What are my doubts? 

To begin with, let me say that my doubts have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the climate has changed over the past 100 years.  As a matter of fact, I will say that there is nearly a 100% chance that it either warmed or cooled a little…which also means that there is virtually 0% chance that the climate temperature has remained the same over that period (or any period for that matter).  And, given the fact that we are still coming out of both a major and minor ice age, the chances that we have been warming (versus cooling) for the past century are pretty good.  So there we are…I said it…we probably have been warming globally over the past century and a half.  So what?  The climate is a dynamic measure of the average sensible weather over a given period of time.  It is always warming or cooling with respect to a given period of time (and sometimes a give location…depends on whose climate you are talking about).  One thing that it is not doing is remaining static or unchanging.  Never has, never will.  Interesting how many environmentalists want us to think this, however.  The global warming advocates, however, just want you to think that the warming has been more than it would have been had we (humans) not roared full steam into the second industrial revolution by the end of the 19^th century.  This is what their hypothesis is based on and how the climate model algorithms have been aimed in order to churn out the dire (warm) temperature forecast in out future.  Something to keep in mind, however, is the fact that the models and their predictions have been adjusted (changed) many times over the past 20 or so years (mostly downward as far as temperature has been concerned).  The greatest problem as of late was the non-ability of the models to accurately forecast the decrease in warming over the past 8 or so years (which will likely continue for quite a few more years).      

The hypothesis of climate change has become a problem and is driven by politics more than science…and is therefore a pseudoscience.  I have HUGE doubts as to whether or not good science can be done on either side of this issue.  We have come to the point now that nearly any research that offers an alternative view of what anthropogenic climate change is suppose to be, is either turned down for peer review at the very start or is severely wounded by the review process – so much so that that the reviewers try to turn the paper into something that it’s not.  Peer review regarding subject matter that is at all controversial, is hardly ever objective…regardless of what the reviewer tells you.  Interestingly, most of the earth science societies and organizations (the ones that edit and publish the primary earth science journals) over the past decade have pledged support to the global warming bandwagon based on the results and recommendations offered by the IPCC.   See any possible bias there?  This is reprehensible.  THEY SHOULD BE NON-COMMITTAL…regardless of the politics and peer pressure involved!  That should tell you something about their integrity.  These organizations are out there to make or drive policy, but to support truth in research…and that’s all.  They’re all much too much self important than they should be.

What are the other choices out there that we can blame climate change on (besides human caused increases in CO₂)?  There are many diverse choices here:

The Sun’s role in climate forcing.  The 20th Century temperature pattern shows a strong correlation to energy output of the sun. Although the causes of the changing sun’s particle, magnetic and energy outputs are uncertain, as are the responses of the climate to the Sun’s various changes, the correlation is pronounced.  See the paper, Climate History and the Sun, by Dr. Sallie Baliunas and Dr. Willie Soon for more information (See also, Lessons and Limits of Climate History and Solar Variability and Global Climatic Change).  Another good paper to take a look at:  Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change.  Judgment:  The sun is at least partially responsible for changes in the climate. 

The Ocean’s role in quantifying global warming and forcing the climate.  The oceans of the world are unique in their ability to control many aspects of the global weather/climate.  To begin with, they are made up of water which is quite chemically and physically unique in itself (click here to see just how special water is).  And, there is a lot of it on earth.  Over 70% of the Earth’s surface is ocean (139,000,000 square miles) with a total volume of about 310 million cubic miles.  You need to think about that for a while to gain some perspective.  The specific heat capacity of water ranges between 2 and 4 times greater than that of air (depending on the phase of the water, i.e. gas, liquid or solid).   This means that the oceans are THE major heat sink on earth.  The oceans of the world are also natural CO₂ sinks, and represent the principal major active carbon sink on Earth…always absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air…regardless of the amount released.  This process is driven the solubility pump (a function of the difference in solubility between regular seawater and the water within the thermohaline circulation) and the biological pump (a series of biological processes that transport carbon,   in both organic and inorganic forms from the surface of the ocean to its interior).  Finally, the oceans are actually losing heat, not gaining it!  See “Falling Ocean Heat Falsifies Global Warming Hypothesis” by William DiPuccio for more details and references.  Also in keep with the oceanic-climate theme:  Dr. Bill Gray’s hypothesis that shifts in the strength of the thermohaline circulation on multi-decadal time scales are the primary cause of climate change.  For more on this, click here.  And, the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) is a pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases (warm or cold) on at least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years.  The next 20 to 30 years we will be in a cooling phase.  The models somehow missed this one.

The universe’s role in climate forcing.  Turns out that cosmic rays may have a direct bearing on cloud production.  During the last 100 years, cosmic rays have become scarcer because unusually vigorous action by the Sun “batted” away many of them. Fewer cosmic rays meant fewer clouds—and a warmer world.  See “Cosmoclimatology: a New Theory Emerges” and “Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate” both by Henrik Svensmark.  Interesting hypothesis which could definitely contribute to overall warming (cooling) of the Earth.

The Milankovitch or Astronomical Theory of Climate Change.  Wobbling earth tilt and changes in the eccentric elliptical orbital path cause changes in the climate.  A good explanation of the theory can be found here.  This is the primary physical mechanism responsible for entering and coming out of ice ages.  There are many cycles of this process going on all the time, from the largest geological time scales down to seasonal variations.  At least part of the big picture.

The temperature of the Earth, errors in the temperature record and bias corrections.  See chapters 1 and 2 of our Global Warming Field Guide (Chapter1: Global Mean Temperature, The Big Picture and Chapter 2: Measuring Temperature, The 160 Year Thermometer Based Record).

Climate model failure.  To begin with, there remain many unknowns with respect to El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events and long-term climate change.  Many of these unknowns raise serious questions about the skill of current climate models to adequately predict the wide variety of climatic effects that the ongoing rise in the atmosphere’s CO2 content may or may not inflict on the Earth’s environments (above and below the surface) .  See http://co2science.org/subject/e/ensogw.php for more information concerning climate models and ENSO. Secondly, the climate models do not handle cloud production well and are tuned to ONLY provide positive warming feedback.  One of the basic doctrines of the IPCC view on global warming is that cloud feedback is positive. That is, clouds react to a warming influence by further amplifying the warming (and so on).  This makes a huge difference the forecasting of global warming because if there was also the potential of negative cloud feedback, this would essentially cap overall anthropogenic global warming to less than 0.5 deg. C by the end of this first century (positive cloud feedback would result (has resulted) in a forecast an order of magnitude higher – about 5 deg. C!).  It is well known in the climate business that the average overall effect of clouds on the climate system is one of cooling…not warming!  That is, when taken together as a system, clouds in the presence of sunlight (heating) provide a stronger solar shading (cooling) effect than their greenhouse warming effect, leading to a net reduction in average global temperatures by about 5 deg. C.  Again, we are talking about a factor of 10 here…not something to take lightly.  Even the IPCC in their latest report (2007) stated, “Cloud feedbacks are the primary source of inter-model differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity, with low cloud being the largest contributor”.  If you can’t get clouds right, you can’t get the climate right.  Go to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.’s Climate Science (Climate models) to read his and others views about current climate model science.

For a short introduction as to why climate models don’t work, see Why Climate Models Fail  by Ken Gregory for a reasonable explanation (much of it based on Christopher Monckton’s Paper, “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered”).

Backcasting is the easy part.  Unfortunately, backcasting means absolutely nothing…it’s just sort of a test run based on already knowing everything over that period.  Forecasting is where it’s at.  Interesting that none of the climate models predicted the recent cool-down over the last decade.  See this article, “What Happened to Global Warming” (BBC) for easy reading and additional insight. 

Bottom line:  You cannot use the climate models to prove anything…they only provide theoretical (or hypothetical) data, not empirical (observed) data.  You have to wait for the proof, and so far it’s just not there.  You don’t make policy based on poor hunches. 

Ice core data shows there is actually a global lag (600 to 1000years) between the period that temperatures rise and CO₂ levels begin to go up.  That’s right, carbon dioxide levels rise (and fall) according to what the temperature is doing…not vice versa.  Click here to find out more.

Carbon Dioxide is close to the point of “saturation” as far as electromagnetic radiation absorption   is concerned.  The temperature/carbon dioxide curve is logarithmic (see graph).  Not a lot of bang for your buck here.  It’s the first 40 to 60 ppm of CO₂ that really counts, after that the amount of absorption and reemission at CO₂s absorption bands possible becomes less and less.  In other words, while the increase of CO2 could continue to go on and on, its effect on the temperature would become less and less.

The overall picture.  As I don’t have the time at the moment to put together an entire piece on all the evidence against the idea anthropogenic global warming, I will redirect you to an excellent recent paper by Dr. David Evans that does just that – it shows that There Is No Evidence.  This paper actually expands on some of my points and has many others too.

The number of dissenters from the global warming ranks continues to grow.  You NEVER hear of dissenters from the skeptic’s side (if you can find them, let me know). U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.  Here’s a short list of just a few:  Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor to James Hansen; Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever; Dr. Joanna Simpson (NASA); Dr. Kiminori Itoh, UN IPCC environmental physical chemist; Dr. Pal Brekke, Solar physicist and senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo; Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA; Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.  Even as far back as 1993 when the AGW steamroller was just starting to kick in to a higher gear, Greenpeace International conducted a survey of the then world’s 400 leading climatologists. Greenpeace to publicize the results of that survey in the run-up to the Rio summit, but when they completed the survey, they gave very little publicity to its results. In response to the survey, only 15 climatologists were willing to say they believed in global warming, although all climatologists rely on it for their employment.  Click here for the many others.

The IPCC didn’t invite certain (brilliant) climate and atmospheric scientists to serve on their panel of experts even when they virtually volunteered.  In all probability this was due to the fact that they knew these people would view the problem from all angles and probably be contentious at times.  They didn’t quite fit the “yes man” team player mentality that they were looking for.  “All for one, and one for all…rah, rah, rah” you know.  Others who made it in, but didn’t “fit,” were simply fired (see Dr. Will Happer’s story here)  Not what I would call science either.  

Peer Reviewed Studies that show considerable doubt in current AGW thinking .  There actually have been quite a few over the last 25 or so years.  Click here to find some of the more recent ones.  Do to extreme bias surrounding this topic, this feat is often very hard to pull off. 

The Media.  Ah, the media.  It’s all about HEADLINES.  The bigger and more controversial, the better.  This is essentially a marketing program for environmentalist groups and their political and economical interests…marketing global warming hyperbole and propaganda for ratings as well as political favors and influence.  When things were beginning to look a little bleak for the AGW faction a few years back, what did they do…they do what they always do…sell, sell, sell.  One of the biggest and most flagrant attempts to get a stranglehold back on the people of the world was to market the alleged demise of the “cute” polar bear (Although anyone who has watched these guys on a seal hunt would think differently about using the word “cute.”).  Anyway, they were again marketed to the world’s public as losing their ecosystem to global warming (you know, ice melting and all) and they would fairly soon be swimming in circles in the Arctic Ocean until they either died of starvation or drowned.  It was already happening as a matter of fact and their numbers were dropping so rapidly that they were listed as a “Threatened Species” under the Endangered Species Act in May 2008.  There was not, however, enough good information or future forecast of a decrease in bear populations to list the polar bear as “endangered.”   But still, this is enough to control policy.  So the environmentalists and supporting politicians have found an end run around method for controlling energy production in Alaska and putting a tighter grip on control of all fossil fuels and thus CO₂ emissions (global warming).  This will of course result in fewer jobs, increased fuel prices and further dependence on foreign supplies of oil.  By the way, polar bear populations have been increasing strongly over the last 10 years, largely as a result of controlled hunting practices.  There are no indications that climate change has had even a remote influence on the bear’s populations.  They are not even “threatened.” The United States (and we’ll throw in Canada too) hold the largest recoverable natural energy reserves of anywhere on the planet (Oil, Methane, Coal) and that doesn’t even count the reserves of oil shale in Colorado and Utah.  This kind of harmful legislation is put to work under the guise of saving the __________ (fill in the blank), when there is no real reason to do so.  It keeps us from fully developing our resources (and people) to their full potential. 

What do we really know?  30 – 35 years ago many scientists thought we were immediately headed into a massive cool down (See Newsweek – April 1975 and Time - June 1974 - magazines for some interesting reading regarding the great cool down) with all the obligatory doomsday consequences.  What was the outcome?  Well, you see how far we have come in the last three decades.