Posted: December 09, 2011 By Leighton Steward © 2011
Global-warming alarmists have been hot under the collar since the still-unfolding Climategate controversy involving The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) first erupted in 2009. The emails leaked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) brought into question the legitimacy of its climate data and and the catastrophic warming hypothesis they’re hyping.
The money quote from the original batch of leaked Climategate emails was “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” from IPCC scientist Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann of “hide the decline” fame. In the running for the new money-quote honors comes from another IPCC scientist: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”
What Climategate has shown is that scientists involved with the IPCC harbor a political agenda designed so that CO2 continues to be seen as the major cause of global warming when the obvious answer could be that CO2 may not make any significant contribution to climate change.
The IPCC’s failure would be the best news the planet’s inhabitants could receive. An expanded Climategate scandal may just save the world from committing ecological and economic suicide.
See the full documentation explaining how your life could be changed by climate-related laws, taxes and regulations: “Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes The Global Warming Scam”
Al Gore, Earth’s pre-eminent pseudo-scientist, expressed the frustration of the movement with an expletive-laced rant at the Aspen Institute in August. Previously supported by a willing media, their efforts are now being dismantled by scandal, new data and continued questioning by skeptical scientists. Gore laments no longer being able to mention “climate change” in mixed company.
Global-warming alarmists realize they desperately need a lifeline. They thought they got it in a new study out of the University of California at Berkley. In October, purported former data skeptic professor Richard Muller “confirmed” that global warming is real with a study partially funded by the Koch brothers – not known for their support of manmade global-warming theories.
The UC Berkley study seemed to have it all: solid evidence, fawning media coverage, a semi-skeptic who’s seen the light and opponents with egg all over their faces.
The problem, of course, is that the study does not tell us anything new. We already know Earth’s climate is in a constant state of change and has been in a warming cycle for three centuries. What the study did not address was “why?” – and apparently, it never was intended to.
After the initial media blitz, professor Muller told the Wall Street Journal: “How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.” How can this study end the debate over manmade global warming if it never assessed man’s impact?
Another issue with this study is the convenient, yet misleading, media narrative that Muller was a former skeptic. How do I know? I debated professor Muller three years ago. He was a manmade-warming believer at that time but said he was going to do a study – one the audience assumed would be to see if the climate has indeed warmed and to also ask if manmade CO2 was the likely culprit.
He, like all climate-change con artists, has avoided answering the following critical questions that are at the heart of climate change and CO2:
Why can’t warming alarmists produce a single legitimate example of empirical evidence to support the manmade global-warming hypothesis?
Why has Earth been warming for 300 years when man has only emitted measurable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 150 years?
Why did Earth cool for 500 years before the recent 300 year warming and warm for several hundred years before that when even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CO2 levels did not change?
Why was the Medieval Warm Period, a thousand years ago, warmer than today even though the CO2 level was 38 percent lower than today?
Why did many of Earth’s major glaciers in the Alps. Asia, New Zealand and Patagonia begin to retreat nearly half a century before the Industrial Revolution and man’s CO2 emissions?
Of the last five interglacials, going back 400,000 years, why is our current interglacial the coolest of the five even though Earth’s CO2 level is about 35 percent higher?
Why has our current 10,000-year-long Holocene epoch been warmer than today for 50 percent of the time when CO2 levels were about 35 percent lower than today?
Why are correlations of Earth’s temperature with natural factors such as sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths, solar magnetic variations and changes in major ocean currents all better than the correlation of Earth’s temperature with CO2 levels?
Until the alarmists can adequately address these questions, their quest to destroy the economies of the world, while feeding at the trough filled with taxpayer subsidies and grants, will remain in jeopardy.
If we force ourselves to use the most expensive energies in the world – currently solar and wind – and succeed in actually lowering the level of atmospheric CO2, economic devastation and mass starvation awaits. As CO2 levels fall, so will food production. This is not a model projection but based on hundreds of peer-reviewed studies showing the effects of atmospheric CO2 levels on plants.
To quote another just-released Climategate email: “What if climate change turns out to be a natural fluctuation? They will kill us all.” Is that motive for fraud? You be the judge.
Leighton Steward is a geologist, environmentalist, author and retired energy industry executive. He currently heads up the organization Plants Need CO2 and is a veteran of television and talk radio where he helps educate the public and politicians about the benefits of CO2 as it relates to the plant and animal ecosystems.
Don Meaker · Top Commenter
the Navier Stokes equations describe airflow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, and exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions. That means that small changes in temperature (.001 degrees C) leads to different results in only 3 to 7 days. Prediction of distant future states from past states is always inaccurate. That is why weather can not be predicted more than 7 days in advance. The mass of the sun also described by the NS equations (with different values ). The sun can also not be predicted long term. Global warming depends on predicting warm temperatures, and it therefore a hoax.
Michael Muno · Natural Philospher at MT Space
The Navier Stokes equations are appropriate for trying to predict the weather, but not the average temperature of the Earth. For that, a simpler set of energy-balance equations can be used (e.g., http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/12/new-approach-to-determining-human-impact-on-climate-gives-same-answer.ars).
The Navier Stokes equations are needed to predict the climate changes that would occur if the Earth warms. However, determining the climate — the average weather — is far easier than predicting the weather at any given time. This is because the chaos you refer to in weather predictions is bounded. We don’t know if tomorrow next week will be 80 degrees or 90 degrees, but we know for sure it won’t be 150 degrees. Over long time scales, the variations average out, and one identifies the important features that define the climate. Indeed, the fundamental importance of chaos is not its randomness, but the fact that periodic orbits and strange attractors impart regularity on the long term.
Michael Muno · Natural Philospher at MT Space
This article is misguided because it sets up a straw man, in which it is presumed that climate scientists believe that CO2 is the only driver of climate change. This is untrue.
CO2 is only one of several drivers. Over the last few hundred thousand years, the dominant trend was probably variations in the Earth’s orbit because of its chaotic gravitational interactions with the other planets (Milankovitch cycles), followed by small changes in the output of the sun. This probably addresses all of points 2,3,5,6, & 7.
Addressing the other points:
Point 8 is interesting, because recent trends in solar output can’t explain the last 4 decades’ increase in global temperature.
Moreover, regarding point 8, ocean currents only affect the distribution of heat on the Earth’s surface, not the average temperature. Indeed, addressing point 4, a quick trip to someplace like Wikipedia will illuminate the fact that the Medieval Warm Period appears to be a phenomena limited to the Northern Hemisphere; overall, no change in the Earth’s temperature occurred. Ocean circulation could have caused the climate to warm in the North Atlantic.
Plus, it was not “warmer than today,” unless by “today”, you mean almost 20 years ago.
Point 1 is silly. The ability of CO2 to trap heat can be measured in the lab, and has been since the late 19th century — that is as empirical as evidence gets. It is indisputable that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, all else being held equal, should increase the temperature of the Earth.
So here I pose a challenge to those who deny that humans cause climate change. Explain where the following chain of logic goes wrong:
1) Earth is warming.
2) The concentration of CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere.
3) Increasing the concentration of CO2 should warm the Earth.
4) No mechanism known nullifies the warming caused by CO2 (there is no principle in which nature will find the perfect balance for us).
5) Humans generate more than enough extra CO2 to explain its increase in the atmosphere.
6) Humans are causing global warming.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 19 hours ago
Douglas J. Bender · Top Commenter · Indiana University South Bend
@Michael Muno : Before I try to address your chain of logic, I have a couple of questions for you — Isn’t it true that levels of CO2 were higher in the distant past? And isn’t it true that the Earth has in the distant past been WARMER than it is today, yet life still thrived?
Reply · 1 · Like · 19 hours ago
Michael Muno · Natural Philospher at MT Space
Douglas J. Bender Yes, it is definitely true that life still thrived on Earth when it was warmer. And it is true that there are ignorant people who believe in climate change, and who mistakenly think we will destroy all life on Earth. We won’t. A warm Earth will support life just fine.
That said, a lot of species will disappear if Earth warms to levels seen in, say, the end-Triassic period (http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/mass-extinction-easier-to-trigger-than-thought.ars).
More importantly, the way people are distributed on Earth is determined by the climate. People try to live where they will have water, a good growing season for crops, and relative safety from natural disasters like floods. If the climate changes in even the modest ways predicted by scientists, hundreds of millions of people may need to move. This will cause social and economic disruptions that will probably (judging from history) lead to war. This is why the Pentagon considers climate change one of the most serious possible threats to the world’s stability (http://news.discovery.com/earth/defense-scientists-want-climate-change-intel-111117.html).
Zeds: I see up are up to your usual tricks, make some false statements and ad homs, then crawl back into your burrow and hide when you are asked to respond to your lies.
You can quite see why our American cousins refer to the pushers of AGW theology as snake oil salesmen. The latest wheeze is to convince us it is imperative we buy into the idea that we must urgently reduce CO2 in ‘real time’ to prevent a catastrophic increase in global temperatures and achieve environmental benefits. In so doing, they claim, we will cure the problems of flood and famine. And these salesmen also believe in its capacity to bring about other miracles. They claim that the atmospheric CO2 has the power to cause water, that occupies 70% of the surface area of the planet, to rise in certain areas and lower in others. No doubt if this perceived trend continues it will allow high priest Lacis to lead his followers to the promised land. This utopian land will, according to his theories, once purged of the evil CO2, plunge into an ice bound state. The ‘logic’ being that the water cycle will collapse if CO2 is significantly reduced. Come back George (Orwell) all is forgiven.
– Martin, Lutterworth, Leicestershire,
Re: John W, Derbyshire, 3/12/2011 19:04: “…Nobody has ever claimed that CO2 emits IR to warm up oxygen and nitrogen….” __ Er, except our George of Durham who was unequivocal on the point that CO2 loses heat to the atmosphere by radiation and convection. There are only three ways that heat transfer is achieved:- Conduction, convection and electromagnetic radiation. If the IR emitted by the CO2 does not/can not transfer heat energy to nitrogen and oxygen that leaves conduction and convection. Free moving CO2 in an atmosphere (of which CO2 is <.04%) can not cause a significant increase in temperature in the land air and sea surface temperature. This is because of the massive air/water ratio to CO2 (of the order of 50×10^21 to 1). That relative amount of CO2, which, in any event, is also continually losing heat energy via the emitted IR energy, can not absorb sufficient energy to make a difference. nb CO2 can’t create energy.
– Martin, Lutterworth, Leicestershire, 03/12/2011 20:31