...The whole global warming thing is [so] biased and politically motivated that true scientific analysis takes a back seat. Too much research funding at stake let alone PHD's life long careers.
...
I am just applying my experiences with the "science" of global warming to what I feared would happen with the "discovery" of the ivory bill. This is big business for the birder world. The global warming "scientists" have made big careers and have received much notoriety because of what their crude inaccurate climate models have shown.
I do believe with the Ivory Bill story that these scientists are not in it for the money. It is the birder in them that really wants an ivory bill to be found. But, they also realize the enormity of this "discovery" and their claims. So you are correct, there will be no more objectivity (as scientists) from the leaders in this study.
They have received so much attention and money!!!!
As for global warming, the train has been running full steam ahead since about 1988 with that one hot summer. Here are some facts:
1) the world was 2-4C warmer 6000 years ago... the "altithermal period" after the great ice sheets collapsed. Pollen records prove this as the great spruce-fir forests of the north retreated even farther north than where they are found today.
2) the medieval warm period probably was 1-2C warmer than today...farming in greenland? The Vikings were able to do this... I dare anyone to try this today!!! Nothing grows on ice.
3) the Little Age peaked in the early 1800s.... possibly even later (like 1890) based on glacier studies. This period, the earth cooled 1-2C. Glaciers retreated during the medieval warm period for 200 years or longer... so to be in a period of minor glacial retreat (as we see today) is not unusual.
4) the 20th century warming was most pronounced between the late 1800s and 1940. Then there was a period of global cooling from 1940-1977. Then...there is major divergence in the records....the satellite records, the weather balloon temperature records and sea surface temperature records (three independent sources of temperature measurement)...show slight warming (nothing unusual) between the late 70s and present. The "surface" record of which the global warming experts tout... shows rapid warming. The surface record is largely from points in our cities... which have shown urban warming... concrete absorbs more radiation than grass.
5) solar activity was very high in the 20th century. The global warming scientists say it has little effect on our climate. Well, then how come during the 1600s and 1700s did a period of global cooling (rivers were freezing in Europe every winter) coincide with little or no sunspot activity? Just a coincidence. The global warming scientists say that the medieval warm period and little ice age was just a local phenomena. Yet, ice core analysis around the world, reveal with oxygen isotope ratios that this is not true.
6) Here is the big shocker.... CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas!! H2O is by far (at least 90 percent) the most important greenhouse gas.
The climate models have a positive feedback in them that takes a small temperature rise (.5C) due to an instantaneous doubling of C02 (which is unrealistic) and produce more water vapor: warmer temperatures = more water vapor. Thus, with more H20, there is more greenhouse effect. Thus, temperatures rise a little more and you get even more H20 in the atmosphere which warms temps leading to more H20 and so on. A runaway greenhouse effect. It becomes very unrealistic in that these climate models don't even handle cloud cover (they admit this).
Clouds enormously impacts the radiation budget of the earth and regulate how much water vapor is in the air! When it rains and snows, you ultimately lose water vapor from the atmosphere...a natural sink. The red flags are way up now!
7) The ice core records reveal that C02 in the atmosphere PASSIVELY responds to the inferred temperatures. You may have seen these graphs which shows C02 concentration seemingly corresponding in lock step to inferred temperature changes.
If you look carefully, when the temperatures go up, then CO2 concentration increases which occurs up to 800 years after the initial temp increase. With warmer temperatures on the earth, the oceans are warmer and thus less soluble to CO2 and the concentration increases (chemistry 101). The reverse happens when it is colder.
Ice ages show pronounced dips in the C02 record, interglacials show rises in CO2 concentration. So from glacial periods and interglacial periods (22 of them in the last 2 million years) CO2 concentration rapidly rose up to 120 ppm and there was no climate instability.
8) C02 is most radiatively active when it is -50C and colder. If there is little or no water vapor present in the atmosphere, it would be the primary greenhouse gas.
So, there is one place on earth that should be seeing the effects of a CO2 increase first ...antarctica. South Pole station and Vostok have mean temperatures close to -50C and it is bone dry down there...an icy desert. So C02 should have the most leverage on the climate system there. well, temperatures have shown little trend in the last 60 years down there...in fact there has been a statistically insignificant amount cooling!
9) The arctic warming is blown way out of proportion. The sea ice did reach a record minimum (since 1979) based on satellites (before that they "estimated" the extent). However, the amount of sea ice has rebounded and presently is slightly above the 20 year mean for coverage....did you hear that in the news? Of course not. Silence. You never hear about record lows or unusual cold...
check out these web sites.... I could go on and on... but my fingers are getting tired.
It just frustrates me that objective science gets lost when politics, egos and careers enter into the picture. I also really like the quote I found on your web site...which I firmly believe in... "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"--Carl Sagan
That goes for the proposed global warming disaster and also finding the ivory bill and many many other claims....
john-daly John Daly is dead now so this web site is not updated as much as John was one of the first to take on the experts. The peer reviewed journals in climate have been controlled by those who favor the global warming theories...therefore if you challenge any of these ideas...you don't get published or invited to conferences. So, John, back in the mid 1990s, started this website to put unbiased information out there and make strong challenges to the global warming theories. It is a good starting point.
co2science
climateaudit
I still am hoping you are wrong on the ivorybill!!!! But I don't see how such a large bird, with all these birders on the continent, could go undetected for 60+ years!!!!
Friday, December 01, 2006
A meteorologist weighs in
An meteorologist acquaintance emailed me the following in late 2005. I believe this is an honest perspective on the global warming debate (I would be sincerely shocked to discover that this person has a hidden "axe to grind"):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
the amount of sea ice has rebounded and presently is slightly above the 20 year mean for coverage....did you hear that in the news? Of course not.
That's because, unlike untold millions of Americans, I don't watch cable news. Ever. Do global warming skeptics show up on cable news programs? Yes.
Silence. You never hear about record lows or unusual cold...
That's just false. You hear about them all the time during the winter in the United States.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"--Carl Sagan
That goes for the proposed global warming disaster
Can someone show me where Al Gore has proclaimed that a "global warming disaster" is INEVITABLE within, say, the next ten, twenty or fifty years.
That would be an extraordinary claim.
Saying that there is evidence which suggests that we might be entering into a period of warming with profound consequences for millions of people and other life forms and that this warming may be exacerbated by human pollution ... that does not strike me as "extraordinary claim."
And as has been noted earlier, there is nothing "complex" about the data supporting the existence of Bigfoot, anus-probing extraterrestials, telekinesis or living ivory billed woodpeckers. The similarities between the two "controversies" are miniscule compared to the obvious differences.
You want a similar controversy? Look at the arguments for opening Alaska up for further drilling. The policy issues there are very similar, as are the right/left political alignments.
It boils down to this: is there any reason to worry about the impact humans have on their environment, particularly the earth's atmosphere? And if so, do the perceived benefits of taking steps to avoid any adverse impact outweigh the risk of possible negative consequences (including economic consequences) from taking those steps?
Post a Comment