As we have noted, there have been other claims of man causing climate change. There was media hype in 1895 of an upcoming ice age. Then came warming, then cooling again and finally warming again. Four times! And each time we look at it like it was the first time. Climate changes all the time.
One of the signatures of a Green House Gas induced warming, according to the IPCC, is that the upper troposphere would warm at 2 to 3 times the rate of warming of the surface. Not that the temperature would be higher. Just the rate of increase. In the temperature record, the upper troposphere has been almost flat and this is supposed to be the signature effect! This in itself should be enough to kill the entire idea but apparently it is not.
The AGW hype comes across as more of a religion than science. Al says it is a moral issue. Most, but not all, AGW advocates say there should be no debate. I read several scientific facts per week that support the sceptic or rationalist’s position. New information is being discovered daily. The science should never be settled.
A key point of the AGW claims is that there is nothing else that could cause it and the warming is happening. For instance, the claim is that the sun’s variation in irradiance is not sufficient to account for the changes being observed. Really? What they miss here are the indirect effects of the solar magnetic field, erratic solar orbits, length of solar cycles, polarity changes in the sun’s magnetic fields, the link between the Earth’s magnetic field and that of the Sun, the variation in length of day (not hours of light, the 24hr+ total) and the overall effect on galactic cosmic rays (GCR) that affect cloud formation. Add all these up and you have some powerful effects. More than enough to account for the modest warming being measured. One of my favorite quotes is by Oliver Manuel, “Compared to cosmic rays, CO2 has about as much effect on climate as the weight of a flea on an elephant.” Says it all. Here is a paper on solar effects/orbits:
Speaking of being measured, we are told the Earth is warming. But is it? We are told that the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is well accounted and adjusted for. There are many that have significant problems with the allowance the IPCC applies to this. There are many more sites in the US than in any other portion of the globe. There are parts of the globe where there are no temperature stations. Those temperatures are determined from adjacent squares in the grid. Many stations are inappropriately placed and poorly maintained. The net effect of most of these issues is an uncorrected increase in temperature. Since the measured global temperature has been pretty flat since 1998, despite a 4% increase in CO2 concentration, maybe the Earth is actually cooling. In my humble opinion, that is a very likely possibility.
Throw in that aerosols, once thought to offset the warming, may actually be augmenting the warming. That land use is considered a negative effect by the IPCC, yet the UHI effect is a part of that and it is definitely a positive forcing. Also the IPCC has discarded the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that appeared in previous Assessment reports. I believe they became an Inconvenient Truth. To support their claim of warming they start most of their temperature charts at 1860 which just happens to be the minimum of the Little Ice Age. Isn’t that convenient. Move the starting point back a few hundred years and we might be wondering when we will get back to the warm times.
These problems bring into question the claims of AGW and we should be cautious in spending $Billions to solve what is probably natural variation. Kyoto, if followed to the letter, would destroy economies and have a negligible effect on the alleged warming. Wouldn’t we be better off spending the money on making inexpensive, plentiful energy available to the masses?