Download PDF Global Warming False Alarm, 2nd Edition

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Global Warming False Alarm, 2nd Edition file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Global Warming False Alarm, 2nd Edition book. Happy reading Global Warming False Alarm, 2nd Edition Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Global Warming False Alarm, 2nd Edition at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Global Warming False Alarm, 2nd Edition Pocket Guide.

We only understand 10 percent of the climate issue. That is not enough to wreck the world economy with Kyoto-like measures. The minute you begin to believe your own hypothesis, you're a dead duck as a scientist. We've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming, they have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say. I would freely admit that on global warming we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy. I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.

Skepticism is the highest of duties, and unverified belief the one unpardonable sin. A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect. We have to offer up scary scenarios about global warming Keith will do likewise. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril! The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

We are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter We are not close to balancing the energy budget. Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC Report] somehow - even if we have to redefine what the "peer-review literature" is! If I were on the greenhouse deniers' side, I would.. Mike, the figure you sent is very deceptive [ Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere This is just downright dangerous.

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what's included and what is left out [of the IPCC Reports]. What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They'll kill us probably. Weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from the sun alone.

I am not convinced that the 'truth' is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships". Thomas J. This will reduce the cooling in Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Explaining the cooling with sulphates won't be quite as necessary. It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain.

I also got recently a paper from Rob which says 'London's UHI [Urban Heat Island effect] has indeed become more intense since the s especially during spring and summer'. We found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed. Raymond S. How can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out years in the middle of his calibration, when we're throwing out all post data. It will not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the question of how the climate will change in many decades time.

There is no individual model that does well in all of the SST [sea surface temperature] and water vapor tests we've applied. So using the 20th century for tuning [the IPCC models] is just doing what some people have long suspected us of doing. Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not got enough middle and low level clouds. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well hidden.

Very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it? Carlin, Alan, "Environmentalism Gone Mad", , here. Hughes, A. Taking the heat island effect into account, the satellite data therefore shows less warming than the land and sea surface records relied on by the IPCC.

Figure 2. According to the IPCC, the rate for the period since has been 0. Not only does NOAA exaggerate the warming rate, but the exaggeration also grows bigger over time, as can be seen by looking carefully at Figure 2. The vertical scale shows the temperature anomaly in oC. A very recent reanalysis of the U. Using a new WMO-approved methodology for rating weather station siting, a study led by meteorologist Anthony Watts has found that published U. But the Watts study concludes that the corrected U. The reduction called for is roughly consistent with the need to lower measured U.

But even if reported global land and sea temperatures are inflated by 0. Even at 0. Good science demands intellectual honesty, including correction of data for bias.

  1. Familiar Letters on Chemistry.
  2. See a Problem?.
  3. Forests People and Power: The Political Ecology of Reform in South Asia (The Earthscan Forest Library).
  4. Global Warming False Alarm, 2nd Edition, Ralph B Alexander - Shop Online for Books in Australia;
  5. Knowledge True and False: Scientific Logic and Climate Change | Mar. | CSEG RECORDER.
  6. Ralph B. Alexander.

The episode is well documented elsewhere but bears repeating here. The temperature has fluctuated, both up and down, but there has been almost no change in the CO2 concentration until modern times — the CO2 steady level problem referred to in Table 1. How was this historical data obtained? Measurement of temperature using scientific thermometers goes back only to the early 18th century, and accurate determination of the CO2 level has been pos- sible only for the last 55 years or so.

Temperature and CO2 data for earlier periods come from so-called proxy methods, or indirect measurements using sources such as tree rings, ice cores, leaf fossils or boreholes.

Attack of the climate-denial books - Columbia Journalism Review

Each of these proxy methods has its limitations. Although the most commonly used proxy for temperature is tree-ring data, some paleoclimatologists clima- tologists who study the past believe that tree rings are unreliable indicators. This is because the widths of tree rings respond not only to temperature, but also to other factors such as moisture and CO2.

However, the data in Figure 2. The distinctly noticeable warm spell seen around the year is known to historians as the Medieval Warm Period, a time when warmer than normal conditions were reported in many parts of the world.

Attack of the climate-denial books

The cool period centered around the year has been labeled the Little Ice Age and is also reported in various historical records. But there is no sign at all of these warming and cooling periods in the CO2 data for the same timespan, which is based on ice-core proxies. For the CO2 hypothesis to be correct, the temperature and CO2 level must go hand in hand, for all periods of time including the last 2, years.

Oddly enough, the IPCC seemed unaware of this problem in its First Assess- ment Report in that showed a temperature graph for the last 1, years, with both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age not only included, but clearly labeled Figure 2. Yet the Third Assessment Report in told a radically different story. In their place was a fairly flat-looking graph Figure 2. At a stroke, the IPCC solved its problem. The temperature record for the past 2, years indeed showed the same behavior as the CO2 level and other greenhouse gases , and the IPCC could now proclaim that it was right about Figure 2.

If the panel was rewriting history at the same time, so be it. The hockey stick graph was largely the work of Michael Mann, an IPCC author then at the University of Massachusetts, who published two papers in and reconstructing historical temperatures for the period from to , based predominantly on tree-ring data. Intertwined with this pre proxy record was the 20th century thermometer record. The IPCC graph had an immediate visual and political impact. Not well-known about the hockey stick is that the splicing together of tree- ring and thermometer data was done simply because much of the tree-ring data indicates a temperature downturn after about , contrary to thermometer readings.

A reconstruction of historical temperatures up until the present using tree rings alone would therefore not exhibit the characteristic hockey stick shape, since the upturned blade of the stick comes primarily from the modern thermometer data depicted in Figure 1. To produce a hockey stick and get the alarmist message across, Mann and the IPCC deceptively retained the earlier tree-ring data but ignored the recent tem- perature downtrend in later data, substituting thermometer readings instead. It was highly convenient, of course, that the bristlecone growth surge happened to reinforce the IPCC claim in the s that global warming was accelerating.

That claim has turned out to be false. Either you use all the tree-ring data, or none at all. At almost the same time, the U. House Committee on Science, which had been charged by the National Research Council NRC of the National Academy of Science to report on temperature data for the last 2, years, came to similar conclusions.

The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly to is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources At one stage, he defended the absence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from his temperature reconstruction by saying that these were local rather than global phenomena, and restricted to small regions of the Northern Hemisphere.

The difficulty with this explanation is that there is ample historical evidence from around the world, including the Southern Hemi- sphere, of the existence of both climate periods. Its Fourth Assessment Report grudgingly conceded that the hockey stick graph in the report was controversial, and that a more careful reconstruction of the temperature record does indeed show medieval warmth and chillier conditions during the Little Ice Age.

The research was enough, nevertheless, to gain Deming admission to the alarmist club: With the publication of the article in Science They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. This is required by the Co2 hypothesis. Global warming is exaggerated by 0. The bias is consistent with satellite data showing lower warming. NoAA boosts global warming by stretching the surface temperature record, which is steadily diverging from the temperature measured by NoAA satellites.

GISS magnifies global warming by contracting past tem- peratures, rewriting the U. To match temperature to the Co2 level over the last 2, years, the IPCC rewrote history by eliminating the well- established medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, creating the erroneous hockey stick graph. But the dishon- esty goes beyond inflating temperature measurements and being deceitful with tree-ring data.

In a blatant extension of the hockey stick saga, one of the major custodians of temperature data has begun tampering with the U. Nevertheless, the analyses play a key role in estimating how much global warming the planet has undergone. GISS spe- cializes in doing the same thing, mostly with past U. That is, GISS deliberately tamps down old temperature read- ings so as to make the past seem cooler than it really was.

And while the original data showed to be 0. Table 2. According to a report from the CRU, — and no longer — was the hottest year on record globally, allegedly based on a recent analysis of land temperatures that includes new data from weather stations in the Arctic. If submitted as part of a science thesis by a PhD student in a reputable institution, any one of these efforts alone would be enough to fail the student. The misdeeds include extensive data manipulation; subterfuge to keep tem- perature data and computer codes from being released to outside researchers who wanted to perform independent analyses; destruction of records; and interfer- ence with the peer review process to prevent contrary scientific papers from being published.

All in the name of the CO2 theory of global warming and its assertion that temperatures today are the highest in more than 1, years. And even in the Fourth Assessment Report in , suppression of the post data71 is only mentioned in passing, as part of a general discussion on the limitations of tree rings as a proxy. Climate scientist and IPCC lead author Jonathan Over- peck, who is quoted here, is rumored to be the source of the email mentioned earlier in the chapter on completely eliminating the Medieval Warm Period from the historical record. A second major transgression concerns the important scientific issue of repro- ducibility.

The scientific method requires that all observations and results of analyses be repeatable by others — a safety measure to guard against bias. Because so much of the hockey stick saga seemed questionable, McIntyre and several other skeptics decided to ask for copies of the proxy data and computer codes used by Mann and his collaborators, so they could perform independent analyses of the same data and thus verify or invalidate the conclusions. While requests of this type are welcomed in most scientific circles, the Climat- egate conspirators put up a near impenetrable wall of resistance.

I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril! Concerted efforts by climate change alarmists to discredit McIntyre altogether, such as trying to link him to the fossil fuel industry, a favorite alarmist tactic, failed. Instead, a resolute McIntyre explored how to obtain what he still needed through the U.

Despite the CRU being a publicly funded institution and therefore legally obliged to retain records of its work and to make them available for scrutiny, Jones had no qualms about delet- ing a computer file or doing anything else necessary to prevent CRU records from being released.

And this is far from being the only example, either in the UK or the U.

In the end, however, the law prevailed and the hockey stick team was forced to hand over the remaining pieces of data and code. However, the science itself aside, secrecy and unwillingness to share data — in both of which the central figures in Climategate excelled — have no place in proper scientific methodology. A third instance of suppression of evidence that the Climategate emails made public involves allegations of fraud, in connection with the urban heat island effect. A statement in both research papers that there were few station moves, which affect temperature measurements, was shown by Keenan to be false, since many of the stations moved multiple times during the 30 years of the study.

One station had five different locations from to , some of the locations being as much as 41 kilometers 25 miles apart. The paper with Jones as lead author concluded, partly from the allegedly fab- ricated data, that urbanization in China has no significant effect on measured temperatures. The Climategate emails strongly hint that Jones was complicit in covering up the fraud. I am really loath to send them the data even if I could find it. In March , Keenan requested the same Chinese data. The requests prompted hockey stick creator Mann to weigh in shortly after- wards, advising Jones that: This is all too predictable.

This crowd of charlatans is always looking for one thing they can harp on … The last thing you want to do is help them by feeding the fire. Best thing is to ignore them completely. After Wang agreed to supply the questionable station data, Jones felt obliged to pass it on to Keenan and McIntyre. But Jones and his colleagues were taken aback when Keenan then made his fraud allegations, which are still unresolved.

However, Jones recently reversed himself. In a new study of Chinese tem- peratures, he reported not only that a strong urban warming effect does indeed exist in China, but also that urban warming caused the China-wide temperature rise between and to be overstated by a whopping two thirds.

These three examples of corruption exposed by Climategate are just the tip of the iceberg. Many more can be found in the voluminous emails, which have been dissected in numerous blogs and books. But just as we might expect, a majority on the investigating panels consisted of either scientists who were advocates of the man-made global warming theory or, in the case of Mann, Pennsylvania State University personnel — who were more interested in protecting Mann for his research funding prowess than in looking into the charges against him. None of the panels interviewed any critics of the Climategate offenders.

So it was no surprise, at least to climate change skeptics, when the official investigations almost completely whitewashed the fraudulent and obstructive behavior being investigated. Imagine its astonishment, then, when upstarts McKitrick and Michaels published their detailed statistical study showing that the urban heat island effect accounts for just over a half of the measured temperature increase on land due to global warming. Their efforts back- fired, however, as McKitrick not only submitted extensive comments in support of the conclusions he and Michaels had reached, but also struck back openly at the IPCC when those comments were passed over.

Conclusions about the amount of global warming, and the role of greenhouse gases, are based on the assumption that the adjustment models work perfectly And by the time they began writing the recent Fourth Assessment Report, they had before them a set of papers proving the data are contaminated. What happened next is astounding, but typical of how the IPCC operates.

Con- fronted with published evidence from one of their own reviewers that the heat island effect contaminates global temperatures, they trivialized the evidence with the conjecture that urban warming can be chalked up to entirely natural causes. The Arctic Oscillation is a wind circulation pattern that affects long-term weather trends in the Arctic, but has absolutely nothing to do with the heat island effect from urban areas.

And the comparison of land to ocean is irrelevant since McKitrick and Michaels only studied temperatures over land. Referring to the strong connection that McKit- rick and Michaels found between temperatures and local economic activity, the final version of the report declares: However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic devel- opment are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes Sections 3.

Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic develop- ment ceases to be statistically significant. This is more of the Arctic Oscillation gobbledygook that the IPCC authors invoked earlier in the report writing process, since the two cited sections of the report say nothing at all about industrial or urban development. The tactic takes several forms. The Climategate emails provide ample insights into both these strategies.

As a result of the clamor over the hockey stick, paleoclimatologists — the tree-ring folk — went to great lengths in trying to keep contrary papers from seeing the light of day. Many skeptical climate scientists have experienced lengthy delays in publication of their manuscripts, or have had to submit them to obscure journals, because normal publication was thwarted by alarmists. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! Wigley and another reviewer had written negative reviews of the manuscript and had recommended rejection, but the paper appeared in print because three other reviewers gave it the thumbs-up.

Piqued, Wigley wrote: I suspect that de Freitas [a Climate Research editor] deliber- ately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. Chris de Freitas stayed on as an editor at Climate Research, in spite of an ad hominem campaign by the Climategate gang to have him both removed from his editorial position and even fired from his university job. Intimidation of editors worked again at a different publication two years later, by which time the frustration level among paleoclimatologists had risen further.

GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years. Even this would be difficult. Yet another editorial resignation over peer review occurred as recently as , at the relatively new journal Remote Sensing. In this case, the journal had pub- lished a controversial paper on climate sensitivity see Chapter 4 by well-known skeptical climatologist Roy Spencer and a coauthor, who used satellite measure- ments to challenge the reliability of computer climate models.

But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors. These principles state: Changes other than grammatical or minor editorial changes made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. But the IPCC claim to have successfully identified a human fingerprint on global climate was demonstrably false, because it was based on selective use of temperature data.

When all the data were examined as a whole, the case for a human CO2 signature in our climate was found to be very weak. That caused a considerable ruckus at the report review stage. In a rare display of honesty by the IPCC, the draft of the report disputed the success of fingerprinting and actually questioned the evidence for any human effect on climate. The draft included as many as 15 statements reflecting these views.

But the drastic changes from the draft version of the report had all been made surreptitiously, by a small group of about six authors for that particular chapter, including lead author Ben Santer — without the other authors or any reviewers even being consulted. The alarmists had won their first battle against the skeptics, inside the IPCC itself. But there is some evidence that the revision process did result in a subtle shift However, the recent investigation of the IPCC in the wake of Climategate did address a number of issues, including assessment report review.

Shop by category

The Climategate gang willfully obstructed FOIA requests for proxy data and computer codes used to create the hockey stick. There is evidence in the Climategate emails that files and email records were destroyed. Formal charges of fraud have been made against an IPCC climate scientist in connection with urban warming, for allegedly fabricating Chinese temperature data and lying about weather station histories.

The Climategate perpetrators may have been complicit in a cover-up. The IPCC dismissed sound statistical evidence that urbanization arti- ficially inflates global temperatures, by using double-talk and by citing nonexistent counterevidence — which led to accusations of fabrication against the IPCC by the authors of the statistical study. The Climategate offenders have interfered with the peer review process, and orchestrated the removal of journal editors, in order to prevent the publication of scientific papers contrary to the Co2 theory of global warming.

But it remains to be seen how seriously the IPCC will take these findings. Computer climate models are also the foundation for the gloom and doom about CO2 and global warming preached by the IPCC. Because computer models are central to the climate change debate, the whole of this chapter is devoted to them. One area where computational models are particularly useful is the design and engineering of complex techno- logical marvels such as cars, airplanes, or computer chips.

For all of these, the underlying science is well known and the assumptions behind the models have been thoroughly tested. Now we can no longer be certain about what the model tells us. Just as scientific hypotheses need to be verified experimentally before they can be confirmed — a requirement that the IPCC actually recognizes — so do any educated guesses made in a computer calculation. The real problem is that many of the assumptions are undergoing testing right now, in an ongoing experiment that may not be complete for another 50 or years.

And computational models tend to exaggerate the magnitude of trends in the actual data. Some of the models are very elabo- rate and can predict all sorts of climatic variables in great detail — so much so that we can be awed by the model itself, by the sheer calculating power at our fingertips. But a model is just a model. The Wall Street meltdown is a painful reminder of this. Although the reasons for the U. Another notorious example, from the engineering field, is the Millennium Bridge in London.

It was only after the footbridge was built, and people walked on it for the first time, that unexpected swaying was felt by walkers, causing the bridge to be promptly closed for design modifications. The engineers realized they had created what is known as a resonant structure, a well-understood phe- nomenon that could have been avoided if they had made correct assumptions in their computer models of the bridge.

Climatologists defend their theoretical computer models by saying the models are the only handle we have on the climate. Climate processes span enormous sweeps of distance and time, from a few centimeters to thousands of kilometers, and from several hours to millennia. For a computer simulation, all the processes and their interactions must be expressed as mathematical equations, which are translated into computer codes. Armed with these equations, the computer then simulates how the climate evolves over time. That may sound straightforward, but there are two big limitations. The first is that even the most powerful computer in the world today is not capable of simulating the climate on a small spatial scale.

For small-scale processes, simplified pictures of reality involving approximations become essential. All these approximations, large-scale and small-scale, are incorporated in the model in the form of adjustable numerical parameters. Climate scientists have come up with several procedures to get a grasp of some of the unknowns in their models. One of these is to use more than one model, each based on slightly different variable parameters, in order to estimate the uncertainty in the parameters.

For its and reports, the IPCC used up to 34 and 23 different atmosphere-ocean climate models, respectively. No fixes to present-day computer models can escape the fact that the models still depend on numerous unverified assumptions and adjustable parameters. Even the very latest models contain biases arising from incorrect assumptions, as pointed out in a recent report to Congress by U.

Tweak the parameters differently, and the models will predict little or no warming. The IPCC and its alarmist accom- plices constantly warn that global warming will get worse and, believe it or not, have actually forecast how hot it will be 90 years from now, using the very same computer models. Talk about stretching the truth. The IPCC forecasting process has been audited by Scott Armstrong, a market- ing professor who is an internationally recognized expert on forecasting methods in general, and a colleague.

In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Extensive research has shown that the ability of models to fit historical data has little relationship to forecast accuracy. According to the models, the normally tiny effect of CO2 on global temperatures is amplified most by water vapor and clouds.

The two are related, since clouds are born when water evaporates to form water vapor, which later condenses into liquid droplets or ice crystals to produce the clouds. But the representation of clouds is one of the biggest weaknesses of climate models. The result is a lot of adjustable parameters. Even the coming generation of supercomputers will be able to represent only the largest clouds accurately. Inadequacies in computer simulations of clouds are acknowledged by climate modelers, even though these same modelers insist that the models can be used to make highly reliable predictions about the future.

With such massive errors, how can anyone expect models like this to accurately simulate global warming of less than 1o Celsius 1. Oddly enough, the IPCC seems aware of the limitations of its computer models for clouds. Chapter 8 of its report states: Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associ- ated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change.

The dangers in this approach have been clearly expressed by NASA climatolo- gist Claire Parkinson: Success in simulating the past and present does not nec- essarily translate to success in simulating the future. The concept refers to the matching up of present-day climate patterns with predictions of computer climate models based on the CO2 global warming hypothesis.

According to climate change alarmists, any observation of a predicted human fingerprint on our climate confirms the CO2 theory of global warming — or so they insist, even though cause and effect may not really be correlated because of uncertainty in the hundreds of variable parameters used in computer models, as I pointed out before. For CO2 greenhouse warming, the warming rate of the air at an altitude of 10 to 12 kilometers 6 to 7 miles directly above the tropics, where the difference is most conspicuous, should be about twice as large as it is near the ground, accord- ing to the models.

No one can find it. The models predict a higher warming rate in the Southern Hemisphere, but the Northern Hemisphere is actually warming most. Atmosphere: Climate models predict a Co2 hot spot in the lower atmosphere over the tropics, but extensive measurements have failed to detect it. This deficiency can lead to flawed predictions. Oceans: Climate models predict warming of both the atmosphere and oceans, but the oceans have stopped heating up since Simulations of the Southern ocean are deficient due to systematic biases in the models.

The Poles: Computer models predict strong warming at the North and South Poles, which is not observed. Indirect solar effects: Indirect effects from the sun, such as shielding of cosmic rays that create cooling clouds, are not included. Data limitations: Lack of adequate raw data is a bigger problem than limitations of the models themselves. But he fails to mention that the uncertainty in the model predictions could be even larger!

The only reason computer models predict a CO2 hot spot is that the models are programmed that way. This is partly because of a chain reaction in which melting snow and ice expose darker surfaces under- neath that soak up extra sunlight, causing further melting.

The 20th century warming rate in the Arctic was 0. According to a recent tabulation, 23 out of 26 measured Arctic temperatures for have just been revised downward, in many cases substan- tially — to artificially accentuate the warming trend in that part of the globe, and to deceptively bring the trend in line with the predictions of climate models. Climate change alarmists have made much of shrinking Arctic sea ice, suppos- edly caused by global warming.

Following criticism by economist Hu McCulloch of the statistical techniques used to reconstruct the Antarctic record, Mann and his coauthors published a correction several months later. Nonetheless, a paper, whose authors included climate auditor McIntyre, also faulted the statistical analysis, concluding that Antarctic warming is concentrated in the Peninsula and that the warming trends elsewhere on the continent are less than half the Mann estimates.

Despite any possible warming in East Antarctica, a recent Norwegian study has revealed that very little ice is disappearing from ice shelves in the Eastern part of the continent, in stark contrast to the predictions of computer ocean models for that region. And, despite the contraction of sea ice in the Arctic, the sea ice around Antarctica as a whole has been steadily expanding for more than 30 years.

Aerosols are emitted predominantly in the more industrial Northern Hemisphere, which should therefore get less hot than the Southern Hemisphere, according to the models. Another shortcoming that the IPCC itself admits to is bias in modeled sea surface temperatures, which are too low in some parts of the Northern Hemi- sphere, and too high on the eastern side of tropical oceans.

What a litany of failings! Yet the IPCC relies on these very same models to uphold its assertion that CO2 emissions are responsible for climate change. Computer climate models are like a boat riddled with holes, with the IPCC and its alarmist disciples frantically bailing to keep it afloat. But the key question is by how much does the temperature go up? The amount of warming that comes from a doubling of the CO2 level is called the climate sensitivity.

  • The Ultimate Science Fiction Quiz Book.
  • Books Challenging Climate Science.
  • Lock Picking Made Easy (Locksmith Instruction Book 1)!
  • The Long War: (Long Earth 2) (The Long Earth)?
  • A Double Barrelled Detective Story (Illustrated) (Classic Detective Stories Book 1)?
  • Nothing could be further from the truth. Climate sensitivity is intricately linked to the important concept of feedback, a technical term borrowed from the field of electronic engineering. In science, feedbacks result in sustained magnification called positive feed- back or sustained diminution negative feedback of a response to a disturbance of the status quo. A weather-related example of positive feedback is the gaining of strength by tornadoes or hurricanes through amplification processes that cause a self-reinforcing chain reaction.

    Negative feedback, on the other hand, results in the damping down of a process, so as to bring a system back to where it was before. Negative feedback processes are very common in nature, acting as a safety valve to keep everything from delicate ecosystems to the animal kingdom in balance. The human body is a remarkable example of many types of negative feedback. Body temperature, blood pressure, blood sugar level and numerous other func- tions are all controlled by negative feedback mechanisms, which maintain that function within the narrow range necessary for our survival.

    So why are feedbacks important for global warming? Positive feedbacks ratchet up the warming, but negative feedbacks turn it down. On its own, the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere today is not enough to cause even a 0. Climate modelers say this feedback comes primarily from water vapor and from clouds, with a small contribution from snow and ice. With negative CO2 feedback, even a future doubling of CO2 from its preindustrial level will have little influence on temperatures.

    Few people realize that this gloomy prognostication is founded on shaky theoretical computer models that predict positive CO2 feedback. Most feedbacks in nature are negative, presumably for good reason — to main- tain stability in the natural world. Positive feedback, which amplifies the initial disturbance, can lead to runaway conditions and a system out of control. However, the positive feedback mechanism can be held in check if other processes, some of which involve self-correcting neg- ative feedback, are operating at the same time.

    The IPCC concludes from its computer climate models that the major global warming feedbacks are all positive, with just one exception Table 4. For instance, the argument is often made by climate change alarmists that water vapor feedback must be positive, or there would be no way to explain the observed warming. Even if water vapor feedback is indeed positive, it may not be as strongly posi- tive as the IPCC says. We saw in the last chapter that the hot spot in the lower atmosphere, predicted by IPCC computer models, is missing.

    Their magnitude and even their sign remain uncertain. Furthermore, many models ignore the fact that dif- ferent feedbacks are often coupled to one another. The feedbacks deduced from IPCC climate models are no more accurate or reliable than the many adjustable parameters in the models. Negative Feedback in Satellite Data Evidence for global warming feedbacks, either positive or negative, is hard to find.

    So three recent studies of satellite data that appear to show strongly nega- tive cloud feedback are quite astounding. Two of the studies were by researchers at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the third by scientists at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. The first University of Alabama study probed day-to-day changes in climate variables such as cloud cover, rainfall, and temperature, over a two-month period, for a short-term climate cycle in the tropics.

    As lead author and climatologist Roy Spencer explained, the tropical warming cycle serves as a proxy for global warming caused by man-made greenhouse gases such as CO2. In other words, global warming feedback from high clouds is nega- tive and damping, the very opposite of what the IPCC concludes, which is that CO2 cloud feedbacks are positive and amplifying. The University of Alabama study was criticized, however, on the grounds that it applied only to tropical regions, and that feedback effects occurring over a period of weeks may not play a role on the longer timescales associated with global warming.

    So Spencer and his team undertook a second study, involving analysis of data from another satellite, which also provides solid evidence for negative cloud feedback. Not only did the new study reveal the same distinctly negative cloud feedback as the original satellite study, but the comparison also showed that none of the IPCC models displayed the negative feedback behavior seen in the satellite data. In fact, the cloud feedbacks from all the climate models were positive, just as the IPCC insists they are see Table 4. In contrast to the first study, which demonstrated negative feedback from a reduction in high-level clouds that warm the Earth, the second University of Alabama study appears to show negative feedback from an increase in low-level clouds that exert a cooling effect.

    The study will be contin- ued until to see if the decline in cloud height persists. This would mean that the overall response of the climate to added CO2 in the atmosphere is to diminish, rather than magnify, the temperature increase from CO2 acting alone — the reverse of what the IPCC claims is happening.

    Of course, it also means that global warming must have some other explanation. The models include adjustable parameters that affect the various feedbacks just discussed, as well as parameters to describe forcings — the actual disturbances that alter climate and give rise to feedback, such as radiation from the sun, green- house gases in the atmosphere, and aerosols.

    Forcings can be positive or negative, depending on whether they produce a heating or cooling effect, respectively. The usual baseline is taken to be the preindustrial CO2 level in , which is about when the present period of global warming began Figure 1. With high climate sensitivity, meaning a climate exceptionally sensitive to CO2, the temperature increase for doubled CO2 will be large — as much as 4. Table 4. Information about the models and calculations can be found in the Appendix. When we compare the upper and lower parts of Table 4. Just as it does with temperature measurements, the IPCC exaggerates climate sensitivity — by three times or more in this case.

    You can also see from Table 4. If the net feedback is positive, as IPCC climate models insist, almost all of the 0. However, if the net feedback is negative, CO2 accounts for only a small portion of the temperature increase to date, and the rest must have other origins. As discussed in the previous section on satellite data, there is now evidence that cloud feedbacks are negative, instead of positive as concluded by the IPCC.

    Nega- tive cloud feedback that is sufficiently strong to overcome any positive feedbacks in the climate system will make the overall CO2 feedback negative — and make the CO2 climate sensitivity too small to be of any concern. Negative feedback implies low climate sensitivity, which means small tem- perature increases, even for lots more CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Or minimal global warming from man-made CO2. Feedbacks aside, there are still several issues with the historical approach to validating computer climate models. The IPCC admits as much, even though all its climate predictions are based on the assumption of unaltered climate sensitivity through the ages: The use of a single value for the ECS [equilibrium climate sensitivity] further assumes that it is constant in time.

    However, some authors Since results from instrumental data and the last millennium are domi- nated primarily by decadal-to centennial-scale changes, they will therefore only represent climate sensitivity at an equilibrium that is not too far from the present climate. So intent was the IPCC on making temperatures for the last 2, years mirror the CO2 record that it ignored historical temperature data showing otherwise, and indulged in deceptive data manipulation.

    This is because there are so many variable parameters in the models. The only way the climate sensitivity can be deduced at all is by making assumptions about all the other adjustable parameters — assump- tions that may not be correct. As you saw in Chapter 3, an elephant can be fitted with only five parameters. Figure 4. Something to notice about this data, which is obtained from analysis of Ant- arctic ice cores, is that the CO2 level closely mimics changes in temperature, but the CO2 lags behind — with CO2 concentration changing, up or down, well after the corresponding temperature shift occurred.

    The lag is about to years,, and may have been even longer hundreds of thousands of years ago. The oceans can hold much more CO2 and heat than the atmosphere. Warm water holds less CO2 than cooler water, so the oceans release CO2 when the tem- perature goes up, but take it in as the Earth cools down. The lag time is related to what oceanographers call the ocean-mixing time for CO2. Recent satellite observations show strongly negative feedback from clouds. If this negative cloud feedback dominates the posi- tive feedbacks from water vapor, and from snow and ice, the net Co2 feedback is negative — diminishing the warming from Co2 to an insignificant level.

    IPCC climate models greatly exaggerate climate sensitivity, partly because of assumptions made about atmospheric water vapor, and partly because of faulty statistical analysis. Co2 lagged temperature during post ice-age warming due to its delayed release from the oceans. But because of the lag, atmo- spheric Co2 kept rising for to years after the temperature leveled out. In the modern era since , the Co2 level and tem- perature have increased together. This two-faced CO2 behavior makes no sense. Jeremy Shakun and his coauthors postulate that while CO2 trailed temperature in the Antarctic when the ice age terminated, as you can see by looking carefully at Figure 4.

    So, just as Mann and his colleagues had already done with temperatures over the past millennium, Shakun and his coauthors have deceptively done with the temperature record as the Earth emerged from the last ice age, to make it look like the gain in CO2 triggered warming. Nonetheless, the observed CO2 lag does indeed deal a deathblow to the notion of man-made global warming. The reason has to do with the behavior of the temperature and CO2 level just beyond the cessation of an ice age. According to IPCC climate modelers, the melting of ice sheets and glaciers caused by the slight initial warming could not have continued, unless this tem- perature rise was amplified by positive feedbacks — including CO2 feedback, triggered by the surge in atmospheric CO2 as it escaped from the oceans.

    A similar chain of events, based on CO2 and other feedbacks, enhanced global cooling as the temperature dropped at the beginning of the ice age. It makes no sense that CO2 feedback should be dragging the temperature upward in our present climate, and did the same thing as the planet pulled out of past ice ages, but then suddenly turned off for the final to years. The IPCC, in its report, implies that this two-sided temperature response to CO2 occurs because temperature and CO2 are going up much faster during current global warming than they did at the end of the last ice age.

    Other questions also arise. Other feedbacks — such as from snow and ice — are believed to have played a role in ice-age temperature swings. Perhaps these other feedbacks could have done the job alone, without any help from CO2, the atmospheric CO2 level moving up or down simply in response to the changing solubility of CO2 in the oceans caused by changing temperatures. Assuming that there actually was CO2 feedback to amplify temperature rises and falls, why was the temperature descent at the onset of an ice age so much slower than its rapid climb at the end?

    The CO2 hypothesis and the whole theory of human-induced global warming, for a theory is what it is, are a flimsy house of cards. The whole IPCC case for CO2 warming is shot through with problems, from inconsistencies in the CO2 hypothesis to overconfi- dence in computer models to distortion of data to corruption. If humans are not to blame, the obvious place to look for an alternative explana- tion is nature.

    One, or a combination, of these natural cycles could well be responsible for global warming. During the so-called Maunder Minimum Figure 5. In , British astronomer William Herschel proposed that sunspots were linked to the weather, observing that the price of wheat had been high during that low-sunspot period, which he thought reflected poor harvests because of the cooler conditions. Although Herschel was not able to prove his case at the time, U. The varia- tion in sunspot number over time is but one of many solar cycles. Figure 5. Rhythms of the Solar System The solar system is constantly pulsating.

    As we know, all the planets, including our own, orbit the sun and spin on an axis. The annual sunspot number goes up and down over an interval of about 11 years, and the cycle duration fluctuates as well, from as short as 9 years to as long as 14 years. The changes in average solar output correspond closely to the pattern shown by sunspot numbers in Figure 5.

    There are cycles longer than 11 years too. Not only do solar output and the sunspot number repeat every 11 years or so, but their maximum and minimum values also make extra big jumps every 87 years and again at year intervals. The year solar cycle has been linked to a number of regional climate fluc- tuations, exhibited for instance by temperatures in central England since , rainfall in Beijing and flooding of the Nile River in Africa. As well as any direct solar influence, indirect solar effects can have an impact on the warming and cooling of our planet.

    But this may be enough to explain a substantial part of our current global warming, even though the IPCC wants us to believe otherwise. Cosmic rays are super-energetic, electrically charged particles that come mostly from exploded stars in our Milky Way galaxy and continually bombard the upper atmosphere. As the sun becomes more active, the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere falls off; as it quiets down, more cosmic rays get through to the atmosphere.

    Millions of years ago, the variation of cloudiness induced by cosmic rays had less to do with solar activity, says Svensmark, than with changes in the number of cosmic rays reaching the sun in the first place, which fluctuated as the solar system moved across the spiral arms of our galaxy. Preliminary experiments, conducted at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, reproduced real-life conditions only at sea level.

    The proposed mechanism for cloud formation involves cosmic rays breaking air molecules apart to form miniscule quantities of airborne droplets, or aerosol particles, that are made up of tiny clusters of sulfuric acid and water vapor. Atmo- spheric aerosols are thought to be the building blocks for clouds.

    But the surprise was that, in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, additional vapors are needed to nucleate aerosols. As in many other areas of climate science, good quality observational data on clouds is hard to come by. A problem with satellite observations is that low clouds are sometimes obscured by middle- level and high clouds that respond differently to cosmic rays. The picture is further complicated by possible changes in cloud height as a result of global warming Chapter 4 , which makes it more difficult to distinguish between low and middle clouds. But a recent upsurge in cosmic ray counts around the world may swing the pendulum back toward the Svensmark hypothesis.

    The intensity of cosmic rays has risen noticeably since the mids, reflecting a slight drop in solar activ- ity that is also seen in declining sunspot numbers Figure 5. This falloff in solar activity may foreshadow future global cooling, such as the big freeze predicted from the year and year solar cycles and discussed earlier in the chapter.

    Amplification Mechanisms: Ozone A second indirect heating effect of the sun, possibly more important than cosmic rays, implicates the ozone layer. The ozone layer, which is located in the upper atmosphere, normally protects us from nearly all UV rays by absorbing them. Some ozone also resides in the lower atmosphere. Absorption of solar UV also warms the ozone layer, since all forms of radiation from the sun including visible light, UV and infrared carry heat energy. This in turn heats both the upper and lower atmosphere and amplifies the direct warming caused by solar activity — a positive feedback process.

    A second positive feedback connected with variations in solar activity involves shifts in atmospheric wind patterns pro- duced by UV changes. Meteorologists think a lazy jet stream caused by a downturn in UV from a quieter sun may explain many of the prolonged heating and cooling spells that have become prevalent in the Northern Hemisphere recently.

    Two of the studies mentioned in the previous section, which found a correlation between cosmic ray strength and low cloud cover, also noted a correlation of solar UV output with middle cloud cover. However, the exact amount of indirect warming produced by solar UV acting on the ozone layer is unknown at present. Planetary global warming may indeed exist, but the evidence is rather thin at the moment and there is an extreme scarcity of both data and scientific studies. An example of how easy it is to be misled by limited data can be found in recent studies of Mars, where dust storms are prevalent.

    Attributing the apparent warming to changes in sunlight-reflecting surface dust, though not to solar activity, the research team linked the sudden temperature rise to melting of the ice cap near the Martian South Pole over the past few years. The runaway greenhouse effect on Venus produces furnace-like conditions, with a surface temperature around o Celsius o Fahrenheit. As we saw in earlier chapters, the IPCC and its supporters have indulged inces- santly in exaggeration, data tampering and deception to bolster their case for man-made climate change.

    Proxy records of solar intensity include both sunspot numbers and so-called cosmogenic isotopes, which are trace amounts of radioactivity left in proxies such as ice cores and tree rings by past cosmic rays from space. If the IPCC is correct, it means that any solar contribution to global warming today is minimal.

    The problem is that actual measurements of solar activity, apart from sunspot counts, date only from the beginning of the satellite era in To fill in the rest of the gap between the Maunder Minimum and now, we have to rely on theoreti- cal reconstructions of solar output, based on a variety of proxies. But these comparisons yielded calculations of the solar activity gain since the Maunder Minimum even larger than the high estimate that the IPCC rejected for its report. This ruse cut the solar activity increase since in half. Once more, and on two separate occasions, the IPCC has cast aside the rules of science to prop up its unconvincing case for man-made CO2 as the source of global warming.

    Properly conducted science examines all the data, without bias. It appears that the IPCC estimates the solar portion of total global warming at only a few percent. These come about through changes in wind and ocean circulation over months or years, but reveal themselves as fluctuations in temperature, rainfall and other features of our daily and weekly weather. The cycles recur on a regular basis, although the intervals between them can vary quite a bit. Other ocean oscillations that repeat at intervals from years to decades include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Arctic Oscil- lation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

    Although IPCC computer climate models endeavor to simulate the various cycles, the models have been unsuccessful at predicting the timing and climatic effects of several of them. The Sun-Ocean Connection In studying the 1,year solar cycle discussed at the beginning of this chapter, geologist Gerard Bond and his colleagues suggested two amplification, or posi- tive feedback, mechanisms through which very small drops in solar activity may have triggered substantial climate change many times over the last 9, years.

    The other involves the oceans. The hypothesis is that a slight fall in solar output could have slowed the turning over of deep ocean currents in the North Atlantic by lowering surface salinity. A similar slowing occurred at the end of the last ice age, caused not by the sun but by the sudden melting of ice sheets. In this case, the slowdown of the conveyor belt would have intensified the initial solar cooling, but the slowing could have been triggered equally well by solar warming.

    A rather different ocean amplification mechanism has been proposed by a group of climatologists, in trying to explain the pronounced response of the Pacific Ocean climate system to the small variation in solar activity over the year sunspot cycle. This in turn produces heavier rainfall, stronger winds and fewer low clouds in the Pacific — raising sea surface temperatures, since low clouds cool, and amplifying the original warming via positive feedback.

    A similar explana- tion applies to cooling. The PDO cycle switches between warm and cool phases. The other major multidecadal ocean cycle is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscil- lation AMO , which has a cycle time of approximately 65 years. Like the slightly shorter PDO, the AMO alternates between warm and cool phases, although the warm phases usually last longer. The two cycles are compared in Figure 5. However, the astronomical model on which this theory depends is just a model and, like computer climate models, contains arbitrary adjustable parameters — though fewer of them.

    Each time that the PDO mode shifted from warm to cool, or vice versa, global temperatures switched accordingly. A posi- tive index indicates warming, a negative index cooling. To some skeptics, this coincidence explains global warming. But while the PDO may be an explanation for global warming, it is not simply because the temperature follows the warm and cool phases of the oscillatory cycle.

    Roy Spencer and his research team at the University of Alabama in Huntsville have hypothesized that cloud changes associated with the PDO may be able to account for much of measured global warming, which the IPCC and climate change alarmists insist on attributing to CO2. The University of Alabama group is the same one that found evidence in satellite observations for negative CO2 feedback from clouds, a subject discussed in Chapter 4. The new global warming hypothesis also relies on satellite data. This deflection may reduce the cooling from low clouds when the sun is more active.

    Cloud fluctuations associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation PDO , a natural climate cycle that switches between warm and cool every 30 years. Warming can originate from either a reduction in low clouds, or an increase in high clouds, or both.