Not for one second do I doubt that GW is probably happening now, for the manyeth time in our planet's history. I don't believe that human activities have much to do with it.
Repeated below is something previously shown on this forum and includes the views of world-class scientists. Nothing anyone can say to discredit them is going to change my scepticism.
Even without their views, my instinct is that climate change is going to happen without humans even existing. It was happening long before humans existed.
It seems the AGW circus is focusing attention away from the real issues that need to be addressed. (THE LINKS BELOW ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE.)
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2 ... te-change/
Some information I found quite interesting re wind generators.
http://www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/ener ... esentation
A bit cynical but then some would call it being a realist.
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/2010/03/26 ... swindle-2/
And it appears even ex and current IPCC members are a little jaded with the whole political dog and pony show. It's becoming more and more evident that the emperor is strolling about with his dangly bits exposed.
New Zealand – Dr Vincent Gray (Physical Chemist) UN IPCC Expert Reviewer. He has been involved in every report of the IPCC. He is the author of over 100 scientific papers:
“The whole process is a swindle, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming. The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense.”
“No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. It should be obvious that they are ridiculous.”
“The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this is not so.”
Russia – Dr Yury Izrael, past UN IPCC Vice President, director of Global Climate and Ecology Institute, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“There is no proven link between human activity and global warming.”
“A Russian expedition that recently returned from the central Antarctic says that temperatures are now starting to decrease…. In ancient times the Earth had periods when maximum CO2 concentrations were 6,000 ppm (Carboniferous period). But life still goes on.”
USA – Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfield (Climate Scientist), Contributing Author to the UN IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes at the University of Colorado.
“Without question, much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
“Only after we identify these factors and determine how they affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models. And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy. Until that time, climate variability will remain controversial and uncertain.”
USA – Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University:
“In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth’s surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
UK – Dr Richard Courtney (Climate and Atmospheric Scientist) UN IPCC Expert Reviewer
“The case for anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) is getting weaker and weaker, not ‘stronger and stronger’ as many have claimed.”
“To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (man-made global warming) has been discovered. Recent global climate behaviour is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”
“….Scares of hypothetical ‘tipping points,’ run-away sea level rise, massively increased storms, floods, pestilence and drought are simply that, unjustified and unjustifiable scares.”
South Africa – Dr. Philip Lloyd, UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author, Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer, and author of more than 150 refereed publications.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”
Norway – Dr Tom Segalstad (Geologist & Geochemist) UN-PCC Expert Reviewer, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC:
“It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”
Japan – Dr Kiminori Itoh (Environmental Physical Chemist) Yokohama National University UN-IPCC expert reviewer
“Man-made warming is the worst scientific scandal in history.”
“When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
USA – Dr Richard Lindzen (Atmospheric Scientist) Professor at MIT UN-IPCC Lead Author
“The consensus was reached before the research had even begun.”
“It’s not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else…but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.”
“Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.”
Netherlands – Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm (Economist), UN IPCC expert reviewer, global warming author, and economist, a lecturer at the Netherlands Defence Academy, started out as a man-made global warming believer but later switched his view after conducting climate research.
“I started as an anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent sceptics…..After that, I changed my mind.”
“Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.”
USA – Dr John Christy – UN IPCC Lead Author – Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (also Alabama State Climatologist) :
“Public discussion about ‘carbon policy’ or ‘reducing greenhouse gases’ centres around the need to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet even educated persons mostly have no comprehension that the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour.”
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.”
“I don’t see a catastrophe developing from our emissions into the air of what should be correctly identified as ‘plant food.’”
“Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I’m identified as an IPCC Lead Author}. The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the “informational cascade”) is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the “ones who know” (from the Latin sciere, to know).”
“The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: ‘We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans.’
We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don’t have thermometers marked with ‘this much is human-caused’ and ‘this much is natural”.
So, I would have written this conclusion as “Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change.”
Dr Chris Landsea – World Hurricane & Storm Expert NOAA’s National Hurricane Center who served on the UN IPCC as both an author and a reviewer (resigned) and has published numerous peer-reviewed research papers:
“I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.”
“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
“The 1926-1935 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years, and 1900-1905 was almost as bad.” There is no long-term up-trend in damages, after you adjust for societal changes.
It starts to give us a little bit of a clue about what the global warming impact on hurricanes may be. From that record, it suggests that there is no trend that can be linked to ocean temperature trends and global warming
USA – Dr. Robert E. Davis (Climatologist), UN IPCC contributor, Professor at University of Virginia, and past president of the Association of American Geographers.
“We keep hearing about historically warm years, warm decades, or warm centuries, uncharacteristically long or severe droughts, etc., for which mankind’s striving for a high quality of life is to blame…. But in reality, in most cases, we have a tragically short record of good observations.”
“Be wary of global warming psychics warning us of unprecedented climate shifts – in most cases, they are only unprecedented because of the short life span of most scientists.”
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, UN IPCC expert reviewer, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas writes:
“I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furore started after [NASA's James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the scientific literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false, they did not correlate with recorded human history.”
“Depending on the period in earth’s history that is chosen, the climate will either be warming or cooling. Choosing whether earth is warming or cooling is simply a matter of picking end points.”
Canada – Dr Madhav Khandekar UN IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer, a PhD meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modelling:
“As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters:”
“… an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of GHG-induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed. Since mid-1998, the earth’s mean temperature as a whole has not increased at all, despite billions of tonnes of human added CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere.”
“To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”
New Zealand – Dr Willem de Lange is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Waikato, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and chapter co-author specialising in coastal oceanography and wrote on 23 May 2009:
“I am a climate realist because the available evidence indicates that climate change is predominantly, if not entirely, natural. It occurs mostly in response to variations in solar heating of the oceans, and the consequences this has for the rest of the Earth’s climate system. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis [of] runaway catastrophic climate change due to human activities.”
“I was an invited reviewer for a chapter dealing with the economic impact of sea level rise on small island nations. In keeping with IPCC procedures, the chapter was written and reviewed in isolation from the rest of the report, and I had no input into the process after my review of the chapter draft. I was not asked if I supported the view expressed in my name, and my understanding at the time was that no evidence of a discernable human influence on global climate existed.”
“The IPCC Second Assessment Report assessed sea level rise by AD 2100 as being in the range 0.20-0.86 m, with a most likely value of 0.49 m (less than half the rate assumed for the economic analysis). Subsequent research has demonstrated that coral atolls and associated islands are likely to increase in elevation as sea level rises. Hence, the assumptions were invalid, and I was convinced that IPCC projections were unrealistic and exaggerated the problem.”
“The IPCC Assessment Report 4 report emphasises a single paper, which was not available when I conducted my review, which spliced the satellite data onto the tide gauge data to “find” acceleration in sea level rise over the period of satellite measurement. This is being used to imply that global sea level rise is accelerating due to global warming (now renamed Climate Change). The satellite data only covered the period of increasing sea level associated with decadal cycles, and the known discrepancy between satellite trends and tide gauge trends was not corrected for. This is poor science comparable to the splicing of proxy and instrument data in the infamous Hockey Stick graph, and the splicing of ice core and instrumental CO2 measurements to exaggerate the changes.”
USA Dr. Indur M Goklany, represented the U.S. at the IPCC and in negotiations leading to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
“Once one gets past the opaque verbiage of the SPM [IPCC summary for policymakers], it is clear that most of the negative impacts listed in the SPM are overstated, while the positive impacts are understated.”
Criticizing IPCC methodologies, he said, “Under such a methodology the mortality and morbidity rates from water related diseases in the U.S., for example, would be the same in 2000 as in 1900. But in fact, these rates have declined by 99% or more during the 20th century for disease such as typhoid, paratyphoid, dysentery, malaria, etc.”
Rough idea of the cyclical nature of things:
Pleistocene Ice Age 110.000 - 14.000Yrs years ago - very cold indeed
Bolling 14.700 - 13.900 warming up!
Older Dryas - 13.900 - 13.600 - cold
Allerod 13.600 - 12.900 warmer
Younger Dryas 12.900 - 11.600 Cold. Mammoths, mastodons wiped out
Holocene Warming 11.600 - 8,500 Hurrah! warm again
Egyptian cooling 8.500 - 8.000
Holocene warming returns 8.000 - 5.600
Akkadian Cooling 5.600 - 3.500
Minoan Warming 3.500 - 3.200
Bronze Age Cooling 3.200 - 2.500
Roman Warming 500BC - 535AD
Dark Ages 535 - 900AD
Medieval Warming 900AD - 1300AD
Little Ice Age 1300AD - 1850AD
Modern Warming 1850 -
Why is it that this time it's because of CO2 produced by mankind? There's a definite whiff of rodent in the air....
Food for thought.
Last edited by Colibri49; 13th December 2011 at 16:54.