Global Warming: Another Goverment Scam!
The graphs which are very important to this article can be found online at joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics_handbook_2-1.pdf. Below it the text contained in the article but the graphs provided allow for no logical rebuttle. I edited this post because it exceeded the allowable characters.
Note: I didn't not write a single word of the following:
The Bottom Line is Simple
Don’t fall for the ‘complexity’ arguement, or accept vague answers. The climate is complex, but the only thing that matters here is whether adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the worldmuch warmer?. Everything hinges on this one question. If carbon dioxide is not a significant cause, then carbon sequestration, cap ‘n trade, emissions trading, and the Kyoto agreement are a waste of time and money. All of them divert resources away from things that matter—like finding a cure for cancer, or feeding Somali babies. Having a real debate IS the best thing for the environment.
Greenhouse and global warming are different- Don’t let people confuse global warming with greenhouse gases. Mixing these two different topics has confounded the debate. Proof of global warming is not proof that greenhouse gases caused thatwarming.
1)The greenhouse signature is missing-Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the telltale ‘hot-spot’ warm-ing pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There’s not even a hint...Something else caused the warming.
2)The strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer more detailed data turned the theory inside out
3) Temperatures aren't rising-Instead of carbon pushing up temperatures, for the last half a million years temperatures have gone up before carbon dioxide levels. On average 800 years before. This totally threw what we thought was cause-and-effect out the window. Something else caused the warming.Something out there affects our climate more than CO2 and none of the computer models knows what it is. Conclusion: Something else was causing most or all of the warming.
The greenhouse signature is missing(graphs on link at top of page)-
These graphs from the IPCC show what the fingerprint of greenhouse heating should look like—the first signs of warming will happen in the patch of air ten kilometers above the tropics. All the computer models agree that other causes of global warming will warm the planet in different patterns. Weather balloons have searched for years and can’t find any sign that this patch of air, called the ‘hot spot’ is getting warmer. (Note that it’s actually freezing cold air up that high, but it should be less cold than it was. It’s not.)
Thermometers are telling us, “it’s not greenhouse gases”.
This is where we’ll see an increase in greenhouse gas warming first.
Below is what the thermometers find -NO ‘hot spot’.
1. Ice cores don’t prove anything either way. The the simplest explanation is that when temperatures
rise, more carbon enters the atmosphere (because as oceans warm they release more CO2).
Source: CDIAC, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center http://cdiac.ornl.gov
A complete set of expanded graphs and images are available from http://joannenova.com.au/wp/global-warming/ice-core-graph/
2 )The Ice Core surprise. Oo-err it turns out temperature leads carbon, not the other way around-
On average CO2 rises and falls hundreds of years after temperature does . The full unbroken Vostok ice core data does not show CO2 pushing up temperatures. The Vostok Icecores stunningly showed temperature and CO2 locked together. But by 2003 we had better data, more points, and itbecame clear that instead CO2 was in the back seat.
AGW replies: There is roughly an 800 year -Lag. But even if CO2 doesn’t start the warming trend, it amplifies it. Something else is causing the warming.
Skeptics say: If CO2 was a major driver, temperatures would rise indefinitely in a‘runaway greenhouse effect’. But something else stops this, so that’s more powerful than carbon, yet the models don’t know what it is.Amplification is a lab-theory with no evidencethat it matters in the real world.This information was published in 2003, yet is almostnever mentioned in the media. Al Gore’s movie wasmade in 2005. His words about the ice cores were, ‘it’s complicated’. The lag calls everything about cause and effect into question. There is no way anyinvestigation can ignore something so central.
Conclusion- Something else is causing the warming.
3)The world is not warming any more-climate-changes, not global warming.Satellites have circled the planet 24 hours a day measuring temperatures continuously for nearly 30 years. If the temperatures were still rising, they would see it.Satellite data shows that the world has not warmed since 2001, even though carbondioxide increased. AGW reply #1: We’ve had record high temperatures (measured by thermometers on the ground). AGW reply #2: This flat patch is just ‘noise’ and natural variation. Skeptics say: ‘Noise’ is caused by something. And it’s more important than carbon. Even if the trend continues upwards sometime soon, the flat trend for seven years tells us the models are missing something big. Conclusion: This doesn’t prove global warming is over, but it proves that carbon is not the main driver. Something else is, something that the computer models don’t include.
See the latest graphs with links to the original data at http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
4) Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can-Here’s why it’s possible that doubling CO2 won’t make much difference. Reality trumps theory (again) The carbon that's already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light that it can. CO2 only ‘soaks up’ its favourite wavelengths of light and it’s close to saturation point. The natural greenhouse effect is real, and does keep us warm, but it's already reached it's peak performance.Throw more carbon up there and most of the extra gas is just ‘unemployed’ molecules. They manage to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to their favourite bands but they can't do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths.
AGW says: The climate models are well aware of the logarithmic absorption curve and use it in their calculations. This is not news, it’s been known for decades.
Skeptics say: This is theory versus reality. We’ve proved the theory in the lab, but that doesn’t mean it makes a big difference in the real world. In the atmosphere, other factors also impact on the outcome. Things like convection, radiation, magnetic influences, cloud cover, other gases, orbitaleffects, turbulence, temperature, flora and fauna, and an imponderable number of feedback loops.
If adding more CO2 to the sky mattered, we would see it in the ice cores, or we’d see it in the thermometers.
It boils down to computer models. We know carbon makes a difference, but we’re only guessing how big that difference is.
This is NOT evidence:
Arctic Ice disappearing, Glaciers retreating, Coral reef bleaching, Mt Kilamanjaro losing snow, Madagascan lemurs doing anything Four polar bears caught in a storm Pick-a-bird/tree/moth facing extinction ,A change in cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons, Droughts, Dry rivers
What is Evidence?
This would be evidence that carbon is a major cause of global warming-If temperatures followed CO2 levels in the past. (They didn’t) If the atmosphere showed the characteristic heating pattern ofincreased greenhouse warming. (It doesn’t).
Anything that heats the planet will melt ice, shift lemurs,and cause droughts.None of these things tell us WHY the planet got warmer.
For open minded people who want more info...
“This cooler spell is just natural variation”
That IS the point. Natural variation, or ‘noise’ is due to something. And at the moment,
whatever that is, it’s more important than greenhouse gases. In this case, ‘noise’ is not
some fairy force, it’s affecting the planetary climate. If we can figure that out, and stick it
in the computer models, they might have more success.
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant”-Carbon dioxide feeds plants. It’s a potent fertilizer. We can thank the extra CO2 in our atmosphere for increasing plant growth by about 15% over the last century. (Fifteen percent!) Market gardeners pump extra CO2 into their greenhouses to increase their cropyield, and we’re not talking a piddling 2ppm extra a year. It’s like, “Will we double CO2, or increase it five-fold?” In other words, there are people alive today thanks to extra carbon in the atmosphere. It’s scientifically accurate to say: “carbon dioxide helps feed the starving” Atmospheric carbon is at higher levels than any time in the last 650,000 years. But go back 500 million years, and carbon levels were not just 10-20% higher, they were ten to twenty times higher. The Earth has thoroughly tested the runaway greenhouse effect, and nothing happened. Indeed the earth slipped into an ice age while CO2 was far higher than today’s levels. Whatever warming effect super-concentrated-CO2 has, it’s no match for the other climactic forces out there. Further, it doesn’t matter if it’s man-made-CO2 or ocean-made-CO2. They are the same molecule. time in the West, money could have been used for gene therapy, or cancer research but wasn’t; the delay in medical advances means over ten years, half a million people die who wouldn’t have if we’d put that money into medical labs instead of finding ways to pump a harmless gas underground.
“But carbon dioxide is at record levels”
At the current rate we are increasing CO2 each year, we will hit
historic record levels in just 3,300 years.
I’m scared, are you?
“The temperature is rising faster than ever before”
Last century, temperatures rose about 0.7°C (and most of that gain has been lost in the last 12
months). But around 1700, there was a 2.2°C rise in just 36 years.