Archive for the ‘Manmade Warming’ Category

More Evidence that the Sun, Not Man, Controls Earth’s TemperatureJuly 8th, 2009 by E. Calvin Beisner

In his book The Chilling Stars, Henrik Svensmark explains his theory that changes in solar magnetic wind output could control changes in cloud formation on Earth and thus control changes in Earth’s surface temperature. Here’s how it works: Earth is bathed in a current of cosmic rays coming from other stars in and beyond the Milky Way. When cosmic rays collide with certain molecules in our atmosphere, they break those apart and form new compounds, some of which, electrically charged, are excellent nuclei for condensation of water vapor–that is, for the formation of clouds. Clouds, in turn, have a net cooling effect on the Earth by reflecting solar energy back into space before it reaches the surface.

The cosmic ray current isn’t steady. It varies. The stronger it is, the more clouds form, cooling the Earth–and vice versa. But what causes cosmic ray current to vary? Svensmark has shown very strong correlation between it and the strength of solar magnetic wind–the two vary in tandem, and the solar wind, in turn, varies in tandem with solar energy output. Many scientists, including those working with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, long thought the variation in solar energy output (about 0.1%) was simply too slight to explain late twentieth-century global warming, but they were considering only the energy flux. If Svensmark is right, then solar energy flux is magnified by solar wind flux’s effect on cosmic rays and, through them, on cloud formation.

Svensmark argues that the solar wind/cosmic ray/cloud connection is sufficient to explain the vast majority of all observed global temperature change. Not all scientists accept his theory, and some have even called it discredited. But the world’s largest particle physics laboratory, CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research), which funded Svensmark’s earlier research, has now funded more comprehensive research, indicating that its leaders respect the work. It could spell the end of manmade global warming doom-saying, as suggested by the powerful correlation shown in the accompanying graph.

Click here to view the graph.

Why fear of catastrophic, manmade global warming is mistakenJune 3rd, 2009 by The WeGetIt.org Team
  Dr. Roy Spencer
 

 

Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist in climatology at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, explains the case against global warming alarmism in laymen’s terms in a new article. The gist of it is that the computer climate models get the role of clouds backward.The models assume that clouds decrease as surface temperature increases, allowing more solar energy to reach Earth surface and warm it. If that is so, then clouds are a positive feedback.

But Spencer explains that research he and others have published in the Journal of Climate and Geophysical Research Letters  shows that cloud cover increases as surface temperature rises, reflecting more solar energy back into space and thus cooling the surface. In other words, clouds are a negative feedback–exactly the opposite of what all the computer climate models assume. 

The consequence, Spencer says, is that instead of about 5.4 degrees F of warming in response to doubled CO2, we should expect only about 1 degree–an amount that would not have serious harmful effects but would likely instead be beneficial.

IPCC climate scientist calls legislation “all cost and no benefit”June 1st, 2009 by The WeGetIt.org Team
Dr. John Christy

Dr. John Christy, climatologist, was a 
contributor or lead author
on every
major report of the IPCC.

“The solutions being offered,” he warns,
“don’t provide any detectable relief from
this so-called catastrophe.”

As estimates of the cost of cap and trade soared this week (the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office scores the current bill at $973 billion), some experts are beginning to ask what we’re getting for such a hefty price.

Climatologist John Christy, distinguished professor of Atmospheric Science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, recently said he thinks legislation to reduce global warming is “all cost and no benefit” and that as more economic studies drive home that point, “some of the people will take one step backward and say, Let me investigate the science a little more closely.”

When they do that, Christy believes, they’ll find that human influence on climate change is much smaller than even the moderate forecasts by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, let alone the catastrophic predictions driving much of the current discussion.

An ordained Baptist pastor and former missionary teacher in Kenya, Christy is a voice to be reckoned with in the field. The award-winning and widely published climatologist was contributor or lead author on every major report of the IPCC and a co-author of the 2003 American Geophysical Union report, which, he said, made no claims “about disaster or catastrophe.”

Christy believes surface temperature data are biased upward by poor placement and maintenance of temperature stations. Satellites and weather balloons give more reliable results–showing much less warming. He also points out that computer models, like those done by NASA scientist and leading global warming alarmist James Hansen, have grossly overestimated the warming that’s occurred and should not be trusted for the future.

Asked whether we should still take action just in case the extreme models turn out right, he replied, “The solutions being offered don’t provide any detectable relief from this so-called catastrophe. Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050. That’s basically the equivalent of building 1,000 new nuclear power plants all operating by 2020. Now I’m all in favor of nuclear energy, but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100.

“We wouldn’t even notice it.”