Richard Moore

In questions of science, the authority
of a thousand is not worth the humble
reasoning of a single individual.
– Galileo Galilei

Whenever you find that you are on the
side of the majority, it is time to pause
and reflect.
– Mark Twain

You've all heard of Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is to be preferred. I have my own rkm's razor: whatever the regime is selling is based on lies. I was quite concerned about co2 emissions for years, right up until the time Gore took up the cause. Then I said, Whoa! Time to reconsider.

The basic argument for human-caused climate change is very simple: We're burning more carbon than ever before in history; Co2 is a greenhouse gas; therefore temperatures are bound to increase. In addition, there might be positive feedback loops, such as warming releasing stored up methane, making the problem still worse. We may reach a tipping point, where temperature gets really out of control.

This kind of thinking is definitely cause for concern. If the reasoning is correct, we would have a real problem. But is the reasoning correct? The IPCC certainly thinks so. However, they simply assumed it is correct, without actually investigating the assumptions. In fact, the IPCC makes quite a number of unwarranted assumptions. These assumptions are put into computer models, and lo and behold the computer models show danger ahead. What else could they show? ...given these assumptions:
The IPCC assumes that Co2 accumulates in the atmosphere, and there is no mechanism that absorbs it out of the atmosphere. It assumes that increasing Co2 causes temperature rise, and that there are no regulatory mechanisms that provide negative feedback, keeping temperature in check. It assumes instead that there are positive feedback mechanisms, that accelerate the warming affect of Co2. It assumes that historically, rises in Co2 have led to temperature rises. It assumes temperatures are higher today than they have been for thousands of years. It assumes temperatures have been rising for decades right up to today.

It turns out that every one of these assumptions, when scientists actually do the studies and look at the data, are false. Here are some of the articles and videos I've collected. If you have doubts about these summaries, then please follow the links and look at the details. These are very credible reports, by people who know what they're talking about, and they explain where their data comes from.

Controversial new climate change results
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog/message/2382
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

Why the IPCC models are wrong
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog/message/2381
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos49g1sdzo&feature=channel
Recent Evidence of Reduced Climate Sensitivity
Roy W. Spencer Ph.D
Dr. Spencer works with climate-measuring satellites. He carried out studies that show there are negative feedback loops, based on clouds and precipitation, that prevent Co2 from causing overheating. When he showed his results to the scientists who were claiming Co2 would cause a rise in temperature, they replied, "You are right and we were wrong". And those earlier invalidated studies are what the IPCC is citing as evidence.

Testing the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.
Professor Bob Carter
marine Geophysical laboratory
School of Earh & Enironmental Science
James Cook University
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog/message/2542
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFHZOYtAztU&feature=channel
Based on actual measurements.
1. There is no significant change in temperature over past nine years, despite growth in Co2 concentrations.
2. Last 28 years, only very small warming in North, none in South.
3. Current temperature trend, past 3 years, is downward.
4. Recent variability well within range of past 1500 years. We're now about in the middle of the scale.
5. Over 5,000 years, there's a 1500 year solar-driven cycle. We are well within that pattern.
6. Over 6 million years, deep-sea cores show great fluctuations, and gradual decline overall. Species are adapted to much greater change than we are currently experiencing.

Bill Kininmonth - Analysing the IPCC`s climate change models
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog/message/2541
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QJuUTal05k&feature=channel
Bill reviews several studies, showing how the various IPCC assumptions don't hold up.

SATELLITE INDICATES 23-YEAR GLOBAL COOLING
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog/message/834
http://www.cgfi.org/2008/05/05/satellite-indicates-23-year-global-cooling/
Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year—but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so.

Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States
David Archibald
International Conference on Climate Change
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog/message/932
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
This study shows that global temperatures closely track solar activity, and that the contribution of Co2 is negligible. Based on solar cycles, we are likely to be entering a period of rapid cooling.

Arctic Sea Ice Extent: In October 2008, Fastest Ever Growth
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog/message/2543
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/arctic-sea-ice-extent-in-october-2008-fastest-ever-growth/
October 2008 has seen the fastest Arctic sea ice extent growth ever recorded. According to the data published by IARC-JAXA, the amount of growth has reached 3,481,575 square kilometers for the month, or 112,319 sq km per day on average:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
The previous maximum was October 2007, with 3,330,937 sq km for the month and 107,450 sq km per day on average. Record shrinkage remains July 2007, with 2,913,593 sq km lost and 93,987 sq km per day on average.

-###-

by Richard Moore, In my next posting we'll be looking at the IPCC process, and the political initiatives that are based on accepting the IPCC models as truth.