You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 216 pages?
Unformatted text preview: Climate Skeptics
Atchison Warming Lab Michigan 2012
1 Climate Skeptics
Atchison Warming Lab Michigan 2012
2 ***Not Anthropogenic*** Climate Skeptics
Atchison Warming Lab Michigan 2012
3 Not Anthropogenic Frontline
Warming Is Not Anthropogenic – Multiple Natural Processes Subsume Human Impacts
Bast and Taylor 11 – *CEO of the Heartland Institute, author of Rebuilding America’s Schools (1990), Why We Spend Too Much on Health Care (1992) Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism (1994) Education & Capitalism (2003),
Climate Change Reconsidered (2009), and The Patriot’s Toolbox (2010, rev. ed. 2011), ** managing editor of Environment & Climate
News, Senior Fellow for The Heartland Institute, bachelors degree from Dartmouth College and law degree from the Syracuse
University College of Law, (Joseph and James, “Global Warming: Not a Crisis,” The Heartland Institute, 8/2/11,
) //PC
Natural or Man-Made? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ), an agency of the United claims the warming that has occurred since the mid-twentieth century “is very likely due
to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations ” (IPCC, 2007). Many climate
scientists disagree with the IPCC on this key issue. As Idso and Singer wrote in 2009, The IPCC does not apply
generally accepted methodologies to determine what fraction of current warming is natural, or
how much is caused by the rise in greenhouse gases (GHG ). A comparison of “fingerprints” from
best available observations with the results of state-of-the-art GHG models leads to the
conclusion that the (human-caused) GHG contribution is minor. This fingerprint evidence,
though available, was ignored by the IPCC . The IPCC continues to undervalue the overwhelming
evidence that, on decadal and century-long time scales, the Sun and associated atmospheric cloud effects
are responsible for much of past climate change. It is therefore highly likely that the Sun is also a
major cause of twentieth-century warming, with anthropogenic GHG making only a minor
contribution. In addition, the IPCC ignores, or addresses imperfectly, other science issues that call for discussion and
Nations, explanation (Idso and Singer, 2009). Scientists who study the issue say it is impossible to tell if the recent small warming trend is
natural, a continuation of the planet’s recovery from the more recent “Little Ice Age,” or unnatural, the result of human greenhouse
gas emissions. Thousands of peer-reviewed articles point to natural sources of climate variability that could explain some or even all of the warming in the second half of the twentieth century
(Idso and Singer, 2009). S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery documented natural climate cycles of approximately
1,500 years going back hundreds of thousands of years (Singer and Avery, second edition 2008). It is clear from
climate records that the Earth was warmer than it is now in recorded human history, before manmade greenhouse gas emissions could have been the cause. We know enough about how the Earth’s climate
works to know that biological and physical processes remove CO2 from the atmosphere at a faster rate when concentration levels
are higher and release more heat into space when temperatures rise. These feedback factors and radiative forcings are poorly
modeled or missing from the computer models that alarmists use to make their forecasts. The arguments are complex, but the
debate over natural versus man-made climate change is unquestionably still ongoing. The more we learn, the less likely it becomes
that human greenhouse gas emissions can explain more than a small amount of the climate change we witness. These natural factors outweigh human influence --- we have comparative evidence
Welt 2/8/12 (“The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Catastrophe Wont Happen”
, PZ) *Vahrenholt has a PhD in Chemistry, is one of the fathers of Germany's environmental movement and the director of RWE Innogy,
one of Europe's largest renewable energy companies Welt Online: So you do not deny that CO2 contributes to global warming? The IPCC says
that 95 percent of the current warming comes from CO2 and other greenhouse gases. By
comparison with the evolution of the climate of the past 2000 years, we come to the conclusion
that the sun has a much stronger influence . In the 20th century, not only has the concentration of CO2 in the
Vahrenholt: It has undoubtedly made a contribution, but to a very much lower degree than previously thought. atmosphere increased, but also the radiation and the magnetic field of the sun. I cannot say exactly whether the contribution of CO2 the influence of the sun is
probably even a little stronger than that of CO2 . Welt Online: How do arrive at this estimate? Vahrenholt: We have
experienced a warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius since the end of the Little Ice Age. This is primarily due to the large
millennial climate cycle in which the Earth warms in each of the first 200 years of the cycle .
Between 1970 and 2000 there is a sharp increase in the average temperature, but the same
rate of increase was also observed between 1910 and 1940 and between 1860 and 1880 . This is
nothing extraodinary. If you look closely, you can see that this change is connected with a 60year cycle of global ocean currents. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has an influence on
the temperature of the earth. In 1977, the PDO entered in a positive phase. It was at the
maximum at the turn of the millennium, and is now in a downturn . The Atlantic Decadal Oscillation is also
to global warming makes up 40, 50 or 60 percent. However, both factors play a role, and Climate Skeptics
Atchison Warming Lab Michigan 2012
4 the warming is thus due to natural effects. The decisive
shortcoming of the IPCC is that the warming from 1977 to 2000 was seen as due to CO2 and
simply extrapolated to 2100 in the climate models . Another problem is that the importance of soot was
underestimated. Soot has about 55 percent of the climate effects of CO2 predicted by the IPC .
Also, at this point, CO2 must therefore give up some of its former role as the key driver of global
warming. We note that global temperatures have plateaued for the last twelve years. The explanations of the climatologists are
in decline, a little bit delayed. A part of not enough to explain why there is a pause. The Pacific and Atlantic Oscillations are still not taken into account in their models. Geologic Cycles Disprove Anthropogenic Warming Theory – Prefer Our Evidence, It
Looks at Warming Over a Longer Period of Time
Rana, 2k12 (Y.S. Rana, writer for The India Post, Based on Research by Dr. Ritesh Arya,
Member @ Nat’l Institute of Hydrology, Former reseacher at CAS Geology Panjab University
Chandigar, and former Hydrogeologist at Groundwater Organisation,Irrigation & Public Health
Govt of Himachal Pradesh , “Global Warming Is Not Man-Made Says Dr Arya” April 10th 2012,
Online @ ht)
Global warming is a natural process and man’s activities have no role to play in
enhancing or reducing the cyclic process sounds incredible but it is true for Dr Ritesh
Arya, a renowned geologist of Himachal Pradesh. He seeks to redefine the phenomenon as
a natural cyclic process, holds Guinness record for his feat of drilling the highest bore well in
the world, will be leaving for Lisbon, Portugal in July next to present his latest research paper
on the subject at the “Global Conference on Global Warming.”His new concept of bio-geologic
cycle may demolish the “myth” that global warming is man-made phenomenon and
says it’s a “100 per cent natural cyclic process.” He termed the views propounded by the
Nobel prize-winning Inter-Governmental Panel on climate change (IPCC) as an “unnecessary
myth about global warming.” Dr Arya is all set to introduce a new concept of bio-geologic cycle
to explain the relevance of global warming in shaping the earth now and in the future. At
present, he is busy in giving the final touch to his research paper to be presented at the
conference. “My research contains actual field geological evidence collected in the cold
desert of Ladakh region to show global warming is a 100 per cent natural cyclic
process. We are now in a global warming era and it has been continuing since the last
Ice-age, believed to have ended around 10,000 years ago,” says Dr Arya.He will be
employing qualitative and quantitative distinctions in the deposition of sediments (now
solidified as rock) to demonstrate the cyclical warming and cooling phases that the earth seems
to have undergone over the time. Dr Arya, who was listed among the top 10 small-scale
renewable energy innovators at the World Future Energy Summit held at Abu Dhabi in January,
2011 for his work on geo-thermal energy in the Himalayas. Stressing his point of research, he
said that the IPCC stated global warming was man-made especially from uncontrolled
carbon dioxide emissions. But the Indus Valley Civilization had been destroyed nearly
5000 years ago because of the melting of Indus glacier and when there were no sign of
pollution or vehicular traffic, says Dr Arya. While elaborating his research, he said that the
centre of C-alphabet representing a global warming maxima and it was at this time where
maximum mountain flash flooding leading to maximum destruction and erosion along the glaciofluvial basin took place and led to a sea-leval rise and submerged of land near coastal areas.
“By knowing which part of the C-curve paleo signature we are in, we may predict if we
are entering the global warming or cooling phase and when the next global warming
maxima will come. But a lot depends on the accuracy of exact age of the last Ice-age, he
stated. “Presently, we are in the half-cycle and it seems that we have entered into a
warming phenomenon. The flash-flood and mud-slide in Leh and other parts of the world last
year are indicators that we are either at the maxima of global warming or near it,” Arya said.
“The phenomenon should be put in right perspective as today almost every human activity right
from vehicular emissions to use of polythene is being linked to global warming which was a
much larger event that started as soon as the Ice Age ended. The fact was that the “biotic”
agents (man and other living organisms) had a very small role compared to the
“abiotic” (geological, geomorphologic, climatologic, planetary and hydrological) events like Climate Skeptics
Atchison Warming Lab Michigan 2012
5 earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, movement of glaciers and landslides” he
told He said that the core material found during deep drilling at Khardung La (over
18,000 ft) was geologically similar to the one found on the banks of Indus river and that
established a link between global warming and glacial movements. Disappearance of river
Saraswati was a geological event caused by global warming.
Laundry list of reasons
Cunningham 10 – Masters degree in physics from the University of California at Los Angeles, served on the Advisory Board
for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, worked for the Rand Corporation as a scientist (Walter, “Fact Battles Faith in Global
Warming Debate,” The Heartland Institute, 1/20/10, - article/2010/01/20/fact-battles-faith-global-warming-debate)//PC
There is a war going on between those who believe human activities are responsible for global warming and those who don’t.
Contrary to the way the debate is often framed by the media, those who believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) do not hold the high ground, scientifically. Their critics do. Reason, Evidence Ignored One
reason for belief in AGW is the sad state of scientific literacy in the United States today. A 2006
National Science Foundation survey found 25 percent of Americans did not know the Earth
revolves around the sun. Such widespread ignorance leaves our society vulnerable to the
emotional appeal of AGW alarmists. Among AGW true believers, advocacy has replaced objective
evaluation of data, and scientific data--regardless of the authority of its source or importance in the debate-- are
ignored and suppressed, or the messengers are attacked. Global warming is a scientific question, demanding scientific data for
understanding, but until very recently it appeared subjective opinion was winning. Thankfully, some scientists have been willing to
risk their careers by speaking out against AGW dogma. Disclosures of scientific fraud by the leading advocates of AGW, along with new scientific discoveries and cooling global temperatures, have all helped
bring the world back from the brink of adopting some utterly unnecessary and truly harmful
legislation. In the end, science will win--as it always does--but not without some painfully rude awakenings for Al Gore,
President Barack Obama, and millions of others who can’t handle the truth. Public debate should focus on what scientists know
about the causes of global temperature changes and whether we can do anything to control or influence the planet’s temperature.
Is global warming a natural inevitability, or is it anthropogenic--human-caused? Determining the temperature of the Earth, past or
present, is a matter of collecting data, analyzing it, and coming up with the best explanation to account for it. Scientists have used
proxy data to estimate the temperature of the Earth going back for millennia. (See Figure 1.) To say the Earth has been warming is to state the obvious. Since the end of the last Ice Age, Earth’s temperature has increased approximately 16
degrees Fahrenheit. [Table Omitted] That is certain and measurable evidence of warming, but since the
warming started before any human impact, it is evidence of natural variability, not AGW . Human
Role Not Shown Scientists have been unable to find a relationship between industrial activity or
energy consumption and global temperatures. Carbon dioxide emissions have risen steadily
since the start of the Industrial Revolution, but temperatures have risen, fallen, risen again, and
more recently begun to fall again. Correlation doesn’t prove causation, but a persistent lack of
correlation (as between human carbon dioxide emissions and temperatures) can disprove a
theory of causation. In contrast to their inability to find evidence in support of AGW, scientists
have found an excellent correlation between fluctuations of solar activity and the Earth’s
temperature. (See Figure 2.) [table omitted] ‘Climate Change’ Natural, Continual Science tells us the Earth has been warming
and cooling for the past 4.8 billion years. Most recently, it has been warming--ever so slightly--but there is nothing unusual about
that. Changes in the Earth’s temperature have occurred many times in our climatic history, even When the best
available temperature data (from satellites) began showing a leveling off and then a slight
cooling trend beginning in the late 1990s, the alarmists began dropping “global warming” from
their vocabularies in favor of “global climate change .” Who can argue that the climate isn’t changing? It’s
always changing! Sure, climate change is occurring, but humans are not influencing the temperature
of our planet to any measurable degree . Any human contribution to global temperature change is lost in the noise of
since the Industrial Revolution. Advocates of AGW have been working overtime to obfuscate the issue. natural terrestrial and cosmic factors. Climate Skeptics
Atchison Warming Lab Michigan 2012
6 Not Anthropogenic – Inevitable/Cycles
No warming now, alt causes, and its cyclical
Happer 3/27/12 – professor of physics at Princeton (William, “Global Warming Models are
Wrong Again”
, PZ)
What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more
than 10 years . Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the University of
Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the website . The
latest (February 2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was
minus 0.12 degrees Celsius, slightly less than the average since the satellite record of
temperatures began in 1979. The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade
has made it more difficult for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters
to demonize the atmospheric gas CO2 which is released when fossil fuels are burned. The burning of fossil fuels has
been one reason for an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to around 395 ppm (or parts per million), up from preindustrial There has indeed been some warming, perhaps about 0.8 degrees Celsius,
since the end of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Some of that warming has probably come
from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warming—much of it before CO2 levels had
increased appreciably—suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural
causes that have nothing to do with mankind. Frustrated by the lack of computer-predicted
warming over the past decade, some IPCC supporters have been claiming that "extreme
weather" has become more common because of more CO2. But there is no hard evidence this is
true. After an unusually cold winter in 2011 (December 2010-February 2011) the winter of 2012 was unusually warm in the
levels of about 280 ppm. continental United States. But the winter of 2012 was bitter in Europe, Asia and Alaska. Nightly television pictures of the tragic
destruction from tornadoes over the past months might make one wonder if the frequency of tornadoes is increasing, perhaps due
to the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. But as one can read at Andrew Revkin's New York Times blog, dotearth, "There is
no evidence of any trend in the number of potent tornadoes (category F2 and up) over the past 50 years in the United States, even Like winter temperatures, the numbers, severity and
geographical locations of tornadoes fluctuate from year-to-year in ways that are correlated with
the complicated fluid flow patterns of the oceans and atmosphere, the location of the jet stream,
El Niño or La Niña conditions of the tropical Pacific Oceans, etc. As long as the laws of nature
exist, we will have tornadoes. But we can save many more lives by addressing the threat of tornadoes directly—for
as global temperatures have risen markedly." example, with improved and more widely dispersed weather radars, and with better means for warning the people of endangered
areas—than by credulous support of schemes to reduce "carbon footprints," or by funding even more computer centers to predict
global warming. It is easy to be confused about climate, because we are constantly being warned about the horrible things that will ominous predictions are based
on computer models. It is important to distinguish between what the climate is actually doing
and what computer models predict. The observed response of the climate to more CO2 is not in
good agreement with model predictions. We need high-quality climate science because of the importance of climate
happen or are already happening as a result of mankind's use of fossil fuels. But these to mankind. But we should also remember the description of how science works by the late, great physicist, Richard Feynman: "In
general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see
what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with
experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong." The
most important component of climate science is careful, long-term observations of climate-related phenomena, from space, from
land, and in the oceans. If observations do not support code predictions—like more extreme weather, or rapidly rising global
temperatures—Feynman has told us what conclusions to draw about the theory. Climate Skep...
View
Full Document
- Fall '19
