Global Warming Hysteria

Contributed by Allan Taylor

We face a bleak economic future if the present unnecessary hysteria about global warming and climate change continues unabated and is acted upon by reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere..

The UN (IPCC) inspired doom and gloom predictions on climate change are based on computer modeling of global climate, from which most scientists know you can predict practically anything by suitable manipulation of data inputs. Contrary to the UN, there is no scientific evidence that an increase in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere causes climate change nor does it present a problem.

Climate is always in a state of change naturally and like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, is beyond human influence. So let’s be happy and enjoy living on a dynamic planet!

Carbon dioxide gas is NOT a pollutant, but a harmless and vital gas which trees and plants fix by the process of photosynthesis and liberate oxygen to the atmosphere. We humans and all animals need this oxygen to breath and survive. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is recycled naturally, as a plant nutrient, by rock weathering and by being absorbed in the oceans which cover 70% of the Earth’s surface. So don’t blame carbon dioxide for climate change!

We are now experiencing benign temperatures after recovering from the last Ice Age which lasted from 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, when northern ice sheets covered the Great Lakes region of North America. The extreme changes of climate and global warming which happened over the last 20,000 years occurred naturally, or are the UN officials going to blame the carbon dioxide emissions from aboriginal camp fires?

This hysteria about the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is a case of “barking up the wrong tree”. Remember the last computer-inspired hysteria concerning the millennium bug and the coming of the year 2000? This passed uneventfully and is now forgotten.

So, for the sake of the future world economy, the Amazon jungle and plants everywhere, give the thumbs down to this UN push into fantasy land.

8 thoughts on “Global Warming Hysteria”

  1. Here is a summary factsheet of some recent peer reviewed scientific papers that address some of the more common claims of global warming advocates. These papers indicate that their claims are not true and indicate that global warming is not a problem:

    1. Weather records have not become more frequent (as is commonly claimed) and, in fact, are occurring at a rate that is statistically indistinguishable from trendless white noise time series.
    Ref.: S. Redner and M. Petersen, On the Role of Global Warming on the Statistics of Record-Breaking Temperatures, scheduled for publication in Phys Rev Letters E.

    2. Sea level rise has been slowing down, rather than increasing as commonly reported.
    Ref.: Larsen, C.E. and I. Clark. 2006. A search for scale in sea-level studies. Journal of Coastal Research, 22(4) ,788–800.

    3. The recent reported warming of the oceans may be a reflection of faulty observations rather than a real warming.
    Ref.: Ivchenko, V. O., N. C. Wells, and D. L. Aleynik (2006), Anomaly of heat content in the northern Atlantic in the last 7 years: Is the ocean warming or cooling?, Geophysical Research Letters, 33.

    4. The Arctic Ocean has been ice free before and had much reduced ice cover before 1200 AD compared to the present.
    Ref.: Grinsted, A., Moore, J.C., Pohjola, V., Martma, T. and Isaksson, E. 2006. Svalbard summer melting, continentality, and sea ice extent from the Lomonosovfonna ice core. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111.

    5. Greenland temperatures for 1991-2000 are the same as they were for 1851-1860.
    Ref. Vinther, B.M., K.K. Andersen, P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, and J. Cappelen. 2006. Extending
    Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111.

    6. Snow cover has increased in Eurasia between 1936 and 2004, whereas models predict a decline.
    Ref.: Groisman, P.Y., R.W. Knight, V.N. Razuvaev, O.N. Bulygina, and T.R. Karl, 2006. State of the ground: Climatology and changes during the past 69 years over northern Eurasia for a rarely used measure of snow cover and frozen land. Journal of Climate, 19, 4933-4955.

    7. The amount of Antarctic ice is increasing.
    Ref.: Wingham, D.J., A. Shepherd, A. Muir, and G.J. Marshall. 2006: Mass balance of the
    Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 364, 1627-1635.

    8. Glaciers have been retreating for 250 years or more and their retreat is not a new phenomena or evidence for anthropogenic global warming. It is evidence for coming out of the Little Ice Age or evidence for an upward swing in the 1500 year climate cycle.
    Refs.: Pederson, G.T., S.T. Gray, D,B. Fagre, and L.J. Graumlich. 2006. Long-Duration Drought Variability and Impacts on Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from Glacier National Park, Montana. Earth Interactions, 10, Paper No. 4.
    Cullen, N. J., T. Mölg, G. Kaser, K. Hussein, K. Steffen, and D. R. Hardy (2006), Kilimanjaro Glaciers: Recent areal extent from satellite data and new interpretation of observed 20th century retreat rates, Geophysical Research Letters, 33. (Recession occurred mostly early in the 20th century.)
    Hong, Y.T., et al., 2000, Response of climate to solar forcing recorded in a 6000-year time-series of Chinese peat cellulose. The Holocene, 10, 1–7.
    Conway et al., 1999, Past and future grounding-line retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Science, 286, 280–283.
    Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M.N., Showers, W., Hoffmann, S., Lotti-Bond, R., Hajdas, I. and Bonani, G. 2001. Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science 294: 2130-2136.

  2. One thing about compuer models: Any simulation of a non-linear dynamic system (such as climate) will diverge at an exponantly increasing rate from (reality). They might be interesting academic excecises, but they have no
    long term predictive value.

    Another point: The number of “record” events in a stochastic system (with no underlying trends) is proportional to the log of the time over which measuements are made.

  3. RE: Sea level rise. At the weekend, we saw the pinnacle of hysteria gushing from the London FT. In their weekend homes section there was an op ed (its not proper to call it a proper objective article) which conflated sea level rise and riparian flooding issues. It go me thinking ….

    Most of the world’s tide gages are concentrated on the East Coast of the USA and on the Atlantic / Mediterranean coast of Europe. Of those coasts, the East Coast of the USA and the North Sea coast are strongly subsiding tectonically.This is most obvious in the case of the North Sea, by reasons of a tectonic roll of the dice. Even during the Pangea days, the North Sea was an existing basin. When the rift appeared forming what was to become the Atlantic, the North Sea was already existing crust. There is no more passive margin than the North Sea. Add to that the innate sea level increase due to the great melt starting 18KYBP and of course, the North Sea shore is receding. Along the East / Gulf coast of the USA, also a passive margin somewhat younger than the North Sea’s, there is also subsidence combined with the flooding due to the great melt of yore, which is into its decaying exponential phase.

    So when you read “the world’s sea level is rising” bear in mind the measurement biases which lead to such a statement.

  4. What amazes me is the assumptions upon which the Heidi Cullens of the world base their zealotry.

    Paleo-Temperarure reconstructions based on the assumption that tree rings and proxies are primarily temperaure related. Where are the verification studies to support this assumption?

    Instrument graphs are updated several times a year, but where is the raw data archived?

    The UHI is assumed to be a non-issue. The support for this assumption is based on other assumptions.

    Sea level is said to be rising assuming that guages are true reference points. The assumption is that most coastlines are tectonically stable. Where are the studies to show this?

    It is assumed that you can withdraw an ice core from a pressue of 100+ atmospheres to the surface, let ithem sit for years before analysis while they shrink to a fraction of their original size from sublimation, and then analyze the gas contents and draw conclusions from the data. Where are the lab studies verifying that for a given concentration of gaseous CO2 over freezing ice, that one can analyze the ice and back out the original concentration in the gas? Where are the lab studies which verify that you can pressurize an ice/gas mixture to 100 to 300 atmospheres, then quickly depressurize the ice to 1 atmosphere and not lose anything in subsequent analyses?

    It is assumed that the increase in tropical cyclone observations over the past 150 years have little or no effect on the TC count or intensity measurements. It is further assumed that one can directly compare TC data from 1850-1900 and 1950 – 2000 without any consideration for the improvement on TC monitoring.

    Perhaps we are overly sensitive in the semiconductor industry, but any scientist making these sorts of assumptions without backing them up with data, would not have much credibility on our industry.

  5. Here on the West Coast of North America, we are actually hoping for a real, absolute sea level rise. Our problem is the combination of an emergent tectonic regime combined (partially as a result of that regime) with heavy silt loads. Our harbors are endangered. In San Francisco Bay, anchorages which were viable during the early 1900s have been abandoned – the dredging expense got to be too high. In Socal they had to create artificial harbors on the continental shelf. Up north, where the Cascadia Trench is, they are saved by the existence of back arc extension (e.g Puget Sound and the Willamette Valley’s “inland delta” area where the Willamette meets the Columbia) but silt is still a real bear. Bring on sea level rise! (But it won’t happen ….)

  6. Forgot to mention that when the Spanish were establishing themselves in Santa Barbara, what is now comprised of UC Santa Barbara and the mesa off to the west of it was an island, which they circumnavigated in their coastal cruisers.

  7. Brooks-I too have always been curious, how so many can be absolutely sure that the ice core data and tree ring proxies are so accurate to a level of detail which gives us total certainty about past events. Even in modern times, all thermometers have inaccuracies. There seems like so many assumptions that it’s hard to put your arms around it.

  8. You have to realize that Global Heating hysteria is being fed by agri-business, which hopes to get us to convert to bio-fuels so they can make a mint. Oil companies as well would love to have total control of the product from the “ground up” as they say.

    From Al Gore to Barrick Obama, everyone’s got his hands greasy in biofuels. So, you’re not fighting “scientists”, your fighting state-backed corporate raiders.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>