The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists

About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold: that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.

Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they cannot think of what might have caused it.

You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced ‘externally’…by a change in the output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events which occur external to the normal, internal operation of the climate system.

But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.

As I travel around the country, I find that the public instinctively understands the possibility that there are natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, it is the climate “experts” who have difficulty grasping the concept. This is why I am taking my case to the public in this book. The climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might be too late for them to turn back.

NATURE’S SUNSHADE: CLOUDS
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.
.............................

www.drroyspencer.com...

There is a new book out by Dr Spencer, who has a PhD in Atmospheric science, which means he is a CLIMATOLOGIST, and he is one of the thousands, if not millions of scientists who have never believed the lies of the AGW scam.

Except for a few die hard believers of the AGW lie/scam, most people are waking up, if they haven't already, to the fact that the ongoing Climate Change is part of a NATURAL CYCLE.

It is inconcievable that in other times on Earth's geological record there have been times when higher levels of atmospheric CO2 have existed YET THE CLIMATE WAS COOLING, and there have been times when atmospheric CO2 have been lower than now YET THERE HAVE BEEN WARMER PERIODS... Those periods confirm that atmospheric CO2 DOES NOT CONTROL THE TEMPERATURE OF EARTH.

For some reason the mayority of the die hard religious believers in AGW haven't been able comprehend, nor do they still "want to" comprehend that atmospheric CO2 at the levels that exist on Earth ARE INSIGNIFICANT TO AFFECT TEMPERATURE, except that HIGHER level of atmospheric CO2 than at present are entirely BENEFITIAL for mother NATURE and ALL LIFE ON EARTH...

I have always been amazed at the irony of those people who believe themselves to be Mother Nature's SAVIORS, and the ONLY ONES WHO UNDERSTAND HER when they can't even comprehend that MORE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 THAN AT PRESENT IS BENEFITIAL TO EARTH... They want to DEPRIVE MOTHER NATURE of what IT NEEDS MOST.... ATMOSPHERIC CO2....

It is a FACT which has been proven time and again that higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 than at present makes the Earth GREENER, yet these religious fanatics/believers in AGW want to trap, reduce, and even want to completely capture all the atmospheric CO2 that exists on Earth's atmosphere, which will deprive all on Earth from growing, but because AGW has become a "NEW AGE RELIGION" based on lies, and scams these believers STILL want to keep their FAITH on AGW.

The fact is Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration right now is lower than what NATURE, and all living creatures on this planet need, and higher levels of CO2 WILL NOT INCREASE TEMPERATURES like the AGW fanatics "BELIEVE."

It is time to stop the scam/lie that is AGW, and it is time to tell the Socialist Elite GREENIES, and their FOLLOWERS that WE DON'T NEED YOUR CONTROL, MORE LAWS, AND MORE TAXES TO PAY FOR SOMETHING YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER...

S&F!! Good to see a qualified climatologist speaking out against AGW. The extract you posted is a good read, I'd really like to get a look at the book. From what I can see there, he writes in a very readable way and I think many people will get alot out of it.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


ElectricUniverse.....

Thanks for posting that interesting info, driving another nail into the politically driven scam called global warming.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

No one denies that global warming is part of a natural cyclic cycle. Who says it isnt? The problem is the rate of acceleration of warming. Welcome to extreme weather. I said this in another post wait and see in another 15 to 20 years time and you will see the global effects of extreme weather has on the population.

Co2 ppm is increasing, and regardless of whether or not you want to believe that it is having an impact on the climate, it is in fact having an impact on the oceans:

Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of −0.075).

If it continues to increase it will inhibit the growth of plankton, the main source of atmospheric oxygen:

Like plants, phytoplankton release oxygen into the air, and they produce half of the world’s breathable oxygen, Carpenter said.
But the world’s air is becoming so saturated with carbon dioxide that oceans have grown increasingly acidic since the Industrial Revolution, Carpenter said. Ocean acidity could rise by the end of the century because of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, said Carpenter, who added that increasingly acidic water can burn through carbon shells that protect marine creatures.
To see whether plankton can survive and thrive in increasingly acidic water, Carpenter and two other researchers secured $1.2 million from the U.S. National Science Foundation to conduct long- and short-term experiments in the coming years.
One set of the short-term experiments will compare plankton growth in conditions that simulate today’s ocean conditions with conditions that simulate those expected by 2100, said UCSF biology professor Jonathon Stillman, who is working with Carpenter on the project at a laboratory in Tiburon.
Long-term experiments, on the other hand, will monitor clouds of rapidly multiplying phytoplankton as it evolves in acidifying water over 700 generations, according to Stillman. That will test whether plankton evolve defenses against the changing ocean conditions expected in the coming 93 years.

Its ok though, listen to the oil and auto industry apologist who will tell you to buy that F-250 that guzzles a bazillion gallons of gas a year so you can go offroading, I mean let your grandkids worry about if there is any O2 left on the planet in their lifetimes or not…

And certainly don’t worry about the fact that if things don’t change all shelled ocean creatures will disappear, along with all the coral reefs (and their eco systems), and the predominate life left in the oceans will be limited to jellyfish and hembolt squid…. Its all good…


[edit on 4/20/2010 by defcon5]

Based on the ice core data "Global Warming" is indeed a natural cycle. Based on the present part of the graph it shows that the industrial revolution and the use of fossil fuels has prolonged our warming peak before the big drop of about 10 degs C over a few 100 or 1000 years.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You are right in theory... more CO2 for trees to inhale.

But, you are forgetting a practical and very political issue: tree logging.

What is the use of more CO2 if no trees are left?

A corrupt judge for the electrical regulatory agency here in Brazil, repealed 3 court-issued injuctions to block a new dam construction.

Now the dam have almost green light to down more trees, and more logging.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by jjjtir]

The FIRST thing the AGW people will claim is that he is paid by big oil.
Then they will say he is wrong.
Then they will ignore him.

but they will never debate him.

Ocean acidification will increase and its not CO2 that will cause it but that mountain in Iceland and the sulfur its putting out.
The longer it erupts the higher the Ocean acidification.
Man is also putting sulfides in the ocean especially china and India from there industry. Plus over fishing can change the PH of the ocean.

no mater what we do climate change will go on ether colder or hotter.
and the AGW people will want more laws and taxes.

reply to post by defcon5


Absolutely freaking ridiculous...electrode based pH meters typically have an accuracy of +_ 0.02pH. So a difference of 0.05pH more acidic...they didn't have this technology back around 1800...LOL

What a joke...the difference is nothing...can't draw a direct correlation to CO2 levels even if there was.

Al Gore is saying that increasing to 350ppm and above from 250ppm will have dire consequences...OK Al...

That's a 0.0100% increase in a gas that makes up 0.032% atmosphere...wake up

reply to post by ibiubu


What everyone seems to be missing is that the Ice Core data clearly shows a direct relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and Global Temperatures. The only thing is that this relationship goes back 450000 years plus and it's clearly a natural cycle. Man-made global warming has only pushed back the time of the next Ice Age and is probably screwing up Mother Nature's way of dealing with this Natural Cycle.

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by defcon5

 

Absolutely freaking ridiculous...electrode based pH meters typically have an accuracy of +_ 0.02pH. So a difference of 0.05pH more acidic...they didn't have this technology back around 1800...LOL

What a joke...the difference is nothing...can't draw a direct correlation to CO2 levels even if there was.

Al Gore is saying that increasing to 350ppm and above from 250ppm will have dire consequences...OK Al...

That's a 0.0100% increase in a gas that makes up 0.032% atmosphere...wake up

Come to think of it, where is Al Gore BSE.......the BS is not for Bacholor of Science, and the E is for extroardinaire.

see
people will still argue over apparent facts that they have even after a scientists tells people that their are other factors to take into account.

The AGW propoganda has surely worked, you cannot alter these supporters views just as you cannot alter the views of a religious zealot.

their minds are made up even before entering the debate.
Personally I was a firm believer in AWG initially, but after you follow the money trail, you see where the money goes and who benefits from all this.
And guess what, it isn't you, me or the planet, but a select few who will own one more part of your daily life.

reply to post by munkey66


I think they're purposely polluting the air to force us all to need air breathers which will have a meter attached to it charging you for every breath you take when you leave your house or business. You will also have to pay to have the "Carbon Credit Air Purifier" for your home or business to provide air without a mask. Of course all of these extra costs will be given to us.

So.. us crazy conspiracy theorists were right all along about the global warming scam...


I am not a scientist and I know we do pollute the Earth but all this CO2 BS had more holes than a cullinder.

reply to post by ibiubu


Well either scientists from around the world including NOAA and Princeton Universities are all liars or you are wrong:

GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES, VOL. 18, GB4031, 23 PP., 2004
doi:10.1029/2004GB002247
A global ocean carbon climatology: Results from Global Data Analysis Project (GLODAP)
R. M. Key
Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
A. Kozyr
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA
C. L. Sabine
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, Washington, USA
K. Lee
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology, Pohang, Republic of Korea
R. Wanninkhof
Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, NOAA, Miami, Florida, USA
J. L. Bullister
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, Washington, USA
R. A. Feely
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, Washington, USA
F. J. Millero
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA
C. Mordy
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, Washington, USA
T.-H. Peng
Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, NOAA, Miami, Florida, USA

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms
If you look their data clearly goes back to the 1800s at least. I have no idea the source, maybe its from ocean ice or maybe they extrapolated it:

Caldeira and Wickett (2003) placed the rate and magnitude of modern ocean acidification changes in the context of probable historical changes during the last 300 million years.

Since the industrial revolution began, it is estimated that surface ocean pH has dropped by slightly less than 0.1 units (on the logarithmic scale of pH; approximately a 25% increase in H+), and it is estimated that it will drop by a further 0.3 to 0.5 units by 2100 as the oceans absorb more anthropogenic CO2. These changes are predicted to continue rapidly as the oceans take up more anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere, the degree of change to ocean chemistry, for example ocean pH, will depend on the mitigation and emissions pathways society takes. Note that, although the ocean is acidifying, its pH is still greater than 7 (that of neutral water), so the ocean could also be described as becoming less basic.

[edit on 4/21/2010 by defcon5]

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
reply to post by ibiubu

 

What everyone seems to be missing is that the Ice Core data clearly shows a direct relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and Global Temperatures. The only thing is that this relationship goes back 450000 years plus and it's clearly a natural cycle. Man-made global warming has only pushed back the time of the next Ice Age and is probably screwing up Mother Nature's way of dealing with this Natural Cycle.

Good point. The ice core data also shows that changes in CO2 levels trail temperature by approximately 800 years. TEMPERATURE DRIVES CO2 LEVELS through natural processes of organic growth and decay. This presentation by Professor Bob Carter explores this in detail. Excellent presentation :

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


It seems as though even the readers of that bastion of AGW propaganda, realclimate.org, have difficulty stomaching this rather weak post attempting to debunk the significance of this 800 year gap. Have a look at the comments.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by treesdancing]

If global warming was truly a danger, not a scam to cause fear used to control people, then the world at large would be acting quicker. And they would look at both sides of the CO2 equation : source and sink. All logging would stop immediately and there would be greater panic and urgency.

The focus must simply be on sustainability - not just on CO2.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by ibiubu

 

Well either scientists from around the world including NOAA and Princeton Universities are all liars or you are wrong:

[edit on 4/21/2010 by defcon5]

Considering the recent CRU and Climagate scandals, it's more likely than not. Lying and misrepresentation was a major part of this mass delusion.

I get just a little annoyed when people tell me that i should be taxed on what i exhale. How about we implement a tax so high that nobody can ever fly in a pvt jet again? That seems a much better idea.

reply to post by defcon5


I am correct on the points stated. I have reviewed a significant amount data and have no connection to oil companies or interest groups. I'm an accomplished research scientist who is fundamentally at war with "false" scientists that are discrediting science in general through polliticking.

NOAA, NASA, and the EPA are usually wrong. I have thad the opportunity to correct two of these agencies within the past two years. Nobody is right all of the time.

So, the best accuracy of a temperature sensing device is +-1C. So, they are claiming a nearly 1 degree increase in many journals. That's within the measurement error of the sensor itself.

Complete bogus, junk science.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by ibiubu]

why is it that scientists who disagree with global warming spend so much time talking about how stupid their peers are and so little time presenting good evidence?

i'm suspicious of this scientist spending his time talking about how "clouds have been over looked as a cause of climate change" rather than just presenting papers showing evidence to support his theory.

releasing a book before the paper that supports it? sell it before it's torn to shreds, perhaps?