Posted on 01/25/2002 7:38:28 AM PST by dalereed
Scientific findings run counter to theory of global warming
Joseph Perkins
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
January 25, 2002
Oh dear. What will the doomsayers say now? How will they explain away yet two more scientific studies that clearly contradict the global warming orthodoxy?
For much of the past 14 years, since the United Nations created its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've been warned that human activity is overheating the planet.
And nowhere is that supposed to be more evident than in Antarctica, the proverbial bellwether for planetary climate change.
Indeed, in recent years there have been any number of scary reports claiming that the White Continent is warming up and shedding its ice shelves at a startling rate.
Which has led to the most ominous forecasts by environmental advocacy groups such as the National Resources Defense Council.
Glaciers and polar ice packs will melt," it direly predicts, in its global warming "fact sheet."
"Sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. Andspecies will be pushed to extinction."
So how do the climatory Cassandras on the environmental left explain the new study, appearing in the current edition of the journal Nature, that shows a net cooling, rather than warming, on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000?
What particularly amazes is that the cooling trend has actually gotten more pronounced since the mid-1980s. Air temperatures recorded continuously over a 14-year period ending in 1999 declined by 0.7 degrees in Antarctica's polar desert valleys.
The study's lead author, limnologist Peter T. Doran of the University of Illinois at Chicago, was almost apologetic about the results produced by his team of scientists.
"This is an unexpected twist," he said, tacitly acknowledging that his data is inconsistent with global warming theory.
It's the same thing with the study, published in a recent issue of the journal Science, which concludes that the giant West Antarctic Ice Sheet is actually getting thicker, rather than melting.
Authored by Ian Joughin, a geologist with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology and Slawek Tulaczyk, a professor of earth sciences at the University of California Santa Cruz, the study found that the ice sheet is gaining 26.8 billions tons of ice a year.
Much like Doran, Joughin sounded almost regretful about his scientific findings, recognizing that it contradicts the global warming orthdoxy.
"It could be this part of the ice sheet is not necessarily sensitive to global warming," he said.
There is a curious thing going on in the scientific community. Scientists who produce research that does not comport with accepted wisdom on global warming – like Doran and Joughin – feel compelled to disavow their findings. Or, at least, to suggest that their results are aberrational.
Indeed, a few years back, the Climate Prediction Center, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, released a study that found the continental United States has actually gotten cooler, rather than warmer, over the past third of a century.
Yet, the scientists who produced the center's study went to great lengths to assure that their findings did not undermine prevailing notions about global warming.
Then there was the study by scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla.
They took Antarctic ice core samples from the last three glacial cycles (the transitional periods between ice age and planetary warming) to ascertain the relation between rises in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and increases in planetary temperature.
Based on global warming theory, there should first have been a rise in carbon dioxide levels followed by a rise in temperature levels. But, in fact the opposite actually occurred.
Yet, the Scripps scientists insisted that their results were not inconsistent with global warming theory.
It seems clear that much of the scientific community is in denial about global warming. That scientists are so empathetic to the IPCC, the NRDC and other global warming doomsayers that even those scientists who produce research that contradict the global warming orthodoxy are unwilling to admit as much.
Perkins can be reached via e-mail at joseph.perkins@uniontrib.com.
The Butterfly Effect
The demonstration shows a graphical representation of the time variation of three variables X(t),Y(t) and Z(t), coupled by non-linear evolution equations. For the default parameters of the applet a single solution is shown evolving from an initial condition (X0,Y0,Z0). You can also start two solutions running simultaneously from initial conditions separated by (dX0,dY0,dZ0) by setting any of dX0, dY0, dZ0 to nonzero values (e.g. 0.01). This tiny difference in the initial conditions becomes amplified by the evolution, until the two trajectories evolve quite separately. The amplification is exponential, the difference grows very rapidly and after a surprisingly short time the two solutions behave quite differently. This is an illustration of the butterfly effect - the idea in meteorology that the flapping of a butterfly's wing will create a disturbance that in the chaotic motion of the atmosphere will become amplified eventually to change the large scale atmospheric motion, so that the long term behavior becomes impossible to forecast.
The "Butterfly Effect" is often ascribed to Lorenz. In a paper in 1963 given to the New York Academy of Sciences he remarks:
One meteorologist remarked that if the theory were correct, one flap of a seagull's wings would be enough to alter the course of the weather forever.By the time of his talk at the December 1972 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. the sea gull had evolved into the more poetic butterfly - the title of his talk was* :
Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?In the applet we also see a second incarnation of the Butterfly - the amazing geometric structure discovered by Lorenz in his numerical simulations of three very simple equations that now bear his name.
It is also a fact that a warm surface on a body of water is only skin-deep; in order to release the CO2 it is necessary to warm the lower regions.
As the surface evaporates, the latent heat given off cools the layer directly below, acting as a lid.
Now we know why the enviro whackos fought for species protection for seagulls (the animal worlds welfare cases), without them the quackery of global warming would have been thrown out years ago!
It's also clear from the charts that the ice ages have been getting colder and lasting longer. Preceeding ice ages lasted for 50-70,000 years. The most recent ice age lasted nearly 100,000 years and was the coldest yet.
The inter-glacial period between ice ages usually only lasts 1,000-2,000 years. At 10,000 years and counting the current inter-glacial period is an extreme anomoly. If it had been anything like it's predecessors it would have come to an end 8,000 years ago. Man would now be living in the same cold and erratic environment as it had for the previous 100,000 years. However, the interglacial period did not end as it should have 8,000 years ago and the earth's climate has remained warm five-times longer than it should have. Imo this has been of great benefit to humans, allowing them to advance and create such things as civilization.
I think it's quite reasonable to assume that the cold, dry and fluctuating climate during the ice age could not support sustained agriculture and therefore, the development of civilization. Imo modern civilization is the product of the unprecedented stability and length of the current inter-glacial period. Without it we would likely still be the same hunter-gatherers that we were 10,000 years ago and for the 100,000 years before that. Imo whatever can be done to extend it should be.
Indeed, the scientific community never agreed that what they thought they perceived as global warming was in fact true, and especially if true that it was caused by human activity. The report that some 2,400 scientist reviewed and signed off on said that there was no evidence of such. However, after they all signed off, the report was changed to the current " "truth." " (Double quotes, to indicate how remote the word is from the reality.) This was acknowledged by the past head of the international scientific organization involved. (I won't sound too convincing, because I can not now remember the name of the organization or its former president.)
IMHO, the current scientific bias is all money-driven. Almost all research into such subjects is funded by governments, and the political reality is that governments have a decided interest in promoting the idea that "something must be done," and that it is government's job to do it. The economic reality is that no scientist wants to report findings which might cause his (her) funding to dry up.
1. Is global warming a statistically significant trend?
2.If so, is global warming caused by human activity?
3. If so, is there something human beings can do about it?
The first question hasn't been answered in the affirmative, so why proceeed to the last one?
The Kyoto (sic?) Treaty jumps the gun...follow the money for the reason why.
I really don't believe that anyone knows what the temperature on any part of earth was 450,000 years ago with 0.1 degree C accuracy, which is what the blue line on the chart seems to be painted in.
I you look at the last sentence in a giant university research study it will invariably be "inconclusive, needs further study", or something similar (can't all be by rote, someone might get suspicious). In other words, it's all crap science and they have their hand out for their next 2 years exorbitant salary.
Senate Betrayal Creates “Son of CARA” Monster (re: Conservation and Reinvestment Act )
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: January 29, 2002:
Author:Tom DeWeeseNaked Greens
Source: FrontPageMag.com Published: January 23, 2002;
Author:Lowell PonteThe US Does Not Need a “National Climate Service”
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: January 16, 2002
Author: Alan CarubaEnvironmental Corruption: A Cascade of Lies
Source:Commentary from the National Anxiety Center
Published: | January 07, 2002; Author:
Author: Alan CarubaFeds help fund green activists
Source:The Elko Daily Free Press; Published: 8 January, 2002 |
Author:JEFFRY MULLINS"Findings" vs. "Facts" In Washington (re: Global Climate Change Act of 2001/2)
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: December 12, 2001
Author: Patrick J. MichaelsThe Heart of Amazonia
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: November 29, 2001
Author: Marc MoranoTimber Industry Warns of 'Eco-Dictatorship'
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: November 27, 2001
Author: Marc MoranoCollectivist Greens Must Use Coercion Enforced By The Central State
Source: Author: Vin SuprynowiczDon't forget to attack domestic terrorism, too
Source: The Oregonian; Published: 11/19/01
Author: Nick NicholsEnvironmental Terrorists Also Oppose Civilization
Source: Banner of Liberty; Published: November 13, 2001
Author: Mary MostertThe Something Undermining Our Nation
Source: WorldNetDaily; Published: March 19, 1999
Author: Holly SwansonThe Last Word : “environmentalist”; saboteurs
Source: insight mag; Published: November 9, 2001
Author: Ralph de ToledanoHave the Muslim Terrorists Merged with Environmental Terrorists?
Source: Banner of Liberty; Published: November 9, 2001
Author: Mary MostertRadical Environmentalists Eyed After Discovery Of Bombs On Michigan Campus...
Source: DrudgeReport;
Author: PAUL PETERSONEnvironmental Radicals Not Slowed
Source: AP via The New York Times; Published: November 6, 2001Environmental Terrorists Deserve No Special Treatment
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 26, 2001
Author: Christopher C. HornerThe EcoTerrorist Anthrax Connection
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 23, 2001;
Tom DeWeeseNew Breed of Environmental Activists has Research Officials Bracing for Vandalism
Source: Pesticide Education Program at Penn State; Published: July 16, 2000
Author: St. Louis Post-DispatchThe Reality of 'Global Warming'
Source: NewsMax.com; Published: June 13, 2001
Author: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
It appears to me that these "scientists" refute their own theory when they claim that the cause of warming and receding of the ice ages and rise of carbon dioxide is caused by the wobble of the earths axis. In the letter they admit that it's not human caused without even knowing that they did it!
Scripps scientists rebut global warming column
In "Scientific findings run counter to theory of global warming" (Opinion, Jan. 25), Joseph Perkins distorts the facts about climate change and accuses scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography of dishonesty.
In regard to the Scripps work on Antarctic ice core samples, Perkins claims that "based on global warming theory, there should first have been a rise in carbon dioxide levels followed by a rise in temperature levels." This is false.
Global warming theory makes no claim that the demise of ice ages should begin with carbon dioxide increases. In fact, it has been known for more than 30 years that the wobble of the Earth's axis sets the timing of the ice ages.
The warming out of the ice ages typically takes about 10,000 years. The rise in carbon dioxide begins a mere 600 years after the beginning of the warming. Therefore 95 percent of the warming happens during a time of rising carbon dioxide. In short, the ice core data clearly do not rule out a warming role for carbon dioxide nor do they "run counter to the theory of global warming."
JEFF SEVERINGHAUS MARTIN WAHLEN RICHARD SOMERVILLE WALTER MUNK Professors, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
A lot of these guys that call themselves scientists today are not really true scientists. A true scientist always forms and modifies his hypothesis based upon the best set of existing available data. Many of these modern "scientists" contort and modify the data in order to fit their original hypothesis. What they are doing is actually the antithesis of true science. For many of these guys, anthropogenic global warming has become an article of faith, and they will not modify their theory no matter what the actual evidence says. They are "true believers".
Just posted this regarding activities down under:
What Australian Media is saying about Rudd, Gillard, and ETS – (Emissions Trading Standard)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.