FYI: The NB “On Global Warming” in this “Response to Financial Times Gideon Rachman’s ‘And now for a world government’”
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/12/responseto-ft-gideon-rachman-worldgov.html

examines why “global warming” is actually a necessity.

begin excerpt:

Applying that prioritizing, or weightage if you will, principle to this topic of “Global Warming”, one observes that the coefficient, or the bit position, or weightage occupied by the planetary level changes in the solar system due to sun’s activity is actually a higher order bit position, than the contribution to the measurements from human activity.

And as is entirely obvious from Mr. Gideon Rachman’s article why this is politically motivated, the reasons become clear why this confusion is deliberately being created. If you accept the Capitalist conspiracy for world government, as I have described it, and if you accept the NSSM-200 agenda for population reduction as I have also described it, tying in the hand of Rockefeller to the UN and their agenda for population reduction (citations for these statements are in my various essays), then you must realize why the ruling elite wants to control ‘life activity’, and carbon-credit is their architecture of control!

It is somewhat akin to acquiring control of a nation’s money supply in the guise of managing the economy better. Few in the public understand why such a control is bad anyway, but those who do try to understand it are thrown layers upon layers of obfuscation. Something similar is happening here. Think of acquiring control of ‘carbon-credits’ almost equivalent to acquiring control of a nation’s money supply! This will control every aspect of sustaining life, just as control of money determines every aspect of sustaining the economy. You name it, between the two of them, it will control it in a world-government. And the first recipient of these controls, the carbon-credit specifically, is the developing world, the Global South, because that is where development must be arrested, and populations thinned out! Just as control of money was first exercised where there was a superfluity of industry and commerce, control of ‘carbon-credit’ is intended to be exercised where there is a superfluity of populations aspiring to grow their nascent economies!

end excerpt

I fear that many well meaning scientists and those with great scientific acumen are getting bogged down by rebutting the global warming mantra without realizing that “it takes a sentence to construct a lie, considerably more space to unravel it”.

Since an infinite numbers of lies are always possible, and more to the point, believable by an indoctrinated public, one can spend one’s lifetime refuting them and still not be done by them. That conveniently neutralizes doing anything useful in disturbing the agenda, when one can hardly see the agenda. Therefore, it would seem logical, to attack the motivation which seeds the lie and repeatedly exposing that motivation alongside each lie, might have a bit more efficacy.

Thank you.
Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

“The computer models have proven to be an absolute joke.”

Really? Document your assertion. And define “absolute joke.” It is the nature of computer modeling that as a model grows more complex it will be harder to verify. The increased complexity means that a small tweak in one area or another can radically change the results. On the other hand, the more complex the model, the closer it is to actually representing the modeled reality.

I already did document this assertion – please read above. There is not one computer model that can reflect history when actual measured data is entered into them.

I looked at your link http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/2030

- and it says

Critics of global warming hold the hypothesis that global warming doesn’t exist because it isn’t seen in the atmosphere by satellites,” Keller said. “This observation by our team potentially eliminates one of the prime objections to global-warming theory.

Your study is responding to an argument that neither myself, nor any of my sources have made.

“Surface Warming doesn’t matter that much” – I was referring to warming caused by urban and irrigated areas. Solar warming, which we have been seeing from 1976 to 1998, does matter but man doesn’t cause that.

“according to whom” you asked – again please read the links and evidence above. If you don’t examine the evidence I posted there is no point in having the conversation.

“The Troposphere has warmed” – yes but it has not warmed in the ratio needed to indicate CO2 greenhouse warming. Again examine the evidence I posted above and the other statements made by the experts in the BBC documentary.

And remember to be careful with studies as they are often contradictory to one degree or another and many are just done to get grant money..

You know Will, in 30 years when I am shown to be right on this issue… especially now that global temps have started to fall slightly since 1998, you need to remember that Google will have this cached forever :-) The “I told you so’s” are going to be rough :-)

The computer models have proven to be an absolute joke.

Really? Document your assertion. And define “absolute joke.” It is the nature of computer modeling that as a model grows more complex it will be harder to verify. The increased complexity means that a small tweak in one area or another can radically change the results. On the other hand, the more complex the model, the closer it is to actually representing the modeled reality…. All you can do is work to make your models better and constantly test them against the real world data. This process has been going on since the 70s.

Besides that, we don’t need computer models to show that CO2 traps heat and that global surface temperatures have increased, as I illustrated above.

Surface warming really doesnt matter much./blockquote>

According to whom? We all live on the surface, not 5 miles up in the troposphere. The surface of the earth has warmed. That is a fact.

The little ice age and medieval warm period: most evidence suggests that these were regional events, not evidence of worldwide warming or cooling.

CO2 vs. water vapor: water vapor is not a forcing. Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for only a short time before it precipitates out. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades. Water vapor, then, is not a greenhouse gas. It reacts to warming and cooling in the atmosphere and can amplify or mask this warming or cooling on a local scale. CO2, on the other hand, causes warming, and will be in the atmosphere regardless of local weather events, warming/cooling etc.

Tropospheric temperature:

From your post above:

“the actual temperature readings of the atmosphere show no such increase in temperature in the troposphere.”

Actually the temperature in the troposphere has increased. See wikipedia for a basic overview.

For one thing, the data shows that the troposphere has indeed warmed – even Christy’s own data shows this when corrections are made.

A cooling troposphere and global warming can co-exist

One peer reviewed paper (among many) that says the troposphere is warming:

Global Warming Trend of Mean Tropospheric Temperature Observed by Satellites

There are differences btw what the models predict for the troposphere and what we see.. but the differences are not large, and they are not reason to throw the whole theory out the window.

I applaud your skepticism, Chuck, but I encourage you to be skeptical of the global warming skeptics as well. Much of the evidence you’ve put into your post is either old or discredited.

Surface warming is not “global warming” in the context we have been talking about. Surface warming really doesnt matter much. Take a look at Dr. Christy’s lecture to see why.

The medievel warming period was warmer than it is now – in fact during that time Scottland was growing grapes for their booming wine business. (10th century to the 14th cenrury) and the little ice age, a time when solar activity was at a minimum, had the Times River freezing over.

Also Will, with all due respect – computer models mean absolutely nothing. Not a one of them can predict known global temps in history when the actual measured Earth data is put in.

No temperature has increased drastically as you stated – we are talking about half a degree in 100 years and it varies. Global temps are never static, they are always either rising or falling. Global temps dropped between 1940 and 1975 rose some until 1998 and now we are seeing a slight cooling. The Earth has repeatedly gotten warmer and cooler than what we have seen in the last 200 years and it did not amount to anything even close to a “threat to humanity” as you put it. With all due respect – that is pure alarmist nonsense.

Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas – but compared to the other greenhouses gases it is an almost insignificant one. CO2 is a trace gas – its is a fraction of 1% of the atmosphere. Water vapor is by far the greatest greenhouse gas and nothing even comes close to it.

The floods in Iowa have nothing to do with global warming – look at the recent weather pattterns that brought a large warm air mass and a large cool air mass together right over Iowa.

Keep in mind that for every study you can show me – I can show you one that says something different, but lets stick to raw data sets of actual measured temps. The computer models have proven to be an absolute joke.

I won’t be able to address every point you’ve made in your comments.

First I’ll say that the earth’s surface has, without a doubt, warmed. We can confirm this in a variety of ways. First there is the temperature data. This data shows a clear warming trend. Perhaps there are problems with this data as you mention in your point #7 below. But that is not the only confirmation.

Species distribution has shifted northward and to higher altitudes. We can see this all over the globe.

For example:

‘This is a region where climate models indicate rapid warming and a 50-year observation program has shown a water temperature increase of two degrees Celsius,’ Dr Okey says.

‘As a result, sub-tropical introductions to the Tasmanian east coast are already altering the habitat of a whole range of species, and introducing new species such as the sea urchin.’

Wherever there are records, scientists are comparing them and finding that spring warming is happening earlier every year. Various species are being seen further and further north than ever before. They are also disappearing from the southern parts of their ranges.

The north polar ice cap has shrunk alarmingly, much faster than any model has predicted. Humans have not seen this low level of sea ice since we started keeping records.

Next: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is a basic fact of physics and is not debated by anyone. CO2 has increased in the atmosphere over the past 200 years. 100 years ago, Svante Arrhenius predicted that a mere doubling of the concentration of CO2 would lead to global warming. The earth has warmed since then. In the 1970′s, using the first computer models, scientists working for the US government put out the Charney report which predicted global warming due to increased CO2. The temperature has increased dramatically since the 1970s. In the 1980s, James Hansen told Congress that earth’s temperature would increase because of CO2. The temperature has increased drastically since then.

Your point #4:

When you look at the raw data sets you can see the temps during the last 200 years are WELL within the Earth high and low temp cycles that we know have happened over thousands of years.

I’ll just quote from my own blog here:

Temperatures are most likely warmer now than they have been at any time in the past 400 years. They are probably (slightly less certain) warmer than in the past 1200 years, perhaps (less certain) warmer than in the past 12,000 years, and new evidence suggests that we are approaching the warmest temperatures this planet has seen in a million years.

The links in that quote were old when I used them a couple of years ago, there is probably better evidence out there now.

I am still studying the mystery of the troposphere when I have time, but it seems to me that the discrepancy in tropospheric temperature is not a good enough reason to throw the whole theory of AGW out the window.

There are indeed other mechanisms at work in the global climate. It is foolish to concentrate entirely on CO2 emissions as the sole villain. Land use changes create global warming without adding CO2 to the air, as you pointed out. Logging, farming, and other land use changes also add greenhouse gases. And it seems almost an intractable problem to provide electricity to the world without releasing CO2. I won’t disagree with you there. But global warming is here, a big part of it is caused by CO2, and it is part of a grander problem with the earth’s biosphere that will threaten humanity in the near future. You think the fact that there have been 2 500 year floods in Iowa in the past 15 years is just a coincidence?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5045549&page=1

/quote

The time to act is now, says Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute.

“The 21st century is going to be the century which determine[s] whether we live or die as a sustainable species,” Gleick said. “As populations grow, as our use of resources grows, I think we get closer and closer to that edge.”

Experts say that extreme changes in climate, combined with dwindling resources, famine, war and disease have the potential to create a post-apocalyptic world in less than a hundred years. Harvard University and Woods Hole climatologist John Holdrens says we cannot continue going down the same path.

“If we continue on business as usual, we are going to see more floods, more droughts, more heat waves, more wildfires, more ice melting, faster sea level rise,” Holdren said.

“We really have less than a decade to start getting this right. If we’re still dragging our feet in 2015 I think it really becomes at that point almost impossible for the world to avert a degree of climate change that we simply will not be able to manage without intolerable cost and consequences.”
/endquote

Wow, how grossly irresponsible.

You know the problem with most of the Man is causing catastrophic global warming thing is:

1.
CO2 is a trace gas – double it and its still a trace gas – in the realm of greenhouse gasses it is a tiny player. The Earth also compensates in several ways when the Earth warms with smaller cirrus clouds that allow more heat to radiate away and increases in the calcium-carbonate cycle to take more CO2 out of the air etc etc etc..

2.
The vast majority of the “evidence” that got the media and such all riled up were computer models that have proven to be greatly flawed. Computer models STILL cant even predict known history when given solid data. Now this has generated huge amounts of grant money for universities and political activists – so many jobs are depending on the idea of “the crisis”

3.
So much of the earlier “solid data” is greatly flawed in the way it was collected.

4.
When you look at the raw data sets you can see the temps during the last 200 years are WELL within the Earth high and low temp cycles that we know have happened over thousands of years.

5. For each study you can show there is likely another that shows the opposite or something different.

6. Articles in science mags and such are now telling us that certain studies are done “in order to refute others” – well those of us who know our Francis Bacon know what that means.

7. Remember that as man devolops land, builds cities and roads, and irrigates land – all of this warms the surface temps. Global temps have been measured by the daytime high and the night-time low. Because of that at night atmosphereic temps in those areas dont normallize until a slightly higher altitude. The result is a flawed result that tells you that “global” temps are amplified higher than a compensated result that would give you a more accurate “Global temp” number.

It seems that there has indeed been less warming of the troposphere than expected. This is something that I am researching right now for myself. I’ll try to post what I find out in a few days.

Is your reason for posting here an effort to further academic discussion or attacking me?

If it is furthering academic discussion you can read the article which references studies that are named allowing you to find the studies in mere minutes.

Of course – its so much easier to attack and auto-dismiss an article about some studies than to have to do the work and go look at the studies they refer to isnt it? – After all its sure is easier to do that and attack me, than to look at the information and try to deal with it point by point isnt it?

I tell ya what – if you want to see the British data set that shows a mild cooling since 1998 – its really easy – just google “cooling since 1998″ and you will be presented with articles that have links to the very studies so you can go look at the dataset yourself. – Of course if your academic curiosity was genuine you would have already done this before you posted.

I hope that you enjoyed Dr. Christy’s lecture.

Dont take refuge in the false security of consensus

- Chris Hitchens

Just an FYI: there’s nothing wrong with reprinting (with attribution) a public position statement issued by an organization. Indeed, the whole point of such a statement is for wide dispersal. In this case, the American Geophysical Union is specifically trying to educate the public about the true state of affairs within the scientific community regarding the fact of global warming and its likely causes.

I’m disappointed you refer to such a clearly written statement as a “massive wall of text” and think that nobody would read it, but frankly, a lot of your confusion about the state of climate science could be cleared up if you would take the time to do so.

The 2003 AGU position statement that Dr. Christy signed can be found readily at the AGU website. Notably, it was “Revised and Reaffirmed” in December 2007. I’d post links, but am pretty sure that would bounce this post.

You also wrote:
“By the way – have you seen the increasing amount of studies showing that the Earth has stopped warming and actually cooled some since 1998?”

No. I actually haven’t seen any studies that support this statement. I don’t count an article written in “The National Post” as a study. What point are you trying to make here? It seems you are explicitly challenging the fact of global warming.

Here is a 1 hour lecture by Dr. Christy on this subject complete with video slides. October 4th 2007 at Auburn university. It is simply devestating to the global warming othodoxy.

http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal+Erupts+over+NOAA+Climate+Data/article8347.htm

New Scandal Erupts over NOAA Climate Data
- August 7, 2007

The theory of global warming began to explain one simple set of factsm– surface temperature monitoring stations have shown a roughly one degree rise over the past century. But just where does these temperature readings come from? Most are reported by volunteer stations, usually no more than a thermometer inside a small wooden hut or below a roof overhang. In the US, 1,221 such stations exist, all administered by the National Climatic Data Center, a branch of the NOAA.

Two months ago, I reported on an effort to validate this network. A volunteer group headed by meteorologist Anthony Watts had found serious problems. Not only did sites fail to meet the NCDC’s requirements, but encroaching development had put many in ridiculously unsuitable locations — on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=d7c7fcce-d248-4e97-ab72-1adbdbb1d0d0

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, February 25, 2008

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.”

…….

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its “lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

…….

And it’s not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.

According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona — two prominent climate modellers — the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

“We missed what was right in front of our eyes,” says Prof. Russell. It’s not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind’s effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as “a drop in the bucket.” Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to “stock up on fur coats.”

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

—— There is more but if I paste in more the spam filter will likely boot the post so go read the rest and there are several more articles and studies such as this that have come out recently.

In an interview with National Public Radio about the new AGU statement, he said: It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way.

More recently, in a publication in the series Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy he said:[1]

“I showed some evidence that humans are causing warming in the surface measurements that we have but it is not the greenhouse relation.”

Christy has also said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is “still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels.”[2]

1. Perlman, David. “Earth warming at faster pace, say top science group’s leaders”, San Francisco Chronicle, December 18, 2003, pp. A-6.

2. Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy: Satellite Temperatures by John Christy & Roy Spencer (PDF). George C. Marshall Institute (April 17,2006).

OK so what is Dr. Christy saying in the big picture. –
Surface temps will rise in urban environments – urban warming is a no brainer – plowing forests cause surface temps to rise and is also a no brainer. BUT – does this translate to the greenhouse effect that we are talking about and the degree that the conventional media wisdom says? Clearly Christy says no.

While you can make an argument that human activity has an effect on climate – there is the old saying that each time a butterfly flaps its wings it affects the climate. When people say, be it me or Dr. Christy or whomever, that humans are not the cause global warming that is obviously not meant as an absolute, because there are very few absolutes, what we are saying is that mans activity is not a major cause of warming based on greenhouse effect and that there were other more significant causes of the warming when it was happening.

It is important to remember that the Earth has both warmed and cooled a great deal more than we are seeing now and has done so repeatedly in the past when industrial activity was miniscule or even nonexistent.

The question at large is – have changes in CO2 ever played a significant role as a climate driver in global temps in measured history? Dr. Ian Clark a leading paleo-climatologist from the University of Ottawa says, “If we look at climate in the geological timeframe we would never suspect CO2 as a major climate driver. You can’t say that CO2 will drive climate. It certainly never did in the past.”

Hi Chuck et al.,

I’m confused as to why Dr. Christy is being quoted in an article entitled, “Top Scientists Say: You Are Not the Cause of Global Warming”.

He signed a 2003 (five years ago!) statement by the American Geophysical Union entitled, “Human Impacts on Climate”. I’ll paste it at the end of this post.

Here’s an excerpt from a 2003 David Perlman article in the San Francisco Chronicle after the AGU issued the statement:

QUOTE: In a phone interview, Christy said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is “still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels.”

“It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn’t been increased in the past century.” END QUOTE

I suspect Chuck’s real issue is with catastrophic claims about future effects of global warming, or perhaps that the risk to our economy from drastically reducing CO2 emissions could outweigh the environmental benefits, but quoting Christy to support the actual title of this article doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

Will – Your posts refer to the stratosphere – Dr. Christy is talking about the Troposphere where the greenhouse effect takes place.

Dr. Christy is the man who came up with the method that we use now to measure atmospheric temperatures. Including the ones that NASA uses.

Says Dr. Christie, “What we have found consistently, in a great part of the planet that the bulk of the atmosphere is not warming as much as we see at the surface and that is a real head-scratcher for us because the theory is pretty straight forward; that if the surface warms the upper atmosphere should warm rapidly. The rise in temperature of that part of the atmosphere is not very dramatic at all and really does not match the theory that the climate models are expressing.”

——–

What? Greenhouse theory states that the greenhouse effect will warm the surface of the earth and lead to cooling of the upper atmosphere:

“An enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause cooling in higher parts of the atmosphere because the increased “blanketing” effect in the lower atmosphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the upper atmosphere. Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500ft.) since 1979 is shown by both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data, but is larger in the radiosonde data.”

from: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

See also:

Global Warming Causes Stratospheric Cooling

http://www.wunderground.com/education/strato_cooling.asp

Where are the links to your sources?

Global Warming Alarmists Beware… http://www.EvilCarbon.com