I know this sounds premature, but the failure of UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen has in all likelihood made anthropogenic global warming a dead issue.
Another nail in its coffin appeared on the site of insciences organization yesterday:
Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.
In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs – compounds once widely used as refrigerants – and cosmic rays – energy particles originating in outer space – are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.
“My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming.”
Oops…. what does this mean? More global warming from CFCs and cosmic rays? Actually, no:
“Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000,” Lu said. “Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate.”
In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.
Global cooling for the next fifty years? It certainly corresponds with my frozen experience in Copenhagen, not to mention the subsequent snow storms blanketing Europe with people trapped in the Eurostar for fifteen hours, something that never happened before.
Nevertheless, who knows if Dr. Lu is correct, although, unlike the sorry crew at East Anglia and NASA, he shows his work. No Freedom of Information Act request necessary. Also, as far as I know, he’s not destroying his data like the CRU.
With every passing day the AGW crowd is looking increasingly foolish and venal. More revelations are undoubtedly yet to come and some will be related to activities that verge on the criminal or even cross that line. The UN will have to find a new bogeyman to replace CO2 in order to pursue its own goals of bureaucratic power and wealth transfer. Maybe cosmic rays could be the new CO2. They have a certain Buck Rogers ring to them. James Cameron, are you listening?
Meanwhile, certain people have been revealed as buffoons or worse: Al Gore (of course… but we knew that), the UN’s Rajendra Pachauri, Gordon Brown and, yes, Barack Obama. If the report from Die Welt quoted on Belmont Club is even close to the truth, our President is a very strange man indeed. (HT: Leon DeWinter)
Further: PJM’s Charlie Martin will be tracking scientific reaction to Dr. Lu’s findings.
the left is too arrogant to let thus issue die. Just look at Gore. Nothing deters that man. Not even the facts. The left is so determined and think the American people so stupid, they will continue this global warming, I mean climate change at any cost.
( well, as long as it doesn’t cost them)
great article, Roger
I saw this report yesterday and find it interesting. And as you note, Dr. Lu is being honest about his work and, I would wager, would graciously greet others using his (and additional) data to test and validate (or not!) his work. How refreshing! I am not ready to yet accept that AGW is fully a dead issue. It is surely in ill health and may be terminal and smarter political charlatans would be running for cover. They, if not climate science itself, have been discredited. Gore, Brown, Pachauri, and Obama refused to acknowledge the malfeasance and the significance of the Climategate (and other) revelations–why believe they would recognize their own dishonest exposure? They are the real frauds in all of this and like most incriminated criminals are proven to be not very bright.
The time has come to study the effect of anthropogenic flatulene on global stinking.
No, Roger, it’s not dead. Your prior post on seeing the future is right, this is a power grab by dictators and organized criminal fraudsters and being caught this time will just embolden them. Dr Lu’s actual peer reviewed work does underline the problem of GIGO computer modeling when the facts are yet to be found by research.
EdGi,
I think it’s a situation of both/and. Here’s what I mean. Of course what has been going on is an attempt by despots and soi-disant “progressive” politicians to exploit completely unsettled science…. but it did not work. It failed completely in Copenhagen. The European market in carbon offsets tanked. Without that, the money could only be made in direct hand-outs and that didn’t happen either. Meanwhile, the polls have tilted completely against AGW.
The CRU crew is to some extent surrounded at this point. The public doesn’t believe them anymore. And a lot of the public is educated about the derails. Look at this from Steve McIntrye’s blog:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/19/manns-wapo-editorial/#comment-210611
Now, does that mean it’s all over? Maybe not. But at the very least things will morph. CO2 will not be the fulcrum. On to the next transnational adventure.
Interesting, but given certain aspects of the CFC/Ozone Hole issue that resemble the worst aspects of the AGW hype, I rather tend to regard this concept in the same way as I would an assertion that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster have conspired to cause UFO’s.
Respects to Dr. Lu (and all skeptics of AGW), but I credit his 50 year climate prediction only slightly more than CRU’s. I give him an edge because I assume the good doctor didn’t cheat.
How we gonna predict 50 years when we can’t predict hurricanes 24 hours?
Taxing the air we breathe is the penultimate goal for the Marxist. There is no such thing as carbon neutral. Carbon is everywhere, in you and me, and in most everything we use. Whether it’s a rigged utilities meter to your house or a Brownshirt that visits your home and performs a carbon audit – it’s all about control. It’s a despot’s wet dream. As long as marxism thrives in academia, and despots exist no matter if they’re from TN, Zimbabwe or Latin America .. this farce will continue to have legs, even during a mini-ice-age. Their want to control us is not Climate dependent, it’s Carbon dependent – and the methods to their madness are equally as diabolical as their motives.
Despots always exploit guilt and every human weakness to make willing slaves and subjects.
Climate change fools like Gore are not arrogant, they are ignorant and brazen. Stupid and unbending is not arrogant, it is just stupid. Life is hard if you are stupid, harder if you are stupid and wrong.
When climatologists can tell me accurately and specifically what the weather will be like next month, (or even two weeks from now) I’ll begin to cede credence to them for instruction on the weather of the next 50 years. Until then, not so much.
Niven, Pournelle, & Flynn’s _Fallen Angels_ is sounding more and more prophetic…
Roger,
Imagine substituting “Bush” for “Obama” in the article from Die Welt and ponder the reactions of the Olbermans of the world.
Oh man. I thought the ozone layer crisis turned out to be bunk too. Guess I was wrong?
CFCs are even a much smaller % constituent of the atmosphere than CO2 and there weren’t any CFCs when the earth warmed before. I guess that doesn’t really matter.
Maybe I will start an “Ozone credit” commodities market and get in on the ground floor this time. Who’s with me? Must call Hollywood and make a movie.
We might think Global Warming is a dieing issue, but our schools and places like the Disney Channel just continue to push it to our kids. They continue to act as if it is a done deal. They haven’t slowed their message in any way. On my United flight, I watch some special produced by the BBC focus on the melting of the Artic and the threat to the Polar Bear, and that was just two weeks ago.
I watched a Science channel program last night that outlined how physics goldenboy Henrik Schon had purpetuated a shortlived fraud on the scientific community a short time ago. Even NATURE, a premiere science journal had been fooled publishing at least three of Schon’s papers before the fraud was discovered.
At one point, the narrator explained why it had been difficult to catch Schon; no other scientist had witnessed the experiments he pronounced as successes and he claimed to have misplaced his data and later that he had lost it completely. I thought, “Damn, that sounds familiar. Oh, yeah!”
No, it’s not dead yet. As TriGeek points out, there is a propaganda infrastructure out there that needs to be countered. I keep telling friends with kids to have their children go to this site just to take a peek at the other side.
http://www.c3headlines.com/modern-temperatures-chartsgraphs.html
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
I’m reading a biography of Max Perutz this week and it is depressing to see where science has gone the past 30 years or so. Max subsisted on a minimum income and built the laboratory and the entire field of molecular biology at Cambridge with humility and honesty that wasn’t really appreciated until years later when people realized that, had he not been there, much of what was accomplished would not have happened. It’s an inspiring story and makes a stark contrast with the chicanery that we see at CRU.
All average global temperatures since 1895 are predicted by a simple model. There was no need to consider change to the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas.
The model, with an eye-opening graph, is presented in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true.
This model predicted the ongoing temperature decline trend. None of the 20 or so models that the IPCC uses do.
Just finished a one mile ocean swim- The water level remains the same!! Tell the folks in South Florida and the Maldives to relax.
22. TriGeek:
Just finished a one mile ocean swim- The water level remains the same!! Tell the folks in South Florida and the Maldives to relax.
not so quick …I think the Maldives are sinking. (naturally …not man made)
Ah, a virtually content-free column and set of responses. Evidently Roger is tired from his icy trek. Let’s all burp together
I found this and would like comments. (I’m tired and discouraged, after blogging at WaPo, BBC, AP etc for four weeks; taking a lot of heat for supporting the scientists who were skeptical.)
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/12/and-so-it-begins.html
And so it begins…
“The shift happens as the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause — in a sense offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth.” – Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, today
The deal expected at Copenhagen, highlighted back in May when I released my book Air Con, followed up by Investigate magazine and Lord Monckton before catching fire across the internet, has now come to pass.
No, it is not yet legally binding. But it will be.
You see, throughout this torturous process in the Danish capital over the last 14 days, the people pulling the strings have clung to their central core themes: wealth transfer, world governance. Climate was actually a distant third on the priority list.
Anyone wishing to trace back the longer history need only read Air Con, or any number of UN publications buried deep in the UN website with innocuous names that give no clue to the ambitions contained within their pages.
Here’s why the US$100 billion wealth transfer is the wedge that will fundamentally overhaul the political landscape of planet earth forever:
It’s not the amount of money that’s the issue, it is instead the infrastructure required to administer the money and oversee its collection and expenditure. By agreeing to provide a vast sum on money in “climate compensation”, the globalists have automatically created the need for a vast global bureaucracy to administer the programme. How else could it possibly be done?
And which global agency is perched to implant itself as this massive governance organization? Try this one for size.
What’s integral to this is what administering this money will do for the UN. Currently, it has an ‘official’ budget of US$4.2 billion a year. I say ‘official’ because in partnership with donor countries the UN administers several billion more each year through the UN Development Programme and similar entities. But let’s go with $4.2 billion for now.
For US$100 billion a year, you are talking some serious prestige and power for the UN. Assuming 80% of the funding reaches its destination (probably in the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt Third World leaders), that’s still 20% to pay the wages of a vastly increased UN field staff and ‘peacekeeping’ force to protect them as they administer the programme.
And of course, $100 billion is only a starting point. The UN and the Third World have talked of up to $1 trillion a year in climate adaptation and compensation.
Barack Obama talks about the ‘mechanism’ to deliver this pool of funds, that it needs to be global but it need not encroach on sovereignty too much. In principle, it won’t at all – that’s because sovereigns make a free will choice to sign and ratify the agreement and its conditions. They’re still sovereign, but like any contract they are required to keep their promise to allow the UN agency access and control over relevant areas if required. Sovereignty in name only.
The Third World countries are suspicious because, much as they desire the cash, they know the UN will be demanding accountability for the cash, and perhaps even political reform. In this way, the UN hopes to drag the Third World up closer to the level of the First World, and it hopes to be hailed as a hero for modernizing and democratizing the planet, ready for full global government and the end of nation states.
This is, of course, is already on the UNDP agenda.
So while others label Copenhagen a “failure”, I suggest you look a little more carefully. This is not really about specific emissions cuts, the bigger game is to sneak the infrastructure in. And there’s every indication they are well on track to succeed on this.
Posted by iwishart on December 19, 2009
Mr. Simon:
“Global cooling for the next fifty years? It certainly corresponds with my frozen experience in Copenhagen, not to mention the subsequent snow storms blanketing Europe with people trapped in the Eurostar for fifteen hours, something that never happened before.”
Global Cooling, you say?
Heh.
“Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.”
Yours in Doublethink;
If we are facing global cooling rather than global warming, doesn’t it stand to reason that we should now reverse course, start driving bigger vehicles, go back to spray deodorant and eat beef twice a day?
“Is Man-Made Global Warming a Dead Issue?”
Not according to the National Academy of Sciences, but what do they know, Roger? I mean, you were COLD in Denmark.
Kate is absolutely correct. And, as we all know, “Halo Man” wants to be the first world dictator, er, “President.”
I asked my liberal buddy at work what we should do about the cosmic menace. Without hesitation, he quipped: “Nasa is following my lead; at this very moment, they are constructing a giant tinfoil hat to place between the Earth and Sun!”
Kate: I remember reading a Hal Lindsey book in the 70′s, and he speculated on future UN-based world government as a threat to our liberty. He wrote about a future European union, and told of socialism coming to America. Back then, I thought he was whacko.
Not any more. I woke up long ago, and will fight this as you do, by telling others.
Global cooling, great now David Thomson and I will have to put up with more of you all Yankee refugees fleeing the glacial north for the warmer and progressive Houston. Yes David you and I live in the same city with an openly gay mayor, how does it feel? You ever make it over to the historic 3rd ward? If you ever want to find the African American part of an older southern US city look for streets named for Confederate war heroes. So David you want to have lunch sometime we could meet at the Family Cafe on Blodgett. If you are unfamiliar with it just google it.
Zeke, you don’t want to push that NAS thing too hard. The Wegman NAS report was a lot less on the side of AGW than people usually hear.
we hope having destroyed the leftist demagoguing about science,without holy religious Christmas.
The blessed man can sustain environmental policies,to rule the events and to train the citizens able to counter the difficult situations
The thing is these people have been promising the end of the world for years now, and we are still here. They overplayed their hand and now people are beginning to use words like sham and hoax and boondoggle and fraud in relation to the socalled science of global warming.
on the evil cfc issue, i always thought it was an “odd” coincidence how chlorinated refrigerants becoming “bad” and the expiration of duponts patents on them coincided. wasnt dupont one the ones pushing this? but what do i know, i mean the chlorine in chlorinated refrigerants must be a different chlorine than is used for water purification and swimming pools, right?????
mac
The best satire on this topic (scientific predictions of the future) is the first chapter of Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”. Mephistolopheles finds himself in a park in 1930′s Moscow. He engages in a polemical discussion with a party bureaucrat on the impossibility of knowing what will happen 10 minutes into the future, let alone 10 years. He proves his point masterfully.
Oops, I meant Mephistopheles.
Sweet Jesus on the lily cross: when will these weather people shut the f____ up.
I stopped reading when I got to this drivel: energy particles originating in outer space
Was this written by a fourth-grader?
Nothing dies as long as someone, somewhere, is making a profit from it. AGW politics will continue for as long as a vote or a dime can be squeezed out of it.
AGW is the new “oil for food”
The EU is almost broke—-please donate
AGW is the new “oil for food”
Yes, AGW may have indeed been struck a deathblow. However, as any large lizardlike creature is killed, you need to be very respectful of its death throes, or you could be seriously hurt.
“Twas science that killed the beast.”
Roger, AGW is not a dead issue because it was never a live issue. The issue is one of political/financial power and AGW was the steed on which the left rode to pursue it. You will be amazed to witness how quickly they abandon this dead horse to mount a replacement. You may want to run a poll to guess the replacement. I’m thinking gun control, co-opting the internet, or some version of disarming the western militaries.
> I know this sounds premature, but the failure of UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen has in all likelihood made anthropogenic global warming a dead issue.
Roger, with all respect, are you nuts?
Really, do you think for one minute, that with the staggering amounts of money involved, with the vast power to control that is almost within their reach, to say nothing of the emotional investment, that these people are just going to let it go? Because of some reality?
I recall a blog post a year or two ago — sorry, I haven’t the faintest idea where I saw it — from a guy who debated an AGW proponent in front of an audience. The guy presented charts, graphs, all manner of data questioning the science, and finally the AGW guy couldn’t take it any more; he stood up and yelled, “Never mind all his charts and graphs! Global warming is REAL!”
It’s never been about the science, as the CRU affair has demonstrated. Therefore, science can’t settle it. This issue isn’t going away any time soon, although it will probably change its shape from “climate change” to “climate instability”. (http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012941.html)
The Montreal Protocol Treaty (enacted in 1989) banned worldwide production of CFCs and phases out the production and consumption of HCFCs by the year 2013. With these mandates, it is anticipated that the ozone layer will heal itself by 2050.
The USGBC, through its LEED rating systems, mandates no new use of CFCs and a phase-out plan for existing facilities using CFCs and further addresses ALL Ozone Depleting (ODP) and Global Warming Potential(GWP)refrigerants.
Through RESPONSIBLE sustainability, we can solve many of the real environmental issues dealing with our natural resources and emissions intelligently and at little additional cost without jumping onto this hysterical OGW bandwagon. As a LEED AP, it does nothing but turn me off and prevents many of us from acting RESPONSIBLY. The politicians have gone absolutely insane over this crap!
Prologue -
the Devil, you say !!!
Sorry, that link to small dead animals doesn’t work, though I copied it right from the address bar. If you’re interested the post is titled “Y2Kyoto: Climate Instability Just Around The Corner” and it’s at http://www.smalldeadanimals.com.
Sorry ’bout that.
Roger: An additional buffoon is your old friend Charles Johnson at LGF, who continually discounts climategate revelations as changing the debate. He has truly gone whacko and hateful with his characterizations of anyone who is not an ardent evolutionist, AGW believer, etc. His stuff at least used to be readable. Now it has just become “Rant-of-the-Day.” Your book was great, by the way.
Global cooling, OMG(aia)!
Let’s call an international conference and anoint a global government immediately. Our survival is at stake!
CFCs are already tightly controlled, in the US at least. This may be why the problem is abating. We have substitutes. The difference between CFCs and CO2 is pretty significant. If we were to completely ban carbon dioxide, the unfortunate predicate would be that all plant life would die, and that would be rather inconvenient truth indeed. Nuclear power would go a long way toward freezing long term carbon emissions, which is probably a good idea, regardless of warming effects, but that’s another inconvenient truth.
Global warming, now known as climate change, was never at bottom about science. Dr. Lu’s research will be ignored by the vast majority of climate “scientists” because they are the second rank of a global political movement, not a scientific enterprise. (The first rank is, of course, the transnationalist globalists, of whom Barack Obama is angling for the leading role.)
That is why climate change is not about climate change.
What Copenhagen was intended to do was set up a new nomenklatura of bureaucracies and factotums and commissioners, providing them with near-unlimited political power, a luxurious lifestyle and upward mobility for their children and political allies. If you think this sounds like the old Soviet system writ global, you’re right.
That’s why commenter iwishart on December 19 hot the nail on the head. The point is money, always money, and the core purpose of COP15 will be achieved when the wealth transfer begins, along with the real point: empowering the UN to greater levels and enriching its administrators. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less.
Cynical, you say? Well, to quote Gerard van Der Leun, “I try to get more cynical every day, but I just can’t keep up.”
It won’t be dead until the seminal book “Algore and the Golden Fleece” becomes a literary classic.
“The UN will have to find a new bogeyman to replace CO2 in order to pursue its own goals of bureaucratic power and wealth transfer.”
They already have — ocean acidification. And they’re up to the same tricks trying to advance that as a global disaster precipitated by *Deveolped nations’ CO2 emmissions and hitting **Poor nations the hardest. Unfortunately for the AcidAlarmists, Woods Hole recently came out with a study saying, “Eh. It’s not so bad.” Guess who the AP propagandists go to for the science? A) The discredited UN or B) Woods Hole?
*Developed nations = Democratic nations (because freedom and free enterprise helps them prosper).
**Poor nations = Socialist nations (because socialism makes them poor).
I think we need to be careful to say that the science of AGW is not settled. I suspect that if an independent group of scientists went back and removed the biased adjustments to the raw data, they would find a much smaller effect of CO2 on climate. A potential problem, but not a crisis. I also suspect that they would find that poor people cutting down tropical rain forests is a bigger problem, but one with less potential for wealth transfer. However, science demands honesty and openness to allow for independent replication of results or discovery of errors and new knowledge. Real science and politics don’t mix.
Regarding politicians messing with the economy, I think we have enough empirical evidence to show that they will make things worse through a combination of ignorance and corruption. We need limited government to make simple, well understood laws and to act as a honest referee. Government fails when tries to predetermine the outcome of competition.
Good article. This agrees with my findings http://wrauny.blogspot.com/2009/12/global-warming-leave-co2-alone.html
I bought the article on line. At 87 pages of diagrams and data, I spent a few hours scanning the key points. While I have a degree in Chemistry, it has been a while since I received it. But I did well on my final test of the four elements – earth, air, fire and water. My Alchemist teacher felt that “it was settled science” and rejected the new fangled phlogiston theory to explain combustion.
Physics Report is a journal that’s been around about 40 years.
The editorial board can be found at:
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaleditorialboard.cws_home/505703/editorialboard
Looks pretty impressive.
Lu is presenting a different chemical pathway for Ozone destruction based on CR’s (Cosmic Rays).
Much of the 87 page report details the chemistry of ozone destruction initiated by CRs. CRs generate electrons as they produce ionized particles in the atmosphere. These electrons are then adsorbed on the surface of ice particle in the polar atmosphere and react with the adsorbed CFCs (chlorofluorocarbon) releasing chlorine ions which destroy ozone.
A great deal of laboratory work is shown to validate these reactions along with data from atmospheric studies.
It will be challenged on the chemistry along with its correlation with the sunspot cycle. But a great deal of careful work went into proving Lu’s hypothesis.
While his evidence is strong for a new mechanism for ozone depletion at the poles, I don’t see where the data leads to a global mechanism which is responsible for global heating and cooling.
Perhaps that was to get publicity and attention to this paper.
I thought page 45 had a good summary.
p45 [my additions]
[Cosmic-Ray-Driven-Electron-Reaction Model for Ozone Depletion (CRE)]
“The CRE mechanism drastically differs from the photochemical model for stratospheric ozone depletion. The latter assumes that the sunlight photolysis of CFCs [Chlorofluorocarbons] in the upper tropical stratosphere, air transport and the subsequent heterogeneous chemical reactions of transported inorganic halogens on ice surfaces in PSCs [polar stratospheric clouds] are the three major processes for the activation of halogenated compounds into photoactive halogens.
In contrast, the CRE model believes that the in-situ CR-driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules including organic and inorganic molecules (CFCs, HCl, ClONO2, etc) adsorbed or trapped at PSC ice in the winter polar stratosphere is the key step to form the photoactive halogen species that then lead to the springtime ozone hole.”
Starting over a decade ago, Lu is developing a whole body of research to “prove” his CR theories. And, unlike the Alarmist Scientists, he is being very transparent in his data and reasoning.
We’ll see how his theories pan out as they are tested and debated openly.
Roger
In terms of alternative explanations/hypothesis for climate change, you also might take a look at Roy Spencer’s recent research. A much simpler model than the current (epicycle-like) IPCC climate models that actually matches the satellite data. The AGU presentation of it is here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Forcing-Feedback-AGU-09-San-Francisco-final.pdf
This isn’t to say Spencer is right or Lu is wrong, rather that there are a number of interesting hypothesis contending with the CO2/positive feedback/AGW model so fervently promoted by the IPCC. And, at least in Spencer’s case, supported by the experimental record (rather than requiring modification of the experimental record).
Unfortunately, since the unproven notion of CO2 as a pollutant (stay out of greenhouses!! I believe the CO2 ppm in there is around 1,000!) has been codified into regulatory law by the SCOTUS, the EPA will soon begin implementing CO2 limiting regulations. And the legislative branch will, like Pontius Pilate, try to wash their hands of guilt….
It was pretty damning in its description of the mathematical/statistical skills of people who call themselves climatologists!
We already know that the programming & software engineering skills of CRU/IPCC climatologists is extremely poor as well…
We said much the same Sunday:
When global warming alarmists planned the Copenhagen global climate summit, they saw it as the theory’s final triumph. Now that the conference is over, it’s clear that — despite any face-saving deals — the whole scam has suffered its biggest defeat.
http://tinyurl.com/yklet2r
The next GREAT ALARM for the UN is likely to be the threat of an asteroid collision. Which, in reality, is far more likely than the alarmist claims for the consequences of climate change.
Thank you for your reports from/about Copenhagen. They were probably the best thing to come out of the circus.
I must confess that, after all the abuse that the self-righteous AGW crowd has dissed out, I’m looking forward rubbing their faces in it for the next 5 years. Or at least until they figure they’ve been conned. Which may be longer. Ha.
Fen: me too!
Sadly, it’s not terribly gratifying, because they’re idiots/fanatics, and they don’t understand/can’t accept that they’re wrong. So rubbing it in their faces doesn’t have the desired effect.
Of course we need to add to the list of buffoons, Governor Arnold Swartzenegger of California.
Of course, non-scientists could easily have been mislead on the issue so being a “buffoon” prior to ClimateGate is not entirely fair.
I thought AGW had merit until about 2000, when I started my own research. The phrase, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” applies since Swartzenegger and so many other politicians refuse to correct their misunderstandings.
If a politician CONTINUES to call for restrictions on CO2 emissions after ClimateGate, then he or she is indeed either a buffoon on in on the con. Either case, they should be replaced ASAP.
C02 is not a unique gas in the atmosphere.
It absorbs in the near infra red similar to water as a gas, but no near infrad emission. All gasses, oxygen, nitrogen, C02, H20 have radiative emission in the broadband thermal range in the far infrared. (Stephen Boltzman law) (similar to black body radiation and the emission of heat from the ground. If C02 is involved in global warming–so is oxygen and nitrogen, which are 98% of atmosphere gases while C02 is only 0.048%).
Quite simple infra red specroscopy
C02 is not a unique gas in the atmosphere, like water as a gas, it has absorption in the near infra red, but no emission in near infra red.
C02, like all gases, has radiative emission as a broad band in the thermal range of the far infrared–LIKE ALL GASES INCLUDING OXYGEN, NITROGEN. THIS RADIATION IS TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT ONLY (STEHAN BOLTZMAN LAW) AND NOT STRUCTURE DEPENDENT. THIS RADIATIVE EMISSION IS THE SAME AS HEAT RADIATION FROM THE EARTH (BLACK BODY RADIATION)
IF C02 IS INVOLVED IN GLOBAL WARMING SO IS OXYGEN AND NITROGEN BUT C02 IS ONLY 0.O48% OF THE ATMOSPHERE
SIMPLE INFRA RED SPECTROSCOPY
Whitehall #67 wrote:
I thought AGW had merit until about 2000, when I started my own research. The phrase, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” applies since Swartzenegger and so many other politicians refuse to correct their misunderstandings.
———————–
OK, so your research revealed what? That CO2 was not a greenhouse gas?
My own “research,” if one could call it that, reveals that CO2 is both caused by…and causes warming. The natural cycles also supply warming and cooling in ways that are sometimes predictable, sometimes not.
Righties know that they hate socialists and that AGW stuff can lead to international socialism, THEREFORE, AGW stuff is bogus. Politically, I understand that almost completely, but scientifically, it is almost a certainty that man-made CO2 does produce warming. How much warming, and how exactly that fits into all the natural cycles is less clear.
Yeah, lefties can say and do stupid things, and righties can say and do stupid things. Alas, that is about the only thing which we know beyond a shadow if a doubt.
Don’t talk about global warming!!…we have 4 feet of show in our yard…it’s freezing cold. Send Gore here and I’ll give him a bucket of warming…
These guys don’t want to admit that they are wrong or have been given bogus advice because they would look even “STUPIDER”..or lose money. Money is at the root of our “climate” problem, sadly.
Before he stumbled upon global warming, Gore was at loose ends, a millionaire with nothing to do and nobody listened to him…suddenly he’s getting prizes, accolades, and he’s a super million aire.
Why would this man ever admit he’s full of hot air and wrongwrongwrong??
Dwight: Your “THEREFORE” is an unwarranted and unjustifiable assumption that has no basis in fact. I know a lot of lefty skeptics.
“My” research says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with limited effect. The relationship to temperature is logarithmic, not linear. Meaning that doubling CO2 content of the atmosphere will result in 1 degC warming, doubling it again will result in about 0.5 degC and doublng it again will result in (can you guess?). It would take a long, long, loooong time to get to the 7-10 degC that some of the alarmists have touted.
I know – the models say …. a lot of things, none of which has any relationship to reality. The models have eaten billions of dollars and produced crap that has been improperly used to justify government actions that are costing us billions more dollars. And one of the reasons the models don’t work is because they “assume” a sensitivity (feedback) that’s wrong. Ask your favorite climate scientist about the feedback his favorite model uses – then ask him why he hasn’t tried to reverse the sign. And you can watch him hedge his answers. If you want a real answer about it, go talk to Roy Spencer.
My research also says the ice cap isn’t melting although the Northwest Passage has been open several times in the last 2 centuries; that CO2 won’t destabilise the atmosphere because it’s been at higher levels in the distant past; that the hockey stick is bullhockey and was a fraud from the beginning; that sea level rise has decreased to less than in pre-global warming days; that glacier melt verifiably started 20,000 years before global warming was invented – and that dendro based paleoclimatology is a dead end career field because it’s based on bad science. And much more. Any time you want to discuss real science, just let me know. I worked with atmospheric scientists for 42 years. Contrary to the claims of the IPCC and the Team, most of them don’t believe in AGW either.
It is a certainty that manmade CO2 does NOT cause global warming. See the link at 20. above.
Dwight did you mean to day that increasing concentrations of CO2 both cause and are caused by warming? Otherwise your statement is senseless. As Retired Scientist indicated the type of radiation absorbed is also absorbed by other atmospheric molecules. The amount available for absorption is limited which is what causes the logarithmic relationship referred to by Jim Owens.
#60 Jgfox: If you think Dr Lu’s theories will receive a fair hearing, well think again. Following is a thread from RealClimate, the organ of the gang that got caught with their pants down over the leaked E-mails. You would think they would currently eat humble pie. No there is no good defence like a good offence. Look at the reply on comment #363.
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2586
Dr Lu’s work has already been debunked a couple of years ago by the Church of AGW (Anthropogenic Gullible Warmists), so why waste time reading his latest paper.
The article is about “Climate Change” as a “vital” issue.
The digressions into the EPA and “control” of co2 are another issue.
In the first case we are likely to see a quieting down and less prominant placement of articles and TV presentations in the MSM (other than NatGeo who are thriving on the possibilities of all types of “disasters.”
In the second issue, the EPA has “found” that co2 “is a danger to the public health.” Now, the issue is the scientific basis for that finding – NOT how it is related to climate change.
What science or studies, or anything supports the finding?????
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A new report reveals a British scientist and Wikipedia administrator rewrote climate history, editing more than 5,000 unique articles in the online encyclopedia to cover traces of a medieval warming period – something Climategate scientists saw as a major roadblock in the effort to spread the global warming message.
Recently hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit expose a plot to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period, a 400-year era that began around A.D. 1000, the Financial Post’s Lawrence Solomon reports.
The warming period is said to have improved agriculture and increased life spans, but scientists at the center of the Climategate e-mail scandal believed the era undermined their goal of spreading concern about global warming as it pertains to today’s climate.
Solomon noted the warming period presented a dilemma long before the Climategate e-mail scandal.
A 1995 e-mail predating the recent Climate Research Unit scandal was sent to geophysicist David Deming. A major climate-change researcher told Deming, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
for more go to
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745
QUOTE: “R. Richard Schweitzer:
The article is about “Climate Change” as a “vital” issue.
The digressions into the EPA and “control” of co2 are another issue.
In the first case we are likely to see a quieting down and less prominant placement of articles and TV presentations in the MSM (other than NatGeo who are thriving on the possibilities of all types of “disasters.”
In the second issue, the EPA has “found” that co2 “is a danger to the public health.” Now, the issue is the scientific basis for that finding – NOT how it is related to climate change.
What science or studies, or anything supports the finding?????”
Nothing, the EPA’s ‘finding’ is a way to attempt circumvent specific ‘cap and trade’ law in congress(or even the debate), using the Supreme Court and an unconstitutional government branch to create and dictate law. Federal courts give the EPA the power to ‘protect’ the people, then they just make up whatever they want. Similar in approach to employing unconstitutional ‘treaties’ with the likes of the UN.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2009/12/excerpt-obama-on-disappointment-in-copenhagen.html
Please go to PBS here and post a comment regarding Jim Lehrer’s interview with Obama.
An engineer discovers that added atmospheric CO2 (or any other man made greenhouse gas) has no significant effect on climate.
The research behind this discovery, with an eye-opening graph showing predicted and measured temperature anomalies, is in the pdf dated Oct 16 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true.
Global warming is a burning question of the day. We will have to answer it sooner or later. Nature will maintains its balance at any cost. It is high time to stop Global warming to save this planet Earth.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Acnezine–Review—Does-the-Acnezine-Acne-Treatment-Work?&id=2928024
Your youthful ideas are everywhere triumphant, Mr.Simon. You should be celebrating. This temporary setback by the exposure of East Anglica’s lies will be overcome. Your decades of devotion, financing, and propagandizing led to Copenhagen. Congratulations. Perhaps the sales of your Moses Wine novels will increase now that yours and Wine’s world government is almost real.
#75 Jim Owen writes:
Dwight: Your “THEREFORE” is an unwarranted and unjustifiable assumption that has no basis in fact. I know a lot of lefty skeptics.
—————–
And some righty believers? That would be more relevant to my point.
——————–
“My” research says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with limited effect. The relationship to temperature is logarithmic, not linear. Meaning that doubling CO2 content of the atmosphere will result in 1 degC warming, doubling it again will result in about 0.5 degC and doublng it again will result in (can you guess?). It would take a long, long, loooong time to get to the 7-10 degC that some of the alarmists have touted.
—————
OK, I’m listening for the specifics of your research here. My son did a crude experiment in a climatiology class where they pumped in a lot of CO2 and got a lot of warming. You claim to have more calibrated data. Lay it on me.
Then you say:
“My research also says the ice cap isn’t melting although the Northwest Passage has been open several times in the last 2 centuries; that CO2 won’t destabilise the atmosphere because it’s been at higher levels in the distant past; that the hockey stick is bullhockey and was a fraud from the beginning; that sea level rise has decreased to less than in pre-global warming days; that glacier melt verifiably started 20,000 years before global warming was invented – and that dendro based paleoclimatology is a dead end career field because it’s based on bad science. And much more. Any time you want to discuss real science, just let me know. I worked with atmospheric scientists for 42 years. Contrary to the claims of the IPCC and the Team, most of them don’t believe in AGW either.”
—————-
I don’t know about the ice cap, but I can SEE that the glaciers are melting. Yes, there’s been more CO2, and it has also been much hotter, but the point is that we are ADDING CO2 in ways and amount that as never been done before. I don’t believe that there is a hockey stick IF they get MWP properly entered, but supposedly MWP created more erratic warming at different times in different areas. I trust dendro more for dating than for temperature. But overall, I sense your PASSION to disprive AGW and without ebven knowing your data, I distrust you as I distrust those passionately pushing AGW. It is quite POSSIBLE, as far as I can tell, and that about exhausts my passion on the subject, because my political agenda is close to neutral.
————-
#78 chemman writes:
Dwight did you mean to day that increasing concentrations of CO2 both cause and are caused by warming? Otherwise your statement is senseless.
————
Are you implying that it only works ONE way? In the past I assume that increased heating from natural causes helped produce more CO2, which forced even more heating. In this case, we are adding the CO2, so the forcing will happen even without added heat triggering it, but then that heat will trigger more CO2 etc.
Would there be a parallel in geological time when so much CO2 got added without being directly caused by warming? The question is , will our addition of all the CO2 cause serious problems for humans on the planets. Of course, the earth will be fine; it doesn’t seem to care if it is water-covered or ice-covered. But it makes a least some difference to some of us.
Environmentalism is the state religion of the United States. Get used to it. It won’t just go away. We will soon see, first hand, why the founders put the establishment clause into the Constitution. Remember, when all it takes is faith, science is not an issue any more.
I say, get the government completely the hell out of the financing of scientific study through research grants. Besides corruption of the scientific community, what is gained by it?