Bordering the North Atlantic Ocean, North America would logically be expected to provide considerable proxy evidence for the existence of the millennial-scale oscillation of climate that is so clearly revealed in the meticulous work of Bond et al. (1997, 2001). And it does!
Note: The Idso’s go on to report on 13 such studies and reference a total of 28 papers that support this historical variability.
In light of these observations, all responsible people must confront what we call the problem of the three difficulties. First, it is difficult to deny the existence of the pervasive millennial-scale oscillation of climate that alternately produces periods of relative warmth and coolness (such as the Modern Warm Period and Little Ice Age) at regular intervals throughout both glacial and interglacial periods alike. Second, it is difficult to deny that the phenomenon responsible for the extreme regularity of the climatic transitions that produce these alternating warm and cool periods has its origin somewhere beyond earth. Third, it is difficult to deny that the other-worldly place of origin of this phenomenon is the sun.
Of course, it is no problem at all if one does not deny the reality of these observations; but one must then conclude that 20th-century global warming was most probably just the most recent phase of this natural climatic oscillation that is totally independent of the historical increase in the air’s CO2 content. But that, of course, would be politically incorrect. Hence, it would appear that one must make a choice in this matter between science and political agenda. We prefer the former. How about you?
To read more of this important research summary, see the detailed paper here.
By Bob Durrenberger
The author, Warren Meyer, a small business owner, has the academic background and experience needed to handle the science used to explain global warming, and the ability to put into words statements that expose the weakness of the case for anthropogenic warming (AGW) of the atmosphere. His undergraduate major at Princeton included basic physics courses as he completed a degree in engineering. His MBA at Harvard included work in forecasting economic futures. In the foreword of his book, he says that his effort is not an attempt to materially advance climate science, but rather to present the case against the proponents of human-caused global warming in a clear and understandable manner. He has succeeded in that goal and with a good editor and some changes in the topics that he covers could produce a volume that would be a major contribution to the literature on global climate change and counteract some of the damage that Al Gore and James Hansen have done to climate science. One should note that he considers his current book a first step on the way to acquiring a greater understanding of climate science.
One of the best chapters is entitled “Is It OK to Be a Skeptic?” in which he takes on the charges of the AGW enthusiasts of bias and discusses their need to exaggerate the effects of global warming.
In the section in which he discusses the global warming movement he has identified most of the groups that have joined the fight to save the world, but did not include the rather large number of religious groups that have become followers of Gore. He might also include a discussion of the 1000 apostles trained by Gore in Nashville to go out into the wilderness to spread the word to the “heathens” who have yet to be converted into changing their life styles. The author covers the fundamentals of the global warming theories and the frightening stories about the effects of climate change very well. These chapters include most of the recent findings of scientists working in the field. Read more here. You can see the on-line PDF of the book here.
By Dr. Bruce Merrifield in The American Thinker
The earth has been subjected to many warming and cooling periods over millions of years, none of which were of human origin. Data from many independent sources have mutually corroborated these effects. They include data from coring both the Antarctic ice cap and sediments from the Sargasso Sea, from stalagmites, from tree rings, from up-wellings in the oceans, and from crustaceans trapped in pre-historic rock formations.
The onset of each 100,000-year abrupt warming period has been coincident with emissions into the atmosphere of large amounts of both carbon dioxide and methane greenhouse gases, which absorb additional heat from the sun, a secondary warming effect. Solar radiation would appear to be the initial forcing event in which warming oceans waters release dissolved carbon dioxide, and melt methane hydrates, both of which are present in the oceans in vast quantities. Subsequent declines in radiation are associated with long cooling periods in which the green house gases then gradually disappear (are re-absorbed) into terrestrial and ocean sinks, as reflected in the data from coring the Antarctic Ice Cap and Sargasso Sea.
The current 100 year solar radiation cycle may now have reached its peak, and irradiation intensity has been observed to be declining. This might account for the very recent net cessation of emission of green house gases into the atmosphere starting about 1988, in spite of increasing generation of anthropomorphically-sourced industrial-based green house gases.
While it seems likely that solar radiation, rather than human activity, is the “forcing agent” for global warming, the subject surely needs more study. Read whole story here. Dr. D. Bruce Merrifield is a former Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs and Professor Emeritus of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. He holds Masters and Doctoral degrees in physical organic chemistry and currently is a member of the Visiting Committee for Physical Sciences at the University of Chicago.
Letters to The Hill Times, May 28th, 2007
Three Canadian Scientists responded to a letter criticizing an Op Ed in the Hill Times by Dr. Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. Dr. Madhav Khandekar, one of the respondees says it this way
Dr. John Stone while criticizing the opinion piece seems to naively believe that the climate change documents prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the last word in the complex science of climate change. Nothing could be further from the truth. The IPCC uses a flawed peer-review process which is unacceptable in the scientific community.
As an invited expert reviewer for the IPCC 2007 Documents, I provided comprehensive review for the first order draft (FOD) and the second order draft (SOD) of one chapter, November 2005 and July 2006, respectively. In my review, I pointed out several recent peer-reviewed studies which were completely ignored by the IPCC authors. To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD and sent me the SOD with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.
I have been an editorial board member for two international journals (Climate Research-Germany and Natural Hazards-Netherlands) and have reviewed more than 100 manuscripts submitted to these journals in the last 10 years. In no case was the manuscript accepted without full exchange of communication with the authors through the editorial offices in Germany and Netherlands, respectively. This is the essence of peer-reviewed process and is the standard procedure for any scientific journal. Unfortunately IPCC bypasses this process by claiming United Nations immunity. This is unacceptable.
Dr. Stone and other adherents of the IPCC science like to insist that the debate over climate change science is over and it is now time for action. I urge Dr. Stone to browse through recent issues of major international journals in climate and related science. Hardly a week goes by without a significant paper being published questioning the science. The science of climate change is continuously evolving. The IPCC and its authors have closed their minds and eyes to this evolving science which points to solar variability as the prime driver of earth’s climate and not the human-added greenhouse gases. See the full story here.
By Dr. Bob Carter, Courier Mail
Kevin Trenberth is head of the large US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and one of the advisory high priests of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A New Zealander by birth, Trenberth has had a distinguished career as a climate scientist with interests in the use of computer General Circulation Models (GCMs), the basis for most of the public alarm about dangerous global warming. When such a person gives an opinion about the scientific value of GCMs as predictive tools, it is obviously wise to pay attention.
In a remarkable contribution to Nature magazine’s Climate Feedback blog, Trenberth concedes GCMs cannot predict future climate and claims the IPCC is not in the business of climate prediction. This might be news to some people. Among other things, Trenberth asserts “. . . there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been”. Instead, there are only “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.
According to Trenberth, GCMs “. . . do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents”. “None of the models used by IPCC is initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.
In a paper being presented at the 27th International Symposium on Forecasting in New York this week, Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green audit the relevant chapter in the IPCC’s latest report. Armstrong and Kesten conclude that “because the forecasting processes . . . overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific”.
In a third devastating blow to the credibility of climate forecasting, a lead author of the IPCC Working Group 1 science report, Jim Renwick, recently admitted “climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well”.
Read full story here.
By Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science
Since 2002, we have been seeking to have photographs of the US Historical Climate Network (HCN) sites made available. The HCN sites are used as part of the diagnosis of the surface temperature anomalies on monthly and yearly time scales, as well as the United States contribution to the construction of the global average surface temperature trend used in climate assessments such as the 2007 WG IPCC Report (see Figure SPM.3a, for example).
NOAA, however, has consistently failed to provide these photographs. As result, several scientists have independently obtained photographs for specific locations and have identified significant siting problems with a number of locations. Since this HCN data is so central to the discussion of climate change, it is imperative that the actual locations where the data is being collected be adequately documented.
Recently, Anthony Watts has established a website to record these photographs. He has worked to assure that the photographs are obtained appropriately.
As a result of this effort, NOAA has removed location information from their website as to where they are located. This information has been available there for years. This is a very disturbing development, as individuals in NOAA’s leadership have used their authority to prevent the scientific community and the public access to critical information that is being used as part of establishing climate and energy policy in the United States.
The new NOAA policy is a deliberate attempt to avoid presenting this information for scrutiny. See full detailed blog here.
Vinther etal., (2006) combined early observational records from 13 locations along the southern and western coasts of Greenland, extending the overall temperature history of the region - which stretches from approximately 60 to 73°N latitude - all the way back to AD 1784. In the words of the authors, “two distinct cold periods, following the 1809 ‘unidentified’ volcanic eruption and the eruption of Tambora in 1815, [made] the 1810s the coldest decade on record.” The warmest period, however, was not the last quarter century, when climate alarmists claim the earth experienced a warming that was unprecedented over the past two millennia. Rather, as Vinther et al. report, “the warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record [was] 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s [were] the warmest decades.” In fact, their newly-lengthened record reveals there has been no net warming of the region over the last 75 years!
There has been no net change in air temperature there in response to the 25% increase in the air’s CO2 content experienced over that period. And this is the region the world’s climate alarmists refer to as a climatological canary in a coal mine??? If it is, real-world data suggest that the greenhouse effect of CO2 has been hugely overestimated!
See the full story here.
World Climate Report, June 26, 2007
If you have an interest in global warming and its effect on mountain glaciers, you will be thrilled to know that there are over one million websites on the subject. Even before you get to the first site, you already know what you will find. Burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, the Earth is warming, mountain glaciers are in full retreat all over the planet, delicate ecosystems are in peril, and humans who rely on the freshwater from mountain glaciers better get creative fast. Recall that in the Gore film, a great deal of attention was paid to the diminishing “snows of Kilimanjaro” – Gore has made hay in Glacier National Park as well pointing to shrinking glaciers. Retreating mountain glaciers have become a poster-child of the global warming alarmists – no presentation on the subject is complete without one.
Someone in Europe missed the memo on this subject as a recent article has appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research entitled “Very high-elevation Mont Blanc glaciated areas not affected by the 20th century climate change.” To say the least, we at World Climate Report were interested in what the authors had to say.
The research was conducted by six scientists from leading agencies and departments in France and Switzerland that deal with hydrology and glaciology.
“All these results suggest that the SMB at Dôme du Goûter and Mont Blanc did not experience any significant changes over the 20th century.” The first sentence of their conclusions section states “Geodetic measurements carried out in 1905 and 2005 on the highest ice fields of the Mont Blanc range indicate small thickness changes and show that these very high-elevation glaciated areas have not been significantly affected by climate change over the last 100 years.” Later in the conclusions section, they write “In any case, this study reveals that the very high-elevation ice fields in the Mont Blanc area have not been affected by the climate warming. See full story here.