Critical analysis of the temperature rise revealed that data were manipulated statistically to “eliminate” problems. Corrected temperatures instead revealed a slight decrease. In spite of this, global warming developed a life of its own. Polar ice cap melting added weight to predictions of warming. The Al Gore motion picture, “An Inconvenient Truth” made global warming a household phenomenon. Scientists voicing skepticism were labeled merely employees of “big oil,” a tag with devastating professional consequences.
A paper published by the American Physical Society, “A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change” noted that water vapor, clouds, and coupling with oceans were not considered. To ignore the action of water vapor, well documented to be the most potent greenhouse gas, would seem ludicrous. Even non-scientists recognize that when clouds are overhead temperature rise is less than in full sunshine. Variation in solar output was not considered. Calculations were presented for surface and upper atmospheric temperatures based upon estimates of solar energy received and atmospheric absorption of thermal energy radiated by the earth.
The World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases website shows global thermal data collection sites. The number of stations in the northern hemisphere was vastly larger than in the southern hemisphere. This seriously skews any statistical analysis of such data. Northern hemisphere data must be manipulated using different statistical tools than data from the southern hemisphere. This becomes important as observations of polar weather shows that while the North Pole ice is melting, Antarctic ice is growing with record low temperatures. This polar discrepancy could be explained as a periodic tilt of the earth axis of revolution much like a child’s cheap top. Much ado is made by climate change advocates about North Pole ice melting with little or no mention of Antarctic freezing.
Lord Moncton of Brenchley wrote in Physics and Society, Vol. 37, No. 3, that using scientifically accepted values of physical constants necessary to the computation of CO2 induced warming, a doubling in the concentration of CO2 would contribute less than a degree C to average global temperature. Although several researchers claim to have debunked Moncton’s work they must explain their rationale for use of physical constant values outside the range of accepted scientific literature. This has not occurred, and thus, Lord Moncton’s research must be given as much credibility as that of his critics.
Lord Moncton said, “We must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong…At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything.” Absent significant scientific explanation for the use of empirically deduced physical constants in modeling global temperature change any punitive policy to reduce CO2 emissions would damage our economy with no observable alteration of climate.
It is worthy to note that CO2 is an essential component of green plant photosynthesis, the only means of restoring oxygen to our world. Researchers have found that increased levels of CO2 lead to greater plant growth and thus increased oxygen release. Governments and politicians should not control CO2.
Sincerely,
Robert Fanning
Colbert
And, of course, that tends to amplify other greenhouse effects, because a warmer earth has the capacity to hold more water vapor in the atmosphere, as anyone who's ever compared the mugginess of summer and winter days knows.
By the way, the APS published a clarification after Lord Moncton's article came out, pointing out that his article was not peer-reviewed, and that the APS stands by its official statement that the evidence for global warming is "incontravertible". You can read their statement here:
http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/climatechange08.cfm