from LibertyUnbound Website
During the 20th century, the earth warmed 0.6 degree Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit), but that warming has been wiped out in a single year with a drop of 0.63 degree C. (1.13° F.) in 2007.
A single year does not constitute a trend reversal, but the magnitude of that temperature drop - equal to 100 years of warming - is noteworthy. Of course, it can also be argued that a mere 0.6 degree warming in a century is so tiny it should never have been considered a cause for alarm in the first place. But then how could the idea of global warming be sold to the public?
In any case, global cooling has been evident for more than a single year.
Global temperature has declined since
1998. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon dioxide has gone in the other
direction, increasing 15-20%. This divergence casts doubt on the
validity of the greenhouse hypothesis, but that hasn't discouraged
the global warming advocates. They have long been ignoring far
greater evidence that the basic assumption of greenhouse warming
from increases in carbon dioxide is false.
80% of the 20th century's carbon dioxide increase occurred after
1940 - but most of the century's temperature increase occurred
before 1940! From 1940 until the mid-1970s, the climate also failed
to behave according to the greenhouse hypothesis, as carbon dioxide
was strongly increasing while global temperatures cooled. This
cooling led to countless scare stories in the media about a new ice
But carbon dioxide comprises only 0.035%
of our atmosphere and is a very weak greenhouse gas. Although it is
widely blamed for greenhouse warming, it is not the only greenhouse
gas, or even the most important. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse
gas and accounts for at least 95% of any greenhouse effect. Carbon
dioxide accounts for only about 3%, with the remainder due to
methane and several other gases.
The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere comes from nature, not from man. Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria produce carbon dioxide, as well as methane. According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world.
Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. (If greenhouse warming is such a problem, why are we trying to save all the wetlands?)
Geothermal activity in Yellowstone National Park emits ten times the carbon dioxide of a midsized coal-burning power plant, and volcanoes emit hundreds of times more. In fact, our atmosphere's composition is primarily the result of volcanic activity. There are about 100 active volcanoes today, mostly in remote locations, and we're living in a period of relatively low volcanic activity.
There have been times when volcanic activity was ten times greater than in modern times. But by far the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions is the equatorial Pacific Ocean. It produces 72% of the earth's emissions of carbon dioxide, and the rest of the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, and the other oceans also contribute.
The human contribution is overshadowed by these far larger sources of carbon dioxide. Combining the factors of water vapor and nature's production of carbon dioxide, we see that 99.8% of any greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity.
So how much effect could regulating the tiny remainder have upon world climate, even if carbon dioxide determined climate?
During the Ordovician Period, the carbon dioxide level
was 12 times what it is today, and the
earth was in an Ice Age.
Since carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas, computer models predicting environmental catastrophe depend on the small amount of warming from carbon dioxide being amplified by increased evaporation of water.
But in the many documented periods of higher carbon dioxide, even during much warmer climate periods, that never happened. During the time of the dinosaurs, the carbon dioxide levels were 300-500% greater than today. Five hundred million years ago, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 15-20 times what it is today.
Yet the catastrophic water-vapor amplification of carbon dioxide warming never occurred.
Today we're told catastrophic warming will result if carbon dioxide doubles. But during the Ordovician Period, the carbon dioxide level was 12 times what it is today, and the earth was in an Ice Age. That's exactly opposite to the "runaway" warming that computer models predict should occur.
Clearly the models are wrong; they depend upon an assumption of amplification that is contrary to the climate record of millions of years. There is no reason to trust the computer predictions - or base public policies on them.
Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, has stated,
There are other examples where the computer models fail to agree with reality.
According to the greenhouse hypothesis,
the warming should occur equally during day and night. But most of
the warming that has been observed has occurred at night, thus
falsifying the models.
Superimposed, these cycles might augment or cancel each other. There are also periods when sunspots "crash," or almost disappear, which can lead to dramatic cooling of the earth for several decades. This is what happened 400 years ago during the Maunder Minimum, which was the coldest part of the Little Ice Age.
During one 30-year period during the
Maunder Minimum only about 50 sunspots were observed, compared to a
typical 40-50 thousand.
Atmospheric temperature measurements furnish direct, unequivocal evidence
that whatever warming has occurred is
not from the greenhouse effect.
Sunspots have now virtually vanished. You can check out pictures of the sun day after day after day for the last few years here.
Very few show more than one sunspot and
many show none. We are currently at a solar minimum, awaiting the
start of the next solar cycle. If sunspot activity does not pick up
soon, we could be in for some seriously cold climate. The jury is
still out on sunspot numbers.
Professor Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory in Russia, believes a slow decline in temperatures will begin as early as 2012-15 and will lead to a deep freeze in 2050-60 that will last about 50 years.
Climatologist Tim Patterson thinks that by 2020 the sun will be starting its weakest 11-year sunspot cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on earth.
The global warming advocates make all sorts of false claims about dire consequences of global warming.
They claim it will result in the spread of malaria, food shortages, more human deaths, more violent weather, and a loss of biological diversity through the extinction of species. All untrue.
The largest number of species - the greatest
biological diversity - is in the tropics. As you move away from the
equator, you find fewer and fewer species, until you reach the
earth's poles, where there is zero diversity because nothing can
And there are at least 300 studies showing plants and forests grow faster and more luxuriantly under conditions of increased carbon dioxide.
can only be made by people who have no
Our bodies require heat. We are warm-blooded and have no fur.
We wear clothes, build homes, and heat them with fires, all as protection against the cold. Far more people move to Florida, California, or Arizona because of warm climate than move to Alaska, North Dakota, or Montana. Canada is the world's second largest country, but 90% of the population lives within 100 miles of its southern border. Worldwide, far more people die every year from cold than from heat.
So why should global warming be bad
For example, the IPCC states,
This is "clearly untrue," says Reiter.
New York City and Boston had long histories of malaria.
In 1933, when President Roosevelt
authorized the Tennessee Valley Authority, a third of the population
in the area had malaria. Malaria was not eliminated in the United
States until 1951. It was done through the use of DDT - which the
environmentalists prevailed upon the United States to ban, resulting
in 40-50 million unnecessary deaths from malaria since 1972.
The two that are decreasing are in an area where the climate has gotten colder!
Furthermore, the polar bears survived many periods of much warmer temperatures, some lasting thousands of years. They survived the Medieval Warm Period a thousand years ago, when the Vikings settled both Iceland and Greenland. Greenland actually was green then and could support agriculture; but when the cold returned a few centuries later, the people there all starved to death.
Today Greenland is covered by a sheet of ice.
Six thousand years ago the earth's climate was much warmer than now, and the polar bears survived. Ten thousand years ago the earth's climate was a whopping six degrees C (11 degrees F) warmer than now, and the bears survived. Polar bears have been a distinct species for 125,000 years (they descended from grizzly bears) and they've survived far warmer climates than anything they face today or in the foreseeable future.
A Canadian polar bear expert, Mitch Taylor, says,
NASA has "adjusted" recent temperatures upward and older temperatures downward,
which creates the appearance of warming.
The argument that a warmer climate will bring more violent weather can only be made by people who have no knowledge of climate history or simply dismiss it because it contradicts their propaganda. And they rely on the public - and the media - being uninformed enough and gullible enough to believe them.
There is abundant historical evidence
that the earth had far more violent weather in times of colder
climate, such as the Little Ice Age, than in warmer times. It is
well known, too, that what determines violent weather is the
temperature differential between the equator and the poles. All the
computer models predict the greatest warming from the greenhouse
effect will be at the poles, which will reduce that differential and
NASA is out of step with the other three. The others show global temperatures declining since 1998 while NASA shows them increasing at a record pace.
How can that be?
It explains that NASA has "adjusted" recent temperatures upward and older temperatures downward, which creates the appearance of warming. The man behind these changes is James Hansen, the scientist who started the whole global warming hysteria by testifying before a Senate committee in June 1988 that he was "99% sure" greenhouse warming was already under way.
The same media which scarcely a decade earlier were touting a coming ice age now seized upon Hansen's unsupported testimony and began touting global warming. Hansen has been trying ever since to come up with evidence to support his claims, now even tampering with the actual temperature record.
Steven Goddard asks,
Statistically, the odds are 50/50 of an error being either up or down.
But Hansen adds an upward correction to
the average of thousands of temperature measurements annually across
the globe in more than 55 years out of 70. That's like flipping a
coin 70 times and having it turn up heads 55 times. The odds of that
happening are about one in a million.
It showed a thousand years of "reconstructed" global temperatures as a long horizontal trend looking like the long handle of a hockey stick - with a sharp rise since 1900 looking like the blade of the hockey stick, due to global warming.
This work has now been thoroughly discredited. It was the product of multiple inaccuracies from errors, omissions, obsolete data, and manipulations in "reconstructing" data, all of which was then processed through an invalid statistical procedure. That procedure was found to produce a "hockey stick" even from random inputs, and Mann himself later admitted it would find a "hockey stick" where there wasn't one.
The National Academy of Sciences found a "validation skill not significantly different from zero." The issue was presented to the National Academy of Sciences by the Wegman Panel, consisting of three independent statisticians chaired by an eminent statistics professor, Edward Wegman, who also testified about it at a congressional investigation.
After explaining the incorrect mathematics in Mann's procedure, Wegman stated:
Ideology trumps mathematics!
(Incidentally, this graph is still being
used on TV programs on global warming. I was on one such program
less than a year ago that displayed this graph four or five times in
an hour and allowed Mann plenty of airtime to tout it, and the
program provided no rebuttal. And I have been told by students and
parents that the "hockey stick" graph is still being used in
Some scientists assert that the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (about 380 parts per million) is the highest in 800,000 years. The media sucks this up and broadcasts it all over the airwaves and the newspapers, and the public, not knowing any better, believes it must be true.
But how could such learned men be so ignorant in their own field of expertise as to not know of the abundant temperature records that give lie to their claim? How could they not know of the monumental compilation by Ernst-Georg Beck of more than 90,000 direct carbon dioxide measurements, between 1812 and 1961, from 175 published technical papers?
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., says these measurements were ignored for three decades,
The 2007 IPCC Summary report states:
In fact, the ice cores show measurements
of over 400 ppm as recently as about 1700 A.D. and 420 ppm about 200
A.D. Ice cores show similar carbon dioxide levels intermittently
over the last 10,000 years. So who is wrong, the ice cores or the
IPCC? Just who are the "deniers" of reality?
He writes that the ice core information in the 2007 IPCC Summary Report was,
Furthermore, from over 90,000 direct
measurements of carbon dioxide, Beck graphed five-year averages,
which further discredit the IPCC claim. These show 440 ppm carbon
dioxide for the years 1820 and 1940, and 390 ppm for 1855. Can there
be any doubt that the IPCC is distorting science for
Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and a university professor before he became president, is the author of a book on global warming and has spoken often on the subject.
It does not help because global warming alarmism is not based on rational argument.
It is not based on science. It is not based on reality. It is based on political ideology. If rational argument doesn't fit, then phony arguments must be invented: the spread of malaria, the loss of biological diversity, polar bears disappearing, etc.
If computer models can predict disaster scenarios only by programming unrealistic assumptions, then that will be done.
If global warming does not fit the observable temperature measurements, then a new "reality" must be invented to fit the ideology: the actual temperature records must be altered or dismissed.
The global warming advocates are not disturbed by all this because, in their view, ideology trumps reality.
James Hansen revealed his hatred of capitalism in an impassioned email
denouncing the attention paid to errors in NASA data.
Patrick Moore, a cofounder and director of Greenpeace, resigned because of its,
After the failure of communism, he says, there was little public support for collectivist ideology.
In his view, a,
James Hansen revealed his hatred of capitalism in an impassioned email denouncing the attention paid to errors in NASA temperature data:
Do you ever wonder how communism could last for 70 years in Russia?
Surely there was plenty of evidence, for decades, that the system was failing: food shortages, declining life expectancy, increased infant mortality, low standards of living, primitive hospitals, and sanitation facilities lagging far behind those in Western Europe and America - not to mention pollution far worse than in the West. But to diehard communists, the facts did not matter. All the observable negatives of collectivism were trumped by ideology.
The same is true of the ideology behind global warming.