A recently released report in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society by professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) has found that observed temperature disagrees with global warming models and can better be explained through natural factors.
From NewsMax:
According to Dr. Douglass: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
One of his co-authors, Dr. John Christy, added: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater.
Their research finds that the sun, cosmic rays and cyclic climate factors are responsible for any warming. Imagine that!
Their ultimate conclusion lets all the hot air out of Al Gore's and other socialists' fun:
"Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly."
So, are you ready to cough up big bucks for Al Gore's sci-fi serial, or would you prefer the less-costly reality?
1 comments:
Interesting article, thank you. The original study can be downloaded in .pdf form at http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf
I'd like to point out that the climatologists at RealClimate.org have hurriedly posted an article purporting to "debunk" the Douglass et al study. It's a rebuttal I, for one, was eager to see, yet I'm seriously disappointed.
If you can make it through the pseudo-scientific gobbledy-gook, there are several notable problems with the methodology employed by the group at RealClimate.org. These errors are readily obvious even to laymen. First, their analysis shows a significant lack of experience with the actual mathematics of climate science. Second, in their haste to discredit the Douglass study, they purposefully misinterpret the paper and willfully manipulate the data. Third, it's odd that none of the scientists who prepared this rushed hatchet job were willing to attach their names to it. Instead, the piece is authored by the relatively anonymous "group."
Outside of the scientific review process there is no way to evaluate the merit of their work or its challenge to the study published in the Journal of Climatology.
Although Schmidt has already discussed his disdain for peer review, to be accepted by science an idea has to survive rigorous scrutiny by the professional scientific community. The results need to be verified independently. Without this process, there is really no way to evaluate a scientific theory. If the climatologists at RealClimate.org were actually confident in their challenge to Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer, the generally accepted practice would be to submit their findings to the Journal of Climatology. It's notable that Schmidt and Mann have chosen to take their criticisms directly to the public instead, where there is little chance for scrutiny except perhaps by the unwitting public on Internet forums.
That's the difference between working to actually advance scientific thought or merely attempting to sway public opinion.
The pattern of warming that's predicted by greenhouse models does not match the observations of actual warming in the atmosphere. There is a disconnect between greenhouse models and the real world. It's reasonable to conclude that the greenhouse effect, while real, is not as important in producing climate change as the IPCC models calculate. That's the conclusion of a peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Climatology. RealClimate.org claims there were errors in the methodology, but on review their findings challenging the study are based on deliberate misinterpretations of the paper and manipulation of the data.
Post a Comment