The nature of the recently released report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is extremely alarmist. The report warns, with a 95% certainty, that global warming is man-made and that the resulting climate change will lead to:
- Rising temperatures, drought and increasing desertification
- Warming of the oceans and rising sea levels
- Shortages of food
- Loss of ice sheets & shrinking of glaciers
- Increasing intensity and size of storms
There’s no doubt our climate is changing, but are the charges the IPCC is making correct? Are the global climate changes we’re experiencing man-made or part of earth’s natural climate cycle?
Let’s take a look under the ‘hood’ of ‘man-made’ global warming.
Fact - The Earth's climate has been continuously changing throughout its history. From ice covering large amounts of the globe to interglacial periods where there was ice only at the poles - our climate and biosphere has been in flux for millennia.
”it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all.
That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this “pause” could extend into the 2030s.
Mind you, the term “pause” is misleading in the extreme: Unless and until it resumes again, it’s just a “stop.” You don’t say a bullet-ridden body “paused” breathing.
Remarkably, that stoppage has practically been a state secret. Just five years ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, the group most associated with “proving” that global warming is man-made and has horrific potential consequences, told Congress that Earth is running a “fever” that’s “apt to get much worse.” Yet he and IPCC knew the warming had stopped a decade earlier…
The single most damning aspect of the “pause” is that, because it has occurred when “greenhouse gases” have been pouring into the atmosphere at record levels, it shows at the very least that something natural is at play here. The warmists suggest that natural factors have “suppressed” the warming temporarily, but that’s just a guess: The fact is, they have nothing like the understanding of the climate that they claimed (and their many models that all showed future warming mean nothing, since they all used essentially the same false information).
If Ma Nature caused the “pause,” can’t this same lady be responsible for the warming observed earlier?” Michael Fumento, Global Warming Proof is Evaporating, New York Post
Global warming stopped almost two decades ago despite warmists arguments about man putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere. There has to be other factors at work, they are:
- Variations in solar activity accounts for ¾’s of the variability in earth’s temperature. Changes occurring within the sun affects the intensity of sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface. These changes in intensity can cause either warming - stronger solar intensity - or cooling when solar intensity is weaker. Solar activity has dropped to a 100 year low.
- Variations in the Earth's orbital eccentricity - the shape of the orbit around the sun, a 100,000 year cycle.
- Changes in obliquity or tilt of the earth’s axis - changes in the angle that Earth's axis makes with the plane of Earth's orbit, a 41,000 year cycle
- Precession - the change in the direction of the Earth's axis of rotation, a 19,000 to 23,000 year cycle
- Albedo or the total reflectivity of the earth’s changing cloud cover
- Volcanoes often affect our climate by emitting aerosols and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Aerosols block sunlight and contribute to short term cooling, but do not stay in the atmosphere long enough to produce long term change. Carbon dioxide (CO2) has a warming effect. For about two-thirds of the last 400 million years, geologic evidence suggests CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than present. Throughout human history, volcanic eruptions have produced some of the coldest winters ever recorded - in 2013 there were a record number of volcanic eruptions.
These climate change “drivers” often trigger additional changes or “feedbacks” within the climate system that can amplify or dampen the climate's initial response to them:
- The heating or cooling of the Earth's surface can cause changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.
- The heating or cooling of the Earth's surface can cause changes in ocean currents. Ocean currents play a significant role in distributing heat around the Earth so changes in these currents can bring about significant changes in climate from region to region
Approximately every 100,000 years or so our climate warms up temporarily, this temporary reprieve from the ice we are now experiencing is called an interglacial period - the respite from the cold locker began 18,000 years ago as the earth started heating up and warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age.
The close of the Pleistocene Ice Age started when a shift in sunlight caused a slight rise in temperature - this raised gas levels over the next few hundred years and the resultant greenhouse effect drove the planet's temperature higher, which drives a further rise in the gas levels and so on. The exact opposite happens when sunlight weakens, we get a shift from emission to absorption of gases which causes a further fall in temperature... and so forth.
Small rises or falls in temperature - more, or less sunlight - causes a rise, or fall, in gas levels. Changing atmospheric CO2 and methane levels physically linked the Northern and Southern hemispheres, warming or cooling the planet as a whole.
Historical Atmospheric CO2 Levels
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are @ 400 ppm. Over the Earth’s history, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have ranged from 180 ppm to 7000 ppm.
Everyone should watch, and carefully listen to, the following: In Defense of CO2
Useful Idiots, Chickenlittleism and Climate Change
Just as the weather has changed over time, so too has the reporting – media outlets blow hotter or colder following the short-term changes in temperature.
It’s easy to follow mainstream media’s climate change coverage dating back to the late 1800s with several major publications, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek reporting on four different climate shifts since 1895.
In 1895 the page six headline of The New York Times warned about the looming dangers of a new ice age. Reporting on ice age threats lasted from the late 1800s well into the late 1920s.
When the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with sensational stories about the new threat with the Times out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”
British amateur meteorologist G. S. Callendar was arguing that mankind was responsible for heating up the planet with carbon dioxide emissions as early as 1938.
In 1954, Fortune magazine was writing about another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.”
Stories about global cooling started in the ‘50s but didn’t gain much traction until about 1975. Some of the stories were remarkably similar in subject to today’s - severe weather and deadly storms would occur much more frequently, climate changes pose a major threat to the food supply.
In 1975, The New York Times reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”
“The Cooling Worlds” was the title of a Newsweek article in 1975. The paper wrote;
“the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change…..a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions”
Just 6 years after publishing “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” the New York Times, on Aug. 22, 1981, quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”
Global cooling, warming, cooling again, and finally today (well maybe not so finally) warming.
Interesting that the term ‘Global Warming’ has recently morphed into the much more flexible ‘Climate Change’ - which of course means any major shift or major climate event can now be easily blamed on man’s activities.
IPCC Skeptics
Critics of the latest IPCC report are many but don’t expect to read any of them in mainstream media publications. Here’s a link to, and a short snippet and graph from, an excellent article by Great Britain’s The Mail.
"Global warming just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong."
“The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.
They are cited worldwide to justify swinging fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy…
One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.”
A key new study in the journal Nature Climate Change revealed that nearly all climate models are dramatically inaccurate. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has produced a report titled ‘Climate Change Reconsidered II’ by the Heartland Institute, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and the Science & Environmental Policy Project.
|
“This work provides the scientific balance that is
missing from the overly alarmist reports of the United
Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), which are highly selective in their review of
climate science and controversial with regard to their
projections of future climate change. Although the
IPCC claims to be unbiased and to have based its
assessment on the best available science, we have
found this to not be the case. In many instances
conclusions have been seriously exaggerated, relevant
facts have been distorted, and key scientific studies
have been ignored…Most notably, its authors
say the IPCC has exaggerated the amount of warming
they predict to occur in response to future increases in
atmospheric CO2. Any warming that may occur is
likely to be modest and cause no net harm to the
global environment or to human well-being.”
|
Also from the Executive Summary:
"No close correlation exists between temperature variation over the past 150 years and human related CO2 emissions…
Evidence is accruing that changes in Earth’s surface temperature are largely driven by variations in solar activity…
The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades."
I found the following on wattsupwiththat.com. It’s an article by Joseph D’Aleo with 25 key rebuttals to the man-made global warming side of the debate.
(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
I gave you the first 5 of 25 rebuttals, follow this link to read the other 20 points.
97% Consensus - polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk.
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton, 17th January 2003, speaking at the California Institute of Technology
Conclusion
“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.” MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen speaking to Climate Depot
I agree with Dr. Lindzen, with so much garbage going into, and considering the non-use of so much key data, one would have to expect nothing but garbage to come out of the IPCC report, after all garbage in =’s garbage out.
Remember
It’s not gas that initially causes the rise in temperatures, its more, or less sunlight.
+- Sunlight = +- temperature = +- gas
What the IPCC is doing is chasing a symptom, you cannot cure, fix or regulate how much sunlight reach’s the earth surface.
As far as this skeptic is concerned the IPCC’s ‘scientific’ opinion on climate change is influenced by nothing more than funding and political factors.
So what might be their agenda?
“the theory of man-caused, catastrophic, global warming is embraced not because of any “science,” (that sham is for the “useful idiots,”), but because it is a justification for a government takeover of the energy industry, with massive increases in regulation, taxes and government spending. The United Nations loves it because it inspires fantasies of the UN growing up to be a world government, with real government powers of global taxation, spending and regulation, all “to save the planet.” Scientists who go along with the cause are rewarded not only with praise for their worthy social conscience, but also with altogether billions in hard, cold cash (government and environmental grants), for their cooperation in helping to play the “useful idiots.” Moreover, many academic scientists are “progressives” themselves, and so favor sharp increases in government spending, taxes and regulation, because they are certain they know how to run your life better than you do.” Peter Ferrara,The Coming Revelation Of The 'Global Warming' Fraud Resembles The Obamacare Lie, Forbes
Is the real science of climate change, and the political machinations in regards to the UN and the IPCC’s global warming agenda on your radar screen?
If not, they should be.
Richard lives with his family on a 160 acre ranch in northern British Columbia. He invests in the resource, biotechnology/pharmaceutical sectors and is the owner of Aheadoftheherd.com. His articles have been published on over 400 websites, including:
WallStreetJournal, USAToday, NationalPost, Lewrockwell, MontrealGazette, VancouverSun, CBSnews, HuffingtonPost, Beforeitsnews, Londonthenews, Wealthwire, CalgaryHerald, Forbes, Dallasnews, SGTreport, Vantagewire, Indiatimes, Ninemsn, Ibtimes, Businessweek, HongKongHerald, Moneytalks, SeekingAlpha, BusinessInsider, Investing.com and the Association of Mining Analysts.
Please visit www.aheadoftheherd.com
If you are interested in advertising on Richard’s site please contact him for more information, rick@aheadoftheherd.com
***
Legal Notice / Disclaimer
This document is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase or subscribe for any investment.
Richard Mills has based this document on information obtained from sources he believes to be reliable but which has not been independently verified.
Richard Mills makes no guarantee, representation or warranty and accepts no responsibility or liability as to its accuracy or completeness. Expressions of opinion are those of Richard Mills only and are subject to change without notice. Richard Mills assumes no warranty, liability or guarantee for the current relevance, correctness or completeness of any information provided within this Report and will not be held liable for the consequence of reliance upon any opinion or statement contained herein or any omission.
Furthermore, I, Richard Mills, assume no liability for any direct or indirect loss or damage or, in particular, for lost profit, which you may incur as a result of the use and existence of the information provided within this Report.
