Another view of global climate change based on logic instead of viral hysteria

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Upon doing some research for a School project in which I argued for a alternate reason for Cutting loose from fossil fuels. I have run across the logic of a true climate scientist who brings up some real good points about climate change.

 

http://www.fosterfriess.com/articles/20023/

 

I am just going to bullet site a few of his observations which no one talks about the largest being the inverse relationship between the two largest green house gasses in the Atmosphere

 

Man-Made Warming?

The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?

At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the climate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced “greenhouse effect” needs to be taken seriously.

But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years. 

.........

Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the “consensus statement” on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.

The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.

But aren’t glaciers melting? Isn’t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that’s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.....

The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Re-port 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006 (see www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm). It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.

What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor—i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of increased CO2.

Natural Causes of Warming

A quite different question, but scientifically interesting, has to do with the natural factors influencing climate. This is a big topic about which much has been written. Natural factors include continental drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale important for human experience—a scale of decades, let’s say—solar variability may be the most important.

Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the earth’s atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affecting cloudiness and thus climate).

Scientists have been able to trace the impact of the sun on past climate using proxy data (since thermometers are relatively modern). A conventional proxy for temperature is the ratio of the heavy isotope of oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most common form, Oxygen-16.

A paper published in Nature in 2001 describes the Oxygen-18 data (reflecting temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave in Oman, covering a period of over 3,000 years. It also shows corresponding Carbon-14 data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth’s atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of climate change, the causal connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate S. Fred Singer provides several links to information in the governments own science archives that needs to be considered

“Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?”
August 2007

S. Fred Singer
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and mono-graphs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

  

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

More good reading for alternate reasons why some may want a global climate crisis. 

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/global_warming_science.html

 

Also I keep hearing people try to smear any scientist disputing man made climate change by simply saying look the work he published was not peer reviewed. To that I would simply say if Albert Einsteins work or Galileo's work would have had to go through peer review. We would still be living in the stone age rather than most modern discoveries as no one believed his publications at the time of publishing.

[Willy]

Very interesting.

[Dave]

Until such time when a true consensus of ALL scientist agree on global warming/climate change then I might put more faith into the theory. At this point however, for every scientist that supports the idea of climate change, there is another scientist, just as professional and reputable, that doesn't believe in the theory.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

That was one of the points of professor Singers paper is most of the personnel in the so called 2500 person consensus of the U.N. climate counsel are not even scientists. I have always felt the issue was more political, and power driven, than even common sense would lead a sane person to question.

[XLFD]

True climate scientists must be mortified by what is being passed on as 'science' by these personnel who shun the scientific method-- a point I make in my other thread on this topic. 

[AQUAMAN]

Good points all, I like your objective and realistic views. A lot more refreshing and calming vs. the crisis mode of thought by extreme enviro-nuts and liberals. A  while back I researched the investigations and thoughts in provoking statements made by the late Charlton Heston, the actor. He had a lot to contribute of worth on this subject matter, and made several documentary's on the subject that is commendable. YouTube lists it as Zymurg2007 I believe, either way, google Charlton Heston on global warming for a take that just may shock many that believe the Earth is that vulnerable to the Ego and Vanity of MAN.

[AQUAMAN]

This same noble patriot, Charlton Heston, also made great strides to redeem and stay faithful to our Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights, that of the right to bear arms. A right our forefathers preserved in writing for all Americans for eternity, unless and until we become distant and apathetic to it's possible demise. For his undying devotion, Mr. Heston was elected the NRA President 3 times, never before done. His other accomplishments were in the area of civil rights, also a gleaming example for others to follow. This is off the main subject matter, but I thought possibly a glimpse of a great man that many did not know nor follow, and whose actions and words are as important today, as when he said them, and lived them.

[Edie Lindsey]

When you consider the topic of man-made global warming climate change you have to consider two things that are likely beyond the scope of our scientific abilities, namely...

1)  What is the optimal temperature of the Earth and why exactly is that so?

2)  If the Earth has been heating and cooling on its own for eons before man was on the scene, how can we put a cause and effect relationship on climactic changes on man rather than nature itself?

 

Mr. Heston probably saw global warming as a red herring.  He knew that the apes were going to make Soylent Green out of us humans.

[AQUAMAN]

And tasty "green wafers" they were Edie.....................yum-yum.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

I really feel like those who are so militant about their belief in the theory of man made global warming. Either got too wasted on mind altering drugs while watching a few movies like" Solent Green " and planet of the apes 1,2,3,4, etc.. That they really have a hysterical faith in that which doesn't make sense. Not that I can at all about the quantities of drugs they did, only that no one ever told them they just lived a drug induced fantasy. 

And Edie... Near as I can ascertain, we do in fact got through an approximately 1500 year cycle of what is now being called extreme climate imbalance. Does the fact man does something possibly add in a very small way to it?? Sure!!

Do we really know anything we do will change or reduce it?? AS most of the same scientists who subscribe to the actual data will tell you if man stopped all activity on the planet earth tomorrow, The climate in its current cycle would not be changed by more than a .5 degree swing in the next thousand years. With this in mind why would I let stupid politicians try to craft anything to make a few environuts feel better about our being here?

[AQUAMAN]

I only listened to Rush a few minutes today, but, he did have some interesting takes on the new electric cars being introduced. Stay tuned, he's not finished.

[Willy]

What I truly worry about is the affect the thousands of jets are having on the upper atmosphere. Something has to give when thousands upon thousands of jets fly near the ozone layer everyday.

 

http://flowingdata.com/2007/09/23/visualization-of-us-flight-patterns/