Everyone goes crazy about Global Warming. Well, the moonbats do, anyway. Well, except perhaps that one French socialist, but I’m pretty sure that’s it. But the question is, why? Well, some of them are obviously genuinely concerned that disaster is imminent and that we’re all going to die. I can respect that, but I really wished they’d do their homework first. But for others, the motive is unquestionable: Socialist Global Government. It may seem to you that this is an exaggeration, but it’s not. The fact is that the countries that would be most heavily burdened by useless UN programs also happen to have the highest per capita incomes. It amounts to little more in the end than redistribution of wealth. Useless? Yes, useless, because the potential reductions in warming from these efforts would be minuscule. How miniscule? Well, at the cost of just one hundred thousand dollars, you could potentially lower global temperatures by by a billionth of one Celsius degree, or one degree for one hundred trillion dollars. That doesn’t really impress me, and it shouldn’t impress anyone, because it’s pathetic. So does that mean we should use even more drastic measures, that hurt the world’s economy even more? Again, no. Because, in the first place, the effect of man on the climate is much smaller than you’ve been led to believe. But how, you who have seen Algore’s movie and been baptized into the Global Warming Church, ask, can I possibly reconcile that view with the unequivocal consensus of UN science? Well, I personally think that the answer to any liberal’s question is hidden within the question itself, if they’d only realize it. The answer is that, first of all, UN science isn’t good science. The fact is that the UN is a political body, who’s aim these days seems to be to destroy everything that’s right with the world. Well, anyone for whom these arguments is insufficient is probably a lefty and doesn’t want to hear anymore, but I’m going to continue anyway. Let’s examine some typical claims of the Hysterical media, baby boomer “scientists” and socialist propaganda monsters.
The Ice is melting!
Well, quite frankly, duh! Ice, you know, melts when it gets hot, and it is indeed hotter now than it was during, say, the Little Ice Age. Glaciers and sea ice etc. have been receding for quite some time, and this is partly a consequence of the warming we’ve experienced. But of course, people fail to realize that ice melts as a consequence of higher temperatures, regardless of the cause. That ice is melting is certainly no proof of human causation. Anyway, finding something interesting happening that might be caused by global warming is a huge media game. Ever notice all those silly, contradictory claims made about what it will cause? Well, John Brignell has. The many, contradictory claims of Global Warming make it unfalsifiable. A theory which predicts anything and everything is a non-theory. I’m going to be consistent here, as other skeptics have been, in making non-schizophrenic climate claims.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so the fact that it’s gone up as temperature has gone up means it is the cause!
Nice try, but in order for you to account for the way temperatures have behaved in the past definitely requires more than an understanding of greenhouse gases. The greenhouse effect, as enhanced by Human CO2 contribution, is not the only thing under the sun that’s risen during this time. Mostly, these statistics maybe be caused by the rising temperatures or unrelated. But, a few appear to be more closely related. First of all, the low solar activity of the Maunder Minimum coincided with the depths of the Little Ice Age. Since then, solar activity has risen. Lockwood and Frolich attempted to refute this correlation, showing that in recent years, the trend reversed. Well, I can think of numerous mistakes in their reasoning, but for your benefit, I won’t bother you with weeding through my logic, just read these:
Personally, I think that Lockwood and Frolich’s argument is the result of a scaling issue. Try its this way, fellas:
The anomaly, then, is the mid century cooling period, not recent warmth. The behavior of the temperature record is so crazy like that because of El Niño and volcanic eruptions. But don’t take my word for it, look at this graph of the Southern Oscillation Index against temperature:
So then, what could CO2 really be responsible for? Well, probably a teeny weeny bit of warming, but not much. You see, the IPCC gives out figures of how they expect Temperatures to respond to Doubling CO2, called climate sensitivity. The usually give a best estimate of three degrees Celsius. The problem is that if the climate were really that sensitive, then it would be hotter now than the numbers actually suggest, since we know that there can’t have been cooling in the recent past as the Sun got so active, and yet, using the IPCC’s best estimate, human contributions averted an ice age! See for yourself, in this graph which also includes a more reasonable estimate of climate sensitivity based on actual calculations, not speculations:
Which, incidentally is probably still to high.
CO2 is the past climate driver!
First off, this claim is usually made by the poor folks who watched Algore’s movie and believed that he was accurately representing mainstream science. Well, first of all, Algore supports his claim to start with by using the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph. The Hockey Stick has been mercilessly skewered and destroyed, and the flat climate of the past has now been replaced with the round climate we’ve always known existed. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have been resurrected. What I’m talking about here, are, of course, climactic anomalies you should have learned about in your world history classes. The world was warmer a thousand years ago in the European Middle ages than now, and colder during the Little Ice Age. But some will try to tell you it wasn’t, or that it was only so in Europe. Nice try, once again:
The Indo-Pacific Warm pool:
And remember, as far as we know, CO2 was basically flat over the period of this recent interglacial until the industrial age. But Solar Activity was not:
But what about Algore’s other graph, showing that CO2 is correlated with Temperature? Well, we have the latest, high resolution data, and the result is shocking: CO2 increases followed Temperature increases at the end of the last glaciation! Gasp! Really? Yes, really.
But that’s not the only problem. It has pretty much always been understood that the last sequence of ice ages and interglacial was so uniformly spaced and fairly similar in intensity. The earth’s tilt and wobble varies quite a bit, enough to significantly effect climate on Earth.
Here’s a graph, showing variation in isolation and O18, which is standing in for temperatures here:
Now, you might ask, doesn’t CO2 play a role in intensifying the Interglacials? Yes, but even by the IPCC’s numbers, the same I used above, it wasn’t a big part of it.
You don’t have a mechanism!
Opponents of the Solar Climate link often assert that we skeptics haven’t offered an explanation of how it works. Okay, well, I think its so obvious that it doesn’t need explaining that more energy from the Sun means a hotter planet, but there are explanations anyway. The Sun’s magnetic field modulates cosmic rays, and cosmic rays have been Demonstrated to influence cloud formation.
It isn’t your imagination that cloudy days are cooler. They actually are. The change in cosmic rays result from moving in and out of the Galactic Spiral arms were probably the driver of Phanerozoic Climate millions of years ago. But what about today? Well, yup, Cosmic Rays have been trending south, despite some loud noise to the contrary:
I find it interesting that the lowest value coincides closely with that super hot year 1998!
Interestingly, while its obvious at least that we know the sign (+,-) of the solar affect, the IPCC’s level of understanding of aerosols and other anthropogenic effects is so low that we can’t be sure that humans aren’t actually cooling the planet!
Warmest Since ____!
Um, yeah, you really have to play with the figures, but you can get some pretty bizarre claims. But frankly, it doesn’t matter all that much if the temperatures are unprecedented. The same can be said of sunspot activity:
Anyway, the studies that these claims are based on are usually variations of the “Hockey Stick” which was so ruthlessly torn to shreds by Steve McIntyre. He continues to show errors in all sorts similar studies, and if you can understand the in depth statistics, I recommend you give some of the stuff a read. The other problem with these claims is that they also usually prefer to use the Surface record. The problem is that the surface record is contaminated by the Urban Heat Island Effect, or the effect of increasing urbanization on temperature trends and though they may claim to have “adjusted” for these errors, the full extent of the errors has yet to be determined, because the dutiful surveying being done by the folks over at SurfaceStations.org isn’t anywhere near complete (for the world, the US is coming along pretty well) and even then, the errors probably not really “adjustable”, since we won’t know when the effects appear for individual stations, or for that matter just how big the effects are. This is basically typical:
That said, I trust the satellite data, even if some people don’t. They mostly don’t not because it is seriously problematic data, but because it has stubbornly refused to warm significantly for almost a decade now. True, the data is not perfect, but it is corroborated by the weather balloon data, and it agrees with the SOI index to a great degree.
The Scientific Consensus!
…Was once that the Earth was flat, didn’t move, was created in seven days, was only six thousand years old. These were mostly held on religious convictions or, more immediately appropriate, because the “Smart” people said so. The Scientific Consensus once said the continents didn’t move, that matter can’t be created or destroyed (we now know that it can, just as long as in doing so you turn it into energy), that the had Universe existed forever, or that Newtonian physics was sufficient to describe reality. People once believed many, many things that turned out to be wrong, because people kept telling them they were right. The point is that, in science, your theory stands or falls on the data, the facts, how well it matches reality. I can’t go into to detail about all the ridiculous things that are wrong with the models that are supposed to describe reality that are used to make the scary predictions that the IPCC makes, but suffice it to say that the real world hasn’t be sufficiently “Conformed to Socialist Reality”. Anyway, this “Consensus” is actually mostly one of bureaucrats and other officials, not scientists. I think I have more than enough good scientists on my side, and if there were more, I might seriously have to reconsider my position.
I don’t have time today to talk about the other things that are wrong in Klimacht Science, but I think that’s a pretty good start.