Thread: Some of the reasons I do not accept the theory of Anthropomorphic Global Warming and

This was originally a

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

reply

to Andrew on my “They call this a consensus?” thread. I have chosen to edit it some what and present it as the OP of its own thread, Some of the reasons I do not accept the theory of Anthropomorphic Global Warming and why I question the integrity of the IPCC.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

There is always room for honest debate in science. What that means is you debate the conclusions of the state of a given science by conducting original research into the matter and directly seeking to invalidate a commonly held view.

I agree. The only problem is that too many of the proponents of AGW seek to carry out research to “prove” their cherished theory and refuse to accept any research that invalidates it. I have presented tens of links refuting the details and the theory as a whole. I have also presented tens of links that highlight certain problems with the protocols (and their tactics) of many of the promoters of AGW. In the past I have presented links, they were ignored. I have pointed out flaws or pointed out the exaggerated claims of some of the AGW advocates, I was accused of “making stuff up.” So this time I have taken the time to present some excerpts from the links for all to see.
AGW advocates (like the IPCC) claim that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades if not centuries, when all of the scientific evidence indicates that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 5 to 12 years. http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
From the paper:

Abstract
The three evidences of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the apparent contemporary atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic, is discussed and rejected: CO2 measurements from ice cores; CO2 measurements in air; and carbon isotope data in conjunction with carbon cycle modelling.
It is shown why the ice core method and its results must be rejected; and that current air CO2 measurements are not validated and their results subjectively "edited". Further it is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear ocean evasion "buffer" correction factors constructed from a pre-conceived idea, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity.
Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO2 level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth's interior.

I should also point out that this paper lists three dozen separate studies confirming the findings that CO2 stays in the atmosphere between 5 to 12 years at the most. This contradicts the claim by the IPCC that asserts that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for as long as 200 years.
What about the claim that CO2 is the main drive of global warming?
Nir. J. Shavi
Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? | ScienceBits

What is the evidence for an anthropogenic effect?
The first question we wish to address is whether there is actual evidence indicating that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are responsible for most of the warming. Basically, we observe a temperature rise over the 20th century, and we measure a rise in the global concentration of CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases. What is the evidence proving that the increase in the GHGs is the cause for the temperature increase?
The truth is that there is no real evidence for this link. Most of the "evidence" often mentioned in the media, is evidence for global warming (e.g., melting of arctic ice-sheets). But who said that this warming (which indeed took place over the 20th century) is because of GHGs? In fact, there is no substantial evidence which proves that CO2 and other GHGs are the primary cause for the warming, and not some other mechanism. ...
(Nir continues)
An alternative explanation for global warming, or at least part of it
Solar activity appears to affect climate. This can be seen from many different correlations between solar activity on one hand, and climate on the other. These correlations exist on time scales ranging from the 11-year solar cycle to many millennia (for the two most beautiful correlations, see Neff et al, and Bond et al. in the refs below). Such a link is potentially important for global warming because over the 20th century, solar activity has been increasing. ...
(Nir continues)
The activity of the sun manifests its self in many ways. One of them is through a variable solar wind. This flux of energetic particles and entangled magnetic field flows outwards from the sun, and impedes on a flux of more energetic particles, the cosmic rays, which come from outside the solar system. Namely, a more active sun with a stronger solar wind will attenuate the flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth. The key point in this picture is that the cosmic rays are the main physical mechanism controlling the amount of ionization in the troposphere (the bottom 10 kms or so). Thus, a more active sun will reduce the flux of cosmic rays, and with it, the amount of tropospheric ionization. As it turns out, this amount of ionization affects the formation of condensation nuclei required for the formation of clouds in clean marine environment. A more active sun will therefore inhibit the formation of cloud condensation nuclei, and the resulting low altitude marine clouds will have larger drops, which are less white and live shorter, thereby warming Earth.

What about the warming we experienced during the latter half of the 20th century? Are we absolutely sure that it was caused by human activity? There is research indicating that we may still be recovering from the Little Ice Age and the warming we experienced are due to natural causes. http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2...g_from_LIA.pdf
Excerpt:

Abstract
There seems to be a roughly linear increase of the temperature from about 1800, or even much earlier, to the present. This warming trend is likely to be a natural change; a rapid increase of CO2 began in about 1940. This trend should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years. Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that
“most” of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. One possible cause of the linear increase may be that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. It is urgent that natural changes be correctly identified and removed accurately from the presently on-going changes in order to find the contribution of the greenhouse effect.

It has been claimed by some that Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph has not been discredited. It was featured in the IPCC 2001 Report and was used as the primary evidence to show that the warming in the latter half of the 20th century was unique. The two links that follow show that Mann‘s methodology was flawed and that he misused the data he depended on. The analysis of Mann’s research was done by two separate unaffiliated groups who came to basically the same conclusions. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...gmanReport.pdf
Excerpt:

This committee, composed of Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University), David W. Scott (Rice University), and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University), has reviewed the work of both articles, as well as a network of journal articles that are related either by authors or subject matter, and has come to several conclusions and recommendations. This Ad Hoc Committee has worked pro bono, has received no compensation, and has no financial interest in the outcome of the report. …
Findings
In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis. However, the reasons for setting 1902-1995 as the calibration point presented in the narrative of MBH98 sounds reasonable, and the error may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians. In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. This committee does not believe that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit
Excerpt:

ABSTRACT
The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.

Michael Mann never addressed these in any satisfactory manner. If Mann had, and his research had been confirmed by an unaffiliated group the IPCC would never have removed it from their future reports. The IPCC dropped it without any comment about the controversy.

The IPCC has time and again shown its not honest in its dealings with many of the scientists who have had issues with its findings or the use of their research. The use of Mann’s hockey stick in the IPCC’s 2001 report shows us that its review protocols have much to be desired. It did not help that Mann was one of the editors of the report. That the IPCC simply dropped Mann’s graph from all future reports without serious comment also speaks loudly about the quality of research being used by the body. Several scientists have resigned from it for various reasons over the years. Yet the IPCC is still considered by many as the leading body for global climate studies, even receiving the Nobel Prize, which it shares with Al Gore. The fact that Al Gore, whose propaganda film has been shown to be full of errors, shares the Prize with the IPCC should give anyone a moment to pause.
nzclimatescience.net - SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC
Excerpt from Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures:

I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.
I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.
Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.
Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea (Resignation Letter)
Excerpt from the resignation letter by Christopher Landsea:

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns. …
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I
view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.

All of the papers I have quoted are by respected scientists or experts in their discipline. I have also supplied the necessary links so anyone can read the complete papers or letters at their leisure. Some have claimed that there is no valid scientific reasons to question anthropomorphic global warming and that only those who are ignorant of the science or are bought and paid for by oil companies would question the status quo. I hope this post clears up that confusion. “The truth is out there.”

For those interested, a little something extra: http://www.nipcc.ch/datei/1256830332.pdf

Tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

“Come on Scotty, you can do it. We need more power.”

Spock raises an eye brow.

“Bones, may be you should go down and help.”

“Jim, I am a doctor not an engineer!”

Suddenly a large box materializes on the bridge, a man steps out and says, "The Doctor is in and I have a sonic screwdrive that can fix anything!"

"Ah ... okay ... Ensign put that man in the brig. We cannot have any crossing realities or mixed metaphors right now."

"But Captain, I am wearing a red shirt! I really don't want to die!"

The lift doors open and Worf steps out saying, "It is a good day to die!"

“What is happening?! Spock do you have an answer?”

“Fascinating.”

The lift opens again a man in pajamas and bathrobe steps off, “I do have a towel, perhaps that will help.”

On the front view screen Alex Trebeck appears, “So we have scifi television and strange parallel realities as the final category. Place your bets, will be back in a moment.”

And this boys and girls is why you should never ever drop acid... especially with the Scifi channel on.