Thursday, 24 February 2011

Global Warming - Climate Change - More of What You Really Want to Know!

Global Warming - a "conventional wisdom" - has now emerged as having a tremendous potential impact on the US - both financially and on our industrial way of life: the belief that humankind's carbon dioxide emissions are causing Earth to overheat, melting the polar ice and mountain-peak snow packs, raising ocean levels - and unless all first-world nations (primarily the US, and at tremendous cost - including probable major job losses), make drastic changes in our way of life, our planet is doomed.
Generally under the "radar screen" of public interest - considering the political hue-and-cry of President Obama's first year focus on the Stimulous and Health Care bills - the "greening" of US industry has become a major agenda item for his administration: his speech at Copenhagen, the House of Representatives passing the "Cap-and-Trade" bill, and now the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) establishing rules and limits on industrial emissions, with significant financial penalties to errant companies. This conventional truism, fueled by widespread liberal viewpoint-belief, is an international broadside attack: by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); by the UN Kyoto Conference in 1988; by Al Gore's Peace Prize for his film (An Inconvenient Truth) and the Nobel Prize Committee; by President Obama's agenda - including his speech at the recent UN Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change, where he committed the US to severe limits on CO2 emissions.
Therefore - climate change: is its primary cause Nature or Man - what is the scientific truth? Man-made fossil-fuel emissions are certainly evident everywhere: from industry's factory smoke-stacks, from ubiquitous automobile exhausts, from common-place home fireplaces, etc. - causing even the notorious London fogs of a century ago. Reasonable persons can certainly postulate a relationship between global warming (if 1, it is really occurring - and if 2, it is due to mankind emissions) and thus, upon the effects of our fossil-fuel energy-civilization upon climate Earth. While an excess of ideology (and guilt feelings) can cause liberal leaders of first-world nations to assume responsibility (in a United Nations votively dominated by second and third world countries - overtly desirous of first world wealth through billions of dollars in "pollutant reparations"), the obvious complexity of Earth's climate should argue for pause - for a thorough scientific verification beforelife-changing regulations are imposed. Has there been a rush to judgment?
While the broad-frontal attack seems based on reputable scientific information, there are three worth-while considerations for "let's take a hiatus":
1) the United Nation's IPCC has openly assumed global warming to be proven science; its agenda is clearly to fund research grants to reinforce such belief by supportive climatologists; it holds world conferences (Kyoto, and recently Copenhagen), the declared objective being to impose financial "pollution" reparations upon the US et al;
2) a number of serious scientists are pointing out - to anyone who is interested (most people not so, here-to-fore) - the multiplicity and complexity of climatology factors on Earth - including the not-insignificant effects and variability of our radiated sun power, also volcanic eruptions; and
3) the recent disclosure of "cooked" temperature data from "leaked" emails at one of the five world-wide global weather-data-gathering sites. The leaked emails from East Anglia disclosed alarming instances of modification and even suppression of data which disagreed with the political view - including the blocking of publication challenges by skeptics in peer-review journals.
There are some scientists, however, who are willing to risk their careers and income-potential by taking contrary stands (generally ignored by liberal media), such as an incredible 31,072 Americans with academic degrees in science, a few years ago, signing a petition which flatly denied the proclaimed wisdom that human-caused global warming was settled scientific fact; and calling upon the US to reject such a position. This was announced by Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - at the same time as Al Gore was receiving a Nobel Prize for his film on Global Warming - and demeaning his critics as "a tiny, tiny minority - like those who believe the moon landing was staged in a movie lot - and that the world is flat". Other outspoken scientist-challengers are: Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Dr. B Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center; Dr. Parrick Michaels, at the Cato Institute; Dr. Philip Lloyd, Honorary Research Fellow at the Energy Research Center at the University of Cape Town in South Africa.
Demonstrating the risks to too-quick-to-judge are three very recent "this-week" stories:
1. Jan. 23/2010: "Global Warming Opens Asia For Cable" - telling that global warming has melted so much arctic ice that an underwater fiber-optic cable between Tokyo and London, by way of the Northwest Passage, would drastically reduce transmission delays. But then, the same article also states, "Summer ice melted to its lowest recorded level ever in 2007" - thus, it is now getting colder.
2. Jan. 20, 2010: "2000s Warmest Decade On Record, Government Reports" - a dramatic headline - however inside the article there are conflicting statements: "In 2009, global surface temperatures were 1.01 degrees above the average - fifth warmest year - the warmest was 2005 at 1.11 degrees" - thus it is less warm now; and then, "New Seasonal Snowfall Records for Washington and Minnesota"; and "Britain's Heaviest Snowstorm Since 1991."; and "Heaviest Snowfall in China In 55 years";
3. Jan. 21, 2010: Five glaring errors were admitted in the UN's most authoritative report on global warming - admissions by the Nobel prize-winning scientists themselves - "suggests glaciers.. could melt away in the Himmalayas in 2035" (the corrected date is 2350). Truth-seeking peoples should take note of the phrasing used in the report by the UN's scientists - not quite the crisp, no-nonsense specific scientific equations of a Newton or Einstein - the UN's IPCC report: "suggests glaciers.. could melt away" Even disregarding the scare-tactics-error in predicting doomsday in the near-term, instead of three-and-a-half centuries away, how can "scientists" employ such vague and imprecise statements as a foundation for the positive belief in global warming - and to justify demands of $Billions emission reparations from the US - and for the agreement by President Obama to the UN for restrictive limitations on US industry?
Summary Judgments - Attempting to be Fair and Open-Minded
Motivated by a desire for a knowledge-based opinion on this extremely controversial political issue (with a major potential of a drastic financial impact on the US's and our fossil-fuel way-of-life - UN-demanded reparations and penalty-based restrictions on future industrial-emissions), scores of articles by climate scientists on both sides of the issue have been absorbed for this article. A summary opinion is presented here, then listed below are bullet-points of many of the readily-available specific items and illustrative examples:
Assessment: The established and over-whelming viewpoint by the media, academia, UN and US governments, Nobel Prize Committee, scientific journals, etc., is that global warming/climate change is presently occurring - that it is being caused by pollutants from human-kind's fossil-fuel emissions - and that this has been scientifically proven. Against this tsunami force of opinion and influence, a few scientists take issue, primarily that:
1) Global-warming/climate-change have not been proven irrefutably by science;
2) Global climate is extremely complex, with many factors involved; mankind's emission contributions are puny compared to nature's power e.g. the effects and variability of sun-rays, of earthquakes, of volcanoes, etc.:
3) A liberal political agenda governs the International leadership: the UN itself and its IPCC committee; and also the Nobel Peace Prize Committee;
4) The (openly admitted) international objective of the UN is to levy costly pollutant reparations upon the US and other industrialized countries - with potential civilization-impacting limitation-standards and consequences.
1) Cyclic temperature variations have occurred throughout known history;
2) The Earth is so large, and contributing factors are so variable and complex, that there may well be indications of both "warming" and "cooling" occurring simultaneously in different hemispheres;
3) Humankinds fossil-fuel and CO2 emissions are factually so trivial compared to "nature" as to challenge the conclusions of climate-change-advocates, absent solid and verifiable proof;
4) Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but an exhaled product of every living creature; it is needed for plant respiration; is essential for photosynthesis and for everything that grows on Earth. If all carbon dioxide were removed from air, Earth would die. Carbon dioxide is only 3.5 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor being 95 percent. Half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity is immediately absorbed into the biosphere, thus human activity only adds a tiny amount - overall, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect each year is only one-tenth-of-one-percent (0.001).
5) Imposition of major financial reparation penalties upon the US and other first-world nations - with limitations upon industrial efficiency by "caps" and standards on emissions - would be so drastic that both common sense and the scientific approach (absolute verification of all details before acceptance) should prevail against blind imposition of an openly-admitted politically-driven agenda.
A large number of items are cited below by challenger-scientists, demonstrating the error-potential of too-quick jumps-to-judgment, also the complexity of factors which contribute to Earth's varied climate:
  • While ice-melting stories focus mostly on the North Pole, the South Pole - Antarctica - contains ninety percent of the world's ice and seventy percent of all the fresh water on Earth; satellite measurements show there is more ice in the Antarctic now than 30 years ago.
  • The downward cyclic trend in the amount of ice remaining in the Arctic at the end of summer has ended. Polar-orbiting satellites clearly show the extent of North-Pole ice to be increasing - 25 percent more today than two years ago (dramatic but selected Arctic photos of drastic ice reductions over many decades seem misleading).
  • Author H. Bloom recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "In the past two million years, data show there have been about 60 ice ages - and in the 120,000 years since the development of modern man, we've lived through 20 sudden global warmings - long before smokestacks and tail pipes."
  • In our earth's history there has been both global warming and global cooling - the temperature record of the Hadley Climatic Research Unit reveals that from 1980 to 2009, the world warmed by less than a half degree Celsius. In Roman times, 200 B.C. to 600 A.D. it was warm; from 600 to 900 came the cold Dark Ages; warming from 900 to 1300; another ice age from 1300 to 1850. During the past century, the earth has warmed by 0.6 degree Celsius, but within this period we can see marked cycles of cooling, warming, and again cooling.
  • The melting of glaciers is not new. The "Little Ice Age" was from 1400 to 1850, with the coldest temperatures being in the 1600s. Global temperature has been rising unevenly for 300 years, with glaciers retreating unevenly for more than two centuries.
  • Measurements of outgoing longwave radiation (heat) from the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite show increases of 4 watts per square meter in the 1980s and 1990s, while the oceans were undergoing cyclic warming. However, computer model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation indicated a decrease - as ocean water warmed. (Thus, the models used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -IPCC, were incorrect and unreliable.)
  • The complexity of worldwide temperatures - that they cannot be the simplistic result of puny man's industrial emissions - is detailed by Dr. Lindzen, presenting data which counters mankind-caused global warming: that surface temperatures have shown alternating cycles of global cooling and warming for over a century, that cycle lengths are 32 to 35 years - Earth now in its eighth year of cooling. "During this period," he notes, "carbon dioxide levels have continually risen."
  • The Sun's effect, the strength of the solar wind, bears a strong relationship (ignored by pro-warming advocates) to global temperature, with strong solar wind equaling a warmer earth, weak solar wind a cooler earth. Variations in cosmogenic isotopes of carbon 14 and beryllium 10 in ice cores prove this, and at present the solar wind is weaker than any previous NASA measurement (50 years) - indicating the earth is cooling.
  • The solar magnetic index is the lowest since measurements began in 1932, and continues to lessen. The Pacific Ocean is presently in a cooling phase, which should remain for decades. The Atlantic is showing signs of cooling. Heat from the sun is weakening, likely remaining so for the next two solar cycles. Indications are that we are heading for, not warmer, but colder temperatures.
  • Ocean temperature buoys, over 3300 deployed all over the globe, show falling average heat content (oceans becoming colder) since 2003;
  • Dr. Lindzen also comments about carbon dioxide: "The total carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere comprises only 4 hundredth of one percent (0.0004). The volume increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the last 150 years is only one hundredth of one percent (0.0001) - and this increase is beneficial to agriculture and plant life, as growth is faster with more carbon dioxide (animal-plant symbiosis - O2 and CO2 exchange). Laws of nature are unchangeable, generally atmospheric increases in carbon dioxide result primarily from nature. Reducing this amount by some fraction will have no significant effect on global temperatures."
  • Regarding computer models, "If global warming is proceeding, there should be rapid upper troposphere warming between 30 degrees north and south of the equator. However, measurements with weather balloons over the last 50 years show no such warming, proving the IPCC computer models do not correctly predict the climate. They seem to be primarily marketing tools for research institutions and universities - to obtain funding grants."
  • Critics say, "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, was formed in the late 1980s to 'prove' human burning of fossil fuels causes global warming; from its beginning it was never a scientific organization, but was formed with a biased political objective and agenda. The true goal is to capture political power from first-world countries through climate treaties - partly to insure the institutions own survival - the treaties giving the UN the legal power to redistribute the wealth of developed nations - the concept is "climate debt" owed to third world countries as justification."
  • Strong words are used to describe the leaked emails: "The 'climategate' emails prove that there is at best, blind ambition among some of the worlds leading climate scientists - and at worst, criminal activity. The reaction of much of the mainstream media in the United States is proving to be very revealing. They either didn't report the story or defended the actions of the climate scientists. The emails revealed that scientists deleted data, then refused Freedom-Of-Information requests - deleting emails relevant to those requests - a criminal offence. NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has also been stonewalling freedom-of-information efforts. It is clear from the emails that a small but powerful group of leading climate scientists have used their lofty positions to pervert the science of climate change."
  • On the day the Copenhagen conference opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction and authority to regulate carbon emissions in the US - flatly declaring them an "endangerment" to human health. Since the US has an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA thus claims authority to regulate practically everything in the country: institutions emitting more than 250 tons of C02 a year - over a million hospitals, plants, schools and businesses.
  • Specific to the UN's IPCC authority, Dr Lloyd comments: "The IPCC issued a Summary for Policy Makers four months before the scientific report itself (on which it is supposedly based) was published. It isn't necessary to list all the changes I've identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policymakers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said - the process is so flawed, that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay."
Dr. Lloyd's summary: "All of which brings us to the Copenhagen global warming conference at which Pres. Obama pledged US support. It involved 193 nations getting together to discuss the threat that global warming poses to our planet and what can be done about it. The goal was to create a global agreement that extended and expanded the Kyoto Protocol so that a global organization could influence and monitor all nations' efforts to reduce their CO2 emissions.
Global-warming-believers did not get their way in telling all the world's people how to lead their lives. However, they did get a promise of $30 billion over the first three years and a goal of $100 billion in ten years and annually thereafter - a huge amount. The developing nations see climate change as an enormous financial bonanza - under the banner of the environment, they get [the] developed nations (primarily the US) to transfer great wealth to them."
This warning should be significant - Dr. Lloyd was actually a coordinating lead author for the United Nations IPCC.
Aaron Kolom qualifies as a "rocket scientist" with over 50 years aerospace engineering: Stress Analyst to Chief of Structural Sciences on numerous military aircraft, to Corp. Director Structures and Materials, Asst. Chief Engineer Space Shuttle Program through first three flights (awarded NASA Public Service Medal), Rockwell International Corp.; Program Manager Concorde SST, VP Engineering TRE Corp.; Aerospace Consultant.
Aaron L. Kolom - from Brainwashed* and Miracles**
* The Perceived Mind-Set of the Secular Elite re Darwin Evolutionism!
** To Believe in Them - Have Faith - In Science and Logic!
Visit website at to learn a bit about Science vs the Bible, from conflict to confirmation.
Aaron Kolom - EzineArticles Expert Author