.png)
GLOBAL WARMING or GLOBAL COOLING? by Angelos Backus
Alan Carlin, a PhD and seasoned veteran at the EPA may become a folk hero to climate change skeptics, but he may also lose his job. At least according to an interview this morning on Fox news, he was grateful that he still had a job. A report he submitted back in March had called to question many points of the Global Warming Theory based on current data. The internal e-mails were leaked out, perhaps in response to the recent passing of the high taxing climate change bill. I recently wrote an article that highlighted four points of climate change skeptics. Many more were raised by this paper. According to Carlin and his co authors:
- Global temperatures have actually declined in the last 11 years, despite increases in CO2.
- Increased tropical storm activity has repeatedly been cited as a sign of anthropogenic global warming and yet that has not occurred.
- The IPCC in its reports has claimed that Greenland would shed its ice and that has not happened at all.
- Recent studies have concluded that the Global Climate Models used by the IPCC are faulty and “not supported by empirical evidence.”
- Studies also suggest the IPCC dismissed the effect of solar variability based on faulty data and new research shows that “up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures” could be caused by solar variability.
- Analysis of surface stations that monitor temperatures has shown that most fail to meet the most basic meteorological guidelines for proper sighting resulted in inaccurate measurements. The “Urban Heat Island” effect is considered key to this.
- Satellite temperature measurements taken from 1978 to 2008 do not show an increased rate of warming over the 30 year period.
Are politics blocking science on this issue? Carlin suggested that old science is being used for current policies, and the ideas are out of date. New evidence has backed a growing number of outspoken scientists on the skeptics side. This is new science with limited recorded data. Computer models have been wrong in their expectations up until now, so what about the next few decades? I support less pollution and renewable energy, but not at the cost of deceiving the public.
A full detailed background on this topic was discussed today by Denver Weather Examiner Tony Hake. If you have any interest in what is happening, I suggest you read his article.
Many other points have been made by my predecessor on Examiner.com and radio partner Justin Berk, Meteorologist AMS CBM, You can find his reports on Climate Change and Global Warming here. Some of his topics include:
Great Lakes ignore global warming
Al Gore and Prince Charles please stop giving me things to write about
Comments
Talking about misleading journalism!!! It is not a scientific report -- it was a report by two *economists* that was reciting information that he read from other blogs. There was nothing scientifically new about it.
This just goes to show how desperate skeptics are: they have almost no support from the experts any more (except 2 or 3 big names such as Lindzen), so they have to embrace the opinions of non-experts! Unbelievable ignorance.
Dr. Carlin got his undergraduate degree in physics from Cal Tech and his PhD in economics from MIT. Seems among the most credible people to report on this topic. Science and economics should only merge in the private sector, not for government control of our lives with little basis. By the way, please explain why satellite data shows the planet cooling since 1998 even though CO2 has increased? Seems like more than a blip in the data and plenty more experts are in agreement. Open your eyes and sit out the Kool Aid!
Though I support carbon emission limitations for the good of our health and earth, I "discovered" earlier this year the same thing Carlin found: Global cooling. Using daily high/low temperature readings from San Jose (CA) and Anchorage (Alaska) both locations show an average daily temperature decline of 1 degree per day in 2008 versus 1958, 50 years earlier when very little CO2 was being released versus now. And 2009 has started off cooler for both places than 2008.
The problem I saw in the weather data is that both California and Alaska are suffering for much reduced winter rain and snowfall. Anchorage used to get 40-60 feet, but only 15-20' in the past couple of years. Naturally if there is less snowpack, it will melt off faster in the summer and then more of the core ice gets melted. So you have declining glaciers and polar cap. Duh. Nothing to do with global warming.
If you want a copy of the data, write to jakeandelle@live.com
Why are economists the most credible people to write a "scientific report" on climatology??? They certainly don't seem to be able to understand economics, so why would they be expected to know an entirely different field?
And citing a bunch of blog posts does not make for a particularly robust "scientific report".
"The IPCC in its reports has claimed that Greenland would shed its ice and that has not happened at all."
Not "at all"? I can't believe you regurgitated that claim, Tony. The Greenland ice sheet is enormous. It isn't just going to melt overnight. But it *is* melting. Does it really matter for purposes of immediate policy changes if Greenland melt "only" raises sea level by 1.5 m in x-number of years istead of 6m?
"Recent studies have concluded that the Global Climate Models used by the IPCC are faulty and 'not supported by empirical evidence.'"
Everyone agrees that the climate models are still imprecise. We should forget going to the Moon & Mars and fund climate research instead.
I agree with Carlin that we need to finance ongoing and better science, but I disagree with his supposed conclusions. Just to quibble with the first four:
"Global temperatures have actually declined in the last 11 years, despite increases in CO2."
Yeah, average global air temps may have declined. Or we may simply be taking measurments in more places so we are refining the actual number. In any case two things: (A) water sucks up plenty of heat and (B) neither side should be relying on little blips over a short period.
"Increased tropical storm activity has repeatedly been cited as a sign of anthropogenic global warming and yet that has not occurred."
Two things: (A) Our still-imperfect models are headed in the right direction and (B) fact that we are not YET feeling in-your-face pain from predicted increases in storm activity not contradictory to common sense notion that more energy in the system can make for bigger extremes from point-to-point, making bigger storms be
I suggest all readers compare the Carlin report as quoted by Tony: "The IPCC in its reports has claimed that Greenland would shed its ice and that has not happened AT ALL" (emphasis supplied) to a recently released study of Greenland melting which you can read about by googling [Greenland Ice Sheet surface mass-balance modelling and freshwater flux for 2007, and in a 1995-2007 perspective. Hydrological Processes, 2009]
Madness is allowing Al Gore to testify before Congress on this issue. Al Gore is not climatologist or scientist. Madness!
No Pollution should stand on its own merit, not to be used to bully people into the global warming scheme.
GLOBAL WARMING or GLOBAL COOLING?
By: Angelos Backus
Only a moron would have an answer!
Most likely it is the same moron that will make the claim that they know which came first: the Chicken or the Egg? all without asking about the role of the rooster!
INTRODUCTION
It is embarrassing to constantly read about or hear educated politicians, news reporters, news commentators, quack scientists, and even a past Vice President of the United States making claims that the planet Earth is undergoing a period of global warming or global cooling. It is especially disturbing when these claims are made without first offering any logical scientific or mathematical evidence. Listening to some of these unsubstantiated statements, I can’t help myself from wondering what century we live in. Is it during the life of Aesop, where we were governing our thoughts by Aesop’s fable The Wind and the Sun or maybe during the eighteenth century and The Caloric Theory?
If this is indeed the twenty
To read the fuul article go to www.hmsweeny.com
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!