Is the world cooling or not – and what is to blame?

Beer Moth

The task now of course, is to find out precisely what part was played in all this cosmic cloud formation, by the Bush administration and its foreign policy.

TrevorsDen

'Climategate'

The cat is out of the bag. The IPCC 'science' is bigoted junk.

This study of the code used by Hadley CRU proves the scam.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

It clearly shows data is manipulated to avoid showing declines in temperatures.

Dave B

It's worth pointing out that this theory is testable. The 'warmist' theory seems to depend on withholding data to avoid scrutiny.

TrevorsDen

PS - Lord Lawson has set up a new think tank ...
...the Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org) ...
... to open up the debate on 'global warming'.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece

Paul Owen

Not only does it challenge the man only theory, it means, if correct, that all of those climate models on which the alarmists base so much must be wrong since a major factor in our climate is misunderstood and ignored. Without the climate models and their various predictions of doom and gloom (note that they rarely if ever allow anyone access to the data and programming assumptions so as to replicate their predictions which is supposed to be the basis of science) the alarmists haven't got much of an argument and they know it.

DZ

It isn't rocket science, I suspect. Try Googling Milankovich. The Earth wobbles on its axis so insolation changes very slowly giving Ice Ages and Hot ages (four times in the last 420,000 years). At the moment the Earth is coming to the end of a hot cycle. Over the next few 1000 years it will slowly become cooler (quickly if there are a few big volcanic eruptions soon). The only question is: will carbon dioxide production now exceed the effect of orbital change, or not.

pandora witherspoon

The Daily Politics had a bit of a debate too.

Professors on climate change debated - sceptic Professor Fred Singer, and Professor Bob Watson, the chief scientific advisor at the department of the environment debate the issues over climate change and global warming.

It looks more and more like governing by fear and creating tax raising vehicles.

PEC

er no one is actually claiming that global warming is a man-only phenomenon

Neil McEvoy

"But it does challenge the “man-only” theory"

I've not heard such a theory. This is what the IPCC says:

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

That is consistent with 49% of warming being caused by natural processes.

"Or, at least, accept that there is a long way to go before we fully understand climate dynamics and who plays what role."

That I can agree with.

The material leaked from CRU is scandalous.

emil

"La la la la we're not listening, la la la scientific concensus la la la la 50 days to save the earth (or tax us all to poverty) la la la la "

Pandora Witherspoon

Daily Politics replay the words said by both the sceptic and the government's principal chappie:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/

It clearly states the same as TrevorsDen mentions that the scientists have not only been manipulating the raw data but refuse to allow others access to the unmodified data on the basis that 'we don't own it' and so they cannot release it under Freedom of Information legislation.

Moreover, Al Gore's 'hockey stick' predictions of extremely fast rises in temperature, are sited as having been manipulated to suit the story of temperature rises, whereas the reality of the last 10 years is a levelling out, not a rise.

EyeSee

Daniel, the Warmists are using classic propoganda techniques plus the update of Political Correctness. Firstly they repeat endlessly things that are manifestly untrue. They are, in the main not climate scientists and there is no consensus. They take the political, not scientific route and they then claim the high ground by saying you are not allowed to oppose their view (Political Correctness). This recent, socialist attempt to quash debate has been remarkably successful, used by homosexuals, the race industry and failing organisations, such as the NHS. The two clues as to what is going on are; Why do warmists hide from debate and lie constantly about statistics (such as temperatures, numbers of polar bears, amount of polar ice etc? And secondly there is the evidence; CO2 continues to go up, temperatures have come down. They have even been caught out every which way with their computer models. When applied retrospectively to weather we have already had, they ALWAYS predict outcomes that didn't happen. Yes my friends, we have been scammed and not just by wacko self impressed 'scientists' but also by lying, tax hungry, lazy politicians who have latched onto the next way to destroy Western economies. Makes you think someone might be behind it all, someone who didn't like big global enterprises (well, non-communist ones anyway).

Stepney

Whilst I am pleased to see this article please get your terminology correct. I spend a lifetime on alarmist blogs correcting their sloppy use of scientific terms.

"This does not disprove the existence of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect."

The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon which enables life on earth. Without it global temperatures would be too low for any life to survive. Greenhouse gases are those naturally occurring in the atmosphere which enable the effect to take place ie H2O, CO2, NOX, Methane etc.

What you mean is the increase in greenhouse gases and increases in the greenhouse effect or global warming as it is sometimes known.

If you're going to write on this don't fall into the mistake that alarmists do. Get you're science and terminology bang on the money.

Message ends.

Michael Booth

Climate change - your taxes will help keep it at bay.

Anyone see a problem with that?

Nick

It's pretty clear from even a cursory look at the AGW literature that no-one has ever claimed that climate change was due to "man-only" factors. Solar radiation, the movements of the moon, tilt and trajectory of the earth, volcanic activity, ocean currents etc are all well-known factors in explaining the climate.

Marcher Baron

Since you can't tax cosmic rays, what chance does this theory have of being accepted? Climate had always changed - the Romans were growing grapes at Viriconium and I don't think any of them were driving 4x4s (other than quadrigas) and flying everywhere.

Battle 2807

I have long been sceptical about this whole climate change scam (it used to be called global warming, until we realised that the globe was not warming).
What it is, is a scam - a way of governments to tax the bejesus out of us, and for certain parties to collect huge subsidies.
At least with the millenium bug (remember that scare?) there was a cut-off date. With this scam it could be years and billions wasted before everyone comes to their senses and says "the emperor has no clothes".
Christopher Booker has some very interesting thoughts on this whole scare-the-proles-to-death thing, and how world governments use it to control us. And tax us, needless to say.

THX1138

Bjørn Lomborg is not a AGW sceptic he said this in cool it:

"global warming is real and man-made. It will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century"

Rather he believes that money and action would be better spent on such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply for the third world.

It seems that the Speccie is cherry picking science again and picking science that suits it's political agenda and ignoring the great body of scientists and evidence that suggests that the climate is warming and humans are responsible.

Snowman

so the army of the flat earthers seems to be on the march, but will the Gods in Copenhagen take any notice?

Victor Southern

"There have also been some more sober counterarguments - including by the British scientist Mike Lockwood, who argued in 2007 that, even if the sun influenced climate change in the past, it could not possibly be responsible for recent changes".

That is an argument that cannot withstand the scrutiny of logic. It is hard to believe that any scientist said it or even thought it.

David Hatfield

Upon which side are the flat earthers?

Dennis Churchill

Marcher Baron
“Since you can't tax cosmic rays,”
Don’t you believe it.
They will find a way. Possibly to: “Counter the effects of Cosmic Rays” Just change “Carbon” to “Climate Change”

JohnPage

If a scientist were to set out now to formulate a theory of climate change, with the fresh information we have (Svensmark and others), and the recent data (temperatures not rising recently despite rising CO2), would they naturally turn to CO2 as a major agent in changes in global temperatures?

Murgatroyd

The day before yesterday after what was tomorrow gone now the way of all theory.

Next.

steve

There is something that doesn't smell quite right at the moment.

Climate change research computer gets hacked....bits of emails get released...blogs are suddenly full of 'climate change scam', ex chancellor all over the papers.

I smell a big fish.

A big oily one.

Climate Change Con....

Dr Leonard Weinstein of NASA also rejectects AGW......

"Limitations on Anthropogenic Global Warming"

Dr Leonard Weinstein, ScD (NASA)

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/limitations-on-anthropogenic-global-warming

"The magnetic field of the Earth has changed a lot over geological times. There were periods of weakening and then reversal occurring about every 200,000 years until about 780,000 years ago. At the present time, the field is again weakening. If the field weakens too much, the Earth's magnetosphere would not block cosmic rays and Solar ions as well, and this could greatly affect cloud structure and thus weather. The Solar radiation and magnetic storms could also profoundly affect power transmission and electronics.

Preparing for the possibility of an impending ice age along with the possible consequences of a reduction in Earth's magnetic field are real concerns. Concern with relatively small effects of possible anthropogenic caused global warming is a misplaced distraction, and will probably lead to the public losing confidence in scientists, and could weaken the support needed when real problems occur."

Verity

"Who is to blame?" asks Korski's headline.

Answer: No one. It's part of the natural course of the universe.

Mile End

Well said, Stepney 5.31pm.

In geological time scales we are still emerging from the last Ice Age. If things are getting warmer it is because they are returning to normal, not because they are out of control.

There have been four Ice Ages in the last two million years. The first three came and went before the burning of coal and oil on an industrial scale. So climate change can occur naturally; indeed it has done throughout the history of planet Earth.

The onus is therefore on the AGW proponents to prove that natural causes can be eliminated. They have not done so.

2trueblue

Al Gores work in this area had 19 'inconsistancies' and that says it all. It is the new religion to beat us all with. It also enables the government to pass off their appaling lack of care in the countryside and say it is all tha fault of climate change.
If you have to monkey with the data, hide the detail, and manipulate raw data, what does that say? This government do not trust us to make up our minds about anything. The sheer arrogance of them.
Tax,tax,tax,tax. No lights, no provision for our future fuel, slow recovery. We are sitting on tons of coal, get on and use it, cleanly, not a difficult decision. instead of beating us with the big stick and lieing to us, cut waste, take some responsibility for the mistakes and move on.

Hugh

You all need to read Ian Plimer's book.

That gives good perspective.

Draft Crunt

How can the Earth be cooling with all the hot air that BOTH sides are generating?

Nic

This theory is well explained in the book "the Chilling Stars" by Svensmark & Calder published a couple of years ago.

What is interesting is that you were too frightened to mention it until you saw the swing in public opinion.

dearieme

"Bjørn Lomborg ...said ..
"global warming is real and man-made. ...
Rather he believes that money and action would be better spent on such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply for the third world."" So he accepts the bit he knows nothing about - the physics - but rejects the bit he does know something about, the economics. He's very probably wrong on the physics.

Robin Guenier

Please get three basics right: (1) There’s no doubt that temperatures have risen in recent years – for about 250 years (since the worst of the Little Ice Age), they've been rising at a rate of around (a wholly unthreatening) 0.5 deg. C; (2) in recent years, CO2 levels have increased markedly, especially since the end of WW2; and (3) the laws of physics show that additional CO2 warms the atmosphere.

But, of course, on the latter point, so do many other things (solar, oceanic, volcanic, atmospheric, cosmic, Milankovitch cycles etc.) - hence, for example, marked warmings in 1860/1880 and 1910/1940 (before man’s CO2 emissions were significant) – and countless earlier times in Earth's history.

Therefore, the first big question is, not whether man's CO2 emissions contributed to the most recent 976/1998 warming (they probably did), but whether they, and not natural influences, were the main cause. And the second big question is whether, if man's CO2 emissions continue as now, they will cause dangerous climate change. And there's the rub: there's no peer-reviewed, unambiguous empirical evidence, accessible to independent researchers, supporting an affirmative answer to either question.

Maybe, the key influence is Svensmark’s cosmic rays – maybe it’s something else. No one knows – not Lindzen, not Lomborg. Not even Ed Miliband.

PS to Battle 2807: the Millennium Bug was a genuine problem.

General Zod

Beardy mess on Newsnight's main concern was to investigate the hackers.

Around the web, those most heavily invested in the climate change dogma are very upset.

Florence of Arabia

Number Plate writes: "cherry picking science again and picking science that suits it's political agenda and ignoring the great body of scientists".

And presumably cherry picking punctuation.

Snowman

weird as it may seem, I’ve written to BBC’s Paxman many times asking him to ask any of the ecochondriacs just one simple question: ‘is the true that human activity – driving, flying, steel bashing, cooking and the rest - accounts for around 4% of the aggregate discharge of CO2?’ It does, see for inst. a book easily available from any library, Bill Bryson’s ‘The Short History of Almost Everything’ published in 2003. George Monbiot was asked this question once. He ignored it completely, and instead pointed to the jump in the density of CO2 in the air in the last 200 years from 280ppm to 380ppm.

If indeed the contribution of the world’s 6bn people to the total release of the gas is at around this level then nothing short of all of us dropping dead could make any difference.

Amadeus Plonquer

All this basing our views on 'models' and a 'great body of evidence' makes my head spin. Its like asking 'football players' to solve the economic crisis.

Amadeus Plonquer

I have a new theory of why the planet is warming. iPhones.

In fact every Apple product runs very hot. My Macintosh laptop is so hot it should be banned in Australian wildfire zones. My iPod explodes regularly (cosmic rays?) and my iPhone becomes so hot after only a few minutes that I have to call people in Siberia just to cool it down.

And for all the conspiracy theorists out there, guess who was a big supporter of Al Gore? You got it. Steve Jobs.

EyeSee

Robin Guenier: Yes temperatures were rising. They are not any more. In fact all the rise the Warmists have been squealing about has been undone in the past ten years. It has been warmer in the past and that wasn't caused by man. It's also been colder and that wasn't caused by man. (Funny how, because it's a negative, no-one seems to object to 'man' in this, as opposed to using 'person). CO2 can be considered a greenhouse gas, but it is a minor one. The over-riding greenhouse gas is water vapour. If you want evidence of how thick Warmist 'scientists' are then consider their statement that the melting arctic would raise sea levels by many feet. As arctic ice is already in the water and thus displacing an equal volume, obviously no such thing would happen. But then, maybe that just shows how thick they think we are. Sad isn't it, that money can corrupt even science? I mean, in the past scientists used to boast that their profession came up with theories that were a challenge to their peers; disprove me. Now, with funding only being available for headlines we get cheated by third rate politicians with a science degree. Or just a big mouth.

Robin Guenier

It seems that techies are now able (following the CRU leaks) to examine the unit’s data files in some detail – re temperature data, models etc. They’re able to examine code, applications and algorithms. And it begins to look as though what they are finding is (shall we say?) suspect. Perhaps it’s possible to understand now why Professor Jones has been so frightened of transparency. It’s probably premature to draw any conclusions. But the possibility that we inhabit a world where our leaders are determined to spend vast sums undoing much of civilisation’s achievements over the past 300 years on the basis of suspect data is utterly depressing.

Martin in London

I strongly recommend "The real climate change disaster" by Christopher Booker.
This is a frightening analysis of how the warmist bandwagon started and is maintained.

Dominic

October 27, 2009

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson:

I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called “Endangerment Finding.”

It has been often said that the “science is settled” on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.

The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.

Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.

We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.

Let me next address the horror story that we are approaching (or have passed) a “tipping point.” Anybody who has worked with amplifiers knows about tipping points. The output “goes to the rail.” Not only that, but it stays there. That’s the official worry coming from the likes of James Hansen (of NASA­GISS) and Al Gore.

But therein lies the proof that we are nowhere near a tipping point. The earth, it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to 8,000 ppm, and that did not lead to a tipping point. If it did, we would not be here talking about it. In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials (ca. 200 ppm) and interglacials (ca. 300-400 ppm) is lower than it has been for the last 300 million years.

Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.

(A) CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution. Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the “pre-industrial” value.

* The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.

(B) The first principle of causality is that the cause has to come before the effect. The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?

Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing. But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?

* A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.
* The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.
* CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.
* A warmer world begets more precipitation.
* All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms.
* The melting point of ice is 0 ºC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. The highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is –14 ºC, and the lowest is –117 ºC. How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?

Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that’s climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change.

In a way, we have been here before. Lord Kelvin “proved” that the earth could not possibly be as old as the geologists said. He “proved” it using the conservation of energy. What he didn’t know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the internal heat of the sun and the earth.

Similarly, the global-warming alarmists have “proved” that CO2 causes global warming.

Except when it doesn’t.

To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.

Best Regards,

Howard C. Hayden
Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn

Rose Bergeron

Whether the CAUSES of climate change are 100% manmade or 100% natural or 50/50 is irrelevant to the debate. Global warming NEEDS to be stopped, and whatever is the portion of GHG emissions caused by humans needs to be reduced.

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand the grave danger that the melting of the poles represents: desertification (and famines), rising seas, release of deadly methane stored in permafrost, environmental refugees,ensuing wars.

Besides, everheard of the Pacific Ocean Garbage Path? Oceans dead zones? Depletion of fish stock? Deforestation? How can that be good? How can one not see that we have to change our ways?

How can we live in a world without clean air, water, soil, and food?

Instead of giving up and gorging on fossil fuels like someone the day before starting a diet, we should really think about the next generation, and the next after that.

The way we live is simply not sustainable. One may scream "individual choice! individual rights!", but one's freedom stops where the safety of others starts.

Think a minute about the world the next generation will have to live with if we continue on this path...

John Symes

Rose Bergeron: "Whether the CAUSES of climate change are 100% manmade or 100% natural or 50/50 is irrelevant to the debate. Global warming NEEDS to be stopped..."
If Global warming is 100% natural - and the money is on that it is - how exactly do you propose we stop it?
One always likes to hear a greenist voice of reason, even as their increasingly leaky boat sinks below the (not rising) seas.

rponnie

"Whether the CAUSES of climate change are 100% manmade or 100% natural or 50/50 is irrelevant to the debate. Global warming NEEDS to be stopped, and whatever is the portion of GHG emissions caused by humans needs to be reduced."

I couldn't agree more !! And while we are at it, let's stop evolution too. It's been fun, but I think the job is done, thank you very much.
All it does is give us grief with all them mutating viruses and a bacteria causing death and disease, stop it already !
Oh, and gravity is a pain in the butt as well.