GLOBAL WARMING FALSE ALARM: THE BAD SCIENCE BEHIND THE UNITED NATIONS' ASSERTION THAT MAN-MADE CO 2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING
By Ralph Alexander
GLOBAL WARMING FALSE ALARM: THE BAD SCIENCE BEHIND THE UNITED NATIONS' ASSERTION THAT MAN-MADE CO 2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING
Top 2%5054 Views224 Pages
1 File ▾
Download PDF
Full PDF Package
Translate
Original PDF
Summary
Related
Summary of this paper
Our Machine-Learning algorithms scan the text for the most important phrases or passages. These highlights, alongside their respective section titles, are shown below.
Corrupted Science
But first, let's review what the IPCC is and what it has to say about global warming.
The Co 2 Global Warming Hypothesis
According to the IPCC and global warming alarmists, the only possible interpretation is that the warming we have experienced is caused by the raised level of CO 2 . This conclusion is embodied in a scientific hypothesis (Table 1.2), which explains the CO 2 -temperature connection in terms of what we call the greenhouse effect.
Exaggerated Temperatures
Taking the heat island effect into account, the satellite data therefore shows less warming than the land and sea surface records relied on by the IPCC. This is no doubt why the IPCC has chosen not to include satellite temperature measurements in its estimate of the recent global warming rate, even though data is available from 1979 (Figure 2.1). 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Spencer. 57 In fact, the current global warming rate of 0.14 o Celsius (0.25 o Fahrenheit) per decade since 1981 from the satellite measurements 58 is almost identical to the heat-island corrected warming rate since 1980, based on surface thermometers, deduced from the McKitrick and Michaels study.
Chapter 4: Co 2 Sense And Sensitivity
Both alarmists and skeptics agree that adding extra CO 2 to the Earth's atmosphere causes global temperatures to rise. But the key question is by how much does the temperature go up? The amount of warming that comes from a doubling of the CO 2 level is called the climate sensitivity.
Co 2 Feedback: False Positive?
The IPCC concludes from its computer climate models that the major global warming feedbacks are all positive, with just one exception (Table 4.1). But there's very little observational evidence to justify this conclusion.
Two-Faced Co 2
• The climate sensitivity, which measures any global warming from CO 2 , has remained unaltered from the time of the ice ages until now.
Amplification Mechanisms: Cosmic Rays From Outer Space
Fluctuations in the sun's output are small, about a tenth of one percent over the 11 years of the sunspot cycle, and perhaps only as much or a little more during the 300 years since the Maunder Minimum ended in the early 18 th century. But this may be enough to explain a substantial part of our current global warming, even though the IPCC wants us to believe otherwise.
More Ipcc Shenanigans: Solar Warming Minimized
According to the IPCC, the sun's output right now has increased only slightly over the 300 years since then. If the IPCC is correct, it means that any solar contribution to global warming today is minimal. However, the IPCC's conclusion about the sun's output is based on a very selective choice of historical data, namely the plucking out of one of the lowest available estimates of the boost in solar output since the Maunder Minimum.
What'S Wrong With This Picture?
The IPCC says its computer models are unable to match the measured temperature record for the 20 th century if the models include only natural sources of warming. That's because the only natural sources simulated by the models are direct solar effects, not to mention the intrinsic limitations of the models themselves. All other natural possibilities, including indirect solar effects such as cosmic rays and ozone, plus sun-ocean connections and climate cycles like the PDO, are omitted.
Chapter 8: Reflections
Never mind that there is abundant evidence that the sun's role in global warming has been grossly underestimated in climate models, nor that the models ignore indirect warming from solar blocking of cosmic rays and UV absorption in the ozone layer, nor that most models omit interconnections between the sun and the oceans. And never mind natural climate cycles such as the PDO that the IPCC can't even model adequately, let alone consider as possible alternatives to CO 2 as the source of global warming.
How would you rate this Summary?