Jun 06 2008

More Scientific Evidence That Disproves The Global Warming Hysteria

Published by at 12:45 pm under All General Discussions,Global Warming

The basic tenant of global warming spoon fed to gullible masses is CO2 levels drive the global temperature. They claim this because CO2 is a green house gas (so is water vapor) part of the process heat trapping the Earth’s atmosphere does so we are protected from the frigid cold of space. The theory is this minor component of the green house mechanism (supposedly around 5% or less of the total process) is driving global warming.

The other obvious driver could be the Sun itself. If the green house mechanism was operating as usual, and more energy was being pumped into the atmosphere, then it would not be the fault of CO2 levels that Global Temperatures have been rising for 400 or so years. In fact, if you look at our neighboring planets you can see indications that this is exactly the case (see here and here). It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out warming of Mars and Jupiter are not due to CO2 levels in Earth’s atmosphere.

In fact, I posted recently on some work which tracked CO2 levels over the ages and global temperatures and there seems to be no connection whatsoever (except the chance CO2 levels are a response to warming, not a driver).

Not well known is the fact that those who pray at the altar of the Church of Al Gore and Global Warming have claimed there is no way solar activity could be the cause of the recent warming. Now someone has come out and put another nail in the coffin of the global warming hysteria, by demonstrating how solar activity has tracked very well with global temperatures.

The influence of the sun has been discounted in the climate models as a contributor to the warming observed between 1975 and 1998. Those who support the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), now known as anthropogenic climate change so that recent cooling can be included in their scenario, always deny that the sun has anything to do with recent global temperature movements.

The reason given is that Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varied so little over that period that it cannot explain the warming that was observed.

Note the period given is the last 30 years, but note the chart above and the solar irradiation, and how it jumped 50 years ago (you can click on it to go to the original, larger version).

It is true that, as the alarmists say, since 1961 the average level of TSI has been approximately level if one averages out the peaks and troughs from solar cycles 19 through to 23.

However, those solar cycles show substantially higher levels of TSI than have ever previously occurred in the historical record.

Because of the height of the TSI level one cannot simply ignore it as the IPCC and the modellers have done.

I would agree there is a combination of factors here, one definitely ‘man-made’. Throughout the last century until the warming started in the 1990’s the increased irradiance was not translating into an average increase in temperature. CO2 levels were rising during this period, but they still are and as the top graph shows we have seen 10 years of flat temps with the next 10 years predicted to experience actual cooling. With CO2 levels marching higher why will we in essence see 20 years without a green house effect?

The fact is Global Warming is not Global at all – it is centered over the massive explosion of human beings in China, India, etc, as the following US government chart clearly shows:

The article linked above which notes the direct connection between solar irradiance and global temperature increases suggests that the increased solar energy that started 1961 slowly built up the overall temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. But I would also wager the human activity happening in the areas where the density of human beings has sky rocketed also has played a part in tipping the global average higher. As the chart above shows the America’s show almost no warming (+/- 1 degree) whereas the area of Asia (but not Russia) show huge jumps in average temperature – tipping the overall “global” number up one degree in 100 years.

But if the cooling comes despite increasing CO2 and human activity over the next 10 years, then there is no other conclusion to reach – the Priests of GW were wrong.

When someone proposes we cripple our economy and downgrade our current living standards at an astronomical cost to every human being on the planet, is it really too much to ask they have real evidence and they don’t pretend evidence to the contrary simply doesn’t exist?

GOVERNMENTS and industry need to invest at least $US45trillion ($47trillion), or 1.1 per cent of world GDP annually, to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the International Energy Agency has warned.

That calls for a massive increase in nuclear energy output – about 32 new nuclear plants a year for the next 40 years, compared with the 393 currently in commission – and other forms of non-carbon-emitting power generation. An average 60 new coal- and gas-fired electricity plants around the world would need to be fitted each year with carbon dioxide capture and storage technology, at a cost of $US90billion annually.

Massive investment would be needed to develop CO2 reduction technology, up to $US100 million annually for the next 15 years, the IEA asserts in its Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 report. But the alternative, under a continuation of current energy use, is a 130 per cent increase in emissions over that time and a 70 per cent net increase in global demand for oil.

Unless of course the person making the requests are simply delusional or lying, then I guess it really is too much to ask.

Update: Our ever astute reader Crosspatch notes this post and this updated figure from above showing a continued global cool-off in May (click to enlarge):

29 responses so far

29 Responses to “More Scientific Evidence That Disproves The Global Warming Hysteria”

  1. Rick C says:

    I wanted to pick up on Norm’s comments on peer review. I am becoming less convinced that peer review is particularly meaningful. Oh, peer review may pick up some obvious errors, but it seems to be a cursory review at best. The reviewer basically seems to accept what he expects to see. So, if the reviewer expects to see evidence of global warming and the reviewer accepts the concept of global warming, he doesn’t seem to really dig into the paper. That is how the Hansen temperature data and the Mann hockey stick graph got through and into publication. No one, it seems, really delved into the backup for the conclusions in the paper. But, peer review, to the public, has been turned into some mystical process that is supposed to guarantee accuracy. That is where Norm goes wrong. Peer review is turning out to be some haphazard, nondescript process.


  2. crosspatch says:

    Yes, Rick, it is turning more into “crony review”. Especially when you have an organization with an agenda. They pick the papers and they pick the reviewers. Just because one is a peer of the writer doesn’t mean they are entitled to be a reviewer. The publication picks the reviewing peers.

    What is most discouraging is formerly respected publications as Nature start doing this. If you publish a paper in any other area of science, say physics, and refuse to make your raw data and methods available you will be ripped to shreds. But that is perfectly acceptable when it comes to climate science for some reason. IF you are “one of the team” you need not produce any data or publish what you did with the data, only your conclusions. It makes a mockery out of science.

    What Steve McIntyre did to raise the ire of the climate “scientists” was to simply have the gall to ask for their data. He was then marked as one of those “crazy deniers”. It is just plain crazy.

  3. WWS says:

    And meanwhile, cycle 24 still hasn’t started – nearly 2 years late now. No spots, no storms, big drop in radience.

    The collapse of the global warming con is going to be the first, and possibly the least significant effect of this.

    Yes, world temperature is dropping rapidly. The sun is still in standby mode. Has anyone considered the consequences if it keeps dropping like this for several more years?

    You probably don’t want to.

  4. VinceP1974 says:

    There will be massive food shortages and further inflation of food costs.

    Thanks Congress for doing the opposite of what should have been done.

  5. Dan Pangburn says:

    Any activity to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide is a waste of resources. Graphs of climate history (data from cited credible sources) presented at http://www.middlebury.net:80/op-ed/pangburn.html show that carbon dioxide level has had no significant influence on climate. Absorption of infrared radiation takes place close to the surface; half within 24 meters. Doubling the CO2 moves it about 4% closer. As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to go up and the average global temperature doesn’t more and more people are going to look foolish.

  6. WWS says:

    Agreed, Vince. Also, demand for heating oil and natural gas will surge just when we need demand to drop, probably leading to another doubling of oil and gas prices from where they are now.

    That means $10 per gallon gasoline, and our economy as it is structured now simply does not and will not work at $10 per gallon gasoline, piled on top of massive food price inflation.

    But we may have no choice but to go there.

  7. […] warming have been debunked over the last ten years of rising CO2 and lower or flat temperatures. In my last post yesterday on this subject I noted how the real bubble of hot air is not just over DC – but covers the Asian […]

  8. […] clear since we have just completed a decade of flat or slightly cooling global temperatures while CO2 output continues to rise.  Now a study has demonstrated that the US is not the world’s leader in CO2 production. […]

  9. […] in the face of Global falling temperatures with rising CO2 levels, the prediction of a decade to come of falling temperatures to come and two decades of unfulfilled […]