPCC appears to be organized as “a government entity beholden to political agendas.”
15.Research grants have apparently predominantly gone to scientists and policy makers who are willing to support IPCC’s agenda.
16.Many IPCC reports have been controversial and their conclusions contradicted by subsequent research.
17.Most studies by climate scientists show that atmospheric man-made CO2 is not a significant cause of GW.
18.Reducing emissions of some GH gases to control pollution is important, but many climate scientists do not believe that this will not have a significant impact on the global climate.
19.Environmentalists have warned of a potential for a global catastrophe in the late 1970’s based on the GC that was occurring in the previous 25-30 years. This did not occur.
Climate scientists need to reach a much higher degree of consensus on the cause(s) of GW before the science underlying GW can be considered settled. For example, further analysis is required to determine the impact of GH gases such as water vapor on the global climate.
6.0Who is hurt by the “consensus” GW solution? There is no such thing as a “free lunch.” The current recommended solution is so expensive for so little gain that it will significantly increase the cost of all energy products. This will impact the following:
- The poor – Poor people can barely afford the cost of fuel today. An added cap-and-trade tax will increase the cost of fuel beyond their ability to pay.
- Energy consumers – All energy consumers would pay extra for the additional costs of uneconomical energy solutions whose use would be mandated by government regulation.
- Third world countries – Many countries in Africa are currently not allowed to build electrical plants, especially those using coal as a fuel source, because of the impact on the environment. Extra taxes will make it impossible for them to better their economic situation.
- Developed nations (and their citizens) who sign up for limiting CO2 emissions would likely experience slower economic growth and lose their competitive edge in the short term. This would likely result in certain industries and/or jobs moving off shore. The prosperity of these nations would suffer.
- Oil exporting countries would pay higher taxes under any cap-and-trade program.
- The world economic growth rate would likely be slower under any ill-conceived GW programs.
- The political backlash from an ill-conceived GW program would be immense and result in undermining any public support that a sound GW program might have.
7.0What conclusions can we draw from the analysis? As the result of my reading and analysis, the major conclusions that I draw from my analysis of the issue are as follows:
1.The extent of the GW phenomena does not appear to be as great as has been presented to the public by the IPCC and the popular media.
2.The number of dissenting climate scientists is greater, by at least an order of magnitude, than the number of climate scientists who have contributed to the IPCC report. The number of dissenters is far too large to ignore.
3.The IPCC seems to have focused on the last 25 to 30 years during which a GW cycle has been observed. IPCC appears to have based its predictions of increased GW for the next century on the continuation of the recent GW trend, and ignoring prior trends in global temperatures, both warming and cooling.
4.Many climate scientists have determined that we are now entering a 25 to 30 year GC period, and not a period of GW.
5.The science behind GW is not well understood and is far from settled.
6.The economic and people costs of any proposed GW solution are not well researched or understood.
7.GW appears to be largely due to natural causes, with possibly minor contributions from man-made causes.
8.Technical contributions from hundreds of climate scientists outside of the IPCC have not been adequately considered by the IPCC in determining the extent or causes of GW.
9.Any extensive and costly action to control GW is premature because of significantly different opinions offered by different groups of climate scientists.
10.Deception, the unbalanced use of scientific data, and exaggeration by certain policy makers and politicians have damaged the credibility of the good work done by IPCC scientists.
11.Climate scientists need to regroup and be more inclusive of research done by climate scientists with opposing viewpoints in order to develop a true scientific consensus on the extent and cause(s) of GW.
8.0What should the GW community do next? We need to recognize that the global climate is constantly changing; it always has and it always will. There are many open questions for which climate scientists do not yet have good answers. Here are my suggestions:
- Recognize that the science of climate change is far from settled and that the scientific debate that can lead to better consensus is not over.
- Separate the issue of pollution from that of GW. Most scientists agree on the major contributors to pollution and the need to control the emission of those pollutants.
- Separate the green/renewable energy issue from that of GW. We need to promote green energy solutions (such as solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal) if and as they become economically viable anyway. That is just being a good steward of the earth’s resources.
- There is no agreement yet on what the key drivers behind GW are, and whether there is a need to control these drivers, i.e. are man-made causes significant enough contributors to warrant costly remedial programs at this time?
- Develop a list of significant open issues in the field of climatology that need to be resolved in order to develop a true “consensus” GW solution, if indeed a solution is required. This will benefit the research funding agencies.
- Include both IPCC and NIPCC scientists in the “peer group” of climate scientists so that all scientific analyses and results are adequately considered.
- Provide grants/funds for climate researchers with opposing viewpoints.
- Develop credible climate models that accurately reflect the temperature measurements over the last few hundred years so that predictions of future climate changes have much greater credibility.
- Perform a cost benefit analysis of any proposed solution.
- Use common sense and take politics out of the determination of optimum climate change programs, if any should be required.
Re: Global Climate Disruption.
Originally Posted by CBR
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
- Horseman of the 
Bookmarks