Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Great informative article by Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball.

Excerpts follow. Read the whole article at Canada Free Press.

This is what happens when good science goes bad. It’s the same story with orthodox evolution theory.

This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.

“It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices.Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

Comments
Most climate scientists have only studied thermodynamics and meteorology and because of that favor greenhouse gases as a cause for global warming. They are very good at lobbying. Much talk, but how many look at the actual data.PerStrand
March 3, 2007
March
03
Mar
3
03
2007
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
This article comes to a similar conclusion: Science Makes A Move Toward Omnipotence "Junk science would be funny it if wasn’t trying to be omnipotent. But as it is, it’s just plain scary." ... "Science has migrated from the examination of phenomenon through the scientific method of experimentation to the realm of metaphysics by claiming absolute knowledge about everything. And if you are a member of the scientific community who disagrees with the new politically correct official positions you will be considered worse than a Fundamentalist Christian."EndoplasmicMessenger
February 10, 2007
February
02
Feb
10
10
2007
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
Global warming (GW) relies on mathematical modeling and on “origins” sciences, so it is not really off topic. It is related in the sense it being pseudo or rather “quazi” science, the same labels the ID gets labeled with by the mainstream (evolutionary) science. As the graph of CO2 in the geological past indicates (link by DaveScot message 56), the CO2 levels were 7000 ppm, or 20x higher compared to 2005, and, interestingly, are co-related with the Cambrian explosion, which started 542 million years ago. It was in this period that the life on earth arose as if by an explosion of new lifeforms, creating a huge variety in the fossil record that gave Darwin a lot of grief. If the earth could tolerate so much life and CO2 levels so high in the past, why couldn't it tolerate them again? (From a theist's point of view, if God allowed so much life to flourish at one time, why are we so worried about human overpopulation breathing out or making CO2 now?) The question of the accuracy of the mathematical models of GW is an interesting one, as even the US Senate Sceptic's Guide points out, (link by DaveScot message 9). GW as science is basically all about "weather" modeling, and it is highly ironic that the environmental agencies which have been criticized for decreasingly accurate weather forecasts, use their modeling "skills" to forecast the GW doomsday scenario. For example, as Dr. Tim Ball pointed out, Environment Canada, which provided one the 19 IPCC models, has been criticized for doing a very poor job with their primary business, which is basic weather forecasts. A study was completed 2-3 years ago, which compared the forecast with the actual weather. Basically, the conclusion of the study was that the modern technology & forecasters can reasonably accurately forecast 1 day ahead, (but so can any knowledgeable "quack" who can look outside the window, and observe goats or sheep as one TV station in the US did some time ago). The 3-day forecast is basically akin to a 50-50% coin toss, (really, totally useless as a forecast), and the 5-day forecast is just plain garbage without any meaning at all. I am not sure if the study addressed seasonal or longer term forecasts, but I have a feeling that the pros would badly loose to Farmers' Almanac which supposedly relies on its secret Sun-spot formula. (Surprisingly many people and business, like in construction, rely on Farmers' Almanac.) Now, if they cannot accurately forecast 3 days ahead, what are their 300 year predictions worth? --- I tried to Google the original University of Manitoba study, to give a link, but it must have been pulled. However, I found some interesting info on their Weather Central blog (perhaps run by the same people who did the weather accuracy study): #1. Verification has shown that value is added by the forecaster to the initial SCRIBE set of weather concepts but only for the first 24 hours. Beyond this period (day 2-3) little or no value is added to the forecast. #2. The performance of the automated forecasts was found to trail closely to that of subjective forecasts under an objective verification scheme. #3. The question of who is the best forecaster in a particular media market is one that the public frequently asks. The authors have collected approximately one year's forecasts from the National Weather Service and major media presentations for Oklahoma City. Diagnostic verification procedures indicate that the question of best does not have a clear answer. All of the forecast sources have strengths and weaknesses, and it is possible that a user could take information from a variety of sources to come up with a forecast that has more value than any one individual source provides. The analysis provides numerous examples of the utility of a distributions-oriented approach to verification while also providing insight into the problems the public faces in evaluating the array of forecasts presented to them. #5. And my favourite: "The accuracy of temperature and precipitation forecasts for Toronto was studied for the 20-year period 1960-1979. For temperature forecasts, the record indicates a significant loss of skill over the 20-year period in the prediction of maximum temperature for the first day. This was observed not only for the Bloor Street observing station for which the entire 20-year record was analysed, but also for observing stations at Toronto Island, Downsview and Malton. The loss of skill over the years is greatest in winter when temperature is consistently predicted too low at all stations." There are many more... ( http://wxcentral.blogspot.com/2006/11/told-you-so.html )rockyr
February 8, 2007
February
02
Feb
8
08
2007
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
I don't hold any definitive stand on global warming, but assuming that the environment of earth is fine tuned for life, tampering with it via introduction of excessive amounts of various gases probably isn't desirable. There are many scientists who say that we (humans) are responsible for global warming. Perhaps we are not, as you say, but either way, we humans were not given the earth to abuse it. We should fight to cut down on environmental pollution, global warming or no global warming. Of course, if we caused global warming environmentalism would be more urgent.WinglesS
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
geomor No scientists think that global warming is going to lead to the earth being consumed in a hellfire. Au contraire. MANY SCIENTISTS BELIEVE RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE POSSIBLE mass starvation, tens or hundreds of millions of deaths Where does that melodramatic crap come from if not from a runaway greenhouse? Oh I know. When the ocean rises anyone who lives near sea level will drown instead of walk to higher ground. And the ones that don't drown will forget to eat. That must be it, huh? DaveScot
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensusRobo
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
DaveScot, your last comment seems misdirected. No scientists think that global warming is going to lead to the earth being consumed in a hellfire. We are talking about a few degrees of warming and a few meters of increased sea levels. As you say, life itself has no problem with this whatsoever. But what will it mean for human civilization? If you think it would not be very bad -- and in some extremely abstract sense, one could argue that loss of coastal cities, mass starvation, tens or hundreds of millions of deaths, etc. would not be that bad in the very long run -- then indeed, it's nothing to worry about. (Sea levels during the last period when global average temperatures were 3-5 degrees warmer -- about 125,000 years ago -- were likely 4-6 meters higher.)GeoMor
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
I don't know rude. The ex hippies I know are doctors, lawyers and business owners not to mention largely happy husbands, wifes, fathers and mothers. I am sure that there are many disenfranchised people out there from that era but they are people that for whatever reasons gave up. One more question. If we at least think there is a good chance that we are annhilated at death, would you recommend that we just sit around for the inevitble? Or maybe we would rather learn to take advantage of our limited time if we hadn't already and decide what is important to us and go out and make ourrbest go at it? I'll leave it to you to decide what you would rather do. If we do decide to make a go at it, does that not imply a self defined purpose that exists at least subconsciously?jmcd
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
CO2 concentration in the geologic past has been many times higher as concluded from sediment drill cores. http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264 Life doesn't end when C02 levels rise. The planet doesn't enter a runaway greenhouse. Just the opposite happens. Temperature is capped and the planet becomes lush with life from stem to stern.DaveScot
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Jmcd: “Come again? Do you know any nihilists?” Well I remember having this argument in the U with one prof. pontificating, “I’ve come to terms with my total annihilation at death—doesn't bother me—why can't these nihilists do the same?” It boggles the mind! What drives these elites? They burn the midnight oil, publish and do not perish in the short term. But all for what? Meanwhile outside our sheltered world is the human debris—drugged, dulled, dazed—those hopeless hordes left over from the secularist triumph of the Sixties. Somehow our elites seem able to escape the nihilism they preach—not so lucky is the underclass that they would tax us to hire their graduates to fix.Rude
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Okay I think I know what he meant and no I do not agree. Thanks Patrick.jmcd
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
geomor Previously, you said repeatedly that earth’s recent warming can be explained by fluctuations in solar irradiance. Now you seem to be saying the earth is not actually warming, and it’s all some measurement artifact. Which is it? Define "recent". It warms and cools in cycles of varying lengths. From 1940 to 1980 it was cooling, then it was warming until 1998, now it's cooling again. Added on to this is questionable reliability of the data. The inconvenient fact of the matter is that nobody knows for sure WTF is happening or why. In the 650,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, the highest estimated CO2 concentration was 300 ppm; This is based on gas trapped ice cores and those are problematic for a number of reasons outlined by a Polish scientist who's an expert in ice core studies. http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ Moreover, current measurements are all citations taken at the Mauna Loa observatory right in the middle of an active C02 spewing volcano chain. I wonder if there's a possibly worse place in the world to get a reliable measure of atmospheric gas concentrations. Can you think of one?DaveScot
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
The acid that you speak of and I know nothing of doesn’t seem to be so universal.
For your information, Darwinism as a "universal acid" was coined by Daniel Dennett. I doubt all Darwinists would agree.Patrick
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Warming trends are confined to the northern hemisphere and the temperature measurements are all out of whack by the heat island effect of large cities. Previously, you said repeatedly that earth's recent warming can be explained by fluctuations in solar irradiance. Now you seem to be saying the earth is not actually warming, and it's all some measurement artifact. Which is it? Even those skeptics of human attribution who should be taken seriously, like Lindzen, do not deny that the earth is warming. CO2 is not “skyrocketing” and it has risen many times in the past before humans were around. I'm not sure what you are basing this statement on. In the 650,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, the highest estimated CO2 concentration was 300 ppm; it is now 379ppm and increasing at 1.9ppm per year -- a rate which is actually accelerating. Where do you think all this CO2 we release goes?GeoMor
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
"But you’re right—the universal acid of Darwinism eats through every purpose except short term political gain. So I’d say that honest stewardship of the environment hinges on defeating Darwinian nihilism." Come again? Do you know any nihilists? I don't but I know hundreds of people that believe Enolutionary Theory is at least on the right track. I guess you would call these people darwinists. The acid that you speak of and I know nothing of doesn't seem to be so universal.jmcd
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
Some time back I was a guest at a prestigious banquet where one of the world’s wealthiest men was giving out grants to “green” groups. I chided the folks at my table: “You wanna do something about global warming? Eat more! We’ve gotta increase the planet’s biomas. Save the rainforest, yes! But the forest’s a steady state affair that doesn’t increase the biomas—at best it just holds its own. But have you noticed how fat the plebs are getting? Well … they’re doing their part! The more people there are and the fatter they get, the more of that CO2 that’s being taken out of the air. So let’s have more babies and, hey! go ahead and eat up!” Anyway they weren’t amused. But you’re right—the universal acid of Darwinism eats through every purpose except short term political gain. So I’d say that honest stewardship of the environment hinges on defeating Darwinian nihilism.Rude
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
Of course I can cite Lindzen and call it a day. Science isn’t a democracy. Only one person need be correct. I say it’s Lindzen. Well, fine. You can do whatever you want. What should be done by those who want to think carefully for themselves is another matter.dopderbeck
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
The first rule we ought to make is outlawing travel by private jet. Hey, if there is a crisis sacrifices must be made!! And does Barbra really need a house that big?tribune7
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
doperderbeck You can’t just cite Lindzen and call it a day Of course I can cite Lindzen and call it a day. Science isn't a democracy. Only one person need be correct. I say it's Lindzen. DaveScot
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Winston said: It seems just as valid to suggest that a carefully designed world would be carefully designed to prevent the possiblity of being messed with. This is true only if you want to deny human free will. Yes, God / the designer could have made a world that could not possibly be messed with, or a world in which people couldn't hurt each other. That fact that He didn't, and chose instead to grace us with free will, says nothing about the fact of design one way or the other. (Or, at best, the idea of free will supports the notion of design, since it's difficult to see how free will could arise from mere materialism). DaveScot: Yes, I saw the Lindzen Op-ed when it was first published. There have been several other skeptical Op-eds in the Wall Street Journal since then. Lindzen is one of the main global warming "skeptics" and the WSJ is the skeptics' paper of record. It's important, I think, to consider what folks like Lindzen are saying. However, it's equally important to know that Lindzen is only one very controversial figure in a complex scientific and public policy debate. You can't just cite Lindzen and call it a day, any more than you can just cite the IPCC and call it a day.dopderbeck
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Has everyone read this: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597DaveScot
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
geomor First, I’ll assume that you will grant that (1) the earth IS warming and (2) the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide IS skyrocketing due to human activity. If you deny either of these facts, then clearly there is not much to talk about anyway. Then I guess we don't have much to talk about. Those are not facts. Warming trends are confined to the northern hemisphere and the temperature measurements are all out of whack by the heat island effect of large cities. CO2 is not "skyrocketing" and it has risen many times in the past before humans were around. DaveScot
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
robo I don't consider nitpicking about exactly how many years Ball was a climatology professor to be "discrediting" anything at all.DaveScot
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
trib The first rule we ought to make is outlawing travel by private jet. Hollywood stars that are all concerned about the environment waste more fuel in one private jet flight than an average family uses in two years. http://www.nationalsummary.com/Articles/Science_Tech/science_tech__hollywood_prius.htmDaveScot
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
GeoMor If human activity is really the cause of global waming -- and global warming will be catastrophic -- then Jane Fonda will be responsible for the destruction of humanity, at least if Edward Teller was correct in giving her primary blame for stopping the construction of nuclear plants. Anyway, my reason for being more frightened of the politics behind warming than the warming itself is that those crying crisis are not taking the obvious steps to resolve it, but demanding more money and power. The same people mongering global warming fear are actually demanding hydro-plants be ripped down in California. And generally they are very much opposed to nukes although there are exceptions. I see global warming as simply a means to expand the power of central government rather than an environmental crisis.tribune7
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
Dave, have you seen this webpage: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/02/ball_makes_edit.php Tim Ball has been discredited in a few obvious places it seems.Robo
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT
"if the world is carefully designed to support human life, significantly altering the balance of environmental regulators such as greenhouse gasses should negatively impact human flourishing." It seems just as valid to suggest that a carefully designed world would be carefully designed to prevent the possiblity of being messed with.WinstonEwert
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT
Dear all, I don't really want to express too strong of an opinion on a thread that is anyway off-topic, but I felt that the discussion would do well to rely a little less on secondary-source tirades from people like Inhofe or Ball (or equivalently shrill individuals on the other side). For what it's worth, I will say a little bit about the basic scientific argument for human attribution of global warming presented by the IPCC, based on my reading through the third report and the recently-released summary of the fourth. Perhaps this can at least nudge the discussion towards the actual scientific issues. First, I'll assume that you will grant that (1) the earth IS warming and (2) the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide IS skyrocketing due to human activity. If you deny either of these facts, then clearly there is not much to talk about anyway. Now, as for attribution of global warming. The relevant phenomena are quantified through "radiative forcing", measured in watts per square meter. This is about the amount of energy radiating into the troposphere at the tropopause. More specifically, it is the net change in that amount resulting from some external effect. Changes in the energy output of the sun, cosmic rays, and what have you all lead to radiative forcing. Greenhouse gases lead to radiative forcing by reflecting energy that would otherwise dissipate into space back into the troposphere. Armed with this conceptual framework, there are three basic questions to ask. First, how much radiative forcing is due to human action, as opposed to solar radiation or other natural effects? Second, how does an increase in radiative forcing affect the global average temperature? Third, what is the relative importance of factors other than radiative forcing -- say, volcanic activity or changing ocean currents - in determining global average temperature? These are the relevant questions that can be debated on scientific terms. As for the first question, it is, to my understanding, currently the strongest of the three parts of the argument. The best current data indicate that the increase in CO2 concentration due to human activity leads to more than ten times as much radiative forcing as recent increased solar irradiance (1.66 W/m^2 versus 0.12 W/m^2 -- so far). To attack this finding, one must show either that the radiative forcing due to CO2 has been overestimated, the radiative forcing due to solar radiation has been underestimated, or that solar radiation can somehow affect the atmospheric temperature in a way not accounted for by radiative forcing. As for the second question, the understanding of how radiative forcing affects global average temperature comes primarily from complex models of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, which, when fit to the data under a variety of assumptions, lead to estimates of the response that vary in exact value, but are almost always positive and substantial. The most commonly cited figure is about 0.5 Kelvin for each 1 W/m^2 of radiative forcing. Finally, as for the third question. I didn't get to this part of the report :o) But I hope this has provided an interesting introduction to the real scientific issues in this debate.GeoMor
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
EJ -- I'm not sure what you're asking. I think you're actually agreeing with me. I was criticizing TroutMac's notion that global warming can't be a problem if life arose as a result of design. Under TroutMac's logic, if the earth were designed to support human life, there is no way humans could influence the environment in a way that would threaten human life. He seems to be assuming that anything humans can do is "natural," in the sense of being a necessary consequence of the way humans are designed. But that clearly isn't true, since humans are designed to be able to exercise free will, including the freedom to destroy the environment that supports us. Our choices concerning the environment aren't "necessary"; they're contingent on how we exercise our free will. Let's say, for example, that I dump a truckload of toxic waste in my neighbor's backyard. If I believe human life is the product of divine design, should I then expect that my neighbor cannot possibly become ill as a result of my actions? Wouldn't a designer have constructed an environment in which my neighbor could thrive in the midst of toxic waste, given that another intelligent agent such as myself might expose him to such waste? Does my neighbor's subsequent illness refute the notion of design? That's obivously an absurd conclusion. My neighbor's initial environment may have been intelligently designed in a way conducive to his health, but my action as another intelligent agent contaminated that original design. Design doesn't preclude the freedom of other intelligent agents to mess with the original design. In theological terms, what we have here is a question of theodicy. Does the possibility, indeed likelihood, that human beings will choose to do evil, in violation of the designer-God's original intent, vitiate the concept of design? TroutMac's argument seems to lead in that direction. DL -- yes, there are "natural" mechanisms that control greenhouse gasses, and the "natural" balance is well-suited to human flourishing. The question is whether human actions are likely to disrupt that ordinary balance by rapidly pumping huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Common sense seems to suggest it would. Actually, I'm a bit surprised that ID folks aren't looking at global warming from a different "design" perspective. Our ability to dramatically affect human flourishing by altering the balance of greenhouse gasses, if anything, should support anthropic "rare earth" sorts of arguments. It shows just how fragile and unique the conditions for human flourishing are. If the balance of greenhouse gasses hadn't been relatively stable from the end of the last ice age until the industrial revolution, society as we know it might not exist. The possibility that we can threaten human society by altering that balance supports the notion that the balance was carefully calibrated to begin with. This could even serve as a sort of testable prediction for ID: if the world is carefully designed to support human life, significantly altering the balance of environmental regulators such as greenhouse gasses should negatively impact human flourishing.dopderbeck
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
dopderbeck: You have confused yourself with an equivocation. "Natural" has several different meanings. You can't say that because something is not supernatural (i.e. Natural) that it is a necessary consequence, (i.e. Natural). Besides, how can you say that stopping the Darfur genocide is not part of that plan? That is, if you feel like discussing it in those terms.EJ Klone
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply