• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Global Warming Conference: A Warning on Warming Predictions

    Dr. Roy Spencer, a meteorologist at the University of Alabama and someone who works frequently with NASA’s science team, is the keynote speaker at lunch. He blogs here and explains very well why the IPCC model predicts too much warming; in fact, his latest post “A Layman’s Explanation of Why Global Warming Predictions by Climate Models are Wrong” is worth taking a look.

    His talk discusses why we cannot trust the IPCC climate models for global warming predictions. But he notes first that global warming skeptics have many different theories. Spencer gives his own account and he does acknowledge that carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas and one that’s atmospheric concentration is increasing. Therefore, some warming should result, but the million dollar question is how much?

    All climate models exhibit climate feedback; that is, how water vapor and the clouds react to increased warming and increased carbon dioxide. For instance, increasing carbon dioxide could potentially decrease cloud coverage and let more sunlight in. Conversely, an increase in CO2 could create more clouds, decrease sunlight and create a negative feedback. Spencer says, “Without positive feedback, manmade global warming becomes a non-issue.”

    The IPCC climate report strongly believes in positive climate feedback. The underlying question now becomes is it man’s contribution of increased carbon that leads to this positive feedback. Perhaps maybe the sun and ocean could have had stronger effects. This mix up of cause and effect led Spencer to publish a paper, reviewed by two IPCC scientists, that shows manmade global warming could be a false alarm. We’re talking half a degree C temperature increase as opposed to three degrees C by 2100.

    If not carbon dioxide, what does cause global warming? Spencer argues fewer clouds. But what causes a change in cloudiness? Spencer points to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The PDO index follows the cycle of cloud coverage. But the IPCC ignores natural variations in clouds and thus natural variations in climate. By creating an illusion of positive feedback, the IPCC scientists significantly overestimate warming predictions. If the climate system is as sensitive as the IPCC report says it is, then carbon dioxide would have a very strong effect on warming and cooling. It’s the same reason Energy Secretary Steven Chu suggested we paint all our rooftops white. But it’s not that sensitive because so many other variables exist.

    During the question and answer session, a climatologist said his paper was flawless but was rejected by peer reviewers. Roy Spencer echoed those comments saying there is an increasing bias within scientific journals that publish global warming skepticism findings. A physicist who studies greenhouse gas effects at our lunch table admitted the same thing happened to him.

    Although the scientific debate behind global warming is not over, many are treating it that way. And it’s that controlled message that could lead to one of the largest regulatory and economically painful undertakings in U.S. history in a cap and trade bill.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    8 Responses to Global Warming Conference: A Warning on Warming Predictions

    1. Danny Grimes West Mo says:

      Japan and Germany was original signer of the Kyoto agreement What has been the effect in their countries and what has been the cost to them.

    2. AntonioSosa says:

      No patriotic and informed American can support the global warming/cap and trade scam, more fraudulent than any Nigerian scam.

      Cap and trade represents huge taxes and cost increases, which will hurt mostly the poor and the middle class. Cap and trade will give dictatorial powers to Obama and will further enrich his billionaire friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, etc.) — all at our expense and at the expense of our children and grandchildren.

      Cap and Trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” said famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.

      Those brainwashed to the point of wanting to destroy the economy to "prevent global warming" are behaving like the most primitive human beings who were duped into believing that human sacrifices would ensure them good weather. Human beings don't have the power to control climate! And killing the economy will not help the environment. Poor countries can’t protect the environment. Just look at Haiti!

      More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/35

      Additionally, more than 30,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." http://www.petitionproject.org

      We pray that honest leaders – both Democrat and Republican – are able to save us from Obama's criminal global warming/cap-and-trade scam.

    3. Barb -mn says:

      The honesty of the American government will stop it. If there was any.

    4. ewe,Shreveport, LA says:

      Dr. Spencer hits the nail on the head.

      How can any person not understand that we have experienced global warming before and we were no where in sight. I believe there was at least one ice age in our past.

    5. AmericanParchment says:

      Heritage,

      We depend on you to tell us what those in the media and the government are not telling us. We at http://www.AmericanParchment.com would like to link headlines to your article from our site. That way we too can help spread your voice. Those on the outside depend on you.

    6. AmericanParchment says:

      To break it down very simple: Democrats are now in partnership with big business. The main culprits are GE, Google, Goldman Sachs, etc. Here is how it works, (no one will deny this). Democrats pass Cap and Trade (CAT). There are two parts to CAT 1) consumer side with the energy grid, 2) commercial with the carbon output.

      GE is creating millions off of the alternative energy, each wind mill costs $2 million dollars to make and install. We are making dozens everyday. Look at the growth in Iowa, Wyoming, etc. They also are helping produce this new electrical grid. Google has been contracted to write the program for the "smart" meters every house will have to use to be part of this grid. Each meter will replace the meter that is already on the house. I will stop there for consumer, but there is more.

      Goldman Sachs will be the exchange in which all carbon credits are traded through. They will make a cut off each. Al Gore owns the largest carbon credit "marketer" in the world and is now investing in a $6 million dollars piece of software to be produced that the government will use in the carbon credit process, which will make him billions. If this isn't big business then I don't know what is. Global Warming is the biggest money making “half truths” that the world has ever seen. We have been researching this at http://www.AmericanParchment.com and the Heritage Foundation is the greatest asset we have found.

    7. Brook says:

      The overwhelming majority of posters on any site you go to understand GW is a scam. Folks, we have to translate that anger into action. You have to tell your Senators and Congress members that voting for cap and trade is suicide. Yes, you actually have to threaten them (but do it respectfully).

      Middle class taxpayers already pay 50% of our income in taxes. We are tapped out. Obama's going to have to get his cap and trade money from Soros and the other limosuine liberal billionaires.

    8. mike says:

      20 years of MIT research….wow! in a 1976 chemistry lab we all were issued our own "fisher Scientific" lab thermometers….why 5 thermometers??? cause they were all 1/2 to 1.5 degrees off! My question is who monitored the temp in 1909 since the temperature in the last 100 years has risen ( as per MIT research scientists and NASA) 7/10 of one degree. In the 1970's we were going to spread fly ash from the major coal fired generation stations in the U.S. on the poles to melt the ice caps and avert a "new" ice age…..by the way, Stephen Schneider, who was instrumental in the global cooling scare and who advocated the "fly ash" method to melt ice is now pushing the global warming scare! Wonder how much funding he receives for his educated and thorough research. To believe this theory is like believing there is a shortage of oil….and there is no shortage of oil….but hell, that based on chemistry and physics not theory….so what do I know…..there is a reason there is a lot of used car salesmen and insurance salesmen….as P.T. Barnum said “There's a sucker born every minute”.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×