Global Warming

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 groups government-funded research that suggests global
warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanitys greenhouse gas emissions
and aerosol pollution.
Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warmingit 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 Nations 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
theyre not going to find something if they dont 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 doesnt have to dig very far.
But first lets examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earths atmosphere
contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower
layers of the atmosphere warmer than 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.
Mankinds burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earths 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 1800s.
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 Earths atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take
mankinds 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 Earths 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. NASAs 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 wed know the Earths 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 dont need the sun, or any other external influence (although these are also
possiblebut for now Ill 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 mankinds influence on climate.
Climate change it happens, with or without our help.
As a rule of thumb, global temperatures rise by about 1.5C for each trillion tonnes of carbon put into the atmosphere.
The world has pumped out half a trillion tonnes of carbon since 1750, and temperatures have risen by 0.8C. At
current rates, the next half-trillion tonnes will be emitted by 2045; the one after that before 2080.
Since CO accumulates in the atmosphere, this could increase temperatures compared with pre-industrial levels by
around 2C even with a lower sensitivity and perhaps nearer to 4C at the top end of the estimates. Despite all the
work on sensitivity, no one really knows how the climate would react if temperatures rose by as much as 4C. Hardly
reassuring.
What the science says...

While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its
greenhouse warming effect. While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has severe
negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.
Climate myth says
CO2 is not a pollutant
'To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the
development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a
pollutant.' (Robert Balling, as quoted by Popular Technology)
We commonly think of pollutants as contaminants that make the environment dirty or impure. A vivid
example is sulphur dioxide, a by-product of industrial activity. High levels of sulphur dioxide cause breathing
problems. Too much causes acid rain. Sulphur dioxide has a direct effect on health and the environment. Carbon
dioxide, on the other hand, is a naturally occuring gas that existed in the atmosphere long before humans. Plants
need it to survive. The CO2 greenhouse effect keeps our climate from freezing over. How canCO2 be considered a
pollutant?
A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to anecosystem. Over the past
10,000 years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in theatmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels.
However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some
direct effects on the environment. For example, as the oceans absorb CO2 from theatmosphere, it leads to
acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer
temperatures.