This is a post I placed on Open Parachute (click to view in context):
I would like to add some clarity to the Climate Change Discussion. My name is listed in the above list of scientists who do not accept anthropogenic climate change. First, by way of a disclaimer, I would not characterize myself as a practicing scientist. My qualifications for entering this discussion are that in 1981 I spent 13 months at the South Pole in charge of NSF climate data collection. As such, I participated in the analysis, but was not responsible for publishing the results. That was done by the scientists in charge of the various projects.
ALL the data I and many others collected at that time pointed to human caused climate change. There appeared to be a measurable increase in global temperature, and there was absolutely no question that there was a distinct human element in the dramatic increase in CO2. Based on our understanding of basic climate models our understanding was that CO2 and other gases supported an atmospheric greenhouse, so that when humans dramatically increased CO2, we were directly responsible for any consequent increase in global temperature.
During the following decade something dramatic happened. Deep ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland clearly indicated that historically temperature changes ALWAYS preceded CO2 changes, NOT the other way around, as we thought. Any scientist who has committed himself to following the data has no option but to readdress the entire problem. Since CO2 increases appear to be caused by increases in global temperature, (1) what is the mechanism for these CO2 increases? and (2) what is the mechanism for global temperature increases?
As to the first, the answer came quickly. As the atmosphere warms (from whatever source), the ocean also warms, and gives up some of its stored CO2 – voila! The source for CO2 that follows temperature increases.
As to the source for global temperature increases (and decreases), it turns out that these are primarily driven by four solar cycles ranging from about 1,500 down to eleven years. I won’t go into the details here, but any reader is welcome to email me for further information.
Finally, a recent paper published out of Germany shows unequivocally that there is no atmospheric greenhouse. The entire concept is brought into question in this paper, as the authors clearly demonstrate with relatively basic physics that the underlying model used to explain BOTH a back-yard greenhouse and the so-called atmospheric green house, is completely wrong! Contact me for a copy of the paper – it is an eye-opener. (Science has been wrong in its assumptions before, and will be again. This is just one of those examples.)
The bottom line is that to those of us who are unequivocally willing to follow the data, there appears to be virtually no chance that humans have affected global climate in any meaningful way. Again, I solicit any interested readers to contact me directly for more information.
Transferred comments:
# Rob
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 2:57 AM
Dr. Williscroft, I appreciate your post. I took a look at what I’m assuming is the paper you’re referring to. Here’s a link for any interested readers:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
The authors present some interesting theories, but I found most of their ideas hard to swallow. Many of the models and equations they present seem a bit too oversimplified to provide a proper analysis. I would be interested in your thoughts on the following paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
# Seanogue
Thursday, June 03, 2010 2:54 AM
There is quite a lot of information from prominent scientists showing that anthropogenic global warming is a nonsense but still the mainstream promote warming as though those eminent scientists were blowing hot air (Every pun intended). Two such organisations, one would think would be taken seriously, have been sidelined by the government,the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida, no less, announced that it had confirmed the announcement by NASA’s solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface which will result in the very opposite of the IPCC’s contention and we are, in fact, heading into another mini ice age along the lines of the Dalton minimum back at the turn of the 18th/19th century’s . The SSRC has further researched the data and has concluded that these changes will herald the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era beginning in about 10 years. Whilst we’re all preparing our Hawaiian shirts and Ambre Solaire for the rise in temperature the powers that be will be stocking up on foodstuffs and warm clothing because the intense cold will cause massive crop failure. Good for the Environmentalists/eugenics whallers who will get the vast population decrease they have been hoping for as people die by the millions from cold, disease and starvation. Unless of course we get ready for it now and figure out how to deal with it. Stock piling indoor farming etc. What about peak oil I hear you say.
There is no fuel shortage given that oil is Abiogenic, that is to say that it is not biogenic or derived from biological processes that break down organic matter over millions of years to form vast reservoirs of oil in convenient underground caverns. When you stop to think about it, and let’s face it, who does, it’s an absurd idea.
Abiogenic oil is manufactured in the bowels of the earth through chemical processes and is constantly replenishing itself in perpetuity. Science knows this but stays stuhm. The oil men cannot have us thinking oil is like water, it just keeps on giving, how could they keep the prices high.
Suffice to say when the cold spell hits we will really need to start pumping that oil just to stay alive so we had better start waking up to the fact that they lie to us about everything, not just the weather.
# argee
Sunday, December 12, 2010 1:38 AM
You are missing the ENTIRE point here. Note once again:
1. The greenhouse model (for the backyard greenhouse), although widely “accepted,” has NEVER been rigorously analyzed. Consequently, no one ever questioned it. The paper I reference tells the complete story: Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (http://thedeadhand.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=oSoSJRhr5Wg%3d&tabid=164)
2. CO2 changes are the result of warming and cooling of Earth’s atmosphere, NOT the cause. It was this fact that caused me to reverse my stance and reject the climate change models that relied upon a CO2 driven engine.
3. The Sun is the primary source of atmospheric heating and cooling. Elsewhere in this blog, I address the details of the mechanism.
This is ENTIRELY apolitical.
I follow the data, ALWAYS!
I follow the data, ALWAYS!
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.