Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

From Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). The NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) was created by a group of concerned scientists who wanted to explore all the evidence regarding global warming. There results are significant and published in the PDF linked above.

1. There is very weak evidence that the causes of the current warming are anthropogenic (Section 2). 2. There is far more robust evidence that the causes of the current warming are natural (Section 3). 3. Computer models are unreliable guides to future climate conditions (Section 4). 4. Sea-level rise is not significantly affected by rise in GH gases (Section 5). 5. The data on ocean heat content have been misused to suggest anthropogenic warming. The role of GH gases in the reported rise in ocean temperature is largely unknown (Section 6) 6. Understanding of the atmospheric carbon dioxide budget is incomplete (Section 7). 7. Higher concentrations of CO2 are more likely to be beneficial to plant and animal life and to human health than lower concentrations (Section 8). 8. The economic effects of modest warming are likely to be positive and beneficial to human health (Section 9).

Their overall conclusion follows:

Our imperfect understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change means the science is far from settled. This, in turn, means proposed efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing GH gas emissions are premature and misguided. Any attempt to influence global temperatures by reducing such emissions would be both futile and expensive (Section 10).

For a full read of the very detailed report from the NIPCC complete with footnotes from professional journals, click here.

Vanities of the Warmists

From the American Thinker. Jon Caruthers does an outstanding job of detailing why we should not become engaged in carbon credits even though these words never appear in his article. He begins the article with a history lesson from Yellowstone National Park and government interference.

When Yellowstone National Park was first created, park officials believed they had to “save” the native fauna as well as protect the visitors by killing off the native wolf population. This they did in grand form. Additionally, they noticed the yearly occurrences of wildfires which, according to the then “modern” and “progressive” thought of the day, should be stamped out at all cost. The net result of these notions was that 110 years or so later half the park burned down. It turns out that without the wolves the ruminants ran wild and ate up the deciduous trees, leaving only the pine trees to go forth and multiply. Anyone who’s started a campfire knows what happens when you compound this with 110 years of pine needles and flotsam and jetsam -- you end up with the perfect firestorm. This is nothing natural. This situation was created by us -- by human intervention into a formerly pristine ecosystem that was supposedly “managed” by the federal government – and the result was that half the park burned down.

When discussing the Atlantic Conveyor Belt and melting glaciers, he makes two very salient points. One, the Earth is a rather stable ecosystem and the negative feedback situation that exists with climate.

It’s all about negative feedback. The earth is a stable system, if it weren’t life would have disappeared billions of years ago. It’s the negative feedback that makes life possible in the first place -- if things get out of whack, there’s a system for getting them back to normality. If the Gulf Stream fades, Arctic winds will sink south and cover Greenland, thereby cooling the island and stopping the glacial melt -- thus stopping the runaway insanity of the eco-warriors’ worst nightmares.

He goes on to discuss the carbon dioxide/oxygen conversion process and how little we know about the the systems which control this process.

Despite what the “experts” may say, consumption, as described above, is completely unknown. Look into the field of metagenomics. Scientists discovered that if they sampled sand from one area of a beach near Torrey Pines, they discovered literally hundreds of thousands of new species of organisms. Even more surprising, if they moved the probe one meter right or left they discovered hundreds of thousands more species as unrelated to the original crop as we are to the original crop. In short, we have no idea -- not even remotely -- of the number of species on the planet, and how many of those are consuming greenhouse gasses, and how many are producing the stuff. Since we have no idea of how much of a given gas is being consumed or produced, the estimates going into those models are only that -- estimates -- and eat away at the efficacy of the model (as again, it’s all about accuracy).

His ending paragraph wraps his insightful article up completely.

The result is that we’re trying to base policy on flawed models that are no better than ancient shamans reading tea leaves. The enviro-nazis are no better than the medicine man of lineage ancient during a lunar eclipse who could claim that the great night spirit was eating the moon goddess, and if only the tribal elders would hand over the virgins he’d perform his incantations and make him spit her out again.

I, like most people, believe we should be as clean and environmentally aware as economically possible. We now do not allow dumping of toxic chemicals into lakes which is a good thing and lakes are coming back as a response. We create more efficient cars, lessening toxic output. Again, this is another good thing as it limits pollutants and makes sitting at stoplights a much more pleasant experience than in the 70s. However, the audacity that we can somehow control minor temperature fluctuations with carbon credits is as absurd as how we thought we could keep Yellowstone National Park in its constant pristine condition as when it was declared a national park. It is just as absurd as his last paragraph when shamans thought sacrificing virgins would keep volcanoes from erupting.

For a full read, click here.

Global warming profiteers are wrong

From The Tribune.

Climate alarmists are alarmed, scaremongers scared, for their predictions of catastrophe are not coming true. "Global warming" has stopped. For 10 years, average temperatures on earth have not risen. For seven years, the trend has been downward. The fall between January 2007 and January 2008 was the biggest since records began in 1880.

Have temperatures warmed in the last 70 years? Yes. However, was increased CO2 concentrations the cause? No. What is the cause? The Sun.

Another factor is the warming effect of the recently ended 70-year Solar Grand Maximum, when the sun was more active, and for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years. Long-term ocean changes have also contributed.In the Arctic, the media reported less summer sea ice than at any time since records began. Most did not report that records began only 30 years ago; that at both Poles there is more sea ice now than ever since records began; that there are five times more polar bears today than 50 years ago; that the Arctic was warmer in the 1940s than today; or that the average thickness of the vast Greenland ice sheet grew by 2 inches yearly from 1993-2003.

The great length of the Solar Grand Maximum probably also affected long-term ocean currents.

But the fact is the Solar Grand Mamimum has now ended. It will be interesting to see what temperatures do in the future.

For a full read, click here.

Time for Second Thoughts on the Ethanol Mandate

From The Heritage Foundation.

The anger over high gasoline prices was the main impetus behind the 2005 and 2007 energy bills and their successively higher ethanol mandates. The public may have mistakenly assumed that ethanol is cheaper than gasoline, but reality is beginning to hit home. When everything is taken into account, including the lower fuel economy from ethanol-blended fuel, the mandate is adding to the cost of driving—which is precisely why ethanol had to be mandated in the first place. The AAA calculates that ethanol has recently cost 20 to 30 cents per gallon more than regular gasoline.[1] And that does not take into account the heavy taxpayer subsidies, including a 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit, without which ethanol would be even costlier.

Gas prices have risen 20 to 30 cents more per gallon for gas due to ethanol mandates. But that isn't the only bad news.

Ethanol is also more expensive to use in the summer: It contributes to smog and in several markets can be used only with a costlier base blend that compensates for this shortcoming; but this blend must be used year-round. Over the longer term, the law requires that corn alternatives like cellulosic ethanol be used as well. Cellulosic ethanol—made from certain grasses, wood, or crop waste—is currently far more expensive than even corn ethanol.

But on the good side, corn used to be $2 per bushel. Now it is above $5 per bushel.

We keep on messing with good old gas and keep getting higher energy prices. The full article is a very interesting read. Also note the several citation to supporting articles -- something one will not find in articles from Reuters or AP.

The Epicycles of Global Warming

From the American Thinker.

When True Believers begin to harbor doubts, they don't immediately give up the faith. It's too scary; too much pride and money has been invested; too many jobs and reputations are on the line; and they need to find a new reason to live. So they always try to add on new wrinkles and qualifications to their crumbling story. Today that's happening with the global warming cult. "Human-caused global warming" has now officially been re-named "climate change" to explain the inconvenient truth that the winter of 2007-8 was the coldest in a century, in spite of all those tons of "greenhouse gas" being spewed into the air from all the new factories in China and India. Worldwide temps dropped 0.6 of a degree C in one year. That may not sound like a lot, but it's more than all the ballyhooed warming in the preceding century. [Emphasis Added]

One year of temperature drop has wiped out 100 years of speculation. James Lewis makes a point about Global Warming models that was news to me.

How good are the assumptions in these models? Well consider the fate of Ferenc M. Miskolczi (pronounced Ferens MISkolshee), a first-rate Hungarian mathematician, who has published a proof that "greenhouse warming" may be mathematically impossible. His proof involves long equations, but the bottom line is that the warming models assume that the atmosphere is infinitely thick. Why? Because it simplifies the math. If on the other hand, you assume the atmosphere is about 100 km thick (about 65 miles) -- which has the big advantage of being true -- the greenhouse effect disappears! No more global warming. [Emphasis Added]

Finally for the ending.

When this farce is finally exposed, heads must roll. Not for being wrong about the global warming hoax, because anybody can be wrong -- but for politicizing normal scientific debate. Politicized science kills science. This is one festering boil that has to be lanced.

For a full read, click here.

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

From Daily Tech.

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down. (emphasis added)

It will be interesting to see how the MSM plays this significant cooling trend.

As a scientist, if one thing disproves a theory, the theory is disproved. As CO2 continues to increase, one year of cooling has completely wiped out 100 years of warming.

It must have something to do with that big ball in the sky called the sun which is a significant factor in the Earth's temperature. Global warming caused by the sun compared to CO2 is significant as discussed before in this blog. It must be noted that most climate models do not replicate changes in the sun's intensity/sun-spot activity.

We are in a time of extremely low sun-spot activity and low and behold, 12 month decreases in Earth's temperature wipes out 100 years of warming even while CO2 is increasing. Like I stated earlier. If one thing disproves a theory, it is disproved.

If sun-spot activity continues its historic lows, we will also see the ocean outgasing of CO2 decrease causing a decrease in CO2 levels even while human output of CO2 level increases. This event in conjunction with low sun-spot activity will completely disprove global warming models and CO2's effect on the environment.

For a full read, click here.

America's Three Worst Presidents

From Ari Kaufman writing for the American Thinker.

Presidents Day has taken a deep back seat these days on our holiday calendar to the point that not only do schools go on as scheduled, but so do many state and government offices. This is not surprising in 2008, and many revel in it. Presidents Day now celebrates all presidents, not just our greatest. That being the case, let's "celebrate," or at least recall, the three worst presidents in our country's otherwise proud history.

This article is extremely interesting and goes to the heart of this blog's subtitle: Perspective, Perception, Paradigms, and Reality. These subtitle words were chosen carefully and purposely ordered. Defining these words is important and expresses how this blog makes inferences to gain an understanding of what is real.

Perspective:

a. The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance.

b. Subjective evaluation of relative significance; a point of view.

Two definitions are given here because the first definition portends to be objective while the other is purely subjective. The first definition makes us examine how different events in history lead to an event. The second definition focuses instead on the event itself.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voters Rights Act of 1965 were passed under the presidency of LBJ. A closer examination (given in the article cited above) accurately reflect they were originally conservative legislation that were blocked by liberal Democrats. In fact, when they were finally passed, more Republicans voted for these laws than did Democrats. However, liberal Democrats are today still given credit for passage of these laws.

By the same token, 9/11 occurred on President Bush's watch. Therefore, it is purely his fault. This perspective is a subjective point of view which upon closer examination of actual interrelations, does not bear truth.

Perception:

a. the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.

b. the representation of what is perceived; basic component in the formation of a concept.

Again, two definitions are given here. The first portends to scientific analysis to arrive at a conclusion. The second definition only involves cursory observation.

Unfortunately today, the MSM has a tendency to give only cursory observation to events and does not analyze events in their full context.

As noted in the article cited above, The Civil War occurred under President Lincoln's watch and is therefore his fault. However, an examination of the facts shows he inherited southern secession due to the inaction of his predecessor, President Buchanan.

Detailed examination of events leading up to 9/11 also show that President Bush inherited this event from the inaction of his predecessors. However, most people believe (or are under the perception) the 9/11 attacks were a response to President Bush's policies.

Paradigms:

A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline. One that serves as a pattern or model.

The outcome of the two preceding words (perspective and perception) come together to be one's paradigm or model for world events. While now only one definition, two paradigms are possible. One paradigm is based on accurate perspective and perception. The other is based on faulty perspective and perception.

Man-made global warming is a perfect example of two versions of the same paradigm. Does an increase in carbon dioxide result in global warming or does global warming result in an increased outgasing of carbon dioxide? It depends on one's paradigm. Does variation of sun spots from the big bright ball in the sky have any effect on global warming? Interestingly enough, not according to climate models which keep radiation from the sun constant in climate models. Yet, even rudimentary observations show Venus, which is 28% closer to the sun than the Earth, is involved in a runaway greenhouse effect with an average temperature of 467⁰C while Mars, being 34% further from the sun, is a cold desolate planet with an average temperature of -55⁰C.

Reality: something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something that is merely apparent.

These three words above (perspective, perception, and paradigms) bring us to reality.

The Civil War occurred on President Lincoln's watch; therefore, it is his fault. This same statement is erroneous when examined more closely.

Democrats has given us the many popular reforms to include the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Act of 1965. Again, this statement does not accurately reflect reality, but is the perceived reality.

9/11 occurred on President Bush's watch; therefore, it is his fault. This erroneous statement is something that is merely apparent and does not constitute a real or actual thing.

Global Warming is caused by man-made carbon dioxide production. Again, we have a case here of erroneous cause and effect as for most of the Earth's history (dating back to 600 million years) the average temperature has been about 21⁰C and is actually cooler now than in most of its history.

As a scientist I was taught, if one item disproves a hypothesis, it is an invalid hypothesis. Unfortunately today, many scientists and sociologists use erroneous points of views (perspectives), subjective concepts (perceptions), and faulty models (paradigms) as a basis for their hypotheses. In addition, when their hypotheses are shown to be invalid ,they often ignore reality.

An example of this phenomenon is also seen in The Surge of US forces in Iraq. While it has clearly reduced violence in Iraq, many liberals either ignore the reality and continue with their distorted reality. One may state that continued, while reduced, violence (one item) disproves The Surge has worked. This one item does not disprove the fact The Surge has worked. Instead, it actually leads one to hypothesize more troops will further reduce violence. In addition, the corollary is also apparent. Less troops (a withdraw) in 2007 would have increased violence.