Global Warming - Page 7

My article was referenced to a scientist.

Your article was some Aussie blogger named John Cook.

 

Global Warming

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.

But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800′s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ‘skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate.

Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/target-bermuda-will-hurricane-gonzalo-rival-fabian/

Still didn't watch the video, did you?

Not from that site... I got better things to do...

At least the two I posted today are from scientists, the last one a former NASA scientist...

All of the information contained in the video has citations from scientists, not using IPCC or computer generated models.   It would do you good to watch it, if you can refute anything in it, go for it.

It would do you good to read this article that shows where the global warming money actually goes.

https://w3.newsmax.com/LP/Finance/CTI/Cold-Truth?dkt_nbr=bcqao7kn

Remeber I said follow the money? Here is your chance...

Every single thing you've posted has been cherry picked for evidence that there is cooling instead of a steady warming.  You are not understanding the science behind global climate, you seem to want to rely on looking out the window to see if it's hot or cold.  There are fluctuations and there will be colder winters and cooler summers, but that is not a trend, when compared to the data overall.  You also don't seem to be able to understand the difference in ice from increased moisture in the atmostphere and ice that is leaving anchored land masses.    So, instead of picking through articles that show cooling and then stating that it's proof climate change isn't happening due to human emission of carbon, why don't you look at all of the data?,

Why don't you follow the money trail, the web of false data, the grants etc.

These are the same people that brought you Ebola, so they must be right. Duh

Believe what you want, your opinion won't change mine.

 

ML why don't you follow the money trail, your boy works for deniers for hire, will re-post details about for those that are interested in truth, but your boy;

from source watch.

Dr Spencer gave evidence to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works session on climate change. During the hearing (at 3hr 20s), Dr Spencer was asked by Democrat committee member Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: “Do you believe that the theory of creation actually has a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution”.

The question was apparently in reference to an article which Spencer had written several years earlier in which he stated the “theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution”.

Spencer answered that he believed that “evolutionary theory is mostly religion” and that the DNA molecule could not have happened “by chance”. He also claimed that if he was placed in a debate, he would be able to offer more scientific evidence “supporting that life was created” than an opponent could offer that life had evolved. 

July, 2011

In July 2011, a paper co-authored by Spencer was published in the journal Remote Sensing, “[which is] a fine [peer-reviewed] journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science,” RealClimate found. [6]

His paper looked at a potential connection between clouds and global warming. The paper received significant media attention, and climate change skeptics claimed that it “blow[s] a gaping hole in global warming alarmism.” [7]

Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell's paper, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, so refuting Spencer's claims.

In Andrew Dessler's view, “[This] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.” [8]

In response to the flawed peer review that allowed the publication of the paper, the Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing stepped down. He had this to say: (PDF)

“After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.

With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements…” [9]

April, 2010

Spencer published The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climatologists which is prominently advertised on his blog. 

Apart from concluding that global warming is likely caused by a natural cycle, Blunder poses the question, that “maybe putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing.”

2008

Spencer published Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor in 2008.

Confusion is described as “forsaking blindingly technical statistics” about global warming to describe the issue in “simple terms.” [10]

March 8, 2007

Roy Spencer appeared on the The Great Global Warming Swindle to talk about the “Great Science Funding Conspiracy.” Spencer claims that “climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.” 

Swindle received critical response from the scientific community, including a letter addressed to ABC signed by thirty-seven British Scientists that claimed “the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed.”

ABC Australia’s Tony Jones also brings the film's scientific accuracy into question in an interview with the film’s director, Martin Durkin.

February 28, 2007

Roy Spencer was interviewed on Rush Limbaugh's Show. See an excerpt below: [11]

RUSH: You called yesterday and you wanted to say that my instincts on this global warming as you've heard me discuss them, are accurate. You started a discussion of the calculations here, these climate models, saying that they do not factor – because it's not easy to do or maybe it's not even possible to factor – in the role of precipitation and clouds. Could you start there, and basically whatever you were going to say yesterday, go ahead and launch.

DR. SPENCER: Well, I feel like – and there are a few of us that are like this – that the Earth has a natural air-conditioning process which occurs that is mainly through precipitation systems. Now, people will think, “Oh, well, you mean when they come by they cool off the air,” and that's not what I'm talking about. It's about the Earth's natural greenhouse effect which is mostly water vapor and clouds. The Earth has a natural greenhouse effect that keeps the surface of the Earth warm.

RUSH: Isn't it true that the majority of greenhouse gases do come from the sources you just mentioned, not manmade sources?

DR. SPENCER: Well, yeah, that's true. Carbon dioxide is a relatively small part of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect… .

There's a big problem with [the accepted explanation for the greenhouse effect], though. It makes it sound like the greenhouse effect is what determines the temperature of the Earth, and actually the truth is it's more the other way around. Given a certain amount of sunlight coming in, that is mostly absorbed at the surface of the Earth, weather processes happen which create the greenhouse effect because most of the greenhouse effect is from evaporated water which then turns into clouds, and of course water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas.

RUSH: I dare say I have to interrupt you at this point because most people who only pay attention to the crisis mongers, believe that there is no greenhouse effect other than that created by man. The whole notion of the greenhouse effect has led people to believe that man has totally manufactured this and that it's totally harmful. What you're saying is it's a natural thing that helps keep the Earth's temperatures moderate?

DR. SPENCER: Yeah, that's right. That's right. All the scientists agree with that. What you're talking about is the fact that the media distorts things so much that people don't get the right information. If you're using the media to rely on to get the science about this issue, you won't.

December 13, 2007

Spencer is listed as a signatory to a 2007 open letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon that denied man-made climate change. [12]

The letter states that “it is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity throughout the ages.”

July, 2006

Spencer is listed as a “scientific advisor” for an organization called the “Interfaith Stewardship Alliance” (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is “a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development.”

In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including six that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years. [13]

The other authors of the ISA's report were Calvin Beisner, Paul Driessen, and Ross McKitrick.

April, 2006

Roy Spencer was one of the 60 “accredited experts” to sign a 2006 open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper denying man-made climate change while urging the government avoid implementing climate policy. 

The letter states that “climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'”

August, 2005

According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known “skeptic,” John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer. [14]

“These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,” said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.

November 16, 2004

Spencer signed a 2004 open letter to John McCain refuting the findings by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). [15]

The letter concludes that any past warming that occurred in the arctic cannot be attributed to greenhouse gas concentrations.  It was signed by prominent climate change skeptics including Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, David Legates, Pat Michaels, Gary D. Sharp, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.

1998

Spencer appeared as a “Featured Expert” in a video by the Greening Earth Society (a project of the Western Fuels Association) called The Greening of Planet Earth Continues. In the video, “expert scientists assert that CO2 is not a pollutant, but a nutrient to life on earth.” [16]