Shehu Khaleel says

Jerry Watson says

If we will not undertake the needed action for ourselves we should think of the children and all the generations to follow and do it for them. Are we so egotistical as to destine future generations to try to survive in a frozen world due to our current apathy when we could act now and prevent the almost certain coming cataclysm of another global freeze by an Ice Age.

Ok enough satire, first yes global warming is real and has been for at least 10,000 years. The author seems to present this as the issue but that is not, the issue is how much, if any, additional warming is caused by human activity and then more specifically how much of that is directly related to the production of CO2 by the burning of fossil fuels of which coal is the poster child. I fail to see the value of misrepresenting all planetary warming as CO2 induced. Yes glaciers are retreating as are ice sheets, yes it sucks to be polar bear.

Science is not dogma, to quote Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics in his resignation from the physics society in disgust over its official policy that "global warming is occurring" and “the evidence is incontrovertible”

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," (Fox News 09/14/2011).

It really does not matter anyway whatever cataclysm CO2 might possibly entail will happen. The US position as the number one GHG emitter is fading it will be the second or third behind China and probably India in few years.

Anyway the article seems to incorrectly connect all Global warming to anthropogenic warming. Doing this is misleading and rather simplistic.

Harry Valentine says

There are a variety of other factors that can cause weather patterns to change, some even related to cyclical solar activity. With regard to Northern Europe, part of the warm North Atlantic Current flows into the Barents Sea, with some water flowing into the Kara Sea and some flowing into the Greenland Current . . . the rest flows out of the Bering Strait and into the Kamchatka Current.

A change in the behaviour of the North Atlantic Current could bring about a change in Northern European weather . . . a change in the percentage of water that flows south into the Canary Current and northwest into the Greenland Current has the potential to affect that weather. The El Nino and La NIna effects in the Pacific Ocean involve periodic/cyclical changes in ocean currents that affect weather patterns acoss the Americas . . . this has happened over a period of centuries.

With regard to power generation, changing weather patterns will affect wind power and hydroelectric power generation. Nations adversely affected by changing weather patterns may be well advised to generate electric more electric power from sources that are less affected by weather, including building new nuclear power stations away from coastal regions that are prone to tidal waves and tsunami's

Carl Jackson says

As an engineer I know that energy is conserved. If a BTU is released into the environment, it must have a warming effect. Now a single BTU by itself is insignificant but civilization releases an unbelievable amount of heat to the environment. For example, a single 400 MW coal plant at full load will release over 3 billion BTU's per hour. Nuclear plants being less efficient proportionately dump even more heat to the environment. And the world’s entire power plants together pale to insignificance when one considers the heat released to the environment by motor vehicles. At the same time, civilization has paved over vast expanses of the world’s surface with roads, buildings and homes. This surface area is no longer available to convert solar energy to vegetative matter. These paved areas absorb and then re-release the BTU's to the environment. The question becomes what effect does heat release and pavement has on global temperatures.

The simplest explanation is often the most correct. From a strictly First Law of Thermodynamics point of view, there can be no question that mankind’s actions are changing the climate. There's just too much energy being dumped to the environment. Global warming is real but probably driven by BTU not CO2. Yes CO2 has increased as temperatures have increased but these are not direct cause and effect. In fact, I suspect that increased levels of CO2 may be beneficial for crop growth.... something to consider as the world’s population continues to increase.

C.M. Jackson P.E.

Malcolm Rawlingson says

So Shehu Kaleel laments the cold weather in Europe this last winter and of course, for those poor souls who lost their lives as a result, one can feel nothing but compassion. However the reader is led to believe that this cold weather is a result of Carbon Dioxide in the earth's atmosphere AND that it is the very small amount of Carbon Dioxide that is produced by the human incineration of fossil fuels. Note that by far the majority of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was NOT put there by the burning of fossil fuels.

What then explains the historical fact that in the 1600's, the River Thames in London England was quite frequently frozen over and not navigable. This very cold weather of course predates the production of Carbon Dioxide by humans. So clearly other mechanisms are at work which we either do not wish to understand or do not fit into "Global Warming" model which is so notoriously full of holes and politically motivated that it defies the imagination that any one would lend it credibility.

In response to Carl, you are quite correct energy is neither created nor destroyed and merely converts from one form to another ending up as heat. However while the amount of energy we are consuming (converting to heat) is large by historical standards by comparison to the amount of energy the Earth receive from the Sun it is merely a few billionths of a percent. The Sun emits more energy per second than has been used by all mankind in its entire history.

Let's get things into perspective people. The Sun is what dominates the temperature and the weather on this planet.

Indeed one of the counter theories to the CO2 theory is solar wind interactions with the upper atmosphere and scientists working on this have found an almost 1 to 1 correlation (not a doctored hockey stick graph but a REAL correlation) between the historical global temperature measurements and Sun activity. Not that one would hear the UN espouse such a valid and competing theory to the one they have spent an inordinate amount of money trying to prove.

So I suspect that a cold snap in Europe has absolutely nothing whatever to do with global warming or CO2. Of course such weather patterns do not fit at all with Global warming which is why we now hear the phrase "Global Climate Change" so we can explain colder as well as warmer weather.

To extrapolate a cold snap in Europe to the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is really stretching it.

Malcolm

Bryan Leyland says

The simple explanation is that CO2 has a small effect on our climate and the sun has a large one.

The Pacific decadal oscillation, the Southern oscillation, the recent long sunspot cycle and many other indicators that tell us that the world is cooling. Naturally.

And, by the way, arctic ice is increasing. In 1942, the midwest of the US was warm while Europe froze. Exactly the same conditions as this winter. And the CO2 levels were much less.

John K. Sutherland says

Rinaldo Sorgenti says

Unfortunately, the good professor fails to recognize the tremendous change in thinking that came about through the development of natural philosophy - scientific philosophy. Under scientific philosophy, the pronouncements of climate authorities are not as important as how and why they acquired their claimed knowledge. Did they adhere to the principles of acquiring scientific knowledge? If the climate authorities did not, then anyone familiar with scientific principles is perfectly capable of challenging these experts, even though the challenger is not, necessarily, an expert in climate science.

There are many glaring scientific defects in AR4, particularly in the SPM. Among these defects are the following: ? Ignoring scientific data that is contrary to the central conclusions. ? Failure to rigorously test hypotheses using physical observations. ? Assuming results are evidence of cause. ? Assuming a poor correlation is evidence of cause. ? Assuming a thorough knowledge of the climate system. ? Assuming that calculations involving variables with a low level of understanding can produce results embodying a high level of understanding. ? Assuming projections from unverified models are scientific knowledge.

The SPM focuses only on the past fifty years - not carefully defined. Thus, it ignores a vast body of scientific evidence that prior warm periods equal to or greater than the current period existed and that the historical warm periods are unrelated to atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). The main body of the AR4 explains these omissions by claiming the past warm periods were not global. Yet, according to the most comprehensive, reliable data available, satellite data, the current warm period is not global. It is concentrated in the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere, above 35 deg N.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and laboratory experiments show that a doubling of CO2, absent of feedbacks, will increase temperatures by about 1.2 deg C. The SPM assumes positive feedbacks amplify this small warming. Yet, nowhere in AR4 are these positive feedbacks tested against physical observations as required by the critical step of hypothesis testing. Tests by others demonstrate that the assumptions fail when tested against the proper alternative hypothesis - the null hypothesis. Such testing is the foundation of scientific knowledge.

There is little question warming occurred in the 20th century and the results of warming can be observed. However, these results do not establish cause.

During the 20th century, both CO2 and temperatures increased, but not necessarily together. The correlation is poor. For several multi-decadal periods during the 20th century temperatures fell while CO2 increased.

In the SPM, only one natural variation is considered - solar irradiation. Other influences of the sun and the influence of ocean oscillations are ignored.

An appendix to the main body of the AR4 gives the levels of understanding for sixteen variables considered to influence temperatures (many important variables are not considered.) The levels of understanding for five of these influences are rated as very low. The levels of understanding for ten for the remaining eleven are rated as low to medium. Yet the SPM states a high level of confidence in results of its work. One cannot have high confidence in the results, when starting with a poor understanding of critical variables.

The models have never been verified, thus are interesting artifacts, not knowledge.

Contrary to the statements of Professor Gutting, anyone understanding the principles establishing physical sciences has a solid philosophical basis for challenging the work of the experts of the IPCC. Please see the referenced articles under "Challenging the Orthodoxy" and "Defenders of the Orthodoxy."

Shehu Khaleel says

Shehu Khaleel says

John K. Sutherland says

Jim Beyer says

In general, large authorities tend to be correct; they are too bureaucratic to host a lie. I don't have any great reason to dispute the IPCC or the climate change contention in general. Why should I believe John instead of them? I DON'T find his articles convincing. Quite the contrary, actually.

My definition of climate change is the rise of CO2 levels to near 400 ppm which causes new behavior in the world climate. With all its vagaries, I think this is happening.

OTOH, the problem with climate change is that there is little (practically) one can do about it. If I were some kind of advisor, the notion of climate change (to me) would be to push more for nuclear over coal use. That's about all we can do at this point. I agree that other problems (dictators, poverty, etc.) impact people more than climate change does (at least right now). Don H. would indicate that this is a sign we should have fewer people on the planet.

I guess its up to individuals as to how miserable they'd like to live, but as of now, with our current resource access and political acumen, we can't seem to avoid 20-30% of the world living pretty miserable lives. I'm not sure have fewer people around would actually help, but having more around certainly won't.

John K. Sutherland says

Len Gould says

Len Gould says

John K. Sutherland says

Incorrect! You conveniently overlook the horrendous fact that the issuers of the IPCC reports once admitted (oh horror) that if the science did not match the conclusions that they wanted to see, then the science would be re-written - and by that same bunch of hacks who decided what the conclusions were to be before they even knew what the science said. What an admission to make! You seem able to swallow that elephant and others like it, quite easily with the moral indignation of a true zealot, while gagging on a few gnats.

You also conveniently overlook the fact that the IPCC scientists came to the conclusion that humans had NO discernible influence on the cliimate at the present time. I believe it was Ben Santer who rewrote that particular observation of the many scientists without their permission or knowledge, and changed its meaning by 180 degrees and decided that there was, and that's what was then written in the summary.

You also forget that the IPCC carefully selected which reports it would accept and which it would leave out, and quite capriciously. Although it said that only peer reviewed papers would be used, it then went ahead and used non-peer reviewed cr.p that had essentially no science to it whatsoever, and this continues to haunt them to this day. However, as they are unaccountable....

Len, rather than criticize (quite cowardly too) my numerous writings here, why not contribute some of your own. You always have a lot to say, but most of it is ad hominem, especially when I appear. I wonder why that is.

Jim Beyer says

I don't know if it represents in itself an ad hominem attack to point out the ad hominem attacks of others.

The report re-write you cite is from an op-ed piece by Frederick Seitz. The contentions of Seitz were dismissed by Santer and 40 others. Likewise, the smoke of the East Anglia climategate did not result in any fire.

I've noticed AGW debate mainly focuses on dismissing other people 'experts' as not being expert. Often via ad hominem attacks. Personally, I haven't found the technical papers of AGW critics (Beck, etc.) particularly compelling and they seem to have serious flaws in them.

John K. Sutherland says

Len Gould says

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Something else, I have learned an enormous amount from people in this site. Recently I was declared persona non grata from another site because of complaining of their accepting an absurd article. If I gave the orders in this old world of ours, I would ask persons on the lookout for exposure to be careful before impugning people who know what they are talking about.

Malcolm Rawlingson says

There are so many inconsistencies in the computer models and the data that has gone into them that there is significant doubt as to the capabilites to predict anything. If these models are as good as you say then why were they not able to predict the cold weather in Europe. The IPCC is telling me that they know the global temperature 50 years from now but are unable to predict what the temperatures are going to be next year.

If that does not raise substantial doubt in the mind of any thinking person then I have some swamp land in Florida I would like to sell you.

Malcolm Rawlingson says

French scientists reported this week that studies of glaciers in the Himalayas made from highly accurate satellite measurements show that the ice mass is INCREASING in some areas. Exactly the opposite of what the global warming booster club (sorry Fred but I just had to use your phrase) predicts is occurring. The facts do not support the conclusion.

There is a significant body of work done by equally great and learned scientists into the effects of solar particle streams on the upper atmosphere which has shown a far more accurate correlation to the earths temperature over the millennia than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. But that work goes unreported because one cannot make political hay out of that.

I was in Australia last year where Global warming was given as the cause for a prolonged drought in that country. Unfortunately for the global warming theorists the drought came to an end resulting in serious flooding (too much water) in many areas. Of course both the drought and the flood are caused by global warming according the the lunatic Australian media.

Of course John Sutherland is absolutely right. While the IPCC continues to doctor its data the evidence against AGW is mounting daily and the ridiculous and unsupported notion that a single bout of cold weather in Europe is caused by AGW is just plain nonsense.

Just last year the Swiss were lamenting low snow falls across the Alps. It seems to me that it is the weather being the weather - entirely UN predictable.

Malcolm

aldrichdevon vigorda says

aldrichdevon vigorda says