If Roger A. Pielke Sr. is a renegade, neither NOAA nor the University of Colorado nor Colorado State University seem to know about it. Dr. Pielke heads up a research group that is funded largely by NOAA, and is supported by the universities. Pielke is an independent researcher. He recently published a paper calling for volumetric measurement of oceanic temperatures, in which he points out that the oceanic surface temperatures have not shown warming for the past several years.
Since it is thermal mass that must rise in temperature in order to modify the environment, stable oceanic temperatures are indicative of no global warming, because the thermal mass of the oceans by far swamps out the thermal mass of the atmosphere, and the shallow temperature variation of the continental surfaces.
So according to Pielke, temperature variations of the entire oceanic mass must be measured before conclusions should be made. Perhaps the missing thermal energy was transmitted downward to the depths - would it affect the climate from there(?) - or more likely the missing thermal energy was re-radiated into space.
Automaton robots have been released into the South Pacific off of Australia which will measure temperatures around the Pacific and report back through Satellite links. Just released in October of 2007, there is not yet enough data from these.
In other news,
"Now there is a new paper by V. Ramanathan and Greg Carmichael to appear on March 23 in Nature Geoscience titled “Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon” [and thanks to Jos de Laat for alerting us to it!].
"The Scripps news release which announces this is titled “Black Carbon Polluition Emerges as Major Player in Global Warming”.
"The report writes that
“…. soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2″
“In the paper, Ramanathan and Carmichael integrated observed data from satellites, aircraft and surface instruments about the warming effect of black carbon and found that its forcing, or warming effect in the atmosphere, is about 0.9 watts per meter squared. That compares to estimates of between 0.2 watts per meter squared and 0.4 watts per meter squared that were agreed upon as a consensus estimate in a report released last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N.-sponsored agency that periodically synthesizes the body of climate change research. “
Solar Contribution Studied
The INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, Thursday, February 07, reports on other contributions to the surface warming:
"...researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.
Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.
Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.
Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.
This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.
Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.
R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."
Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."
Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."
In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.
A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.
"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."
But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.
Another hit to Global Warming.
The famed "hockey stick" graph of which the alarmist crowd gets all gooshy over, is wrong, possibly a fraud. The "hockey stick" is so named because of the purported shape of the temperature curve, which was drawn as a shallow rising slope until the late 1800's where a breakpoint occurs, then escalating into a steeper curve. This was taken as proof positive that the earth is warming, and mankind is guilty.
Problem is, the inventor of the diagram, Dr. Mann, added a fudge factor which he did not disclose. He used data from just one Bristlecone pine tree, and "adjusted" his data. Recently the hockey stick has been scrutinized and found to be false.
From Technology Review:
"Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!"
Not only is there no breakpoint in real data analysis, but the temperature rise is not out of statistically reasonable bounds. In fact the data shows a downward trend for most of the second half of the 20th century, and is on a par with pre-industrial, pre-fossil-fuel temperatures. This data has been obtained by analysis of a number of Bristlecones, and without adjustments.
All this, along with charges that the IPCC cherry-picked not only data, but wrote up false summaries that did not reflect the data in the details of the report, and cherry-picked personnel by "releasing" those who disagreed.
When Global Warming can be blamed for bad hurricane years as well as no hurricane years, El Nino years and non El Nino years, droughts and floods, in fact everything and anything at all, something is wrong somewhere. In fact one report claimed Global Warming responsibility for early Spring in Florida, as well as late Spring in Texas.
The claim that Global Warming is "fact", cannot possibly be correct; there is not enough uncompromised data to verify it, and there is a significant body of data that falsifies it. As with other suspicious "sciences", "Global Warming as Fact" is a worldview, not a science.
No comments:
Post a Comment