jump to navigation

EDITORIAL: Global warming’s unscientific method April 8, 2010

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

EDITORIAL: Global warming’s unscientific method

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES, April 7, 2010

Science is undermined by scaremongers’ abuse of peer-review process

The prophets of global warming continue to lament as their carefully crafted yarn unravels before their eyes. Ross McKitrick, an intrepid economics professor from the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, has tugged apart the thin mathematical threads that once held together the story of climate change.

Recent attempts to silence Mr. McKitrick illuminate the extent to which the alarmists have abandoned proper scientific method in their pursuit of political goals.

Mr. McKitrick has spent the past two years attempting to publish a scientific paper that documents a fundamental error in the 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. This U.N. document serves as the sole authority upon which the Environmental Protection Agency based its December “endangerment finding” that will allow unelected bureaucrats to impose cap-and-trade-style regulations without a vote of Congress. The cost to the public in higher gas and energy prices will run in the billions.

One might think that the scientific community would be extra diligent in double-checking the conclusions of a report carrying such weighty real-world consequences. In fact, the opposite happened. Seven scientific journals circled the wagons to block publication of Mr. McKitrick’s explosive findings.

Read the rest here

Comments»

1. Bush bunny - April 8, 2010

Here’s a quiz (LOL) Is the planet warming.

Yes it is?

Since the last 160 years has this been tied into AGW, ie. The Industrial revolution?

Yes it appears to have.

Obviously the amount of CO2 emissions have caused this, don’t you agree?

No way Jose!

Why?

Because your statistics only include the last 160 years. If you take it back 2000 years, you will notice the Medieval Warm Period when grapes were grown in Northern UK in temps that are higher than now.
Then the mini ice age from the 1300s to approximately mid 1850s.
Since the 1850s temps have risen, not because of AGW because of
normal ice age to interglacial swings. Welcome warmer temps, they are not extreme either by paleaoclimate stats!

Earth our home is a natural ice planet, green house gases keep us
warm. Climate is dictated not by surface temps, but by solar activity,
cosmic sub atomic bombardment, ocean currents, cloud cover and of course normal seasonal events. Welcome CO2 AGW.

Extreme weather does happen, has happened. Cutting CO emissions
will not alter the climate, pollution in some regions yes! All those that promote AGW are promoting Carbon Credit investments and green
energy investments and nuclear.

Wake up. Sustainability is one thing. Global government is another,
the EU are trying to control every member’s economy, including their
so called CO2 emissions.

2. Oliver K. Manuel - April 8, 2010

“Mr. McKitrick has spent the past two years attempting to publish a scientific paper that documents a fundamental error in the 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.”

I experienced the same response to our finding that the interior of the Sun is mostly iron and it is heated by neutron repulsion.

Finally in 2005 I traveled to Russia to present a paper showing that NAS, NASA and DOE have repeatedly misrepresented the operation and source of Earth’s heat source – the Sun [See “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass,” Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) pages 1847-1856].

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509v3

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Former Principle Investigator for NASA’s Apollo Program

3. Icarus - April 8, 2010

And yet, the world still warms.

4. Icarus - April 8, 2010

If you take it back 2000 years, you will notice the Medieval Warm Period when grapes were grown in Northern UK in temps that are higher than now.

What happened 2,000 years ago is irrelevant to what is happening now. 2,000 years ago we weren’t burning billions of tons of fossil fuels, as we are now. 2,000 years ago, only natural forcings changed the Earth’s temperature – today, human forcings overwhelm natural ones.

Then the mini ice age from the 1300s to approximately mid 1850s. Since the 1850s temps have risen, not because of AGW [but] because of normal ice age to interglacial swings.

‘Swings’ is not a climate forcing. Natural (non-anthropogenic) climate forcings include variations in solar irradiance, albedo, volcanic aerosols and greenhouse gases. Currently the net effect of natural forcings is around zero, or slightly negative. Hence around 100 – 110% of the global warming of the last half century is due to human activity – mostly anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Earth our home is a natural ice planet, green house gases keep us warm.

Precisely. Increase the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by around 40%, as we have done in the last ~200 years, and you warm up the planet.

5. gallopingcamel - April 9, 2010

Thank God for the Washington Times.

How much longer will we have to endure the Washington Post?

6. Icarus - April 9, 2010

If you take it back 2000 years, you will notice the Medieval Warm Period when grapes were grown in Northern UK in temps that are higher than now.

What happened 2,000 years ago is irrelevant to what is happening now. 2,000 years ago we weren’t burning billions of tons of fossil fuels, as we are now. 2,000 years ago, only natural forcings changed the Earth’s temperature – today, human forcings overwhelm natural ones.

Then the mini ice age from the 1300s to approximately mid 1850s. Since the 1850s temps have risen, not because of AGW [but] because of normal ice age to interglacial swings.

‘Swings’ is not a climate forcing. Natural (non-anthropogenic) climate forcings include variations in solar irradiance, albedo, volcanic aerosols and greenhouse gases. Currently the net effect of natural forcings is around zero, or slightly negative. Hence around 100% to 110% of the global warming of the last half century is due to human activity – mostly anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Earth our home is a natural ice planet, green house gases keep us warm.

Precisely. Increase the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by around 40%, as we have done in the last ~200 years, and you warm up the planet.

7. Bush bunny - April 10, 2010

Icarus, with great respect. You can’t claim AGW by just a study of the last 160 years! Even if fossil fuels have increased, doesn’t prove that human’s are causing climate change. Polluting yes., and Urban areas are warmer because they generate more surface heat and radiation reflection.

The medieval warm period (MWP) and Mini ice age are being ignored. And the planet has since 2000 started to cool again, and hasn’t surpassed the Medieval Warm Temps. Even if CO2 were to double (natural occurring plus human made) it would increase global temps by only 1C. This would suit most countries, the warmer it is the more rain we get in Australia.

Provided we get enough clouds to provide it. The further inland one
goes the lower the natural precipitation expected.

The hockey stick Mann graph has been disputed and proven wrong.

And your stats are denied. Take water vapor out of the equation
that amounts to 95% of greenhouse gases, and that 99% of CO is created naturally then your 40% is not worthy of an intelligent person’s
consideration. CO2 and Greenhouse gases do help keep this planet warm, or cool. There are universal forces at work driving our climate
and there is bugger all we can do change them.

And countries like Germany and France are beginning to question
the AGW and UN IPCC as their populations are also turning against
the climate change alarmists. And the solutions offered to change our climate. We die from extreme weather, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis. Climate is what we expect – Weather is what we get.

How can we explain why four planets in our solar system have warmed too. As far as I know that’s not caused by AGW?

There are many things we can do (country by country to be considered not a global rule to suit all regions) to make our planet
healthier. And cutting CO2 or methane emissions are not. All that will do is make some people richer and others much poorer. We need energy to make developed countries thrive. Some underdeveloped countries (if I should term them as that, sounds elitist) would greatly advance with a good electricity supply.

To add and compare alleged global temp rises, and ignore the MWP and MIA, I’ll make up one of my own, concerning sea level rises.

‘On March 27 2010, Cairns suffered from rising sea levels. Sea water
flowed down the main street to prove that global warming is causing this. It was the highest sea level recorded in the previous four weeks.”

This happens regularly in Cairns. Caused by king tides that happen
only during a full moon…every four weeks.

During last years cyclonic period, people in NT and Northern Queensland had floods, and some went to higher ground as a precaution. Same as this year, rain and floods brought long awaited
rain to parts of Queensland. But similar conditions effected St.George
town, in the late 1860s. Well they weren’t using fossil fuels then?

8. Icarus - April 11, 2010

You can’t claim AGW by just a study of the last 160 years!

The properties of greenhouse gases are very well known, and have been for well over 100 years, so the direct effects of those gases on the Earth’s climate are a fairly straightforward (though laborious) calculation – look up ‘line by line radiative transfer codes’ in the literature. You acknowledged this in your earlier statement that “greenhouse gases keep us warm“. You’re perfectly correct on this point. The Earth’s surface emits longwave radiation (heat) of around 390W/m², whereas the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere is only around 240W/m², so we know that around 150W/m² is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that is what keeps the Earth around 30°C warmer than it would otherwise be.

Increasing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases thus produces an enhanced greenhouse effect, warming the planet – you acknowledged this as well, when you said “Even if CO2 were to double (natural occurring plus human made) it would increase global temps by only 1C.“. The 1°C figure is incorrect, but otherwise you’re right on both of the above points, and neither of them rely on any knowledge of the climate from hundreds, thousands or millions of years ago. Agreed?

Where the study of palaeoclimate does come in useful is in the estimate of climate sensitivity – the long-term temperature change expected from a particular forcing. Obviously if you warm up the planet by increasing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases then you’re also going to cause water vapour to rise, ice to melt, vegetation to change and so on, all of which are feedbacks which also affect global temperature. From palaeoclimate and also modern observations, climate sensitivity can be calculated at around 0.75°C/W/m². This means that we can expect the current anthropogenic forcing of 1.6W/m² to give rise to a warming of 0.75*1.6=1.2°C, of which we have so far seen around 0.7°C, with 0.5°C ‘in the pipeline’ but not yet realised because of lag in the climate system (mostly the very long time it takes for heat to be dispersed in the oceans).

Notice that this 1.2°C already exceeds your estimate of 1°C for a doubling of CO2 to around 560ppm, and we’ve only reached 390ppm today. You can dispute the value of climate sensitivity and claim it is much less than 0.75°C/W/m², but then it’s very difficult to explain how a forcing of only around 7W/m² gave rise to a warming, coming out of the last ice age, of around 5°C (5/7=0.71°C/W/m²). We also have the direct observations of global cooling after major volcanic eruptions such as Mt. Pinatubo, which supports the value of around 0.75°C/W/m² for climate sensitivity.

My point about the climate 2,000 years ago being irrelevant is that we hadn’t increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% then. Any changes in climate that happened 2,000 years ago were therefore entirely natural. This is not the case today. You cannot argue that we are causing an enhanced greenhouse effect today, and at the very same time argue that because the climate changed naturally 2,000 years ago, we can’t possibly be causing it to change now. You are contradicting yourself.

To briefly address your other points:

The Earth is still heating up at around 0.2°C per decade. See here.

Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ was vindicated by the US National Academy of Sciences.

Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing – i.e. it responds to warming caused by other factors, such as changes in insolation and long-lived greenhouse gases. Hence although it is responsible for more of the greenhouse effect than CO2 is, it is only there *as a consequence* of CO2 (and other long-lived greenhouse gases), and therefore cannot be responsible for global warming. Any excess of water vapour would fall out as rain within days, and so water vapour by itself cannot maintain a warm world.

Other planets in the solar system are not warming, as you claim.

Global sea level has been rising for many decades, and that rise is accelerating. Only two things can cause this: Expansion of sea water due to warming, and melting of ice on land. It has nothing to do with tides, or storms, or rain. Hence rising global sea level is direct proof that the Earth’s climate system is steadily warming (even if you don’t believe the temperature records, and you don’t believe in disappearing glaciers and melting ice sheets).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: