[By JohnS] We have discussed Global Warming here before, yet there is no scientific consensus that our current climatic warming is manmade nor that the warming, if it is occurring, will result in any global disasters. Google global climate and global cooling and you will find a wide diversity of opinion. Al Gore and the scientists that favor global warming are attracting all of the media attention, and are unduly influencing our national government to the detriment of our nation and those who do not agree.
However, not all newscasters are overwhelmed; Lou Dobbs apparently isn’t. I found the following in my searching.
The Ice Age Cometh: Experts Warn of Global Cooling 'Lou Dobbs Tonight' segment dismisses manmade global warming theory -- 'effects of greenhouse gas have a small impact on climate change.'
[Click for the source item>>> http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2009/20090114065138.aspx]
By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute 1/15/2009 1:18:37 PM
I also extracted the following charts from a report by Global Research. The article was written by Don J. Easterbrook. He is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Bellingham, WA. He has published extensively on issues pertaining to global climate change.
Take particular note of their editor’s note below. In the interest of brevity I am letting the charts speak for themselves although I have retained his conclusions. If you are interested in the entire article it can be found by Googling Climate cooling.
I am not indorsing either global cooling or global warming but I would argue that CO2 in the atmosphere does not play a significant part in the global climate.
Global Research Editor's note.
The following article represents an alternative view and analysis of global climate change, which challenges the dominant Global Warming Consensus. Global Research does not necessarily endorse the proposition of "Global Cooling", nor does it accept at face value the Consensus on Global Warming. Our purpose is to encourage a more balanced debate on the topic of global climate change.
Figure 1. Climate changes in the past 17,000 years from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. Red = warming, blue = cooling. (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997)
Figure 2. Alternating warm and cool cycles since 1470 AD. Blue = cool, red = warm. Based on oxygen isotope ratios from the GISP2 Greenland ice core.Easterbrook Projection
Figure 5. Global temperature projection for the coming century, based on warming/cooling cycles of the past several centuries. ‘A’ projection based on assuming next cool phase will be similar to the 1945-1977 cool phase. ‘B’ projection based on assuming next cool phase will be similar to the 1880-1915 cool phase. The predicted warm cycle from 2030 to 2060 is based on projection of the 1977 to 1998 warm phase and the cooling phase from 2060 to 2090 is based on projection of the 1945 to 1977 cool cycle.CONCLUSIONS
Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years. [NOTE FROM IRA: According to Global Warming Science a site I respect, total atmospheric CO2 has increased by around 12% (from around 340 to 380 ppm) since the 1970's and 36% (from around 280 to 380 ppm) since the 1700's. What is the source of the 0.008% estimate? Of course the anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2 will be less than the total increase, because part of the increase is due to outgassing of the warming oceans, but I do not believe it could be as small as 0.008%. I would like to check the source.]
The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.
[by JohnS]
3 comments:
Thanks JohnS for your views on climate change - similar but not identical to mine.
I've added a bit of clip art at the top and made some of the charts a bit larger for easier reading. I also added a note [in brackets] questioning what you say is "The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) ..." According to Global Warming Science a site I respect, total atmospheric CO2 has increased by around 12% (from around 340 to 380 ppm) since the 1970's and 36% (from around 280 to 380 ppm) since the 1700's. What is the source of the 0.008% estimate?
Of course the anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2 will be less than the total increase, because part of the increase is due to outgassing of the warming oceans, but I do not believe it could be as small as 0.008%. I would like to check the source.
That said, I generally agree with you that global warming has been exaggerated by the main stream media and some politically-motivated alarmists. However, it is not clear that global warming is over. Perhaps, with the delay of the start of sunspot cycle 24, which may mean less solar forcing for a decade or two, we will have "breathing room" to get our energy usage better stabilized with respect to CO2 emissions. But, IMHO, we are not out of the woods yet.
Ira Glickstein
PS: Please edit your posting to make the links to Lou Dobbs and Business & Media Institute/Don Easterbrook clickable (or email the links to me and I will edit them in). When material is paraphrased or copied verbatim to this Blog I like to give credit and allow readers to click to get the full context. (advTHANKSance)
I had two reasons for publishing my last posting. First, I wanted to experiment on publishing an improved posting and second I wanted to comment on global climate changes. The only way I could get the charts was to print them and then scan them back into Photoshop. When I tried to enlarge them, they became fuzzy and couldn’t be read. I will have to go to Barnes and Noble and get a book on HTML and work on making my postings more interesting. Please feel free to add clip art and to edit any part of my postings that you think can be better presented. I am not concerned that you will change the viewpoint that I am expressing.
The links are:
www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2009/20090114065138.aspx www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
Regarding climate change, my reference for the charts is listed above. The point I was making was there is a lot of contradictory information out there, written by responsible scientists and that global warming is not an established fact regardless of Al Gore and his cohorts. More than that, there is little proof that anthropogenic CO2 is significant in our current warming phase. A further point, that government monies spent and government regulations passed to counter global warming if it is not a serious immediate threat is simply diverting our attention and monies from more important problems.
Here is a clickable link to the Lou Dobbs piece featured in JohnS's Topic and Comment. I've also added it to the original Topic. Thanks JohnS for this link!
I read the Dobbs item and agree with all but the claim there has not been a bit of general surface warming over the past 50 or 100 years. The satellite data referred to by D'Aleo is reliable with respect to higher altitudes but it misses some warming on the surface due to cloud cover. IMHO, surface global warming has occurred, and a significant fraction of it IS due to human activity.
CO2 levels are definitely over 10% higher than they were in the 1970's and a third higher than the 1700's, and much of that (not all) is due to human activity. Regardless of the affect of CO2 levels on surface temperatures -Al Gore and the IPCC have grossly misrepresented it- it cannot be good to mess with Mother Nature.
In 2007 I reported on this Blog that Gore was wrong to imply that rising CO2 caused the warming cycles hundreds of thousands of years ago, or that the current sharp rise would cause "hockey stick" runaway global warming. The ice core record clearly shows CO2 rises hundreds of years after temperatures rise. Something else (it's the Sun, stupid :^) caused those temperature rises.
Yet...yet, humans are now burning unprecedented amounts of previously-sequestered carbon. That has to have an affect on climate. Definitely not the "tipping-point" climate change the alarmists say they fear, but surely some measurable changes.
I am working on a new Topic on the causes and cures for global warming that attemps to quantify the human contribution. It appears that actual warming is considerably less than the 0.6 ºC (1.1ºF) rise claimed since the 1940's. A bias was introduced by discarding rural stations and encroachment of urban stations by development. The major cause of actual warming is variations in the Sun. That leaves us with a minor affect due to human-caused CO2 increases.
As for predictions of global cooling, it does look as if the Sun has cooled a bit over the past few years and may give us a couple decades of relief. Let us hope for further delay in the start of Cycle 24 and that it peaks below 80(instead of over 100 predicted by NASA) and does so in 2013 or 2014 (instead of 2012) as I predicted last month.
Let me end this long Comment with agreement with JohnS when he wrote:
"...government monies spent and government regulations passed to counter global warming if it is not a serious immediate threat is simply diverting our attention and monies from more important problems."
Ira Glickstein
Post a Comment