While we may be able to do something about pollution there is not much agreement on averting global warming, let alone measuring it to confirm it exists. Consensus, even if it existed, is not science.
Fear is sharp sighted, and can see things under ground, and much more in the skies.
Do we know what has caused Global Cooling?( 1970's )
The Modelers and Others Speak about the Climate Models and Climate Change
"The IPCC, of which McCarthy is part, canvassed a bunch of scientists and arrived at a conclusion that the human population is
causing global warming. Yet most of the scientists who formed the IPCC "consensus" have no expertise in the area of climatology.
That's how two scientists could go to the North Pole, see a patch of water, and declare that prima facie evidence of global warming."
Joseph Perkins, The San Diego Union-Tribune, September 1, 2000
"The science is settled." Timothy Wirth
"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties;
blind faith the one unpardonable sin." Thomas H. Huxley
"When theories harden into articles of faith and egotism, critical thinking and truth are smothered in their cradles! " James Moseley
"Consensus...is equilibrium...is brain death." Rich Karlgaard, Forbes ASAP, Oct 4, 1999
"The global warmers . . . predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried
about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple." Kary Mullis,
Nobel prize winner in chemistry
"The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change". James
Hansen, 1998
"The models [GCM's] do not agree among themselves at climatologically significant levels in their treatment of the energy balance."
ARM statement
"Greenhouse warming is entirely forced by a radiative perturbation of a few W m-2 (Watts per square meter) or less, yet neither field
measurements nor radiation model intercomparisons had ever achieved anywhere near this level of accuracy, at least not in the
atmospheric and climate community." Robert G. Ellingson and Warren J. Wiscombe, March 1996
"The fundamental climatic role of radiative processes has spurred the development of increasingly sophisticated models of radiative
transfer in the Earth-atmosphere system. Since the basic physics of radiative transfer is rather well known, this was thought to be an
exercise in refinement. Therefore, it came as a great surprise when large differences (30 to 70 W m-2) were found among longwave
infrared fluxes predicted by over 30 radiation models for identical atmospheres during the InterComparison of Radiation Codes used
in Climate Models (ICRCCM) exercise in the mid 1980s. No amount of further calculation could explain these and other intermodel
differences; thus, it became clear that what was needed was a set of accurate atmospheric spectral radiation data measured
simultaneously with the important radiative properties of the atmosphere like temperature and humidity." Robert G. Ellingson and
Warren J. Wiscombe, March 1996
"The parameterizations of critical physical processes vary from model to model. Among those models for which results are beginning
to converge, the improved agreement is driven by internal evolution of the models, rather than by any conformity to actual data."
ARM Model Intercomparison Activities
"The models may be agreeing now simply because they're all tending to do the same thing wrong. It is not clear to me that we have
clouds right by any stretch of the imagination." Robert Cess, Science, 1997
"Major model uncertainties about the treatment of clouds, as well as errors in clear-sky radiative codes, dwarf the radiative forcing
effects due to potential increases in the concentration of atmospheric trace gases." ARM Model Intercomparison Activities
"Scientists believe that a 4% increase in marine stratocumulus clouds would cool the atmosphere enough to totally negate the impact
of global warming." NOAA, FIRE Experiment
"At the surface, the model shortwave flux over the oceans is too large compared to the NCOM data (~20 to 30 Wm -2). We argue that
this bias is related to a model under estimate of shortwave cloud absorption. The major biases in the model are related to the position
of deep convection in the tropical Pacific, summer time convective activity over land regions, and the models inability to realistically
represent marine stratus and stratocumulus clouds." J.T. Kiehl, J.J. Hack and J.W. Hurrell, June, 1997, The Energy Budget of the
NCAR Community Climate Model: CCM3
"Many theoreticians believe that their [radiative transfer] models are vastly superior to the available broad-band-flux field
measurements. As a result, there are relatively few systematic comparisons of models and observations. A rigorous program of
observations is needed to change this situation and to validate the models." ARM statement
"Sensitivity studies with different vertical resolutions have demonstrated that typical GCM vertical resolutions inaccurately compute
radiative-flux divergences." Richard C. J. Somerville, Scripps Institute of Oceanography
"DOE research has revealed that cloud radiative feedback is the single most important effect determining the magnitude of possible
climate responses to human activity. However, cloud radiative forcing and feedbacks are not understood at the levels needed for
reliable climate prediction." ARM Objective
"GCM generated cloud fields and the corresponding atmospheric profiles of water vapor and temperature are invariably formulated to
be plane-parallel, horizontally and vertically homogenous, with uniform cloud phase and particle size distribution within each grid
box and atmospheric layer." A.A. Lacis, NASA/GISS
"Because of imperfections in the coupled model which would cause surface temperatures to drift away from reality, calibrated seasonal
flux adjustments are applied." Hadley Centre GCM Description
"Current coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models have systematic errors in their simulations of heat and moisture
transports in the atmosphere and ocean, and thus require large "flux adjustments" at the ocean-atmosphere interface in order to
simulate the current climate " Peter H. Stone and Jochem Marotzke, 1996
"The problem is complicated by the inability of coupled [GCM-ocean] models to produce a realistic representation of the present
climate without help, i.e., without some incorporation of specified heat and fresh water fluxes." J. E. Hansen, GISS GCM
"The climate modelers have been 'cheating' for so long, it's almost become respectable." Richard Kerr, discussing flux adjustments in
climate models in Science, 1997
"Such [flux] adjustments are necessary due to deficiencies in both the atmospheric and oceanic models, especially in their
parameterizations of sub-grid-scale processes." Description of GFDL GCM
"If we [the climate modelers] don't get tropospheric heating right, we are in trouble." David Parker in New Scientist, July 19, 1997,
commenting why the models fail to agree with the MSU observations
"He [Kevin Trenberth] suggests that the burden of proof for claims that model results are incorrect should be on the critic, not the
modeler." NCAR Press Release
"The more you learn [about climate change] the more you understand that you don't understand very much." Anonymous climate
modeler quoted in Science, May 1997 [Is it fear of retribution that forces some people to remain anonymous?]
"It is clear that we are not yet in a position where we can predict global warming effects with any real accuracy." John E. Harries,
Chair of Earth Observations, Imperial College, London
"In some ways, we are driven to a philosophical consideration: namely, do we think that a long-lived natural system, like the earth,
acts to amplify any perturbations, or is it more likely that it will act to counteract such perturbations? It appears that we are currently
committed to the former rather vindictive view of nature." Richard Lindzen, in testimony to Congress, July 1997
"Climate models generally suggest that global climate change will be amplified in the Arctic." Knut Aagaard, Chairman of the Arctic
Climate SYstem Study (ACSYS) Scientific Steering Group
"The current warming signal [in the polar regions] is expected to be rather small." Jerry Mahlman, in the book The Heat is On
"We believe the problem resides in the computer models and in our past assumptions that the atmosphere is so well behaved. These
models just don't handle processes like clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems well enough to accurately predict how strong
global warming will be, or how it will manifest itself at different heights in the atmosphere." Roy Spencer
"Not surprisingly, there are many problems involved in modeling climate. For example, even supercomputers are inadequate to allow
long-term integrations of the relevant equations at adequate spatial resolutions. At presently available resolutions, it is unlikely that
the computer solutions are close to the solutions of the underlying equations. In addition, the physics of unresolved phenomena such
as clouds and other turbulent elements is not understood to the extent needed for incorporation into models. In view of those problems,
it is generally recognized that models are at present experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable." Richard
Lindzen
"Models show that daytime warming will be almost as great as nighttime warming." James Hansen, Chemical and Engineering News,
1995
"Efforts to link global change to coral reef degradation have continued without making any significant headway." Clive Wilkinson
coordinator of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network
"Climate models are recognized as being rather poorly validated primarily because of (earlier) lack of computer power and a
continuing lack of adequate observational data (Gates et al., 1990). Although both issues are steadily being solved, it seems unlikely
that very high levels of confidence in climate model projections are achievable within the next decade." MECCA Analysis Project, 1997
"The Earth's surface temperature has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years, and there is no credible hypothesis for
this, other than the net effect of greenhouse gases." Jerry Mahlman, climate modeler and strong greenhouse warming advocate
"The National Center for Atmospheric Research suggests that 75 percent of any increase [in global temperature over the last century]
may be due to natural causes such as solar output, cloud effects and the vertical mixing of ocean waters. It is also noted that the earth
warmed to a higher degree before the industrial revolution than after." John Paul Pitts, Midland Reporter-Telegram, Oct. 9, 1997
"Sunspot structure is measured by taking the ratio of the area of the umbra to that of the penumbra. The time dependence of this
umbral/penumbral ratio is remarkably similar to the record of the Northern hemisphere surface temperature anomalies. On a
year-to-year basis the correlation is 0.57, which is significant at better than the 0.01% level. It is postulated that a change in the
umbral/penumbral ratio is proportional to a change in the solar luminosity and that long-term variations in the luminosity lead to
corresponding changes in the climate of the Earth." Douglas Hoyt, Climatic Change, 1979
"If the solar irradiance profiles found from the climate simulations are required to be consistent with recent satellite observations,
then the composite solar profile reconstructed by Hoyt & Schatten (1993), combined with the anthropogenic greenhouse forcing,
explains the highest fraction of the variance of observed global mean temperatures. In this case, the solar and greenhouse combination
accounts for 92% of the observed long-term temperature variance during 1880-1993. The simulation implies that the solar part of the
forcing, alone, would account for 71% of the global mean temperature variance, compared to 51% for the greenhouse gases part,
alone." W. H. Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and Mount Wilson Observatory; E. S. Posmentier, Southampton
College of Long Island University; and S. L. Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Astrophysical Journal, 1996
"Isotopic records indicate that solar activity today is similar to that of the Medieval Warm Period of about 1000 years ago. In the
interim, during the Maunder Minimum about 300 years ago, solar irradiance is estimated to have been approximately 0.1-0.7% lower
than today. Much of the decrease in irradiance appears to have been in the UVb range, and hence could have caused a cooling force
through a total atmospheric ozone concentration decrease of about 4%. Values at the upper end of estimates for reduced irradiance
could be enough to fully explain temperature trends over the past century." Climate Change Newsletter, July, 1997
"Measured 18O/16O ratios from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP2) ice core extending back to 16,500 ca yr. B.P. provide a
continuous record of climate change since the last glaciation. High- resolution annual 18O/16O results were obtained for most of the
current millennium (A.D. 818 - 1985) which record the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and a distinct 11 year 18O/16O cycle.
Volcanic aerosols depress central Greenland annual temperature (~l.5 oC maximally) and annual 18O/16O for about 4 years after each
major eruptive event. On a bi-decadal to millennial time scale, the contribution of solar variability to Holocene Greenlandic
temperature change is ~0.4 oC." Minze Stuiver, Quaternary Research, 1997
"Currently, our best understanding is that natural internal variations of annual mean temperature may account for plus or minus
about 0.2 C, and solar variations may account for perhaps 0.2 C of the Twentieth Century warming. So, at a stretch, it is possible that
a substantial portion of the observed 0.6 C warming might have been caused by non-human agency." Kevin Trenberth, Feb. 4, 1998
"(1) There have been measurable changes in the "solar constant" in the last few decades. EVEN IF there is an actual warming signal
(the evidence is that the warming is zero, but if we grant the alarmists' figures...) up to one-half of the "warming" can be attributed to
changes in the output of the Sun. (2) Detailed studies of solar magnetic activity over thousands of years have been shown to correlate
exactly with the temperature of Earth. In other words, any human-caused effects on climate are swamped -- dwarfed -- by the effect of
changes on the Sun. (3) The global climate models cannot even predict the PAST climate of Earth, let alone the future. As they are
refined to reflect more of reality, the predicted "warming" becomes less and less. It is now clear that, whenever they are sufficiently
refined to match reality, they will predict zero -- or negative -- warming, and will then be in perfect agreement with the facts." Jim
Glass, sci.environment post, Jan. 18, 1998
"If the wind trends [i.e., the equatorial Pacific trade winds are weakening] reflect greenhouse warming, it must be concluded that the
anomalous 1990's are not caused by greenhouse warming." M. Latif, et al., Journal of Climate, Sep. 1997
"A number of the [IPCC] participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current
scenario and to suppress other results." Richard Lindzen |
