Google

Old Patriot's Pen

Personal pontifications of an old geezer born 200 years too late.

NOTE The views I express on this site are mine and mine alone. Nothing I say should be construed as being "official" or the views of any group, whether I've been a member of that group or not. The advertisings on this page are from Google, and do not constitute an endorsement on my part.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States

I've been everywhere That was the title of a hit country-and-western song from the late 1950's, originally sung by Hank Snow, and made famous by Johnny Cash. I resemble that! My 26-year career in the Air Force took me to more than sixty nations on five continents - sometimes only for a few minutes, other times for as long as four years at a time. In all that travel, I also managed to find the perfect partner, help rear three children, earn more than 200 hours of college credit, write more than 3000 reports, papers, documents, pamphlets, and even a handful of novels, take about 10,000 photographs, and met a huge crowd of interesting people. I use this weblog and my personal website here to document my life, and discuss my views on subjects I find interesting.

Friday, February 02, 2007

More Climate Change Hysteria

The Associated Press has provided two articles in two days on "global warming" that found their way to the front page of my local newspaper, the Colorado Springs Gazette. I always read everything I can about the subject of climate change, but these articles are reflections of most of what's written about the subject - ten years out of date and distorted. The only good thing to come out of all the "global warming" hysteria has been an increased interest in exactly what does cause climate variability. This increased interest has had a devastating effect on the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.

The emphasis for this latest push to accept anthropogenic global warming stems from the latest Davos World Economic Forum and the upcoming release of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Report, due out Feb 2, 2007. Once again, the emphasis was on forcing the United States to adopt the Kyoto Protocols, which would seriously harm the US economy while doing nothing to change the climate. Politics once more triumphs over science, at least in Europe. There have also been a number of recent "hearings" about climate change before the United States Senate, featuring among others the "Union of Concerned Scientists". This "Union" has little scientific credibility since anyone who wishes can join by simply sending in the registration fee of $25. A number of detractors of the group have registered dogs, cats, guinea pigs, and even an automobile.

I've always been skeptical that a "greenhouse gas" that accounts for around four percent (4%) of the total could have such enormous effects on the entire climate cycle. I grew more skeptical when I discovered in my readings a true lack (until recently) of scientific study of the role water vapor, which accounts for 95% of ALL greenhouse gasses, plays in the climate scenario. The more I read, the more skeptical I became. Today, I cannot believe that carbon dioxide, or even a combination of carbon dioxide and other, non-water-vapor gasses, could have such a massive effect upon climate as the current Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts. Recent studies have shown that such skepticism is well-placed.

There is a growing preponderance of evidence that the vast majority, if not all, of the climate change of the last century, as well as climate change of the last 5000 years, has been the result of solar cycles: long-term cycles of ~1500 years, shorter-term cycles of ~85 and ~210 years, and the semi-regular 11-year sunspot cycle. These studies also show that there is far more taking place than just changes in luminosity or output; that there are also changes in magnetic field strength, for instance, that also affect weather by increasing or decreasing cloud cover.

In fact, increasing studies over the past 30 years have provided a wealth of new data that requires close inspection before decisions affecting six billion people are enacted. There is growing evidence that the earth's climate is far more complex than previously thought, and the models used to "prove" global warming are totally irrelevant to what's happening in the real world. Most of the studies prior to about 2002 fail to account for the newly-discovered importance of solar forcing, solar cycles, magnetic variance, and cosmic ray interaction on climate change.

While the majority of "scientists" attempt to force the idea that man is screwing up the environment, including causing massive global warming, the evidence continues to undermine that effort. The evidence continues to mount that climate temperatures are controlled by the sun, including short- and long-term variables in solar output, solar "wobble", changes in magnetic field strength, and a half-dozen other physical aspects. The hysteria over anthropogenic global warming is becoming more evident as nothing more than an attempted power grab by politicians, and a means for ensuring greater funding for "scientific research" to prove what many have already decided is fact - that climate change is all mankind's fault, and we're all going to die if we don't turn over everything to the "government".

UPDATE: Just found this article that may provide more insight into climate change, and the role water vapor plays in it. As with most recent scientific discoveries, it provided some unexpected answers.

NOTE: If you're going to reply to me about this article, I expect to see links to articles substantiating your point, or you will be ignored.

REFERENCES:
Solar-Powered Millennial-Scale Climatic Change
New Confirmation of Strong Solar Forcing of Climate
SOLAR ACTIVITY: A DOMINANT FACTOR IN CLIMATE DYNAMICS
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate
The Geologic Record and Climate Change
Solar links to climate change
Climate Impacts
Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21-23 (pdf)
Under a variable sun (multi-part)
Of Sunspots, Volcanic Eruptions And Climate Change
Solar Research
Increased solar brightness and warming of the Earth since 1979
Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming (pdf)
THE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING DOCTRINE
Mass Balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet
Inconvenient Truths Indeed

4 Comments:

Blogger Aeneas the Younger said...

That damn scientific community again eh?

When will they learn to keep their postulations to themselves ?

I say, repeal Newton's Law; I mean really, has anyone ever really proven that it isn't just God pushing down on the atmosphere with His bare hands ?

Thanks for conclusively disproving the Climate Change Thesis !

Yes, I am being sarcastic ...

3:47 PM  
Blogger Aeneas the Younger said...

And if you expect that I am going to reply to you meaningfully, then I expect that you do more than selectively provide weblinks that only substantiate the position you currently hold and advocate.

You are in the extreme minority and are being encircled by the majority of scientists. Most of "your" proof is fronted by the Oil and Gas Industry, which have a long history of running interference when their interests are threatened.

But I guess my evidence would be deemed "too European" (damn appeasers!) to be worthwhile.

This American nativism is really all too unbearable. I mean, really ...

6:19 AM  
Anonymous Bohdan said...

Aenaes, you are not successfully defending your point either. As a physicist I am troubled by both sides. They all seem to be ignoring science.

We know this:

1. The earth's climate is changing (no kidding, it's a chaotic thermodynamic system).

2. The average temperature is rising and rate of that change is increasing.

No one can say with any accuracy or precision why. There are lot of scientists that are disgreeing on this topic. Neither side can say anything conclusive.

Additionally, if you think that oil/power/resource scientists have axe to grind or are automatically biased, you are incorrect with that statement. They are held to the same standards other scientists are held to. Making a blanket statement like that is unproductive, Aeneas.

Some of the best scientific studies come from those unlikely sources. Ma Ball was behind some of the most intriguing research in of all things Astrophysics.

Automakers and natural resource scientists are working to change the way we live. It's economically smart. Oil can't last forever and the populace is smarter about environmental impacts. There is no possible way any of these companies can expect to stay in business without looking to the future. Almost all of the car makers are looking for feasible alternatives. Why? Because the market is shifting that way. Take a look back...Carriage and buggy makers had to switch find something else, or literally get run over by the auto industry.

Also, we deal with postulates which are the basis of proofs...not the complete proof. So that has statement has no basis.

Newton's Law has nothing directly to do with the problem. If you told me something about Boyle, or gas law, or statistical dynamics, then I may consider your viewpoint.

The point of the matter is, let the scientific debate run its course. The politics, no matter what kind, should let that play out and then make a decision what to do. The human race is all about survivability. We will find a way.

There is no room in science for mockumentaries or propaganda, nor from people that have an obvious agenda. Scientists are (for the most part) held to a higher standard and our system of checks and balances works pretty damn well.

Just think of all the research that could have been done had Al Gore, or Micheal Moore spent some money on research and development rather than making propaganda.

1:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is an excerpt from the book listed below and is an answer to the question as to what the ulterior motive is for the alarmists and wackos that are driving this man-made global warming hysteria. That motivation, pure and simple, is captured perfectly in the next to the last paragraph. I highly recommend this book, especially to any of you who buy even a scintilla of the non-evidentiary, faux-modeled, totally non-scientific tripe that purports to be "debate-ending, consensus science"!
Regards,
Rich (May The Warmth Be With You) Tassone (USAF 497th RTS 1960-1963)
______________________________________________________
“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism”
-Christopher C. Horner; page 80

The International Energy Agency's 2006 World Energy Outlook agrees with other estimates of future energy demand as the world continues to develop and the poor continue to emerge into wealth. By 2030 we will require massively more energy than we use today and this will not come from windmills, solar power, or bio-fuels (despite great percentage gains these niche energy sources should nonetheless make).

Projected, dramatic increases in energy demand is actually the good news which, of course, the greens see as the nightmare scenario. Yet consider their preferred outcome. The world is at present energy poor, not energy rich. Starving the world's poor-or rich-of access to mode energy means starving the world's poor. Moreover, no matter how badly activists might desire to do so, the scientific community is simply not equipped to drive the debate on questions that are at heart economic political, such as the wisdom of schemes like the Kyoto Protocol.

The "solution" to global cooling, as with warming, was to stop having babies, adopt riskier lifestyles away from which we have technological developed, and cede national energy budgets to a supranational body pre-scribing each nation's ration. But the science that would support rationing energy continues to elude them.

Global warming policies to put the world on an energy diet will on the whole threaten human welfare.

6:08 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home