Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
On September 23, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is scheduled to release the first portion of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). AR5 will conclude once again that mankind is causing dangerous climate change. But one week prior on September 17, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) will release its second report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II). My advance review of CCR-II shows it to be a powerful scientific counter to the theory of man-made global warming.
Today, 193 of 194 national heads of state say they believe humans are causing dangerous climate change. The IPCC of the United Nations has been remarkably successful in convincing the majority of the world that greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically curtailed for humanity to prosper.
The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program. Over the last 25 years, the IPCC became the “gold standard” of climate science, quoted by all the governments of the world. IPCC conclusions are the basis for climate policies imposed by national, provincial, state, and local authorities. Cap-and-trade markets, carbon taxes, ethanol and biodiesel fuel mandates, renewable energy mandates, electric car subsidies, the banning of incandescent light bulbs, and many other questionable policies are the result. In 2007, the IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize for work on climate change.
But a counter position was developing. In 2007, the Global Warming Petition Project published a list of more than 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 PhDs, who stated, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” At the same time, an effort was underway to provide a credible scientific counter to the alarming assertions of the IPCC.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change was begun in 2003 by Dr. Fred Singer, emeritus professor of atmospheric physics from the University of Virginia. Dr. Singer and other scientists were concerned that IPCC reports selected evidence that supported the theory of man-made warming and ignored science that showed that natural factors dominated the climate. They formed the NIPCC to offer an independent second opinion on global warming.
Climate Change Reconsidered I (CCR-I) was published in 2009 as the first scientific rebuttal to the findings of the IPCC. Earlier this summer, CCR-I was translated into Chinese and accepted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences as an alternative point-of-view on climate change.
Climate Change Reconsidered II is a 1,200-page report that references more than one thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers, compiled by about 40 scientists from around the world. While the IPCC reports cover the physical science, impacts, and mitigation efforts, CCR-II is strictly focused on the physical science of climate change. Its seven chapters discuss the global climate models, forcings and feedbacks, solar forcing of the climate, and observations on temperature, the icecaps, the water cycle and oceans, and weather.
Among the key findings of CCR-II are:
· Doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial level would likely cause a warming of only about 1oC, hardly cause for alarm.
· The global surface temperature increase since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age, modulated by natural ocean and atmosphere cycles, without need for additional forcing by greenhouse gases.
· There is nothing unusual about either the magnitude or rate of the late 20th century warming, when compared with previous natural temperature variations.
· The global climate models projected an atmospheric warming of more than 0.3oC over the last 15 years, but instead, flat or cooling temperatures have occurred.
The science presented by the CCR-II report directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC. Extensive peer-reviewed evidence is presented that climate change is natural and man-made influences are small. Fifteen years of flat temperatures show that the climate models are in error.
Each year the world spends over $250 billion to try to decarbonize industries and national economies, while other serious needs are underfunded. Suppose we take a step back and “reconsider” our commitment to fighting climate change?
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a project supported by three independent nonprofit organizations: Science and Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute. Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nick, the clear sky recharging of subsurface equatorial ocean layers is an essential component of La Ninas. It is when the oceans gain heat. If this recharging is disrupted the entire system could go into a tail spin that could take a few decades, if not centuries, to bring back to pre-disruption conditions. So the question is, what could cause a disruption of subsurface heating?
It stands to reason that if volcanic ash of an amount sufficient to decrease equatorial solar insulation were present in the atmosphere it could lead to cooler subsurface oceanic temperatures. If these injections into the equatorial atmosphere were frequent enough, it could lead to long term cooling even after the volcanic eruptions halted. Why? As you know, the calmer conditions of El Nino allows the ocean to settle into layers with the warmest layer sitting on top, which also leads to clouds forming overhead as evaporation sets in. However, if this layer is from an earlier clear sky condition (think La Nina) that was hampered by ash, it would not be as warm as it normally is. The climate would struggle to break out of this colder condition as the inertia of the oceanic circulation works through this disruption. It is a plausible scenario for the little ice age.
I’m surprised that Humberto hasn’t been called a hurricane yet. I believe they will before 8:00 or whatever the record is. It’s 1216 am Sept 11 2013.
@Deb Rudnick Sept 10 at 4.46 p
“In other news, who has been banning incandescent lightbulbs?”
The Australian Government did. Not the present one, an earlier one.
Nick Stokes says: September 10, 2013 at 5:13 pm re: recovery from LIA
Nick, there have been plausible periods in the past where the temperature increased, just as there were some that decreased. It is not necessary to attribute a mechanism or time to these, it is enough to observe that they happened.
Once you have a term in which there was a decrease, say 1940-1970 global, using the original graphs rather than the Giss ‘conveniently adjusted’ ones, you have to ask why the temperature appears to have decreased as the concentration of CO2 in the air was increasing.
The IPCC does not appear to have provided a robust, agreed reason for the decrease.
So, there might be an absence of explanation from opposing parties, but that does not overcome the observation that, by whatever mechanisms, these things happen.
The more interesting question is whether there is indeed a warming recovery from a cold spell about the time of the LIA; whether this warming continues; and whether, in an analysis of alleged man-made climate change, this trend should be subtracted from the present day data.
Is the post-LIA trend, loosely named, contributing to our present temperatures or has it peaked and levelled?
Deb Rudnick says:
September 10, 2013 at 4:46 pm
“The heartland institute is a conservative/libertarian think tank well known for its position on climate change skepticism….”
You are mistaking and not understanding the meaning of words:
1] You are using the term “climate change” to mean something like “CO2=CAGW” so that there can be no such thing as climate change unless it is driven by CO2. But that can’t be right. What’s happened is that “mainstream” Climate Science has changed the meaning of the term so that it functions only toward the ends of its propaganda, by which anyone skeptical of its “climate change” is then painted to be someone who is skeptical of climate change or even denies the historical existence of climate change. When it is actually the mainstream Climate Scientists who apparently don’t even have a term for historical, natural climate change.
2] Having a well known position on “climate change skepticism” is hardly the biased or even malign thing you apparently think it is: skepticism is actually at the heart of the practice of real science. The mainstream “climate change” advocates didn’t even notice this.
Of course, man made – deforestation, urbanization, deserts formations etc. that create drier land surface. Not gases – GW/ CC due to gases are impossible. For details click on my name.
jai mitchell says:
September 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm
“And yet, there is no evidence or theory regarding the cause of a ‘recovery’ from the little ice age that is natural and not compounded by anthropogenic emissions associated with the increase in population and agricultural land use changes during the agricultural revolution in the early 1700s (as well as the wide-scale European planting of the American potato-leading to a population explosion).
“American and European deforestation was also rampant at this time and the introduction of coal as a common fuel source began in earnest in the late 1800s, these all contributed to changes in methane (primary) and (some) CO2 levels.”
WOW! That’s some admission Jai!
I can only hope that you realize what you just said. The most recent grand solar maximum http://www.space.com/484-sunspot-activity-8-000-year-high.html and the recent decline http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/09/current-solar-cycle-data-seems-to-be-past-the-peak/ either represents a second Holocene thermal peak or something more akin to what seems to happen at the half-precessional age of all post-MPT interglacials with the sole exception possibly being MIS-11 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/
If the recovery from the LIA is “not compounded by anthropogenic emissions associated with the increase in population and agricultural land use changes during the agricultural revolution in the early 1700s” then it would seem to have to follow that extension of the Holocene is within our CO2 grasp!
I mean extension of an interglacial such as the Holocene beyond the typical bounds of half-precession age has only happened once in the past million years or so, and that was during MIS-11:
“Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with 18O values below 3.6o/oo for 20 kyr, from 398-418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6o/oo for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398-418 ka as from 250-650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.” Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005, http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf
Which essentially quashed Berger and Loutre’s 2002 modeling ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/engels/Stanley/Textbook_update/Science_297/Berger-02.pdf, if you have been paying attention to the literature.
So, if I do indeed catch your drift, the only reason we came out of the Little Ice Age is because of anthropogenic emissions. Otherwise we we would still be in it? Or much worse, a Big Ice Age?
I am left to assume here that you have some critical knowledge that has escaped notice by the paleoclimate community (see http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf or http://www.clim-past.net/8/1473/2012/cp-8-1473-2012.pdf) for instance.
From an “entertainment value” perspective, model results will be entertained.
Otherwise you just shot yourself in the foot. Either we have elevated ourselves, climatewise, carbonwise, obviating onset of the next glacial here at the already older than LIA half a precession old extreme interglacial, or you are advocating for an anthropogenetically unimpeded descent into the next glacial.
Of course, you are invited to provide evidence for something at least compelling, well anything for that matter, that would truly merit being anomalous climatewise that we (meaning the genus Homo) have not already experienced. Meaning something colder since at least the Mid-Brunhes Event or warmer than MIS-11, 5e and the Holocene Climate Optimum.
The famous astronomer Fred Hoyle (1999, Cambridge Conference Network) probably stated it best:
“This is why the past million years has been essentially a continuing ice-age, broken occasionally by short-lived interglacials. It is also why those who have engaged in lurid talk over an enhanced greenhouse effect raising the Earth’s temperature by a degree or two should be seen as both demented and dangerous. The problem for the present swollen human species is of a drift back into an ice-age, not away from an ice-age.”
The thing is, I am not at all sure I disagree with you Jai. I have read and well-pondered what you have written here. Although I academically disagree with you in almost every instance, there is one in which you have convinced me. And that is on the “premise” that CO2 might have an ameliorating effect on climate. If your “premise” is correct, then this is one “pollutant” that we need to quell.
If there is even a chance that the industrial-present age of CO2 pollution could extend provenance of such end-members of our species, which has no clue when they live, then the genetically correct thing to do is strip it from the late Holocene atmosphere. I cite in this instance the fate of:
“The burial in ice of the pre-historic mummified corpse of the famous ‘Iceman’ (e.g., Bahn and Everett, 1993) at the upper edge of an alpine glacier coincided with the initiation of a cold period (‘Neoglaciation’) after the Holocene climate optimum (Baroni and Orombelli, 1996). On longer timescales, evolution of modern humans has been linked to climatic changes in Africa
(e.g., de Menocal, 1995).” Progress in Physical Geography 23,1 (1999) pp. 1–36 ftp://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/data/2005/stuff/adamsetal99.pdf
That would be the 8.2ka climate event. So, you have served to inspire. This you may lay claim to.
“Today, 193 of 194 national heads of state say they believe humans are causing dangerous climate change.”
I think since the recent election down under you can change that to 192 of 194……….
[Norway also today. Maybe 191 of 194. Mod]
jai mitchell says:
September 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm
++++++++++
Jai has been taught the following, (which leads to self delusion):
to say things like:
“compounded by anthropogenic emissions”
[What is compounded? Oh – yes the natural warming which represents the bulk of the slight warming that uhm… stopped a long time ago]
“I also note that the article’s author is an electrical engineer with an MBA degree, hardly the kind of credentials”
[Disqualifying anyone without a title to being able to understand basic science.]
“Carbon Dioxide and other green house gasses warm the atmosphere and human sourced emissions are causing global warming. This is an undeniable scientific fact.”
[Conflating what we do not argue about, with what he has been taught to say. Some warming and catastrophic are not the same words.]
“All one needs to do is look at the actual temperature curves of global temperatures since the little ice age”
[But – you said the LIA was regional only?]
“unleash the power of unregulated polluters into the world and destroy the lives of your children and grandchildren”
[As if making people more poor so they suffer and die as a result of regulations that claim that CO2 and pollution are one in the same.]
[Jai – you are not very bright, you’re delusional and unable to understand the words put into your head.]
Jai Mitchell says “Carbon Dioxide and other green house gasses warm the atmosphere and human sourced emissions are causing global warming. This is an undeniable scientific fact.”
It is an established fact that CO2 an infrared transparent container in a laboratory has demonstrated certain infrared absorption bandwidths.
This does not prove anything with regard to feedbacks or photon transmission via intermolecular collision.
The following paper questions the validity of the use of CO2 absorption bandwidths in climate models. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50935/abstract
jmitchell
I also note that the article’s author is an electrical engineer with an MBA degree, hardly the kind of credentials for an essay disclaiming a proven scientific fact that has been known for over 100 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well J, I’ll try and explain it to you in small words. Electrical engineers are extremely well versed in matters of radiated energy. When an engineer designs a circuit, one of the things she needs to determine is how the temperature of individual components change. The way she does that is to determine from the voltage applied, and the resistance of the component, how many w/m2 will be generated and dissipated at equilibrium. From there, using the surface area of the component, and Stefan-Boltzmann law, she can calculate how much the temperature of the component will rise above ambient temperature.
The way we figure out the theoretical temperature of earth is to measure the energy in w/m2 being generated by the sun and transmitted into the earth system, and what temperature the earth must rise to in order to dissipate the same amount of energy and achieve equilibrium. The way we do this is using Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Contrary to your belief system, which appears to be based on an ignorance of the physics of interest in this matter, electrical engineers have one of the best groundings in science one could ask for in understanding the issue at hand.
jai mitchell says:
“paid free-market advocates …blah, blah…free market principles unleash..blah, blah…”
——————————————–
Jai kind of gives himself away here. This is what CAGW is really all about.
Peer reviews are worthless if cronyism is in play (or indeed other forms of malpractice). Read Donna Laframboise’s “The Delinquent Teenager” for a fascinating insight into the dark world of the IPCC and how “peer reviews” are orchestrated. A system is required that can identify and qualify the reviewers so that neutrality is observed. Maybe on paper such a system already exists, but in practice, certainly where the IPCC is concerned, it does not.
So disappointing that the NIPCC believes in global warming induced by CO2.
Again we have a debate between two groups that believe in the same nonsense with the only possible result being that global warming has to be taken seriously as there is only a disagreement in the quantification of the effect.
CO2 cools the planet surface as do all gasses as they conduct and convect energy from the surface and radiate this energy out into space. CO2 is better at it.
Remove the atmosphere and the extra heat now trapped in the planets surface has to be radiated at a higher rate which requires that a higher temperature be reached before equilibrium can be restored.
The atmosphere removes energy from the surface and keeps the surface cool. If this were not the case there would be no such thing as an air cooled engine.
Here is a little experiment for you:
Put an air cooled engine in a big 10m^3 box full of CO2 at atmospheric pressure. Run it up to its equilibrium temperature and measure it. Repeat with the CO2 removed i.e. in vacuum (OK you will need a piped O2 supply in both cases to keep the engine running). Which case results in the lowest engine temperature?
It is insufficient just to look at radiative transfers. The system as a whole muct be considered including thermal transfers.
jai mitchell said “Carbon Dioxide and other green house gasses warm the atmosphere and human sourced emissions are causing global warming. This is an undeniable scientific fact.”
Leaving the implication that it is somehow a linear process and ignoring the “undeniable fact” that it is a declining logarithmic process, resulting in the “undeniable fact” that the power of co2 to cause any further warming is essentially ineffective. No matter how much co2 the atmosphere contains, it cannot override or dominate other factors including natural variability. 7000ppm of co2 didn’t prevent a descent into a glaciation in the Ordovician.
Aside from the fact that a goodly amount of co2 is essential for life, co2 is an irrelevance, other factors such as the suns magnetic field and obliquity are far more likely to dictate long term outcomes than any amount of co2.
I suggest further refinement of positions and proceed now with developing epistemologists’ ‘best available technology’ so to speak, for the layman’s choice between rival experts, for which I invite Holocene geology and Climate simulation to a novice-two experts set-up, for the benefit of Knowledge Management overall.
With Dr. Svensmark’s new paper announced last week showing reproducible experimental data confirming Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) are capable of producing <50 nanometer cloud seeds through a newly discovered catalytic process involving GCRs/SO2/O3/H20/NH4, both the correlation and causation processes of the Svensmark Effect can be demonstrably verified.
Once Svensmark's SKY2 experiment is reproduced by other scientists, and the test results are independently confirmed, then roughly 50% to 75% of 20th century warming can be attributed to the Svensmark Effect (Dr. Svensmark's estimates, which require verification) and the catastrophic "C" in the "C"AGW hypothesis can be officially removed, allowing the world to burn fossil fuels without the guilt of possibly killing billions of people in the future….
Moreover, from 2020, the weakest solar cycle since 1645 is projected to start, so the Svensmark Effect will be demonstrated on a galactic scale. Prior to that, the current cycle (the weakest since 1906) will be falling from here, which should cause a NET cooling effect from now until 2020.
From looking at recent Northern Pacific SSTs, it's looking like a possible El Nino cycle could develop late next year…. The IPCC Warmageddon hoaxers will, of course, waste no time in blaming/propagandizing any El Nino induced SAT increase on CO2, but, well, it'll actually be from El Nino induced SAT increases… And so it goes.
To add irony to mix, LFTRs will most likely be a major world energy source after China starts their first test reactor around 2020 (China's announced target date). That'll cause Western countries to urgently develop LFTRs to counter China's comparative advantage.
From 2030 or so, LFTR energy will replace a substantial portion of fossil fuels for electricity production, and battery technologies will be available to replace combustion engines with electric cars (crap!). Accordingly, this whole CAGW scare/hoax will become a moot issue anyway…. Except, of course, for the $trillions thrown down the toilet on CO2 taxes, subsidies, CO2 emission standards, and wasteful wind/solar projects (which will end up on the bottom of the oceans as artificial reefs or in landfills.).
We live in interesting times….
richard verney says: September 10, 2013 at 8:28 pm
“I put it to you that the temperature record cannot be properly explained without resorting to natural variation, and that being the case there is no logical failure in the submission that what we are simply seeing is a natural recovery trend from the LIA.”
Indeed, there are fluctuations that can’t currently be explained; they may as well be called natural variation. But the NIPCC says that because it’s a recovery from the LIA, it can’t be due to GHG. But “recovery from LIA” is just another way of saying it was cold before and now it’s warm. Such a warming is exactly what was predicted to happen, going back to Arrhenius in 1896, when CO2 accumulates. That’s an explanation – “recovery from LIA” just describes the observation.
Steven Mosher says:
Sadly, that is how skepticism works in philosophy and how the defense works in a court case. But its not how skepticism works in science. Science works to explain. doubt is a tool in science, but in the end if you dont have an explanation you lose to the guy who does have an explanation, EVEN IF his explanation is partial and incomplete.
—
I think some ‘explanations’ (I assume you mean hypotheses) are immediately disqualified, whether there are other explanations or not, if you are adhering to the scientific method.
From Wikipedia: A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
And the money quote: ” A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research. ”
If you are doling out taxpayer’s money, you might not require scientific hypotheses. Scientists with integrity might be able to withstand the lure of money, the rest, definately not. Only skepticism can prevent this situation from becoming a man-made catastrophe 🙂
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, with section 321 “Efficient light bulbs”
– passed the House on January 18, 2007;
– passed the Senate on June 21, 2007;
– was signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 19, 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007#Support_for_the_bill
But a growing concern about the ban of the incandescent bulb – the lamp with the greatest quality of light – was seen among consumers.
– July 2011: “The House has voted to delay the de facto ban on incandescent light bulbs for at least a year. It is the first step in restoring consumer choice and ending government intrusion into our homes.” (Rep. Joe Barton)
– December 2011: The Congress deprived the Department of Energy the funds to enforce the ban for 2012.
It is indeed very anxious to see how easily the fundamental rights of people have been denied by this Act.
– “People don’t want Congress dictating what light fixtures they can use.” (Rep. Joe Barton)
– The ban of incandescent light bulbs has led to a very reduced choice of light products. It is known that only the light of incandescent bulbs and halogen lamps has a CRI (color rendering index) of 100 and a PF (power factor) of 1. This is the more incomprehensible because the light belongs to the necessary elements influencing our mental and physical health (together with food, water and air). Our sight is more valuable than a possible saving of electricity consumption.
Our environment has much less to endure from incandescent light bulbs than from CFLs or LEDs. This is proven by Greenpeace in Berlin in 2007. By destroying 10,000 incandescent light bulbs, they showed that the clearout of the broken lamps was no problem at all! Imagine what would happen if 10,000 CFLs (containing mercury) were destroyed! A whole quarter should be evacuated!
The burden of toxicity and resource depletion potentials needed to produce the ‘energy saving’ light bulbs is enormous. This has to be stopped immediately!
jai mitchell 013 at 4:35 pm September 10, 2013 says:
“…there is no evidence or theory regarding the cause of a ‘recovery’ from the little ice age that is natural and not compounded by anthropogenic emissions ….” Quite true. Asa a matter of fact, no one seems to have a theory of the cause of Little Ice Age, least of all jai mitchell 013.
Steven Mosher September 10, 2013 at 8:08 pm says:
“…You just don’t understand that skeptics have nothing to prove! …” On the contrary, As a skeptic I strive to not simpy show you the error of your ways but also to aquaint you with an alternate, superior way to understand climate science.
Please do not start thinking I am a warmist, I am on the side of the old science not the new. This does not make me right but I can still stand back, view the big picture and opine like anyone else. I see the problems faced by reasoned argument as two fold…
Government wasting money and imposing unreasonable taxation.
Experimental science being debased by the birth of the new science of consensus.
Nothing new here, governments have always wasted money and imposed unreasonable taxes. People have always complained and been ignored. The science of reason replaced the old science of alchemy and its advocates may still try measure the lumps on your head or stray into the realms of quack medicine. Nothing changed, we are still only human.
Experimental science will probably win the AGW argument with the cold eye of history. If you try to predict the future, time will prove you right or wrong, nobody will care much unless you are Nostradamus and have predictions still in hand.
If you want to win public opinion you might do better to search for a charismatic advocate rather than a scientific argument. History tells us that Feynman’s rules do not apply in science, who you are does matter and it matters a lot more in politics.
William:
This is interesting. The warmists can ignore but not explain the plateau of 16 years when there was no warming.
The warmists will not however be able to avoid providing a scientific explanation for why ‘global’ warming is reversing; the planet is cooling, correlating with the sudden unexplained to the solar magnetic cycle.
The climate change panic button cannot logically be connected to global cooling. The gig will be up.
The planet is cooling which means: 1) There is no climate warming issue (Obviously it appears C02 emissions are beneficial to the biosphere), 2) Spending almost $2 trillion dollars on green scams, $250 billion/yr and counting, was madness, and 3) global cooling could be a real climate change problem.
Comment:
A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html
Global warming? No, actually we’re cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.
A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/10/the-wuwt-hotsheet-for-tuesday-september-10th-2013/#more-93537
Nick Stokes
Your post at September 11, 2013 at 12:49 am says
No, Nick, the recovery from the LIA had been happening for centuries before 1896.
That recovery is NOT “what was predicted to happen” unless you are claiming Arrhenius had a time machine to transport himself back centuries in time. Arrhenius merely suggested an explanation – which is now known to be wrong – for what was happening.
And that is how science is done.
1.
An effect is observed; e.g. recovery from the LIA.
2.
An explanation for the effect is suggested ; e.g. It’s CO2 what dunnit, M’Lud.
3.
Attempts to disprove the explanation are made; e.g. observe CO2 follows temp..
4.
If the explanation is refuted then alternative explanations are suggested.
Nick, you are stuck in 1896. It is now 2013 and we are past Stage 3.
Much evidence obtained over the last century shows Arrhenius was wrong.
You need to borrow that time machine you claim Arrhenius had and use it to jump forward to the present.
Richard
EU regulation effectively banning incandescent light bulbs:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:076:0003:0016:EN:PDF