WHAT! Warming? But they said - - -

They said aerosols, the Asian Brown Cloud may be the best known example, hide the effects of anthropogenic global warming. They said without that protection we would experience much more warming, much faster.

But wait! When someone finally did real science instead of guesswork, turns out:

"We found that atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50%.

"[The pollution] contributes as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends," they suggested.

"We propose that the combined warming trend of 0.25 Kelvin per decade may be sufficient to account for the observed retreat of the Himalayan glaciers."

(Quotes lifted from a BBC article.)

There is another quote worth remembering. One that applies to virtually every bit of MDI, CO2, IPCC global warming "science" you see:

The scientists, from the University of California San Diego and the Nasa Langley Research Center, said

there remained a degree of uncertainty because, until now, estimates had largely been derived from computer models

.

Problems with Man Did It Global Warming

I make no claim to be a scientist qualified to fully evaluate all the science on either side of the Man Did It (MDI) claims. I do claim enough intelligence to see serious problems with much of the MDI "science."

To that end, I've decided to join in with the heretics, skeptics, and members of the vast right wing conspiracy bringing you science opposed to the highly politicised bovine excrement coming from the IPCC and their friends. I will update this post from time to time as I re-find or encounter new information indicating problems with claims and models as well as comments from real scientists who are not part of the "Global Consensus" man is at fault.

Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, mathematician and physicist at the laboratory of solar physics [ at the Saint Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory ] and supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station tells us the world will go through a major cooling period, possibly rivaling the Little Ice Age (LIA), in mid 21st century. He says it is a result of reduced solar output resulting from normal cycles. One of many articles: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2006/02/07/scientist_predicts_mini_ice_age/2345/
If anyone finds his paper in english translation, please post a link.

CO2 concentrations of 380 PPM are going to kill us all. Yeah, OK. Somehow they never mention concentrations of 7000, yes seven thousand, parts per million (PPM) during the Cambrian period. Global temperature was about 22C at the time. Stayed there as concentrations fell to about 4000 PPM. Then the worst nightmare of the MDI crowd happened. Temperatures, with CO2 concentrations still at 4000 PPM, began to fall. Big time. The Ordovician - Silurian ice age was beginning. Worse, for the MDI gang, concentrations then started rising as temps continued falling.

Graph Image http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Source Page http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Developed by CR Scotese: http://www.scotese.com/ScoteseCV.htm

Augie Auer, clearly a member of the universal consensus, says "Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried," he maintained.

"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

Death Of The Hockey Stick! The global warming hockey stick from Mann et al is dead. You may remember the hockey stick temperature chart is a keystone of MDI global warming. (The stick: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/sci_nat_enl_1092666337/img/1.jpg )

Real scientists finally looked at it and pronounced it dead. They used the sometimes too polite language of science so you'll still see people trying to make out like it's a valuable tool. That's easily debunked with the first paragraph of the National Academy of Sciences report. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added.

Let's look at the last 400 years or so. That's 1600 to present for grins. We're starting that time during the Little Ice Age, LIA, claims to the contrary, evidentialy supported as a world-wide event. Just 50 years before one of three minima (coldest periods). We continue through the LIA's end in about 1850. Cripes gang, I hope we're warmer than then. The cheeseheads would be really upset if a polar bear chomped Favre during a game. :-) The start date for the LIA is still up for grabs. 1250 when the Atlantic Ice Pack started growing? 1300 when warm summers in Europe stopped being dependable? 1550 when evidence suggests a global glacial expansion began? The first minima in 1650? So much for warmer than any time during the last 400 years since they were in an ice age. That call's so hard I could have made it.

Less confidence for the 600 years before 1600? Not according to the IPCC and Mann. They toss the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO, ~800 - ~1300 AD) out the window just as they try to toss the LIA. As with the LIA, there is enough evidence suggesting the MCO was worldwide to make a viable argument.

Guess they didn't ask the Vikings who "discovered" Greenland about 1000 AD (AKA CE). Don't forget ancestors of modern Inuit who lived there off and on since about 2500 BCE (AKA BC).

Evidence from Greenland, superior evidence due to our knowledge of things mankind, suggests the island was warmer then than today by a couple of degrees C.

The NRC report and National Academies coverage should have been straight up so no one could be confused about the non-value of Mann's work.

Michael Crichton made an excellent comment about consensus science. "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had." Did he have anything useful to say about "science" when the alleged scientists refuse to release either their data or processes?

What was Mann's excuse for withholding it until Congressman Barton demanded it in 2005?

Little Ice Age (LIA) and Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO or MWP) Even though the IPCC chose to ignore the LIA and MCO, the evidence they were global phenomena is far superior to evidence for the IPCC GW lynchpin hockey stick
http://w3g.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/soon+baliunas.cr.2003.pdf

This Just in: Hot Air Study Melts Global Warming Theory
Global warming alarmists may want to expedite their efforts to hamstring the global economy with greenhouse gas regulation. A new study touted as showing that we’re not sufficiently panicky about manmade carbon dioxide emissions actually supports the exact opposite conclusion. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275267,00.html

Woods Hole: Not usually known as a hotbed of climate heretics does remind us the entire MDI fracas is built on data too limited to be reliable: Natural climate changes like the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period are of interest for a few reasons. First, they occur on decade to century time scales, a gray zone in the spectrum of climate change. It continues with Geological data clearly document globally coherent climate change on thousand-, ten thousand-, and hundred thousand-year time scales, so why is the record so confusing over just the past 1,000 years? http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=3842
We should all recognize they are saying approximately "Short term climate change, anything less than 100 years, doesn't tell us a whole lot. The last thousand years are unusual in the long term record." When we hear a real scientist (Not Internet Al) talk about MDI global warming, we might want to consider if their wording is shaded to stave off attacks by the politicians.

George W. Bush did not cause Hurricane Katrina! http://fromzcorner.blogspot.com/2007/05/processes-that-govern-formation.html

Hurricanes: Not Just Hot Air

Just Do Something! Death By Enviro Do-Gooder

Another Nail In AlGore's Foot Why he was wrong about Mt Kilimanjaro's glaciers.

Where Oh Where Did The Carbon Go NCAR reports CO2 sinks are not what the models say.

Brown clouds heat atmosphere, may create as much as half the warming blamed on CO2.

Warmest year on record moves to 1934.

Excellent article explaining why many scientists believe the sun is driving temperature changes and some believe we may see a 1.5 degree C cooling by 2020




Stay tuned for more updates to this post.