Saturday, September 01, 2007

Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"[1] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect.

On Earth, the major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone, which causes 3–7%.

The above quote is a synopsis of Global Warming from Wikipedia.

First let me define two terms for this essay; Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), simply that human activity is causing a rise and Climate Change (CC) normal cyclic climate variations.

Many claim the matter settled and AGW is a settled scientific fact, that major economic and social disruptions are going to occur if AGW is not stopped and reversed. AGW is a major political issue of our time. It is driving candidates, politicians and policy. It has become heretical in some circles to question AGW.

I question AGW and here is why.

First temperature rise, how much over how much time? The above Wikipedia article claims 0.74° C over the last century. When you claim a rise in measurement the assumption in the statement is the baseline is stable. That all that is being measured is the rise, and all other factors are accounted for.

There is an issue with temperature measurements. There appears to other contributing factors to the measured temperature rise. This principle in scientific measurements; isolation of variables, accounting for all the factors in a measurement. Only, and only when you can account for all the other factors, can you claim to have made an accurate measurement.

Surface temperature measurements are made in white boxes with slotted panels set up on a stand called a Stevenson Screens. Stevenson Screens are required to be setup to certain requirements. These requirements are intended to isolate as much possible the screen from local environmental variables.

There are two issues with the screens; location and paint.

The paint has been changed over the years from plain old white wash to a variety of white paints. However the heat absorbtion of the new paints compared to white wash is unknown, and there is no standards for heat absoption characteristics of the paints used.

We all know how different the temperature can be between under the tree in the front yard and on the roof, as much 20° or more difference on the same day at the same time. Which temperature is the “real” temperature for that time on that day? That is the purpose of the Steveneson Screen, establish a reliable means of measuring an average temperature.

Problem is Stevenson Screens are on roofs, next to parking lots, under air conditioners. All this would contribute to false higher temperature readings. Remember we are talking about 0.74° C over a century, the type of errors that misplacement of the screens cause is an order of magnitude higher than the claim of AGW.

Second problem with surface temperature measurements is the urban heat island effect. Concentrations of people, structures and paving generate and retain heat at higher rates than unpopulated areas. The temperature measurement stations 50 years ago were farther from urban areas than now. The urban area has engulfed the stations and with it a corresponding rise in temperature.

This type of issue would not be a problem if research measures the local effects, and correct the readings for effect. They have not done this. The are including the effects of a temperature station on the roof, next to a parking lot, in an urban area into the overall global rise in temperature. That is just plain bad science. Just this error in temperature measurement should be enough, by itself and on the face of to disqualify all claims of AGW.

But that is not all.

They’re in essentially three sets of atmospheric temperature measurements. Surface, balloon and satellite. One would reasonable expect that if global warming were occurring all measurements would show a similar rise in temperature. They don’t only surface temperature shows rises. The balloon and satellite measurements show no rise. With the issues of surface temperature measurements detail above the lack of rise in other sets of measurements by other means further calls into question the claim of AGW.

Those famous and oft used evidence for AGW is the Hockey Stick Chart, showing temperature over that last centuries, with a sharp, dramatic increase in the last 50 years. This Hockey Stick chart was generated by Mann. Simply put the Hockey Sticky chart is a fraud, a hoax. Mann altered not only the data, but the method of anaylsis to generate the “hockey stick.”

So far; the source of the increase in measured temperature is subject to unaccouted for outside influence when other atomsphereic measurements have not show the same increase. The chart cited most often to support AGW is a fraud with manipulated data and analysis.

This alone should be enough for anyone to go question the entire premise of AGW. But we are not yet done.

The claim of proponents of AGW is that humans are putting more CO2 than ever before. This increase of in the amount of atomsphereic CO2 is driving the global temperature increase. The foremost adovocate of AGW Al Gore in his film Inconvient Truth charts the relationship of CO2 and temperature with a dramatic graphing of the two trends. Very nice, very compelling, and also completely wrong.

Gore’s uses data from a source known as the Vostok Ice Core. Antartic ice in some areas does not melt year to year it therefore contains minute samples of air in tiny bubbles from each year going back 400,000 years. The ratios of gases and isotopes can tell scientists much about atmospheric conditions in that year including amount of CO2 and temperature.

What is the problem you ask? The data Gore uses does not show what Gore claims, that CO2 increase before temperature increase. In fact the data show just the opposite, CO2 increase lag behind temperature increases. Since CO2 rises after temperature it cannot au priori be the driver of global temperature rises.

To add to the problems with the theory of AGW NASA recently announced that it had adjusted the temperature record due to some miscalculations. According to NASA the ’30s are now the warmest recent period not the ‘90s. How is the problem for AGW advocates? AGW theory claims human activity is cause the current increase in global temperature. There are two major anomalies in the record that run counter to that claim. The 30’s was the depression era when vast sections of the economy and industry where idled, yet it was the warmest period of the century. Conversely the post WWII era was a boom time… and global temperatures dropped.

To review AGW; is the claim that human activity producing CO2 is causing the global temperature to rise.

I contend there are two many unresolved issues to make that claim:
· Actual temperature rise measurements are subject to unaccounted influences.
· The primarily used analysis show the increase in temperature is fraudulent.
· Analysis of the historical record show CO2 trails temperature.
· The link between human activity and temperature rise has two significant disconnects in the 20th century.

These issues need to resolved before AGW can be taken seriously, and definitively laid to rest before large sums of money and social changes required to combat a highly questionable theory.

I am not merely going to cast stones at AGW, there is an alternate explanation.

CC is a real phenomenon, the climate in continual flux, climate is not static. We may very well be, and most likely are in a warming period. The closest correlated data to the historical temperature trends is solar activity. The sun also has cyclic patterns and the amount of energy output varies so the amount of energy put into the earths climate varies. In fact the overwhelming majority if not the only source of energy for climate activities is the sun.

A slight rise in solar output would provide more energy into the climate system with a noticeable increase in temperature. This theory also provides an explanation for the increase in CO2 that follows temperature increases. Ocean water warms as average temperatures increase; warming liquids hold less dissolved gas than cold liquids. CO2 gas would be released into the atmosphere as temperature rises.

The solar output theory of CC does not require explanation or development of previously undiscovered mechanism for the data and theory to mesh.

When Occam’s Razor is applied to the competing theories only one theory passes the test.


At 9:53 AM, Blogger BabbaZee said...


Just came in to to let you know that
I always admire your posts on LGF
and so I am here poking around your blog for the first time!

At 5:58 PM, Blogger Jeremy said...

hey, i'm just writing to you because I was trawling a lgf thread and came across something you said. you don't have an email address listed so I'm randomly leaving my comment here. This is what you said.

No where the Quran give the individual the choice to accept or reject the religion. Core to the Jewish faith and Christian faith, from Genesis 1 is the concept that the individual is free to choose to follow the faith.
This is utterly inaccurate as even daniel pipes (who i'm guessing is someone you respect even though I don't) acknowledges. The Koran at (2:256) says "There is no compulsion in religion". Now, there's different ways to interpret that but it is entirely possible - even natural - to interpret that as freedom to choose faith. The point that people were trying to make was (and the one Pipes makes) is that the text doesn't dictate the faith, the followers dictate the faith. If they want to embrace freedom of conscience, they can.

As to your statement about the bible, you couldn't be further from the truth. Take Leviticus 24:16:
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

Or read Deutoronomy 13, all of it. Right to the end where it instructs the jews to kill every member of a town that a heritic is found in:
If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 None of those condemned things [b] shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, 18 because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.
If you take a literal interpretation of these and many other scriptures, there is absolutely no freedom of jewish conscience.

And you can make a christian case for a similar sort of thing to. First, you could just import all the old testament law (jesus said that he came to fulfil the law). or you could take things like Matt 10:34 (jesus "do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword") and 1 Cor 5 (talking about a sinner):

deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.[b]
to mean that you should bring physical violence on unbelievers and sinners.

My point is simple (and I made it on my blog a while ago) every mosaic religion including Islam can be interpreted in a way that supports violence and coerced faith, but it doesn't have to be. What matters is what its followers do. And the vast majority of Muslims live as do modern day christians and jews.

At 5:59 PM, Blogger Jeremy said...

hmmm, my email addy doesn't seem to show up, but i've checked the option to have follow up comments sent to it so I should see any reply.

At 9:50 PM, Anonymous Bunk Strutts said...

Please pass this on, JCM. I got blocked and wasn't allowed to defend myself.
Got a short story to tell.

On Christmas Night, after I cleaned up the kitchen from Margie's excellent dinner (it's my job, I got busboy genes) I sat down in front of the computer, checked email, tackyraccoons, and a coupla other websites on my favorites list, including "Little Green Footballs." LGF is primarily famous for providing the documentation that proved that Mike Wallace's letter about G. Bush's military record was a forgery. I've followed LGF ever since.

When I clicked on LGF that night, I found that the coveted rare registration door was open, and I thought I'd check it out. Logged in as "Bunk" and had some fun with it for the next several days, especially the "Lizard Lounge." There are some very clever funny folks there; got to chat with AllahPundit, Zombie, and some other notable wits and regular posters. I was impressed.

Then last night I logged on and jumped to this early thread:

My comment, # 123, responded to #122 by "macintush", and the fireworks began... After only eight minutes, I was labeled a troll, a neonazi, and an arab, later as an anti-semite, all for mentioning the USS Liberty Incident. And it got worse. For that factual innocuous comment, I was eventually blocked by none other than Charles Johnson himself! I was stunned.

Might be an interesting read, starting at 122, although you gotta keep reading and scrolling a bit. I stand by my words. If you happen to sign up with LGF, please tell the Lizard Army ( including GrumpyOldMan, Leepro, RawMuse, Zombie, Allah, Rodan, and especially JoeCitizen) that Bunk says "Hi," and that Charles alienated a good ally in the good fight.

Several other veteran Lizards reiterated my points and defended me after the fact, and I don't really give a shit one way or another. I was amazed at how fast I was shouted down when I wasn't even trying to stir up trouble by mentioning an historic event.

Your Pal Bunk

At 10:09 PM, Anonymous defogger said...

This is a pretty good post debunking AGW, and you are absolutely correct.

You seriously need a proofreader, though.

At 1:20 PM, Blogger RG said...


Very surprised that your account has not been blocked by Charles Johnson at LGF. The reason mine was blocked was I simply related how ineffective Public Education has become in America since the time when school prayer was abolished. Charles Johnson has banned many, many Christians who offer solid evidence to support their Christian positions.

Regarding Jeremy
I find you to be a class A hypocrite to come over here to post scripture that you claim bans other religions when where you just came over from LGF where your messiah, Charles Johnson, bans people of the Christian Faith at the slightest whim.

Regarding the Leviticus scriptures, the people of Israel chose the God of Abraham to deliver them from cruel bondage in Egypt. God was leading Israel to the Promised land where people worshiped gods that gave those worshippers very debased societies. God, the creator of the Universe (Psalm 8) will put up with debased societies for only so long. War IS God's judgment when long suffering and patience on His part with societies has ended.

God was delivered Israel from bondage in Egypt and was to actually dwell with the people of Israel, and protect them from evil. God will not dwell in the presence of people worship other gods, especially in the presence of sins exercised by those who worshiped the gods of the debased societies Israel was to conquer. Those who conquered the Promised Land with God’s help and then would decide to go on to worship the same debased gods of those they conquered must also face corporal punishment per Leviticus.

Who in Heaven should be allowed to worship a god other than the God in his very home Heaven? And if he makes his home on Earth with a people or society, the same applies there.

From a secular perspective, if one is an American, and receives benefits that citizens of America receive but does not accept the leadership of America and only follows the orders of the President of say, Brazil, and pays taxes only to Brazil, is that right?

At 11:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, I found your blog at Little Green Footballs.
You talked about the high energy logs.
I went to the website but there are no links for the state.
Do you know of any dealers in Northern California? Below Tahoe, above Sacramento.

At 4:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


You are one of the faithful I miss.

Keep in touch


At 5:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just found the website who writes about
home based business opportunity

If you want to know more here it is
home business opportunity

At 1:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am the sort of guy who passions to seek recent stuff. Right now I am making my own pv panels. I'm making it all alone without the assistance of my men. I'm using the internet as the only way to acheive that. I encountered a very amazing website that explains how to create photovoltaic panels and so on. The website explains all the steps needed for solar panel construction.

I am not sure bout how precise the info given there is. If some experts over here who had experience with these works can have a peak and give your feedback in the thread it will be awesome and I'd really treasure it, cauze I really like solar panel construction.

Tnx for reading this. U people are great.


Post a Comment

<< Home

  • Google News
  • Powerline
  • Google News
  • Orbus
  • “How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”

    Ronald Wilson Reagan

    “It is a worthy thing to fight for one’s freedom; it is another sight finer to fight for another man’s”

    Mark Twain

    “History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.”

    Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY, to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    Ben Franklin, the correct citation.