31,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Theory To be Named Monday

NewsBusters ^ | May 18, 2008 | Noel Sheppard

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

The names of over 31,000 American scientists that reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming are to be revealed Monday.

... this will occur at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

1.) Those that say that AGW has occured after the inception of the Industrial Age are using the logical fallacy knwon as Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, or "After this, therefore because of this."

2.) The Earth has went through numerous cycles of warming and cooling, warming and cooling over the eons. Ice core samples have found that in times past that the levels of Co2 were much higher than now and that the Earth still went into a cooling phase following this. We will go through another cooling cycle.

Where was Environmental Al to stop the levels of Co2 rising back then?

3.) Those that say "We must act quickly before it is too late!!!" are using a logical fallacy knmown as Slippery Slope.

4.) Time for the AGW alarmists to step aside and let the adults take charge.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

What say you?

[Slapshot68]

I say that I doubt you’ll see anything about this on tonight’s nightly news.

[edcoil]

Give them a medal and split the 800 million dollars Al Gore got and divide it up between them.

[American Quilter]

I say this is why all of the people whose incomes are now dependent on global warming study grants started changing the term a year ago to “climate change”. Now regardless of the weather, they can continue to claim 1) there’s a problem, 2)it’s people’s fault, and 3) I need government funds to study the problem.

[Fox_Mulder77]

31,000?!? That’s all?1? That’s just 620 scientists per state. Sorry, but I believe Al Gore over just 31,000 nerds. ;-p

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

I say this this info can be pounded across the net. And that this - combined with Rush, Hannity and others on talk radio and with Fox News - can more than make up for that.

[Ender Wiggin]

First we issue the list, then we collect them all at a “special Antarcic research station”. Then we have an unchallenged consensus.

Do not mock global warming.

[SlowBoat407]

Are you now, or have you ever been, a Global Warming denier?

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

“Climate Change”?

The Earth’s climate has had a long history of “changing.”

The earth’s climate will change again and again, from cooling to warming and warming to cooling, and on and on.

It’s a natural cycle.

[Domandred]

What was the “consensus” amount of scientists? You know the ones that claim global warming and all that crap. Think it was 21K if I remember right. So now there is officially 31K who disagree, and put their names to that disagreement. That doesn’t sound much like a consensus to me.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

It isn’t about “Global Warming.”

The issue is about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

AGW is a scam.

[NCC-1701]

That would make each one of them $25,806.45 richer. Go for it.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

If I remember correctly, liberals said that 2000+ scientists at the UN saying that AGW was fact was “consensus.”

Now, we have 31,000 that stand in oppostion to those 2000+ at the UN.

What does this mean?

If libs thought that the 2000 at the UN was “consensus,” then they must now go with the 31,000.

Libs must now abandon the AGW scam.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Please prove that Global Warming is being caused by man.

[SlowBoat407]

Do not mock global warming.

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

If liberals which to learn how to think logically and rationally for once in their lives, they then must look at the URL, and at posts #1,10,12,14 & 15 and abandon AGW.

[Liberals are Evil Socialists!]

The biggest idiocy of the Demonrat strategy is that Gore’s whole concept releis on the Keeley Curve. That data ahs been collected at the top of an active volcano for the last 20 years. Anyone who knows anything about that area knows that CO2 and “Vog” has been increasing exponentially. Pure politics.

[RightWhale]

This is at least the 3rd thread and they still have not contacted me.

[pgyanke]

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

I say that all the time! Unfortunately, most of the people I say it to don't get it... and just stare at me.

[Hoffer Rand]

Those that say "We must act quickly before it is too late!!!" are using a logical fallacy knmown as Slippery Slope.

More like "We must act quickly before it is too late!!! Before people figure out we've been getting filthy rich, duping them."

[Liberals are Evil Socialists!]

Sorry for the typo/edits...

What a load of political agenda-driven bs...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

http://www.wunderground.com/education/gore.asp

And so whaboutthis:

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>The names of over 31,000 American scientists that reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming are to be revealed Monday.

Wonder if Algore and John McCain are paying attention. hehehehehehehe

[woofie]

I say that the anti-man made global warming folks need to lawyer up

I dont see any way to fight this stuff except in the courts
and if you can slow it down for 15 years or so we will know who is right

[Domandred]

Really only 2000ish wow. I remember the 2, but can’t remember how many 0’s were after it.

[agere_contra]

Much of the tension in AGW debate is driven by one inescapable fact. Our CO2 levels have indeed gone up in the last few hundred years.

The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 380 ppm. This is a ~30% increase in CO2 levels since the Industrial revolution. This has SOME effect on the climate. SOME. But how much?

First question: what is the approximate level of temperature change we can expect from Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)?

The relationship between CO2 and temperature in the lower atmosphere is broadly logarithmic. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, it absorbs less and less additional ground-emitted energy to produce correspondingly less and less additional warming. ­At some point adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn’t significantly change atmospheric temperature.

This logarithmic response is just a first approximation: calculating the actual warming effect of CO2 is non-trivial as many of the atmospheric processes involved are still being quantified. A common starting ground amongst modellers are estimates for the amount of cooling Earth would experience for a hypothetical zero-CO2 cloud-free atmosphere.

The results of these 'clear-sky' models can be seen here:

These three models show the simple logarithmic behaviour. They suggest that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would increase temperature by between 0.64 to 1.46 deg C.

However these models are first steps that explicitly leave out many factors - e.g. the effects of water vapour and cloud cover. For instance Professor Lindzen (MIT, author of one of the clear sky models) states that a doubling of CO2 would lead to an increase of only ~ 0.22 deg C with 40% cloud cover, about a 1/3 of the clear sky model.

Lord Monckton (Science Adviser to Margaret Thatcher) gives a technical gloss of the frankly complex modelling of CO2 doubling: this can be found here

His summary is that the best-attested effect of CO2 doubling is ~0.5 deg C per doubling of CO2.

In distinction to these luminaries, the IPCC's assessments of climate change predict that the temperature goes up ~ 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2.

Readers can see right there the dynamo that drives the current AGW furore - the UN's assessment of climate-forcing from CO2 is about SIX times that of MIT meteorologists and other modellers.

Which is correct? After all it's not an easy task for relative laymen to distinguish between one set of apparent experts and another.

Fortunately there is an experimental test which distinguishes the models. The IPCC models all predict a mid-troposphere “hot spot” about 10km above the Earth’s surface. The dissenting models predict that this spot doesn't appear. This hot spot is not, as it happens, observed by radiosondes - therefore the lower estimating models (Lindzen et al) should be given preference.

As stated earlier the current atmospheric CO2 level is about 380 ppm. This is a ~30% increase in CO2 levels since the Industrial revolution. Fitting a 30% increase against Monckton's median result from non-IPCC models of 0.5 degrees per doubling gives us a temperature increase of ~ 0.15 degrees Centigrade.

So our best estimate of the effect of the 30% post-revolution change in CO2 is a temperature increase of about 0.15 degrees C.

 

Second question: is 0.15 degrees significant?

To get an idea of how significant a 0.15 degree shift would be, let us examine temperature variations over the last thousand years.

The most exhaustive temperature reconstructions covering the last ~ thousand years that I have been able to locate were commissioned by the US Senate in 2005. A copy of the collated graphs is shown below:

Looking at these graphs one can trace a (broadly speaking) sinusoidal variance in temperature over the last 1000+ years. It was warm in 1100, cold in 1600/1700 and warm again in 2000. The variation is + or minus 2 degrees C.

An extra 0.15 degrees from AGW on this scale is just noise - it's more than an order of magnitude down from the sinusoidal variation of effective solar heating.

 

Digression: Mediaeval Warm Period

Before we leave this graph we should note the Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP) centred at about 1100 AD. It lasted about 200 years.

During the MWP it was at least as warm as it is now. Greenland was colonised by the Vikings, the great cathedrals were built in Europe, diets were good enough that people grew to approximately the same height as they reach today (this last intriguing tidbit is from here)

The importance of the MWP to our present discussion is that it points up the cyclical nature of our climate due to variation in effective insolation. No-one would maintain that the MWP was caused by CO2 emissions during the Dark Ages: it is evidently a perfectly natural maxima in the insolation graph.

However AGW proponents such as the Royal Society and the IPCC maintain that our current warm period is starkly different from the rest of human history. According to these sources we have recently had "the eleven warmest years since records began in 1850". Also: they frequently opine that no factors apart from anthropogenic CO2 can possibly explain the current warm period.

But the Senate reconstructions make it evident that in 1850 Europe was only just beginning to climb out of a prolonged cold period (the so-called 'Little Ice Age') that started way back in ~ 1300. Also: our modern warm period looks just like the MWP - we are currently in just another local maxima in effective insolation. The MWP didn't come about from AGW: why would the author assume that the modern warming period has?

To reach the conclusions they do, IPCC and Royal Society AGW advocates would have to believe that CO2 causes a large amount of temperature change per doubling (in line with the discredited IPCC models) AND that the entire MWP is somehow not significant in regard to the status of our current warm period.

 

Third question: 0.15 degrees C may not be significant, but what if or when CO2 doubles? What would we be looking at?

CO2 is currently growing at ~ 30 ppm per 10 years: this is currently thought to be due to a prolonged growth spurt by the Chinese and Indian economies. If they or others sustain the growth in CO2 emitting industries for another 130 years the concentration of CO2 will double, assuming no buffer mechanisms kick in. The predicted warming effect of this doubled CO2 is (pace Monckton) ~ 0.5 degree C at current levels of insolation.

Half a degree is hovering on the edge of being a significant amount of warming. But to put this in context: in 130 years we will have certainly come out of the current Modern Warm Period and be moving into the next five hundred year 'Little Ice Age'. A 0.5 degree increase in global temperature from Anthropogenic CO2 would buffer the two degree drop one would expect to be associated with the 'Post-Modern Little Ice Age'.

 

In Summary:

The sum total of AGW is a minor effect that is (for instance) completely swamped by the eleven year variation in solar radiance. Our climate is driven by effective insolation: the effect of AGW is a small perturbation on this.

To project a slightly more significant role for AGW in the next century it is necessary to make a rather broad assumption about coal and oil-based industrialisation for the next 130 years. By that date the role of any AGW would still merely act to buffer the descent into a long cold period.

 

Further Reading:

I highly recommend http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ as an excellent overview of common questions about the (somewhat misnamed) 'Greenhouse' effect.

[Ender Wiggin]

Easy. There was no recording of global warming before humans showed up.

My first post was sarcasm, I had thought it was thinly veiled, sorry.

[pburgh01]

55 and misty here in Pittsburgh. We are -8 from norm for the month of May. Snow in the Poconos this AM. Most of America is waking up to this, sad it took 4 buck a gallon gas for folks to wake the freak up and question the eggheads and bureacrats. It’s a Green Party scam foisted upon us from European communists. Naked socialism did’nt sell in the 30’s and 60’s, but slap the face of Polar bear on it and Green Leaf logo and people will just surrender their liberty. Not here scumbags

[beaversmom]

You mean before President Bush we had seasons too? Fascinating.

[bassmaner]

John McCain: Are you paying attention???

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Right. the first early records were taken down in shorthand by monkeys and have been lost in the jungle someplace...

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Saint Al will not be mocked.

[lesser_satan]

BTTT

[isaiah55version11_0]

31,000 Filing for unemployment on Tuesday.

[lesser_satan]

There is no god but Gaia, and Goracle is her prophet.

[editor-surveyor]

"What say you?"

"The Earth has went through numerous cycles of warming and cooling..."

Has you went to skool? ;o)

[The Great RJ]

20,000 years ago the spot where I’m sitting was under a 100 ft. of ice. Obviously quite a bit of global warming occurred without the benefit of SUVs, nasty Republicans, big carbon foot prints etc. Also obvious there was a whole lot of global cooling to make these hemisphere wide glaciers. The AGW cultists have no answer for this.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[IGBT]

..the Carbon-Con racketeers are frothing at the mouth to get their punitive tax scams going.Follow the revenue.. They have willing accomplices in the media and gov. that are willing to go along with their agendized psychopathy. The lower rungs of the ladder are loaded with numerous eco-KOOK groups that see agenda fulfillment within grasp. And the next rung below the eco-KOOKS are innumerable quasi enterrupters that are counting on government mandates to be enforced on consumers and small businesses to comply with the Carbon-Con. So there’s plenty of vested intrest in pushing forward with the Carbon-Con.

[saminfl]

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

I say that all the time! Unfortunately, most of the people I say it to don't get it... and just stare at me.

If I could, I would be staring at you. I don't get it either.

Sam

[Phantom Lord]

31,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Theory To be Named Monday

Any idea or guesses on what this Global Warming Theory is going to be named?

[mc5cents]

From Keeling Curve in Wikipedia:

This increase in atmospheric CO2 is considered (by whom?!) to be largely due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and has been accelerating in recent years. This is supported by measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in ancient air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores, which show that mean atmospheric CO2 concentration was between 275 and 285 ppmv for several thousand years but started rising sharply at the beginning of the nineteenth century.(Really? Never before? Hmmm. Doubt it.)[5] Since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, this has significant implications for global warming. ( Don't belive it.)

More horse manure from the AGW scamers makes it's way to wikipedia.

[pgyanke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Fun_Ball

[Brett66]

This sounds like the start of a joke-how many scientists does it take to drill through McCain’s thick skull?

Unfortunately the punch line isn’t funny.

[mc5cents]

I just looked at the calendar and it is Monday, the 19th of May. Where is the list? Is it on the net yet? I know it takes a long time to type 31,000 names so I will wait. Let me know when it shows up.

[rockinqsranch]

“4.) Time for the AGW alarmists to step aside and let the adults take charge.”

Dream on. Those “AGW Alarmists” are adults with adult passions for power and legacy. They will never “step aside” for any reason. They must be kicked aside and left tied to their precious trees while we retake our Nation, and our Planet. Only in their total defeat will we be able to resume our lives unencumbered by their mentally deranged BS.

[snowsislander]

You can find the petition, the signers, and how to be come a signer at http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html.

[cyberella]

Awesome video:

The same kind of terrorists who support Obama did this:
http://www.frugalsites.net/911/attack/
Never apologize for them.
Never appease them.
Never forget.

[repubpub]

“Now, we have 31,000 that stand in oppostion to those 2000+ at the UN.

What does this mean?”

Nerd gang fight!

[calex59]

Are you now, or have you ever been, a Global Warming denier?

The correct answer to this question, in order to stay out of a re-education camp, is that you definitely believe in Climate Change, and that sometimes that means things warm up and sometimes they cool down but ultimately Climate Change is the cause of it all, along with storms, droughts, floods, rain, snow, desserts, swamps, hurricanes, tornadoes, water spouts and the Loch Ness Monster.

Now you are armed with the knowledge to keep out of indoctrination centers and re-education camps. /Sar