Global Warming: Natural or Manmade?
by Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.

But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer that they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate.

Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.

Another NASA Defection to the Skeptics’ Camp
January 29th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/another-nasa-defection-to-the-skeptics-camp/

Something about retirement apparently frees people up to say what they really believe. I retired early from NASA over seven years ago to have more freedom to speak my mind on global warming.

You might recall that after Dr. Joanne Simpson retired from NASA she (trmm.gsfc.nasa.gov/3rd_trmm_conf/simpson.doc) admitted to a long-held skepticism regarding the role of mankind in global warming.

And who can forget NASA’s Administrator, Michael Griffin, admitting that he was skeptical of the urgency of the global warming problem? After the outrage that ensued, I suspect he wishes he had never brought it up.

And now my old boss when I was at NASA (as well as James Hansen’s old boss), John Theon, has stated very clearly that he doesn’t believe global warming is manmade…and adding “climate models are useless” for good measure. Even I wouldn’t go quite that far, since I use simple ones in my published research.

I remember the old days at NASA, when even John Theon was singing the same tune as most people at NASA were. Manmade global warming was a potentially serious threat, and NASA wanted Congress to fund new satellites to study the problem. It was a team effort to get that accomplished.

Global warming research was a relatively new field back then. Was Theon always skeptical, and just being a team player at the time? I don’t know. It could be that Dr. Theon, after watching 15 years of climate research go by, decided that he was no longer convinced that mankind was at fault for warming.

After all, there is some precedence for scientists changing their minds. One of today’s leading global warming alarmists is Stephen Schneider, who did a major about-face from the 1970s when global cooling was all the rage. At least Theon didn’t write a book back then about how serious the global warming issue was, as Schneider did on global cooling.

And how many defections have we seen in the other direction — from the skeptics’ camp to the alarmists’ camp? Seems like it’s been a one-way street so far.

Theon now also supports what I have repeatedly said over the years. That NASA’s James Hansen routinely ignored NASA policy, and said whatever he wanted to the press and to Congress without getting approval first. The reason why everyone at NASA looked the other way was that we were trying to get congressional funding for satellite missions to study climate. I personally don’t think we needed Hansen’s extremist views to get that accomplished, but it probably helped to some extent.

I asked NASA managers at the time, how can Hansen get away with saying whatever he wanted to? The answer was, “well…he’s not supposed to”.

You might think it’s OK for the lone scientist to warn everyone of impending planetary doom. But I consider it much closer to someone who makes a habit of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Forcing expensive energy on people will lead to death and suffering. These are very real threats, not theoretical like manmade global warming, and they exist today. I personally don’t care where our energy comes from — but I do care that a maximum number of people can afford it.

In truth, it wasn’t Hansen who was muzzled, but it was me in the Clinton-Gore years, who was asked to keep my mouth shut about my skeptical views. That was fine…if a little annoying. At least the flap Hansen caused has managed to force NASA to say that their scientists no longer have to march in lock-step on scientific issues. That’s a good thing.

I have to wonder…how many more scientists will be outing themselves as skeptics? While we may never constitute a majority, and many of us have differing views on the real causes of climate change, it only takes one of us to be right for the global warming house of cards to collapse.

Aerosols More Important to Global Warming Than Acknowledged, New Report Claims
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 04.11.09
Science & Technology (science)
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/aerosols-more-important-global-warming-than-acknowledged-new-report-claims.php

While the vast majority of climate change discussion has been the impact of greenhouse gases themselves (carbon dioxide, methane, others) on Earth's warming climate, the impact of aerosols has received less attention. And according to a new report, as aerosols may be driving a significant portion of polar warming, this is unfortunate:

A study led by Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says that, in the high latitudes the impact of aerosols (sulfates and black carbon) may account for 45% or more of the observed warming which has occurred in at the poles over the past three decades. Over that time Arctic temperatures have risen by 1.7°C, while Antarctic regions have witnessed 0.35°C temperature increases.

Black Carbon and Sulfates Have Opposite Global Warming Impact
The unevenness of temperature rises can be accounted for in the type of aerosols in the atmosphere:

Sulfates, which come from burning coal and can have a net cooling effect on the planet, have actually declined in the past 30 years. This is the result of laws being enacted in the US and Europe which have reduced sulfate emissions by 50%—a good thing in terms of air quality and public health, but not so much in terms of holding global warming due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions in check.

Black carbon, on the other hand, contributes to rise temperatures. These sooty particles are emitted by industrial activity and by the burning of diesel and biofuels. They absorb incoming radiation and contribute to warming; they're also on the rise, in large part because of increasing industrialization in Asia.

Reductions In Sulfates in US, Europe Have Accelerated Arctic Warming
The disparate effects at the poles makes sense,

...because of the Arctic's proximity to North America and Europe. The two highly industrialized regions have produced most of the world's aerosol emissions over the last century, and some of those aerosols drift northward and collect in the Arctic. Precipitation, which normally flushes aerosols out of the atmosphere, is minimal there, so the particles remain in the air longer and have a stronger impact than in other parts of the world.

Since decreasing amounts of sulfates and increasing amounts of black carbon both encourage warming, temperature increases can be especially rapid. The build-up of aerosols also triggers positive feedback cycles that further accelerate warming as snow and ice cover retreat.

In the Antarctic, in contrast, the impact of sulfates and black carbon is minimized because of the continent's isolation from major population centers and the emissions they produce.

In the end, Shindell said that,

We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we're just looking at carbon dioxide. If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we're much better off looking at aerosols and ozone.

It's an agenda people. A fraud! To create more taxes!

You mean I wasted $20 for my "An Inconvenient Truth" written by Al Gore?

This whole book is nothing but a lie??

Wow it sounds so convincing!


So now Carbon Emissions are good for this planet one suggests. That the pollution we create is good for our planet or it has no adverse effects at all?


I have heard of the term, "Earth will take care of itself with or without humans."

I want to believe this, but I don't like that we have to take advantage of the planet if it hurts us in the end. Are we not hurting our planet?

So what are the real facts about this pollution in your own words?

Pollution is a problem, greenhouse gases are not.

Belching smoke stacks, chemical dumping, carbon based emission from cars (because of other contaminates within), these things are definately a problem to health, but do not effect the climate.

Yes, it is a myth that we are causing global warning. It's a scam to promote more taxes and steer us away from the real issues of pollution.

You mean I wasted $20 for my "An Inconvenient Truth" written by Al Gore?

This whole book is nothing but a lie??

Wow it sounds so convincing!


So now Carbon Emissions are good for this planet one suggests. That the pollution we create is good for our planet or it has no adverse effects at all?


I have heard of the term, "Earth will take care of itself with or without humans."

I want to believe this, but I don't like that we have to take advantage of the planet if it hurts us in the end. Are we not hurting our planet?

So what are the real facts about this pollution in your own words?

No offense but why would anyone believe the "science" of a man who claims to have invented the internet and be the inspiration for "Love Story". If you really want to know his motivation research how much $ he has and continues to make from the movie, book, and related appearances.

I think that even Al Gore serves a purpose. If there are so many dumb people around the world, there must be someone who can teach them a lesson by separating them from their money.

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendId=136857271&page=4
I wrote a paper on the subject a few years back for a Composition class. It is the last entry on the page. Be warned it is rather lengthy. Everything is properly sourced so you can continue your research or check my facts if you like.

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendId=136857271&page=4
I wrote a paper on the subject a few years back for a Composition class. It is the last entry on the page. Be warned it is rather lengthy. Everything is properly sourced so you can continue your research or check my facts if you like.