Temperatures Flat Despite Record Rise in Emissions
Climate Change Weekly #27
The U.S. Department of Energy has just published its estimates of global carbon dioxide emissions for the year 2010, concluding emissions rose by 6 percent from 2009 to 2010. This constitutes the largest rise in emissions yet recorded and means global emissions are rising faster than any of the scenarios advanced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 report. Global warming activists are claiming the 2010 rise in emissions proves global warming is even worse than previously feared – but exactly the opposite is the case.
The new emissions data support the arguments of skeptics asserting carbon dioxide emissions do not impact global temperatures as much as IPCC computer models predict. In light of the 2010 emissions data, global carbon dioxide emissions have risen by fully a third since the year 2001, yet global temperatures have not risen over the past decade. Global warming activists contend carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary factor in global temperature changes, yet global temperatures show no change despite a 33 percent increase in global carbon dioxide emissions. The fact that global temperatures are not rising despite such a significant increase in carbon dioxide emissions provides validation of skeptical arguments, not a cause for heightened alarm.
Rising carbon dioxide emissions might very well be a cause for strong concern if carbon dioxide emissions were the sole or primary cause of global temperature changes and if the Earth were on the brink of a global warming crisis. The real-world disconnect between carbon dioxide emissions and global temperatures is one of the factors that argues strongly against such a scenario, however.
Temperatures have risen merely 0.2 to 0.3 degrees Celsius during the past third of a century and have not risen at all during the past decade. Giving global warming activists the benefit of the doubt and assuming the recent pause in global warming is merely a temporary condition, the Earth is still on a pace for less than 1 degree of warming during the twenty-first century.
IN THIS ISSUE
Muller admits he was never a skeptic … McIntyre uncovers problems with Berkeley data … NCDC reports U.S. cooling trend … Warming trend likely natural, peer-reviewed study reports … EPA administrator commits defamation while defending Mann? … ClimateWiki update
MULLER ADMITS HE WAS NEVER A SKEPTIC
University of California, Berkeley professor Richard Muller has admitted he was never a global warming skeptic, despite the media saying his alleged status as a former skeptic makes his recent alarmist statements even more credible. According to Muller, “I was never a skeptic – only a scientific skeptic. ... “I never felt that pointing out mistakes [in Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”] qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”
SOURCE: Charleston Daily Mail
MCINTYRE UNCOVERS PROBLEMS WITH BERKELEY DATA
Statistician and climate auditor Steve McIntyre has uncovered numerous apparent problems with the data and methodology employed in the recently released Berkeley temperature reconstructions. McIntyre identifies “wildly incorrect data” in “a surprising number of records” utilized by the Berkeley team.
SOURCE: Climate Audit
NCDC REPORTS U.S. COOLING TREND
Data from the National Climatic Data Center show cooling temperatures in the contiguous United States during the past decade. The cooling trend is strongest during the winter months, when carbon dioxide emissions are supposed to cause the most warming.
SOURCE: Watts Up With That?
WARMING TREND LIKELY NATURAL, PEER-REVIEWED STUDY REPORTS
The likelihood that recent temperature trends are predominantly natural in origin is between 40 and 90 percent, according to a new study published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Modern Physics.
EPA ADMINISTRATOR COMMITS DEFAMATION WHILE DEFENDING MANN?
U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told a University of California, Berkeley audience that she believes it is “criminal” for people to “persecute” and “prosecute” climate scientists – an apparent reference to the American Tradition Institute suing the University of Virginia for failing to honor a Freedom of Information Act request for records related to Michael Mann’s research while he was a professor there. Mann, ironically, is suing fellow scientist Timothy Ball for defamation after Ball joked that Mann should be in the “state pen” rather than Penn State, where Mann is currently a professor. Mann alleges in his lawsuit that the public could interpret Ball’s quip as an assertion that Mann engaged in criminal activity.
The Heartland Institute has created a Web site, ClimateWiki.org, to help everyone – from high school students to scientists working in the field – quickly find the latest and most reliable information on climate science. Please send your questions, suggestions for new pages, or improvements to current ones to John Monaghan at firstname.lastname@example.org. And if you have new research to share, ClimateWiki.org is the perfect place.
An example from ClimateWiki, Biogeochemistry, reads in part:
Biogeochemistry is the scientific discipline that involves the study of the chemical, physical, geological, and biological processes and reactions that govern the composition of the natural environment (including the biosphere, the hydrosphere, the pedosphere, the atmosphere, and the lithosphere). In particular, biogeochemistry is the study of the cycles of chemical elements, such as carbon and nitrogen, and their interactions with and incorporation into living things transported through earth scale biological systems in space through time.
The field focuses on chemical cycles that are either driven by or have an effect on biological activity. Particular emphasis is placed on the study of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus cycles. Biogeochemistry is a systems science closely related to systems ecology.
If you have questions about the ClimateWiki or about The Heartland Institute, contact Jim Lakely, director of communications, at email@example.com or call 312/377-4000.