I always let myself get tangled up in a discussion of whether global warming is real and man made. That is a distraction from the most important points. The most important points here are that:
1. Throughout most of the earth’s history the earth’s climate was much warmer than it is now.
2. If the earth’s climate did warm up; it would not be the disaster that some people are claiming.
3. The IPCC has carefully selected a time frame to support their Global Warming agenda rather than doing rigorous science.
If you went to see a movie and they only showed you one frame out of thousands of frames in that movie; do you think you would know what the movie was about? Physics, Climatology and Paleoclimatology are distinct disciplines. The physicist and climatologist look at one frame and they think they know what the movie is about. The paleoclimatologist stays to the end of the movie. A climatologist looks at clouds and differential equations. A paleoclimatologist looks at fluid inclusions and isotope ratios. Paleoclimatology is part of Geology and there is a war brewing, geologists vs. IPCC climatologists.
To a geologist; if the direst predictions (temperature wise) of the IPCC actually happened; it would barley register. If the global climate warmed by 3 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit; North Africa would become wetter and greener. The greening of North Africa and the longer season in Siberia would be a huge co2 sink. There would be a slight lag time for the oceans to catch up with the land masses in temperature. During that lag subtropical deserts would grow; but, they would soon green up with more rain. This would be a net benefit for humanity. That is one advantage to the slow release of co2 by industry as apposed the radical one, two punch associated with the Siberian traps or the Deccan traps. Catastrophic volcanic activity blackened the sky. When the sky finally cleared; the plants and phytoplankton that would have mitigated the effect of the co2, were dead. The pp. co2 was 20 times what it is today. That was climate change.
Today the pp. co2 is about .006 psi. That tiny bit of co2 is getting all the blame for heating up the earth. Unscrupulous scientists like Stephen Schneider publish exaggerated claims to whip the global warming mafia into a frenzy. (yes, I’ve read the pitiful attempts of liberal bloggers to defend him) Legitimate scientists risk their careers and reputations simply asking the kind of questions that must be asked to make the science rigorous.
What is local and what is global? Can you find a pristine place to measure in the northern hemisphere? If you found a pristine place would you have a history of measurements? Consider a small outpost in Alaska. A hundred years later the city has a hundred thousand people. How would you compare the measurements? No place demonstrates this better than Antarctica. You’ve heard one side say the ice is melting and the other say it isn’t. They are both right! On the peninsula that almost touches South America the ice is melting. The Antarctic peninsula has registered the fastest warming of any place on earth. Away from South America the other 96% of Antarctica does not seem to be warming at all. Furthermore there is no detectable warming in the troposphere; and, that is significant. This indicates that at least some of what is being measured is urban or more correctly suburban sprawl.
Particularly damning is the convenient time frame the IPCC is using. The IPCC is using a time frame custom designed to promote the global warming agenda. Right as we go from the Little Ice Age, caused by the Maunder Minimum, into a warmer period. Even NASA says the models don’t work unless you include the solar intensity. How much is sun? How much is suburban sprawl and deforestation? How much is co2? The IPCC’s computer models were never designed to do anything but push the global warming agenda. Though it is generally assumed that the solar cycles can account for a third of the warming; many scientists are beginning to reassess that assumption. Is it possible that deforestation and the ubiquitous black asphalt might have enhanced the suns effects? Have any of you ever stepped on the street on a hot summer day in bare feet? Do you remember Antarctica? Is it all beginning to make sense now? I could just as easily used the year 1050 as my start point and claimed that there has been almost no global warming in 800 years! A hundred years or 960 years is a geologically meaningless time frame. That is why neither a climatologist nor a physicist can give context to their findings. The oldest ice cores are less than a million years old and that is still geologic plank time. Nonetheless if you follow the temperature from the year 1050 till the present; you would realize it’s just the earth doing what the earth has been doing for 4 billion years. (temperatures inferred from tree rings)
The other thing that is intellectually dishonest about the IPCC is this “Climate Change”. What is climate change? The climate is always changing. The IPCC is pushing global warming and some kind of carbon control scheme. I don’t know what or who is behind it but it isn’t science at least not rigorous science.
The final straw was when the IPCC tried to infer that all responsible scientists were onboard with Anthropogenic Global Warming. The geologists never were. I remember 30 years ago reading an article in Scientific American. A frustrated physicist addressed a conference of geophysicists about “Global Warming”. The geophysicists were delighted to find out the world was warming up. The frustrated physicist didn’t think the geophysicists understood. The problem was the geophysicists had seen it all before. Even scientists that believed that man made co2 was the overwhelming cause of global warming have felt bullied by the populist global warming mafia. Many scientists were beginning to realize that this wasn’t rigorous science. The physicists and climatologists are now jumping ship.
Computer models of even the simplest of systems are not simple. I have mentioned only a couple variables. Assumptions were made about how long co2 stays in the air and in the ocean. Assumptions were made about many things they could not possibly know. A computer model is no better than the assumptions it is based on. There are too many wholes in the IPCC’s “science” to cover in one article. The IPCC was specifically created to push the global warming agenda, yet the faithful act like anyone who challenges them is a heretic. Claims of a general consensus among scientists that work on climate change simply mean that people who depend on climate change grants want them to continue. We can’t go around, like Chicken Little, crying “the sky is falling’ every time the earths climate hiccups. You have to remember we are talking about a 1.25 degree increase in global temperatures and a 25% increase in pp.co2~.006psi. if you believe the IPCC.
Some articles for those that are interested:
It’s a bit technical but this guy thinks the suns role in “Climate Change” might be under rated: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm06/fm06-sessions/fm06_PP23E.html
Robert Balling thinks the subject is complicated. Ya think? http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf
Basically Glassman thinks the IPCC is an outright fraud: http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html
These guys found some curious anomalies in Greenland ice cores that don’t quite fit the “Global Warming” agenda: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/11/17/cooling-the-debate-a-longer-record-of-greenland-air-temperature/
This guy questions the scientific rigor with which temperature measurements were made: http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm
Scare tactics of the past: Earth Day 1970