11 January 2010

Brrrrrr! It's Cold!

Yeah, I think we can move on from this global warming nonsense now.

30 years of global cooling?

Do the math.

Florida wildlife is dying from record COLD temps.

I have done a lot of reading about global warming and climate change. The numbers that the left likes to crank out do not add up. When it comes to climate the only constant is change. Where I live I am facing record cold temps and record snow fall amounts. Now warmists will say "short term trends don't mean anything!" My point exactly. Most of the global warming research is based on about 120 years of temperature data. A mere moment in time compared to the age of planet earth. The earth has been much much warmer than it is now. It has been much colder. It will get much colder and then maybe much warmer in the millenium to come. There is no climate change or global warming crisis. It is the invention of the political left for the purpose of seizing power and wealth. I have said before that there are serious environmental issues facing us. The global warming alarmism is undermining any common sense efforts that could be made to improve the environment. The engine of economic growth will fuel the creation of new technologies that would be beneficial to the planet in the long run. Perhaps a new eco-friendly energy source. But the solutions proposed by the left will only prevent or delay such progress. You see the left is not about progress. Progressives are anything but progressive. They are about tearing people down and lower expectations. Global warming solutions being proposed will lower our standard of living. The left wants to make everyone equally poor while securing wealth for themselves through the brute force of government.

11 comments:

Silke said...

I have done a lot of reading about global warming and climate change.

What peer-reviewed journals have you been reading and which scientific papers did you find most persuasive?

It has been much colder. It will get much colder and then maybe much warmer in the millenium to come.

But the rate of change we are seeing now is unprecedented. Scientists don’t dispute that the earth’s climate has changed in the past. They understand the natural causes of climate change, but those causes can’t account for all the changes we are seeing now.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

SSG_E said...

How Well do Coupled Models Simulate Today’s Climate? Thomas Reichler and Junsu Kim Department of Meteorology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City

Deconstructing Global Warming
Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Is there a basis for global warming alarm?
Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Yale Center for the Study of Globalization

Abdussamatov, H I, 2004. On long-term variations of the total irradiance
and decrease of global temperature of the Earth after a miximum of
xxiv cycle of activity and irradiance, Bulletin of Crimea Observatory

I read a lot of Lindzen's papers. He is highly respected in his field and he cannot be ignored. I have several downloaded papers I got from a database archive. Unfortunately I cannot link to them, although it may be possible to find them hosted somewhere. I am not sure though.

This is from one of Lindzen's papers regarding the global warmist claim that sea levels will rise because the ice caps are melting. It is a quote from one of his collegues at MIT:

the oceanographer, Carl Wunsch has noted:
“It remains possible that the data base is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming–as disappointing as this conclusion may be.”

Please note that this is the statement of someone who by and large supports global warming alarm.

More from Lindzen:

IPCC ‘Consensus.’
It is likely that most of the warming over the past 50 years is due to man’s emissions.
How was this arrived at?
What was done, was to take a large number of models that could not reasonably simulate known patterns of natural behavior (such as ENSO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), claim that such models nonetheless accurately depicted natural internal climate variability, and use the fact that these models could not replicate the warming episode from the mid seventies through the mid nineties, to argue that forcing was necessary and that the forcing must have been due to man.

"global mean temperature anomaly ceased increasing by the mid nineties is acknowledged by modeling groups as contradicting the main underlying assumption of the so-called attribution argument (Smith et al, 2007, Keenlyside et al, 2008, Lateef, 2009)."

Here are some articles

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1188

Also I recommend this book:

Cool it: the skeptical environmentalist's guide to global warming By Bjørn Lomborg

He takes a common sense centrist's view. I think he believes in global warming, but he makes reasoned and intelligent arguments against the solutions many people are offering. He wants people to "cool the rhetoric" and have the debate calmly and reasonably.

I think both extremes of the debate are wrong and the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think that's where this guy is coming from too.

Reasic said...

Hey, SSG. I hope you don't mind me ducking in here. I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind sharing what information you found most useful in the Reichler and Kim paper at the top of your list?

Reasic said...

SSG,

Why won't you post my comment?

SSG_E said...

Sorry for the delay. You know what, I actually downloaded and read this study because it was cited in one of Lindzen's studies. I wanted to know how the climate models worked. This study from Utah makes the claim that climate models are getting more accurate. They admit that in the past the models were sketchy, but improvements have been made in recent years. They also admit that although the models are getting more accurate, they cannot predict with any degree of certainty that the predictions made will actually become reality. There are simply too many variables. I actually have been learning a lot about climate change in the time I have been gone and I will have a post to update my position on the topic forthcoming.

SSG_E said...

Sorry for the delay. You know what, I actually downloaded and read this study because it was cited in one of Lindzen's studies. I wanted to know how the climate models worked. This study from Utah makes the claim that climate models are getting more accurate. They admit that in the past the models were sketchy, but improvements have been made in recent years. They also admit that although the models are getting more accurate, they cannot predict with any degree of certainty that the predictions made will actually become reality. There are simply too many variables. I actually have been learning a lot about climate change in the time I have been gone and I will have a post to update my position on the topic forthcoming.

Silke said...

SSG E,

Given your recommendation of the book Cool It, I thought you might be interested in this article:

“But when Friel began checking Lomborg's sources, "I found problems," he says. "As an experiment, I looked up one of his footnotes, found that it didn't support what he said, and then did another, and kept going, finding the same pattern." He therefore took on the Augean stables undertaking of checking every one of the hundreds of citations in Cool It. Friel's conclusion, as per his book's title, is that Lomborg is "a performance artist disguised as an academic."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942

SSG_E said...

"performance artist disguised as an academic."

A lot of the global warming alarmists fit this description too. Can we question global warming now that we know that some of the studies haven't really been peer reviewed and other studies have been citing recreational magazines and undergraduate college students' papers?

Interesting article though. It's worth checking those footnotes. This book is not some right wing guy trying to disprove global warming. His message is to bring the two sides together to form workable solutions.

This thread is old. I will post again on climate in a few days. We can renew such conversations there.

Silke said...

SSG E said: Can we question global warming now that we know that some of the studies haven't really been peer reviewed and other studies have been citing recreational magazines and undergraduate college students' papers?

We can certainly question those studies that aren’t supported by the evidence but to say that all the peer-reviewed literature that supports AGW is now in question is ridiculous.

SSG_E said...

Should have used my sarcasm tags. That was my point as well, but opposite point of view.

Silke said...

Since I was specifically referring to one of your sources and not your entire argument, I really don't see your point.