Home > Global Warming > Climate Change Sunday

Climate Change Sunday

I was thinking about making Sunday, my day to post some thoughts on Global Warming…I mean Climate Change.  I forgot that Global Warming isn’t the right term to use anymore.  In an effort to be as honest as possible, I will say upfront that I am a Warming Skeptic. By that I mean, I don’t think there is enough sufficient evidence to support Anthropogenic Warming (Man-Made Warming). I do acknowledge that the Earth has been warming for the past 100 years. That is to be expected after coming out of a mini-Ice Age though.

So far 2010 has been a bad year for Global Warming. The IPCC was forced to pull the year old claim that the Himilayan Glaciers were all going to melt by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

Publishing a pop journal’s claim as a “peer-reviewed” scientific claim, that doesn’t sound like real science to me. This in itself is pretty damning. The IPCC is supposed to offer only scientifically valid claims about Global Climate Change. It seems like they’ll publish anything to support their claim of AGW.

This story has had some remarkable implications. The IPCC chief, Dr. Pachuari has known about this little mix up for months, and never told anyone.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

It’s one thing to accidentally publish a claim that was unknowingly false. It is entirely another thing to keep your mouth shut about the whole thing after you learn it was false.  Of course how could Dr. Pachauri bother to delve into the details of the GlacierGate, he was “terribly occupied” with Copenhagen arrangements!

That’s two hits against AGW in one month.

But wait there’s more!

A new Science article suggests that Carbon isn’t a problem after all. That Mother Nature can and is correcting for any excess Carbon in the atmosphere. Here’s the abstract.

Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming

Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.

The implications of the article drive a stake through the heart of most Warmist claims that we are all doomed unless we “do something.” Since 2000, global temperatures have not risen according to the models used in the IPCC report. One of the e-mails in the ClimateGate fiasco explicitly showed how frustrating that is.

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

It’s wildly known that water vapour has the biggest impact on the greenhouse effect, roughly 36-72%. Carbon is the second largest, 9-26%. None of the models used by the IPCC or any other group of “consensus” scientists that propagate AGW have water vapor anywhere in their models. That’s like saying a kid is fat not because he eats fast food and plays video games all day, but because his mom doesn’t give him his vitamins. It’s asinine. It’s not science.

This doesn’t disprove AGW claims. In science, nothing can really be proven or disproven. But, it does put a wrinkle in the “consensus” that AGW is a “proven” fact.

Categories: Global Warming
  1. kenoshamarge
    February 1, 2010 at 06:58

    I am also a skeptic. I have become “more” not “less” skeptical recently due to the “Climate Change Community” behaving in an unethical and dishonest manner. To my way of thinking, and I don’t claim any expertise in this area whatsoever, if you are right and have the evidence to prove that you are right you don’t need to play games with the facts. Once people have shown themselves to be less than honest and ethical I don’t trust what they say. Why would anyone?

    • February 1, 2010 at 17:05

      Of course it doesn’t help when you have Warmists shouting down and calling any skeptic a flat earther or worse, a denier.
      It’s a lot like how the Obot response to criticism initially had me skeptical of him, the same is true for AGW. The reactions of the supporters practically drove me to the other side, then once I did some of my own digging and research I found out that both weren’t what they appear to be.

  2. yttik
    February 1, 2010 at 11:30

    “That Mother Nature can and is correcting for any excess Carbon in the atmosphere.”

    Exactly! I was once trying to explain how the Earth actually adjusts and heals herself and I was struck by the arrogance of people who insisted that the only impact on the Earth is man made. Human beings control climate exclusively, the earth simply bends to our will. Well, any science that fails to recognize the power of mother nature, the incredible forces going on that are so much bigger and badder then us, isn’t really science at all. LOL, come to think of it, anytime people line up and demand you “believe” you’ve left the realm of science entirely.

    • February 1, 2010 at 17:07

      It’s Hubris…unbelievable Hubris!

      The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

      – F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit

      I think that quote easily applies here as well.

  3. Woodhull
    February 1, 2010 at 11:40

    ZH: Here’s my “contribution” to the discussion. Fact is, in 2004 I had a very large ornamental tree cut down in my front yard as a birthday present to myself(!) It was April 22, Earth Day. I live in the Evergreen State. I also live on a hill that, if my tree-hugging neighbors would keep the “crap trees” (volunteer trees that the birds poop out and are just ugly – think spindly locusts, cherry and overgrown laurel) cut down, would allow me a fantastic view of salt water that I am paying property taxes through the nose for but can no longer see.

    Have you seen this bit of news about environmental watch-dog group WWF?

    “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

    The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.”


    Admittedly, I am very late to this party and you’ve no doubt seen this info. And TL wonders why there are skeptics. jeese.

  4. Woodhull
    February 1, 2010 at 11:47

    On the above link to timesonline, don’t miss the comment by Pete Ridley. I’m no closer to either agreeing or disagreeing on some of these issues, but I do find people like Pete to be rather more engaged and able to comment because of it. He makes a good case for skepticism.

    • February 1, 2010 at 17:09

      The best case for skepticism is that it’s what science is all about! I’ve said it before, science is all about skepticism.

  1. February 6, 2010 at 07:43
  2. April 4, 2010 at 07:09

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: