#AGU15 Paris Climate Accord, An Important Step Forward, But are We Solving the Right Problem?

Peter Landon Ward, PhD

The Paris Climate Accord is an important step forward, but Peter Langdon Ward PhD (a presenter at the AGU’s Fall 2015 Meeting) asks, “Are we Solving the Right Problem?” While the leaders of 195 countries crafting the historic climate change agreement Saturday deserve praise for their foresight and hard work, they may have been blinded to the real cause of global warming by the laser focus of most climate scientists on greenhouse gas warming.

While the leaders of 195 countries crafting the historic climate change agreement Saturday deserve praise for their foresight and hard work, they may have been blinded to the real cause of global warming by the laser focus of most climate scientists on greenhouse gas warming. “Throughout Earth history, sudden warming has occurred as frequently as every few thousand years. Warming typically starts suddenly and cools slowly,” says Dr. Peter Langdon Ward, author of the just published book, What Really Causes Global Warming?

Greenhouse Gases or Ozone Depletion? Ward worked 27 years with the US Geological Survey studying volcanoes and other natural hazards around the world. “Sudden warming usually occurs when basaltic lava flows form over large areas,” Ward continues. “Such lava flows deplete Earth’s ozone layer, allowing more solar ultraviolet radiation to reach Earth, causing global warming. There is no obvious way for slowly increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases to cause frequent periods of sudden warming.” The largest basalt flow in 231 years formed around Bárðarbunga volcano in Iceland from August 2014 through February 2015, covering an area of 33 square miles—the size of Manhattan—and causing 2015 to be the hottest year on record. Dr. Ward presents his findings this week at the American Geophysical Union meeting—a gathering of 24,000 Earth scientists —in San Francisco.

“Global warming was significant from 1970 to 1998,” Ward explains, “caused by manufactured CFC gases depleting the ozone layer and forming the Antarctic Ozone Hole.” “Greenhouse warming theory,” Ward says, “has never been confirmed in the laboratory or in the field. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases have never been shown experimentally to increase air temperature substantially.

Narrow frequencies of infrared energy are absorbed by greenhouse gases, but the amount of heat involved is small.” That is why Dr. Ward issued The Climate Change Challenge last month, offering to pay $10,000 to the first person who can demonstrate experimentally that warming caused by greenhouse gases was actually greater than warming caused by ozone depletion. Spending trillions of dollars reducing greenhouse-gas concentrations could have no significant effect on reducing global warming. Can we afford to make this mistake?

WhyClimateChanges.com

Source: https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2015/press-item/paris-climate-accord-an-important-step-forward-but-are-we-solving-the-right-problem/

69 thoughts on “#AGU15 Paris Climate Accord, An Important Step Forward, But are We Solving the Right Problem?

  1. Warming isn’t really a problem we need to worry about, regardless of whether or not ozone depletion is a factor.
    The Paris Climate Accord was certainly no step forward. If anything, it was a step backward for mankind.

    • Bruce wrote, “The Paris Climate Accord was certainly no step forward. If anything, it was a step backward for mankind.”
      Exactly. If we could only be so lucky as to experience some global warming.
      Why do you think people from all over Canada flock to Florida each winter?

  2. “Greenhouse warming theory,” Ward says, “has never been confirmed in the laboratory or in the field. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases have never been shown experimentally to increase air temperature substantially.

    My God! Is he really allowed to say that?
    It was nice to read this post. (even thought the paragraphs could have a blank line between them)

    • It is certainly heartening to see scientists are finally being allowed to think again and I think he is on the right lines with considering volcanoes as a potential cause of *warming* rather than simply just the usual immediate cooling effect. However, I am very sceptical of 33 sq mi of basalt affect world climate.
      The lower stratosphere contains a glaring signal that decadal change is caused by volcanic eruptions, not by anthropogenic CFCs and the Montreal Protocol.
      http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/uah_tls_365d.png
      When this signal is inverted ( lower climate reacts in the opposite way to the stratosphere ) , there is a an interesting resemblance in the two patterns.
      https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=988
      http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/tls_icoads_70s-20s.png
      Anyway it’s well over due that people start asking : are we solving the right problem?
      Hopefully this is the start of a return to a more rational look at climate science

      • Climate “science” is a political problem. Government wants power. Government needs to scare people to get more power. Government has money to pay people to cook up a scary story. Government pays said people to cook up said scary story. The scary story is supposed to sound official, so it must come from people who should be independent thinkers, but they are bought and paid for. Over time, they became committed to the money, and their careers would be ruined if the hokum were exposed. Thus, they collude to protect each other. People scared by said story are becoming less scared because the story is not coming true. And of course it won’t come true, it’s fabricated.
        How many more decades of wrecked economies will we have to endure? Once past generational memory, nobody can say “I remember when the snow was…”, or “the summers were ….” How many people remember the Dust Bowl? If you can re-adjust the past, then the present can be “saved” by government intervention. And they will keep control. Perhaps a prolonged cold spell would do the trick and expose the fraud. Ah, but they never let a crisis go to waste. Different controls will be needed.
        Here’s what they don’t talk about: Ag runoff and wastewater flowing into the ocean. If there is anything we do need to control, it’s nitrogen fertilizers and ammonia affecting life in the ocean. That’s where your drop in alkalinity comes from.

    • If you read his website, he also claims that the natural greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics. He is a Sky Dragon Slayer who has a poor grasp on atmospheric physics.

      • “… has a poor grasp on atmospheric physics.”
        In the midst of the “space race”, the best minds in the USA created the “US Standard Atmosphere” as a model to explain what we needed to know about the atmosphere for commercialism aviation as well as the NASA race to space. There was no mention of a radiative “greenhouse effect”. The atmospheric effect is due to gravity, atmospheric density, convection, conduction, advection, oceans, water in all its phases, lapse rate, and other things.
        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-us-standard-atmosphere-model.html
        Someday you fellas who play with radiation as the only thing there is (like a teenage boy finding out about you know what) will wake up to the fact that the dragon in the sky is a blow hard and you don’t have a clue as to real atmospheric physics.
        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/maxwells-demon-proves-why-cold-gases.html
        At one time CO2 was up to 7,000 ppm at least and maybe more. Where was the warming then?
        ~ Mark

  3. Yeah? Well why was the Paris Accord so important. They are CO2 control knobs. You may know a lot about volcanoes but you probably took the CFC destruction of ozone on faith. As it turns out, the ozone hole is getting larger again!! I half believed it my self until I saw the Nasa images that showed the hole to be surrounded by a thicker collar of ozone, like a rolled down turtleneck sweater. No one remarks on this phenomenon. Should I do my usual here on this topic? Why not. It seems to have been news to all the ozone holololists that the only paramagnetic (attracted to a magnetic field) gas in the atmosphere is Oxygen, all the the others including ozone are diamagnetic. Several have convincingly argued that the effect is small and polar vortexes are the big elephant in the room, but I stick to my guns – the stronger magnetic field at the poles has some effect and the “collar” certainly supports something other than depletion. I have challenged someone with the graphic skills to see if the mass of ozone really changes that much by calculating the mass of it including the thickening at the polar collars. Other Nasa images also indicate a CO2 “hole” and I would suggest we might find noble gas “holes”, Nitrogen “hole” (less noticeable) if we wanted to go out and measure these things. I’m sure NASA has done my mass calculation for ozone and didn’t like the answer.

    • Gary, what you need to do first perhaps is respond to the original explanation of ozone depletion inside the polar vortex during the southern winter. This was proposed upon discovery by Dobson himself. He argued that the polar vortex blocks the pole-ward flow of stratospheric ozone — hence the sub-antarctic banks. The preoccupation (especially by NASA) with the hole size is a seemingly purposeful distraction — the hole is never bigger than the inside of the polar vortex. No one would ever argue that it is at risk of breaching the polar vortex nor that the polar vortex is at risk of reaching populated areas. Another seemingly purposefully propagated confusion is between the winter depletion and the extra-depletion that occurs when the sunlight returns while yet for a few weeks the vortex persists. This latter is the ‘hole’ that is apparently dug deep by CFC-derived chlorine which catalyses reactions occurring on and around the surfaces of diminishing polar stratospheric clouds.

    • One thing I’ve never understood is why it is only over Antarctica, which I thought was a kinda / sorta closed weather system ??

      • It is, Marcus. That’s the reason you see an ozone hole over Antarctica.
        Antarctica has no sources of VOCs that are necessary to produce ozone, and the circumpolar current minimizes interchange, so it naturally has a low ozone level over it. In the ozone depletion hypothesis, the roughly-evenly mixed CFCs reduce ozone everywhere, but it’s only significant over Antarctica because they have so little to start with.
        However, that presumes the answer to the questions of “what is the base level of ozone” and “are we significantly lower than that”. Those are one of many questions that are simple in a lab but impossible in reality since we don’t have an alternate Earth. However, they are simply assumed by the majority of players rather than ever being proven in a traditional theory

      • Marcus, Ben neglects to mention the persistence of the Antarctic polar vortex. This explains why there is winter depletion in the south and not the north. In fact, inside the arctic circle in late winter there are usually huge accumulations of ozone — this is not made there but transported from lower latitude. In the south this transport is held up behind the vortex. This effect continues while the southern vortex persists during spring. This is when CFC-derived chlorine is supposed to cause a further dip called the ‘hole’. Then finally the vortex breaks up and the ozone floods in.

      • It is a matter of temperature: polar stratospheric clouds need -80°C for the deposit of N-O-Cl type of solids on the ice surface, which is inactive for ozone depletion. In spring all of a sudden that is released and Cl starts it work again in concentrated form around the disappearing clouds. The -80°C is seldom reached in the Arctic, but it happens from time to time and then there is an ozone hole too, be it much smaller and more volatile than in Antarctica…

    • I had also heard that the ozone ‘hole’ had not decreased significantly in size. If that is true and the lack of ozone is the driver for ‘global warming’ then this statement cannot also be true;
      “Global warming was significant from 1970 to 1998,” Ward explains, “caused by manufactured CFC gases depleting the ozone layer and forming the Antarctic Ozone Hole.”
      The ‘significant’ warming should NOT have stopped at 1998.
      Another simplistic theory doesn’t match with observed reality!

    • Also note that an outbreak of polar stratospheric clouds (PMCs) is underway around the Arctic Circle.
      http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=14&month=12&year=2015
      http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/psc1.htm

      PSCs were long regarded as curiosities and of no real consequence. However, Type I clouds are now known as sites of harmful destruction of stratospheric ozone over the Antarctic and Arctic. Their surfaces act as catalysts which convert more benign forms of man-made chlorine into active free radicals (for example ClO, chlorine monoxide). During the return of Spring sunlight these radicals destroy many ozone molecules in a series of chain reactions. Cloud formation is doubly harmful because it also removes gaseous nitric acid from the stratosphere which would otherwise combine with ClO to form less reactive forms of chlorine.

      • Cloud formation is doubly harmful because it also removes gaseous nitric acid from the stratosphere which would otherwise combine with ClO to form less reactive forms of chlorine.

        So NOx is good for us?

  4. Recommended reading: “The Holes in the Ozone Scare” by Rogello A. Maduro & Ralf Schauerhammer. Though released in 1992, it’s available on Amazon for pennies.

  5. That’s the whole problem with the CO2 knob conjecture. I say conjecture because it isn’t a hypothesis. A hypothesis can be tested experimentally; a conjecture is just a guess that can’t be tested. Inferential support doesn’t really cut it. Global warming can be caused by any number of things. Until it is tested experimentally, the correlation of temperature with CO2 is as useful as the correlation of temperature with the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

    • Well, given that the correlation between volume of CO2 and temperature is very weak, I believe it is somewhere around .34, I don’t think it is a ‘useful correlation

  6. The Paris Climate Accord was a solution to two political problems:
    1) Bon Ki Moon
    2) Barak H. Obama.
    Ha ha

    • Ward is not very credible, as he defends that the increase in CO2 is due to the increase in ocean heat content, and that glaciation and deglaciation cycles are controlled by volcanism. I am afraid his CFC theory might have similar holes.

  7. Well I understand at least they are talking temperatures rather than CO2 parts per million. That being the case, another 20 years of non warming and there will be no reason for anyone to do anything.
    Cheers
    Roger
    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
    Of course there will be no stopping UN Agenda 21 unless everyone is aware of it, Agenda 21 will wreck our economies exactly as AGW mitigation threatens to.

  8. rogerthesurf said: “….Of course there will be no stopping UN Agenda 21 unless everyone is aware of it, Agenda 21 will wreck our economies exactly as AGW mitigation threatens to…..”
    I doubt A21 will get much traction for the same reason climate reparations stalled….. national sovereignty. No country will willingly give it up. Look what’s happening to the EU. After all the hype and talk of “One Europe” all they have is another appointed layer of bureaucracy with no teeth. When will people start realizing that the UN has abandoned its’ intended charter and taken a life of its’ own aimed at world governance?

    • “When will people start realizing that the UN has abandoned its’ intended charter and taken a life of its’ own aimed at world governance?”
      About seventy years ago?

      • To be sure, the UN would logically be the ultimate power trip for global necromaniacs. it appears to have no checks and balances or elected representatives. Why would free nations subscribe to its influence under the present paradigm?
        (i’m being serious here, if I’m showing ignorance please correct me.)

        • Dawtgtomis commented: “…. Why would free nations subscribe to its influence under the present paradigm…”
          How did the EU come about? It’s nothing more than a dry run for UN governance. Same concept of appointed bureaucrats deciding what’s best for you. IPCC and AGW? Look at the total control of the media they have. Did you ever think a country would declare CO2 a pollutant or that scientists would lose their jobs for questioning a theory or journalist being fired for dissenting views? Too conspiracy theory centric for the UN seeking world governance? Think again. It’s openly stated in their documents that their goal is to replace Capitalism with Socialism and they are the best organization to make it happen. No UN equals no Global Warming.

      • “Why would free nations subscribe to its influence under the present paradigm?”
        Nations don’t. Politicians do. Some because they’re raving socialists. Some because they’re naive enough to believe UN propaganda. Some because they expect to get a fat, tax-free UN job after they quit working for their national government. Some because their handlers are paying them to.
        Like the EU, the whole point of the UN is to push policies that could never get through national political bodies. If you can’t pass a law locally, you lobby the EU or UN, then say ‘well, sorry, we didn’t want this, but now the EU has passed the law or we’ve signed the UN treaty, we have no choice.’

  9. This possible cause is the sort of thing that is easy to overlook. It’s out of left field, as the phrase goes–not where everyone is looking.

  10. “Sudden warming usually occurs when basaltic lava flows form over large areas,” Ward continues. “Such lava flows deplete Earth’s ozone layer, allowing more solar ultraviolet radiation to reach Earth, causing global warming. … ”

    From the YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary) department:
    Some folks think the sulfur dioxide and particulate matter from volcanos cause global cooling.
    Krakatoa is thought to have done that.

    • Bob:
      You are talking about explosive volcanoes. He is talking about non-explosive, steady flows of basalt, such as are seen in Iceland and Hawaii. Different compositions of magma and different eruptive styles.
      His ideas sound a bit wacky, but at least they are thought provoking. Took a look at his website and it has some interesting and unusual data.

      • The following are not recent but are sizeable. Makes one wonder.
        >The Deccan Traps are a large igneous province located on the Deccan Plateau of west-central India;
        >The Siberian Traps is a large igneous province, in Siberia, Russia;
        >The Columbia River Basalt Group is a large igneous province that lies across parts of eastern Washington & Oregon, and western Idaho (smaller amounts in other states.

      • Marcus,
        We don’t encounter many Polar Bears in central Washington but humans and other animals sometimes get “caught” or worse.
        http://columbiariverimages.com/Images03/wallula_gap_basalt_flows_2003.jpg
        The term “traps” is derived from the Swedish word for stairs (trappa, or sometimes trapp), referring to the step-like hills forming the landscape of the region, which is typical of flood basalts.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Traps

  11. Is it possible the magnetic north pole in relation to the central axis may be having impact on temperature variation? Has anyone done a study to see if there is any connection to magnetic pole position distance from the axis and weather/ocean patterns/solar radiation affects?

  12. “Global warming was significant from 1970 to 1998,” Ward explains, “caused by manufactured CFC gases depleting the ozone layer and forming the Antarctic Ozone Hole.”

    Deja vu for WUWT readers? From two years ago, see:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/11/busted-messaging-cfcs-cause-warming-and-cooling/
    “Our statistical analysis suggests that the reduction in the emissions of ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol, as well as a reduction in methane emissions, contributed to the lower rate of warming since the 1990s.”

    • Werner, over time it will be shown that ozone is not depleted just moves around a lot, most likely caused by the moods of the sun. It will also be found that the CFC scare was complete nonsense and banning it cost the world billions.

  13. http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html
    Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere — almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
    “This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
    The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.
    Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
    “Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”

  14. http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-results-from-inside-the-ozone-hole
    NASA scientists have revealed the inner workings of the ozone hole that forms annually over Antarctica and found that declining chlorine in the stratosphere has not yet caused a recovery of the ozone hole. …. [T]wo new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size.
    The classic metrics create the impression that the ozone hole has improved as a result of the Montreal protocol. In reality, meteorology was responsible for the increased ozone and resulting smaller hole, as ozone-depleting substances that year were still elevated. The study has been submitted to the journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
    “Ozone holes with smaller areas and a larger total amount of ozone are not necessarily evidence of recovery attributable to the expected chlorine decline,” said Susan Strahan of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
    “We are still in the period where small changes in chlorine do not affect the area of the ozone hole, which is why it’s too soon to say the ozone hole is recovering,” Strahan said. “We’re going into a period of large variability and there will be bumps in the road before we can identify a clear recovery.”

  15. We’ve got to stop congratulating people for doing damaging rubbish and then adding “but…”. They must be roundly condemned. Absolutely, and without reservation. The dangerous fools who are running the world’s governments deserve nothing but condemnation for any attempt whatever to reduce the world’s supply of plant food.

  16. The basic question is: what is the real rise in temperature since 1880? If this is known with high accuracy then the second question is: what is the % contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases? What is the contribution of other forcings that comes under greenhouse effect? What is the contribution of non-greenhouse effect — urban-heat-island effect, rural-cold-island effect — land and water use and land and water cover changes?
    Unfortunately met network is concentrated in urban areas — that means urban-heat-island effect is over emphasized — and sparce in rural areas — that means rural-cold-island effect is under emphasized –. This variation must be be carefully studied and then the global temperature must be corrected.
    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  17. “The Paris Climate Accord is an important step forward” After the first two paragraphs this article pretty much says the opposite: greenhouse gases aren’t the cause of the recent global warming therefore the Paris Climate Accord is worthless, or in the words of the author ” they may have been blinded to the real cause of global warming by the laser focus of most climate scientists on greenhouse gas warming. ” It’s hilarious watching authors try to delicately appease the anti CO2 activists….

  18. A hilarious reaction I have seen to the Paris meeting is from Kees le Pair, a Dutch skeptic:
    Thanks to Paris, one year later the world is saved from CO2 and its catastrophic consequences (including some translation errors from the original Dutch version):
    http://www.clepair.net/wereldredding-eng.html
    King Canute should be proud to see that he has worthy descendants if he was still alive…
    If you can’t convince them with science, do it with humor…

    • I read recently that King Kanute has gotten a bad rap and that his show to demonstrate that he could not command the tides was purposeful to show his subjects that there were things even the King could not command. Don’t know how valid that is or not tho.
      I prefer to think of COP21 more in line with the Roman Emperor Caligula’s ‘War with Neptune’ in which he commanded two legions (~10,000 men) to ‘attack’ the sea (on the coast of France) and retrieve booty (sea shells) declaring a ‘victory’ over the God.

      • Tangent. As a native Floridian it kills me that the people of Miami beach seem to think that Paris is going to save them from tidal flooding. Go get some more fill and raise (or maybe raze) it up a couple of feet. It’s been done before in larger cities. The real problem here is all whine and no action.

  19. The best solution to any problem posed by the climate is prosperity. The worst tHing we can do in the face of any climate challenge is impoverish ourselves through useless posturing. In what way is this an important step forward? In what way do these people deserve praise?
    “Historical”? I certainly hope not. Historical is not necessarily a good thing.

  20. It would be great to hear from the ozone hole orthodoxy about these issues. Careers and fortunes have been built on ozone depletion via CFCs. Dessler comes to mind in light of the political power he developed, along with his pressuring academics to sign off on agreements

  21. “But are We Solving the Right Problem?”
    Heck, are we solving ANY problem?
    For that matter, is there a problem to be solved?
    Hmm…

  22. …An Important Step Forward, But are We Solving the Right Problem?…
    If you are not addressing the ‘right’ problem, how can you claim that this is a step FORWARD?

  23. I’m sorry Dr Ward, but, anyone who has read the ‘historic agreement’ cannot, in good faith, call it an ‘important step forward’. It is about as empty and agreement as I have ever seen. The only thing it ‘commits’ ‘developed nations’ of the signatories to do is 1) create voluntary ‘national goals’ for overall emission reduction (taking into account sources & SINKS – without defining what exactly is a sink and how much said sinks actually absorb) without any corresponding commitment to actually meet those goals, 2) ‘refine’ the voluntary ‘goals’ every 5 years (hopefully making them ‘more ambitious’ – the goals not the actual reductions, if any), 3) file reports with a new bureaucracy that will sit on a shelf somewhere and most likely never be read. It ‘commits’ the ‘developing nations’ to proceed as they have been and continue to increase their ‘CO2 emissions without limit until 2030 at which time they have to ‘think about’ how they might reduce their emissions. That is, of course, if they don’t decide to ‘opt out’.
    In truth this ‘historic agreement’ is less definitive than Kyoto (which nobody followed either).
    It really reminds me of the old Soviet ‘5 year plans’.
    Watch the segment in the movie ‘Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ concerning the ‘management consultants’ dealing with the threat of a planet killing meteor for a comparison to COP21.

  24. The size of Manhattan….33 square miles. Deccan Traps? The Columbia Plateau? The Columbia Plateau is 100,000 square miles. So even if a quarter of the area, 25,000 square miles, was a seething cauldron….roughly 750 times the effect, times 0.02 degree per 33 square miles….15 degrees! Chik-ching!
    But wait….using one relatively tiny fissure eruption to confirm a dubious “warmest year”….? Man, that’s desperate for grant money. Facepalm.

  25. Hypocrisy was the main feature of Paris. Thousands jetted in adding no value except their own aggrandizement. Typical socialists want every one except themselves to make sacrifices Gore and his electricity usage. When making funds available to the third world came up delegates yawned and left the room. Developing countries are losing the tools provided by capitalism -oil and coal and getting no help. So called aid money never reaches its intended destination. Hypocrites. They don’t really care.

  26. It occurred to me to say CONGRATULATIONS! we are already well on the way to cooling the planet by taking the steps we have already taken. You see, according to calibrated satellite measurements, the earth has cooled slightly since 2003 (A better claim than NO cooling since 1998, and very true). Obviously, they way overestimated what it takes to stop the warming, and nothing more need be done. ALSO, as cooling accelerates per Theodor Landscheidt, Carl Smith, and Geoff Sharp (see http://wp.me/p4unP5-8T) for the next 20 years, the sensitivity will be shown to be either negative or zero. BASICALLY, there is no urgency to STOP warming, and there will be urgency to MAKE warming as deadly cold grips the Earth with increased cloud cover that shades solar panels.

Comments are closed.