Frequently touted facts such as shrinking arctic sea ice (true) prove nothing about human caused climate change. It is readily admitted by the NSIDC (www.nsidc.org) that changing weather patterns and ocean currents are the primary drivers behind recent years of summer ice melt. Furthermore, 30 years is a darned short time span in which to draw any conclusion from ice trends.
On the other hand, the myth that will not die, that most scientists believed the Earth was going into an ice age in the 1970s, is hogwash. The Newsweek article so often shown to support this theory was typical media hyperbole and not consistent with the science even then. So please stop quoting this to debunk AGW. It is ridiculous.
So we owe it to ourselves as a civilization to continue scientific research with as little politics as possible, and the avoidance of cherry-picking data to support what one already wants to believe....IF that's possible!
Comments
It seems us humans are hard wired to blame ourselves for every weather/climate event. In primitive times it was because we upset the gods by not making sacrifices. Perhaps it's a throwback to part of our evolution.
I have no doubt in my mind that if we were an advanced society 12,000 years ago when the Laurentide Ice Sheet was melting and cutting huge rivers and valleys across the prairies it would have been AGW.
The global warming hysteria really started with Hansen's 1988 testimony in which he said that warming was happening and that carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas was causing it. Both statements were false. The "warming" claimed started only in 1977, prior to which there was none at all for over twenty years. But carbon dioxide was already in the air, a trace gas, doing exactly nothing.But now comes Hansen and says that carbon dioxide is a cause of warming. If so, it had to change its behavior in 1977 and decide that was a good year to start warming up the world. Laws of physics simply do not permit such change of behavior by a trace gas that up to that point had not caused any warming.But worse yet: the satellites cannot even see that warming he spoke of and more than likely that warming curve was cooked. Where satellites saw an alternation of warm El Ninos and cool La Ninas they picked up on the warm El Nino points and then dropped the La Ninas to make the temperature curve seem to rise
"First of all, the warming has taken a vacation for about the past five or six years, which doesn't make sense as CO2 increases every year."
"Furthermore, 30 years is a darned short time span in which to draw any conclusion (from ice trends) on either cooling or warming!"
Something is wrong here...
A lack of science in Texas?
Where did the "science" go? Firstly it left when we allowed a new area of "alien" investigation run by a bunch of new-age environmentalist not only to call themselves a "science" but to set their own standards.
Then we lost the plot when we swallowed their "precautionary approach" which basically means being able to call something scientific which is no more than doing something on a hunch without any evidence.
... and ... well here in the UK where we see three seasons in a day ... I'm going to start a campaign to stop manmade weather change! Weather change? There's no such thing as weather change, the weather is always changing, it isn't a "thing". But the climate has always been changing, so why do the public believe "climate change" and not "weather change"?
And I've got to mention WMD (weather of Mass destruction), a new kind of argument that something is true just because no one has no found any lack of evidence.
Greetings from Italy forgive if my English a bit choppy how you say and I just want to say that in the year 1298A.D. a vintner (wine guy) near Turano discovered technolgy in a cave that's far much better than our own. There is proof in the Vatican under the floor of the Basilica but the Pope he no like to tell about this. I saw it once through a side tunnel...it has amazing machine with great sphere shape and eight people fit inside. There was great lasrer that shoot out of side. Wow!
Just get out of texas an open your mind. Or do you have investments in oil companies? Most likely.
John S, As always honest inquiry is appreciated; but your comment smacks more of a personal attack which frankly sir lacks merit. For the record, I receive zero dollars from either conservatives or liberals. This, in my opinion, is a large part of the struggle surrounding the science of "cimate change": it has become as religion where demonization is the order of the day without regard to reason,logic, or dialogue.
To wit: Many sincere and learned people thought it was perfectly fine to burn witches 500 years ago. Did that make their allegations true?
Copernicus and Galileo dared suggest the sun was the center of the solar syatem and were villified for telling
the truth, just because it was AGAINST THE MANTRA OF THE DAY.. Oh, how little society...and science...has changed!
SCL
"First of all, the warming has taken a vacation for about the past five or six years, which doesn't make sense as CO2 increases every year."
Nonsense! 2008 was the 9th warmest year on record, which was cooler than a few of the previous years because it was after an el nino cycle which typically causes cooling. There has been a lot of misinformation/disinformation in the media lately because journalists report without having a basic knowledge of statistics. Anyone who claims cooling or even that global warming is "on vacation" is propagating mythology that is going to come back to bite them (I am saving all these articles and starting a website which tracks the misinformation/disinformation campaign). El nino is back and consequently 2009 is going to be a very hot year, so soon we will see the end of these nonsensical claims. But the track record of error will not be erased. Journalists are not scientists and should not pretend to be.
www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/
Historian of science, Naomi Oreskes of UC San Diego, states "Scientific knowledge is the intellectual and social consensus of affiliated experts based on the weight of available empirical evidence, and evaluated according to accepted methodologies. If we feel that a policy question deserves to be informed by scientific knowledge, then we have no choice but to ask, what is the consensus of experts on this matter."
Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming. The Website above summarizes some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus.
If you were to go with consensus, there are overwhelmingly more real scientists who think Al Gore style global warming is nonsense- 10's of thousands of qualified independent credible scientists (and growing). Versus what? A handful of passionate political/environmental groups, celebrities & journalists.
The UN is a political institution with a pre-determined conclusion on the need for more Govt power and revenue. This is not a 'conspiracy theory'- just plain fact. It's 'summaries' and 'interpretations' do not even represent their own scientists studies which ,if you read them, are actually very honest about the soft nature of the science.
But the whole point of science is not having to take anyone's word for it- Esp. Politicians!- even if you are in love with the political 'solutions' take the time to delve into what this new ‘climatology’ is- and you will run into the same dead end every time- undisclosed computer code that carries the entire theory where real science cannot.
Sorry I didn't mean to confuse - I'm not Steve Lanore
But I agree that Galileo would find this scenario of political authority dictating it's own 'science' for it's own purpose regardless of scientific principles very familiar and dissapointing after 400 years
There are very few credible experts that disagree with the IPCC 2007 and Copenhagen reports. The IPCC reports have been scrutinized now for over two years and there has yet to be a SINGLE peer-reviewed climate article that refutes AGW.
If you refer to the Oregon Petition or Sen. Inhofe's list of scientists oppsed to AGW then you have been fooled. Both of these documents are basically fraud and have no credibility.
You need to read the peer-reviewed literature for your science and not political Webistes and mass media.
The IPCC 2007 and the Copenhagen 2009 Synthesis Report show that there is a virtual certainty about AGW and the unprecedented nature of AGW.
So we are left with three possible conclusions:
1) An overwhelimg majority of climate experts agree on AGW and are honest.
2) An overwhelming majority of climate experts are ignorant about their "expertise". Basically they all have sudden and collective Alzheimer's.
3) They have all agreed to conspire to delude the billions of folks on the planet and just a very small % of them - the denialists - are trying to save us all from this mass hoax.
Hmmm.....
Don't any of you good people find it odd that James Hansen sounded the global warming alarm in 1988, and by 1992 the scientific community was already mocking those who refuted it?
This was BEFORE most of the "evidence" such as acclerated ice melt, record summer heat waves, and oceanic warming was anywhere near what we see today. And most everybody agrees the early 90s cliamte models were terrible.
Well, I find it interesting. No one disputes the earth is warming, and certainly mankind has some contribution to it. The 2007 IPCC "concensus" finds credible scientists like Chris Landsea who refuse to participate because of politics.
The IPCC is a political not a scientific body. That should make us all skeptics of what they push so hard.
The data should be able to stand on its own without an elitism which makes me sad.
JWT
Scott, two of the greatest enemies of science are religion and politics. You can hardly get much more political than the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Even still, have you ever actually read the studies themselves?- not the political 'summaries'. Even their own scientists are very upfront and honest about the complexities-uncertainties, inherent variability, and likely small direct effect of Co2.
correct me if I'm wrong- I'm guessing you like the political 'solutions' already- so feel little need to examine the science itself?
Yes of course everyone agrees on Co2 being a GHG and having some small positive forcing on climate. If you think this means impending disaster, you can find politicians, journalists, celebrities to agree with you, not credible scientists.
The positive forcing of Co2 is just not very dramatic against
other natural forcings.
Consider that the Ordovician Ice Age had 4000ppm Co2
The peer review/referee process is largely part of Gov't funding applications, so no prizes for guessing who's going for those,
But if that's what floats your boat, there are still plenty 'peer reviewed' studies on the effects of the Sun, Ocean currents, Milankovic cycles etc all of which have always dwarfed Co2- human or otherwise in terms of the history of climate variation going back billions of years.
I appreciate that blaming humans and SUV drivers has a lot of emotional /ideological appeal, and as a political device, it is utterly inevitable that Gov'ts would try to take advantage. It's up to us to look at the science ourselves, never let a politician or follower tell you you're not smart enough to understand it! Just ask one of them for their 'scientific understanding' of how a few ppm Co2 will destroy the Earth for a good laugh! Most won't even try- they'll just refer to the UN or Al Gore as gospel.
Title is out of date- now it's
global cooling, global warming, global cooling
I think the last global cooling scare of the 70's is perfectly relevent. Of course it wasn't considered a scientific certainty-
global warming was a bit more popular but had no more science behind it either. In both cases it's just a great story- humans/capitalism is destroying Mother Earth with greed- it's just irresistable to a certain ideology.- And carries huge potential for power and/or profit-
So whether it's a cooling or warming story just depends on what the weather happens to be doing at the time
Case in point; Now with these colder temps again, ive read a couple of stories about how this is because of Co2!!
Check out 'Is global warming causing global cooling?'
August 25, 3:35 PMEnergy ExaminerJohn Guerrerio
Sounds like he's joking, but he's not!!
Steve Lessle says:
"Scott, ... have you ever actually read the studies themselves?"
Steve, if you are going to publicly challenge somebody on their knowledge of the subject, don't you think it is the least bit prudent to do a Google search on whom you are challenging? The first hit of Scott A Mandia on Google is: "Professor Mandia - Meteorology, Weather Forecasting, Climate, Hurricanes and Earth Science Information"
Hmmm, sounds to me like maybe you should think before you open your mouth!
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!