Preface: To all concerned,

It is not my intention to impugn the integrity of Mr. John Coleman. For his own reasons he has taken a stand on a highly controversial issue, that seems to be based on his beliefs rather than the relevant science on the subject of climate.

However, it is my intention to impugn the integrity of his argument. It is grossly misleading and confusing many people. There is a big difference between weather and climate. Weather is short term, and studied largely by meteorologists. Climate is long term and studied largely by climatologists.

This I believe is an important distinction to the debate, as it gives proper perspective to the general understanding one group may have vs. the other.

We should all be concerned with getting to the truth of all matters of importance. We should all be humble enough to admit when we make mistakes; and we should all be responsible for the stands we take on issues of import to the common good.

In the following materials I examine Mr. Coleman's arguments and apply reason to the science as well as reference to the relevance of the data and the arguments. It is my hope that this helps not only Mr. Coleman understand the bigger picture of climate vs. meteorology, but that it helps all that are confused by the disinformation that is being bandied about as fact to undermine the relevant understanding.

The question is about the truth of the data and what it means pertaining to climate... And the truth is all that matters.

While I have done a fair amount of research on the arguments, I must admit I could be wrong as well, in any assertions I have made. It is best that anyone reading this article examine the evidence and relevant understanding in order to get closer to the truth of the matter at hand. It certainly involves all of us, one way or another.

John P. Reisman

Note: All comments (text bold blue) and reference links are indented from left margin.

Nasa: The difference between weather and climate.

Compare the following two web sites thoroughly and see which one better represents the science on the matter of global warming. On one of the following sites, scientists that don't believe global warming is human caused go to argue their points. On the other, only people that believe, this global warming event is a natural cycle, post their beliefs without consideration of the relevant, and up to date, knowledge on the matter of the climate on earth.

www.realclimate.org

www.icecap.us

You decide which one represents the scientific method, or the science better.

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 1)

Comments on Global Warming
By John Coleman

Table of Contents

Title Page

1. Global Warming is a Scam 2
2. The Global Warming Frenzy 4
3. Are Carbon Dioxide and Fossil Fuels Responsible for Global Warming? 7
4. The Force Behind Climate Change on Earth 10
5. Is Global Warming Melting the Artic Icecap? 13
6. Carbon Dioxide “Forcing” Not Real 18
7. 2007: Global Warming Swept Plant Earth. . or Did It? 23
8. There is No Consensus on Global Warming 30
9. The Associated Press Continues the Global Warming Hype 38

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 2)

Global Warming is a Scam

By John Coleman
Written about November 5, 2007

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... it is a SCAM.

A very bold claim. Let's see if it holds up against the relevant peer reviewed science and the 'consensus' view.

Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental-extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

There is no illusion of rapid warming. We are warming faster than the known natural cycle.

His argument is generally subjective and not supported by relevant peer review of the science.

22 June 2005 The Wall Street Journal vs. The Scientific Consensus

16 December 2004 Statistical analysis of consensus

Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Subjective argument not supported by relevant peer review of the science.

Just watch the news around the world. The effects have already begun. But this is just the beginning. The amount of forcing in the atmosphere will keep us warming for hundreds of years.

NASA: Earth's Climate is Approaching 'Dangerous' Point

Now their ridiculously manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, schoolteachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

Subjective argument not supported by relevant peer review of the science.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise.

Mr. Coleman seems to not understand the difference between meteorology and climatology. The study of human caused Global Warming is 'not' predominantly "the science of meteorology". Meteorology has to do with the weather, which involves short term regional events. Global Warming has to do with Climatology which involves long term climate trends and influences.

Nasa: The difference between weather and climate.

meteorology 1 : a science that deals with the atmosphere and its phenomena and especially with weather and weather forecasting 2 : the atmospheric phenomena and weather of a region

climatology, climates 1: a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions2 a: the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b: the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors <a climate-controlled office>3: the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere <a climate of fear>

And I am telling you Global Warming are a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

This is a subjective argument not supported by relevant peer review of the science. He is merely stating his opinion based on the scope of his own research, which apparently is biased to certain non-science web sites, as is indicated by his source links found in his references throughout his proclamations.

NASA: Earth's Climate is Approaching 'Dangerous' Point

I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PhD’s in Meteorology.

Climate is studied mostly by climatologists, not meteorologists (see above).

They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PhD’s. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.

Subjective argument not supported by relevant peer review of the science.

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different.

Subjective argument not supported by relevant peer review of the science.

I know this group well. My father was a PhD-University type. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PhD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are
environmentalists above all else.

Research bias can occur for many reasons. Most include commercial interests but can also occur in research institutions seeking grants. The funding process is subject to such occurrence, but not riddled with it.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and the results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

Subjective argument with no cited studies to support.

Science is more about examining our world and learning about its processes, elements and systems. Within that discipline or along the way knowledge and understanding is gained while problems are identified in our human interaction with the natural world. That is how we discovered that CFC's were destroying the ozone layer and causing increased cancer rates.

Remember the United Nations had formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the late 1980's with the mission of accessing and countering manmade climate change.  The UN had established this global bureaucracy on climate change.  It had become the "world series" or "Olympics" for Climatologists and Meteorologists and scientists in related fields.  You had to strive to be accepted, invited to present and review papers and travel to international meetings of the committee.  Otherwise you were a nobody in your field.

Mr. Coleman seems to be representing his opinion as fact, not citing research on the matter.

Striving in science is done by success in peer review and consistent replicable assessment, study, modeling and method. Not by trickery or deceit. The scientific process of peer review is very successful at producing reliable results for public and policy makers to assess when examined in context with relevance.

20 January 2005 Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 3)

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like-minded PhD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them and brushed their studies aside.

Merely opinion, not supported by the scientific process or any relevant assessment of that process.

That is not how scientists work. When objections are made they are examined to see if they are relevant and/or valid.

Then findings are subjected to the peer review process which is designed to mete out the relevant arguments and fallacies in order to achieve better science.

20 January 2005 Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition

Correlation is not causation, but when a model is working it is a good indication, and further studies should then be done to verify and refine the model. Coincidentally non correlation does not mean no causation. To find what causes something, you have to look beyond the surface and examine the influences that impact the data you see. Then you are getting closer to the truth.

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research.

The ice age scare was media sensationalism, not the scientists. There was never anything remotely close to consensus. In fact the study that made the news was done by 5 scientists who claimed in the study that a lot more research needed to be done.

In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

Mr. Coleman is again stating his opinion as factual and without doubt.

He is not a climatologist and in review of his supposed research on the matter, one finds that he relies on non-scientific and even special interest web sites to support his conclusions.

The science has shown clearly that GHG's are a forcing agent and what amounts of forcing can be expected with quantifiable amounts of certain GHG's. These are known quantities of GHG's and forcing amount. They match the models and the observations. What peer reviewed evidence does he have that proves what he is stating as fact? None cited. But he assures you he is correct in his opinion.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PhD’s, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.

The main question here is how can meteorologists, or anyone for that matter be taken seriously, if they have not even done basic fact checking for the relevance and context of their argument.
Unvalidated opinion is not good science. Unvalidated opinion that claims to refute good science is worse, it is a sham.

John Coleman and many others have made a tremendous number of mistakes in their claims and assessment as is pointed out throughout this document. A lot of his argument is subjective and most of it is just plain wrong (obvious when placed in context of the relevant science). His opinions are not scientific, they are mostly narrowly scoped, poorly researched perspectives from a weatherman that apparently knows little about climatology.

Nasa: The difference between weather and climate.

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

The term politically correct is a two edged sword. It is merely semantics as to whom is exercising political correctness. Mr. Coleman is proclaiming poorly researched opinion from apparently, or potentially politically motivated bias in arguments to discredit relevant, peer reviewed science that is becoming more irrefutable in case after case.

Vermont Decision: Chrysler v. Crombie PDF

Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court PDF - (wiki)

Chrysler v. Witherspoon Supplemental PDF

State of California: People of the State of California v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.

In a decade or two, if we have done nothing, the world economy will be more severely strained than otherwise might be true (based on the speed of development of alternative energy systems; it will take longer to deal with the warming problem itself). If you think that a tomato, or a lemon at 1$ each is a lot, it is likely you will be wishing that they were only 1$ in "a decade or two".

The problem with global warming is that will take a lot of effort to reverse and in reality, time is running out on the return on investment and cost/benefit ratios.

It is accelerating decade over decade, it is non linear, and it is already having a socio-economic effect. One might say we have only seen the tip of the iceberg on global warming.

The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.

If the climate were following the natural cycles, we would be going into an ice age at this time.

I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

Based on what? As Mr. Coleman incorrectly pointed out earlier "It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology."

While he pointed out that the debate should not be about belief, now he is stating: "I strongly believe". In context this is a rather strong contradiction on his part. He states many times in his writings on the matter of global warming 'his belief'.

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 4)

The Global Warming Frenzy

By John Coleman
Written about November 14, 2007

In the week since my article "Global Warming is the Greatest Scam in History" was posted, I have received hundreds of emails. Most have been supportive and thanked me for my statement. A few have been very hostile.  And, many of them ask for the scientific evidence that supports my statements.

For them I am posting a series of briefs debunking the science behind the global warming frenzy. This is the first one.

The claim that Earth is in the grips of runaway Global Warming took off with this chart. It was produced by Climatologist Michael Mann and colleagues in 1999. His paper portrayed the climate of Earth as stable for 1,000 years before the activities of mankind caused temperatures to skyrocket.

Incorrect. When considered in context of time, several points are controversial about Coleman's statement above.

1. The earth climate is anything but stable. It goes through climate changing events in the short term and the long term.

2. The chart trend shows the Global Mean Temperature as decreasing, not stable and only increasing during the industrial age.

3. The temperature increase is significantly above the natural trend observed prior to that time.

The chart just didn’t ring true with me.

Scientific committee review including the National Academy of Science concluded that the Energy and Commerce Committee review "demonstrated clearly that “independent review” by non-climate scientists is an exceedingly ineffective way to make climate change assessments."

House Committee on Energy and Commerce Testimony July 27, 2006

"This committee is seeking to know the significance of the criticisms leveled at the MBH reconstruction for climate change assessments. The significance is that these criticisms have resulted in the most thoroughly vetted single climate study in the history of climate change research. Dr. Tom Karl summarized the impact most succinctly in his testimony to this committee last week when he said that he would stand by the IPCC’s original assessment: “If you ask me to give qualifications about the findings in the 2001 report with the same caveat in terms of defining likelihood, I personally would not change anything.” Hence, the impact of the MM critique, after being scrutinized by the NAS, the Wegman panel, and a number of meticulous individual research groups, is essentially nil with regard to the conclusions of MBH and the 2001 IPCC assessment."

"Also relevant to this committee's questions about climate change assessments is the revelation that climate scientists do know their business, and that a lack of knowledge of geophysics is a genuine handicap to those who would seek to provide what they deem "independent review.” If the assessment of climate science presented in Mr. McIntyre's presentation to the NAS committee, the Wegman Report, and the WSJ is an example of what can be expected from those who have not conducted climate research, then the investigation launched by this committee has demonstrated clearly that “independent review” by non-climate scientists is an exceedingly ineffective way to make climate change assessments."

http://www.pewclimate.org/node/2132

Ref. Trasncript July 27, 2007

Hearing

Questions Surrounding the 'Hockey Stick' Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
July 27, 2006
2322 Rayburn House Office Building
2:00 PM

Transcript

Link to House Page

I was more used to the chart below.

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 5)

Though he has not cited the chart source, it is apparently a chart of the temperatures in Europe. Of course, the temperatures in Europe do not represent the temperatures of the earth.

He should not be using charts he is "used to". He should be studying the current relevant science on the matter of global temperature proxies, models, estimations and observations. Old data is just that. It is often replaced by new data.

If he were a surgeon, would you want him using techniques developed in the 50's when he was in school? Or would you prefer he use new improved techniques that have increased survivability rates?

This chart includes the Medieval Warm period and Little Ice Age, both of which have been documented by historians and widely accepted by climatologists. Remember, it was during the Medieval Warm period that the Vikings settled Greenland and established successful farms.  Strong support for this warm period worldwide can be found on the CO2 Science site. Then came the Little Ice Age during which the Vikings had to abandon Greenland. Which chart is right? This is very important because Mann’s "hockey stick" chart has been the absolute bedrock of the global warming frenzy. It was a primary exhibit and cornerstone of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy

Both charts are correct as general modeled representations of temperature proxies based on context and quality of modeling; at the time they were done; and the scope of the measurements pertaining to the particular chart.

The MWP (Medieval Warm Period) chart is generally correct (but it may not be based on plot data (no citation, so hard to verify).

It does seem to represent the regional temperature based on the northern Arctic Amplification effect. The Hockey stick is a peer reviewed and accepted model of the global mean temperature by consensus of the best science organizations in the world from large scope analysis and relevant science.

It appears that Mr. Coleman does not recognize that there is a difference between a regional temperature and the global temperature. It is important to note that weather and climate are two separate things. The temperature in one place on the planet does not represent all the temperatures on the planet.

Nasa: The difference between weather and climate.

Example A movie released in 2007 (The Great Global Warming Swindle) also claimed that the MWP was warmer than today.

They have committed what one might call the 'lie of omission'. When you add the new data (see below), that was certainly available to the producers of the film, you can see how misleading their representation was.

Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt1

Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt2

A debate about Mann’s work has raged in the scientific community as other climate scientists take strong exception to his claims.

There is no raging debate among relevant qualified scientists (expert climatologists that are examining the scope of the data and weighing the importance of the coupled models with relevance well considered).

It is merely raging among inexperienced non qualified people that have not reviewed the relevant science and its scope (mathematicians, economists, meteorologists); that do not know the 'big picture' but rather look at pieces of the picture and 'think' that they know the big picture.

This is not uncommon. When one gains a bit of knowledge one tends to think one knows more based on the gain. But in context of the existing quantity of data beyond ones one personal knowledge, that often falls short of reality. Hence the saying, 'A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing' and 'he/she/I know(s) just enough to be dangerous'.

I have waded through the research papers and blog exchanges by scientists on both sides. In the end, mathematician Steven McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick have proven to my satisfaction that the Mann Hockey Stick chart is not a valid display of long-term global temperatures. A congressional group formed a committee of scientists to settle the issue. Here are excerpts from their report:

Mr. Coleman claims to have "waded through the research papers and blog exchanges by scientists on both sides". He should probably immerse himself in the papers. Apparently wading is apparently not enough.

18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy

COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION

Coleman neglects to inform you that this committee is called the "Committee on Energy and Commerce".

Wikipedia

Website

"This committee has reviewed the work of both articles (Mann’s research paper and McIntyre and McKitrick’s counter arguments), as well as a network of journal articles that are related either by authors or subject matter, and has come to several conclusions and recommendations. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

Further review by the national academy of science and multiple university reviews of the committee findings found that by and large, the Hockey Stick was not flawed enough for them to consider it inappropriate for use as a model to represent the climate variability for the time period specified.

NASA/GISS 2007 Summary

18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy

In general, we found Mann’s articles to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of them to be valid and compelling.  The controversy surrounding Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being selected as the first principal component.  The net effect of this decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a

When the centered data was removed the difference was not significant. Here is the plot corrected for the accepted changes. After the corrections, the changes were statistically insignificant and were determined to weaken the plot overall. They were accepted by the IPCC and NAS as well as many other relevant scientific organizations.

http://www.pewclimate.org/node/2132

http://www.pewclimate.org/node/2132

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 6)

"hockey stick" shape.  The experts on this committee were Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University),

Mathematician

David W. Scott (Rice University),

Mathematician

and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University)."

[Could not locate]

My conclusion is that the cornerstone exhibit of the Global Warming proponents is bad science. It is not correct. There has not been an unprecedented rise in global temperatures in the last thirty years.

NASA/GISS 2007 Summary

Mr. Coleman is making a conclusion on incomplete data. If the best scientists in the world have not yet made conclusions about the precise nature and indications of the data regarding human caused global warming; how can a lone meteorologist from a TV station in San Diego be considered qualified to make conclusions?.

Mr. Coleman either ignored the scientific review of the hockey stick or just failed to look deeper. The hockey stick was accepted based on its well modeled composition and data integrity but as with all models, it can be improved, which is the purpose of science. In the process of review it was found that two arguments had some validity and the hockey stick was corrected. As you can see below, after the corrections were modeled in, it still looks like a hockey stick and the difference between the two was in the hundredths of a degree overall, and deemed insignificant.

18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy

The National Center for Atmospheric Research stated after review that:

Ammann and Wahl’s findings contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate.  They also dispute McIntyre and McKitrick’s alleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would significantly bias the MBH climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH graph are unfounded.  They first presented their detailed analysis at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in Denver this year.

McIntyre and McKitrick’s papers were published in Energy and Environment (2003 and 2005) and in Geophysical Research Letters (2005).

UCAR Link

29 May 2007 The weirdest millennium

18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy

So, what has been going on with temperatures worldwide?  It is a difficult question since the raw data is often unreliable and there are many ways to process the data.  The Winter just-ended was the coldest in many decades in many parts of the Southern Hemisphere.  When the Secretary General of the UN recently visited Antarctica, the Associated Press report said the ice was melting under his feet with record high temperatures.

The raw data is largely reliable based on the error reduction capacity built into the modeling to reduce anomalous readings of urban heat island effect and other station and/or measurement anomalies. The science is improving rapidly, so the measurements are only getting better.

For sure he wasn't at the South Pole station where at that moment the temperature was -47.  I am sure there was no melting there.

Mr. Coleman is confusing the context. Obviously, if the statement is true, the Secretary General was not standing where it was -47 degrees, but he was apparently standing where melting was occurring (It is hard to believe the Secretary General would lie whereas it would be easier to believe that John Coleman would be mistaken about the statement itself as is indicated by most of his statements by virtue of the degree of inaccuracy.).

[Generally speaking, throughout Mr. Coleman writings on all these matters, he seems intent on either confusing the context, or he simply is not aware of the context.]

What Mr. Coleman is not explaining in his writings, is that if we were in the grips of the natural cycle, rather than human caused forcing of the climate system, Antarctica would not be melting as it is now.

NASA has recently reprocessed its annual data for US temperatures since 1840.  Here is their revised list of the warmest years:

Three years from the 1990's make the list, but only one in this new century.  It seems clear to me that we are not in the grips of massive man-made heat wave called global warming.

Again, Mr. Coleman is incorrect in his assertions regarding 'global warming'. He asserts/infers that the US temperature record represents the global record.

By a lack of context, Mr. Coleman seems to imply, or have you 'believe' that the 10 warmest years were not as recent as facts have shown, by showing you 'only' US data, that is not averaged into the 'global mean temperature' assessments.

Here is the most recent data, as reported, that is cited from the World Meteorological Organization:

Global 10 Warmest Years Mean Global temperature (°C) (anomaly with respect to 1961-1990)

1. 1998 0.52

2. 2005 0.48

3. 2003 0.46

4. 2002 0.46

5. 2004 0.43

6. 2006 0.42

7. 2007(Jan-Nov) 0.41

8. 2001 0.40

9. 1997 0.36

10. 1995 0.28

World Meteorological Organization (2007, December 13). Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years.

While Mr. Coleman would infer using US regional data that only one of the warmest years occurred in this century, the WMO report shows that 7 out of 10 occurred in this century and the other three occurred in the 1990's.

NASA/GISS Global Temperature Trends: 2007

This brief is just the first of several. There is important research that attempts to tie global warming to carbon dioxide emissions and a long list of supporting research and observations from polar ice melting and polar bears to strength and number of exceptional storms.  I will deal with all of those points in future blog postings.

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 7)

Are Carbon Dioxide and Fossil Fuels Responsible for Global Warming?

By John Coleman
Written about November 23, 2007

In the Al Gore movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", we see the famous hockey stick chart as proof that global warming is sweeping the Earth.  Time and research has taken its toll on that chart.  It is no longer regarded as accurate.  In fact, it has been quietly dropped by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The graphs used in IPCC reports are updated with each report because new information is available. The Hockey stick however has not been dropped, it has been updated, and it still looks like a Hockey Stick.

18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy

Now the global warming advocates point to the increase in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Its up, way up; no argument about that. Our modern civilization, powered by fossil fuels, sends tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere as we generate electricity to power our lights, furnaces and air conditioners, computers, television sets, cellphone and ipods and as we drive gasoline powered cars and fly in airplanes. Our modern standard of living is absolutely linked to CO2. And it has increased in our atmosphere from around 218 parts per million in 1900 to about 375 ppm today.

375 is old data (2004), we are now up to 385ppm  (spring 2008) of Co2 concentration.

NASA/GISS Target Co2 PDF

You need to understand immediately that CO2 is a naturally occurring trace element in our atmosphere.  For one thing, we humans produce it every time we breathe.  Plants and trees must have it grow.  So CO2 was already in our atmosphere before we discovered oil.  CO2 is not a pollutant.

This is one of those too much of a good thing arguments. Naturally occurring Co2 is not a pollutant but it can be easily argued that Co2 from burning fossil fuels is a pollutant, by definition:

Pollute: 2 a: to make physically impure or unclean : befoul, dirty b: to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste

Therefore, in accord with the definition, Co2 becomes a pollutant by virtue of its addition to the atmosphere via manmade industrial output. Especially when you calculate real (current measured) and projected costs.

The pollutants produced by burning fossil fuels have been largely controlled by catalytic converters, reformulated gasoline, smoke stack scrubbers and other improvements in ignition, fuel management and exhaust systems.  Nonetheless, it is in our civilization's best interest to find ways to eliminate fossil fuels from our livings within the next few generations.  But, there is no climatic emergency from our use of them.

Some pollutants have been controlled as Mr. Coleman describes. However, there is no Co2 capture from car exhaust, so his statement is misleading, by virtue of other improvements being exemplified (inferring that co2 is also scrubbed out of car exhaust), which it isn't.

Now the really good news:  The increase in our atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 20th and early 21st centuries has produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate.

Nasa: The difference between weather and climate.

His use of the word deleterious is subjective. It can be argued that there are no deleterious effects on earth and climate because earth really does not have feelings like humans, but it is having effects. What should be of concern is the human population on earth in relation to the effects of global warming.

There are already deleterious effects for the human population. Food and water supply issues are one. Human migration and socio-political ramifications are also to be considered further strained as  droughts and other weather events change with the shifting climate due to the forcings human industrial output has imposed on the climate system.

There is absolutely no correlation between the increase in CO2 and average worldwide or US temperatures. And, predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and resulting increases in minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge or have any scientific basis.

The scientific basis for correlation is massive and proven beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, at this point, 'only' those that are unreasonable or have not studied the larger scope of climate influence would doubt the validity.

The connection between Co2 and other industrial greenhouse gases are quantitative. We know how many billions of tons of Co2 mankind produces and we know that that increases positive climate forcing (warming in the atmosphere). We also have measured other greenhouse gases including methane, and nitrous oxide. There are many others, but their quantities are much smaller, though cumulatively, they add to the positive forcing of the climate.

On the other hand, increased carbon dioxide has markedly increased plant growth. Forest growth and farm crop output pe acre have grown proportionally with increased atmospheric CO2 that is a key to photosynthesis in plants.

There may be some benefits to plants, in some areas, but we those advantages will likely be offset by loss of growing land due to latidudinal shift and increased droughts in other areas.

The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3 C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age.

"The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 1 C during the past 2,000 years. [Jones Mann 2004]

It would be improper to estimate with high confidence to 3000 years based on current understanding. One can certainly postulate with lower confidence as it seems Mr. Coleman has done. This is not improper as long as context is given.

He is probably guessing based on the data from the GRIP ice cores. But that data does not represent the global average temperature, so it is incorrect to state as fact for earth global mean temperature.

Assessment indicates that the earth is not recovering from the little ice age. The earth is supposed to be going back into an ice age. Mankind interrupted the natural cycle. (see Milankovitch Cycles)

Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity; by the greenhouse effect, which is largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use and CO2 production since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperatures.

21 January 2006 Calculating the greenhouse effect

Well, no noticeable effect other than an increase of atmospheric temperatures.

About 50% of global warming may be attributed to water vapor, about 25% clouds, and trace gases are the last 25%, which we have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial age. Nitrous Oxide up 18%, Co2 up 38%, Methane up 148%.

The cooling between 1940-1970 is likely due to a combination of natural forcing in the negative and the large increase in sulfate pollution from industrial output which caused tremendous smog and acid rain, which caused the Montreal Protocol to reign in sulfate and CFC production. The sulfates were actually blocking the sunlight and causing a cooling effect. Consequently, the sulfates removed from the atmosphere removed the threat of acid rain and CFC but allowed the human caused climate forcing to resume its course.

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 8)

Historically we can clearly see that hydrocarbon use does not correlate with temperature changes.

/////  Where did this chart come from? Can not locate in scientific literature. What is it's relevance? Need source? If it is arctic, need to couple  GHG mix to GCM variance and relevance of GCR in polar v. GMT

///// Get context. If this is only temp related to solar IR at poles? how does that differ from TSI and variables such as magnetic flux variation at poles +++ plus other variables.

Correlation is not causation, but when a model is working it is a good indication, and further studies should then be done to verify and refine the model. Coincidentally non correlation does not mean no causation. To find what causes something, you have to look beyond the surface and examine the influences that impact the data you see. Then you are getting closer to the truth.

The lack of correlation he is referring to is likely the sulfate anomaly between 1940-1970. But he may also be referring to solar correlation even though solar irradiance does not correlate with global warming.

Incorrect. That is only true if you ignore the multitude of factors that influence climate. Co2 is not the only climate driver of negative and positive forcings. Mr. Coleman would have you believe that Co2 is being claimed as the only climate driver in order to narrow the scope of his argument for the purpose of discrediting a certain aspect of the argument. Such an assertion is improper as it is too narrowly scoped.

Temperature rose for a century before significant hydrocarbon use. Temperature rose between 1910 and 1940, while hydrocarbon use was almost unchanged. Temperature then fell between 1940 and 1972, while hydrocarbon use rose by 330%.

Two main factors are most likely involved with the disconnect and one last point regarding the dilemma.

1. WWII was the beginning of a large industrial surge and sulfates were in the industrial output. During the period of time when Co2 and temperature rise were not coincident 1940-1970 industrial output of sulfates increased dramatically. Those sulfates are an aerosol that cause global cooling (i.e. a negative climate forcing). When mankind realized that sulfates and other gases such as CFC's. The Sulfate cooling mechanism is also evidenced whenever there is a high ejecta mass volcanic eruption, which causes a measurable cooling effect, for about 3 years after an eruption; until the sulfate particulate aerosols diminish in the atmosphere to the point that they become negligible. Sulfates were causing harm to the environment. We stopped using them. Those old enough remember how thick the smog was in the 70's, the acid rain damaging crops and of course the ozone layer being damaged. We lowered the sulfate output and the cooling effect was reduced. Then the other problem of Co2 pollution from industrial output increased the positive forcing and the temperature rose.

2. The earth was supposed to be cooling anyway according to the natural cycle. So the added negative forcing from sulfates were aided by the natural cycle forcing.

3. The problem, in this context is that it is unwise to increase sulfate production to aid in global cooling as that would kill all our crops anyway (acid rain) and increase human health problems. It's a catch 22.

The historical record does not contain any report of "global warming" catastrophes, even though temperatures have been higher than they are now during much of the last three millennia.

Cost of global warming is directly connected to the advancement of economic systems and human productivity; including construction and population coincident with industrial processes and the burning of fossil fuels. The human population has increased dramatically, from 1 billion in 1815 to 6.6 billion in 2008.

The fact that there were no high rises, condos, south beach hotels, 3000 years ago is a pretty good clue as to why, or what a catastrophe might be considered in relating that time to our current time pertaining to direct costs. Other considerations would have to include cost adjusted basis for inflation and a per capita v. regional, or national cost basis.

An increase in CO2 is said to increase the radiative effect of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But, how and in which direction does the atmosphere respond? Hypotheses about this response differ. Without the water-vapor greenhouse effect, the Earth would be about 14 ºC cooler.

Mr. Coleman is only mentioning one greenhouse gas here. According to NASA, the major GHG's are: "Atmospheric gases that cause this effect include water vapor (H₂O), carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane (CH₄) and flourinated (high global warming potential gases, as well as halons). If the amount of these gases in the atmosphere increases, then the greenhouse effect will be magnified and warmer global temperatures will result."

NASA Greenhouse Effect Link

Mr. Coleman would be correct on this point if he had mentioned that the earth would be 14C cooler without Greenhouse gases if measured from the preindustrial level. Now the number would be around 15C of cooling due to the additional GHG's and consequent forcing on earth temperature.

The radiative contribution of doubling atmospheric CO2 is minor, but this radiative greenhouse effect is treated quite differently by different climate hypotheses. The hypotheses that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has chosen to adopt predicts that the effect of CO2 is amplified by the atmosphere, especially by water vapor, to produce a large temperature increase. Other hypotheses, predict the opposite—that the atmospheric response will counteract the CO2 increase and result in insignificant changes in global temperature. The experimental evidence favors hypothesis 2. While CO2 has increased substantially, its effect on temperature has been so slight that it has not been experimentally detected.

Due to the amount of forcing that has been added to the system, the negative feedbacks are not expected to outweigh the positive feedbacks, therefore additional warming is expected.

Radiative forcing can and is expected to create positive feedbacks that will amplify global warming in a non-linear accelerating progression. In relation to what is currently known, it almost appears as if he is making up some of his assertions?

With regard to his "other hypotheses, predict the opposite" he may be referring to increased albedo due to the expectation that increased global warming increases snowfall in the northern and southern latitudes; or the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation of the ocean.

Although these are important considerations, due to the amount of forcing human industrial output is causing, the ability for increased negative feedbacks to override the human caused positive feedbacks are not expected to reverse the warming.

I'm not sure what experimental evidence he is referring to favoring "hypothesis 2." "While Co2 has increased substantially, its effect on temperature has been" detected, modeled, observed and measured as a forcing component with great accuracy. (ref. IPCC AR4)

Roger Revelle of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Harvard University and University of California San Diego was the co-author of the seminal 1957 paper that demonstrated that fossil fuels had increased carbon-dioxide levels in the air. Under his leadership, the President's Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmen Pollution in 1965 published the first authoritative U.S. government report in which carbon dioxide from fossil fuels was officially recognized as a potential global problem. He was the author of the influential 1982 Scientific American article that elevated global warming on to the public agenda. For being "the grandfather of the greenhouse effect," as he put it, he was awarded the National Medal of Science by the first President Bush.

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 9)

However, he understood that the impact of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was a tricky issue. In a letter he wrote in 1988 shortly before he died of a heart attack, he said that: "Most scientists familiar with the subject are no yet willing to bet that the climate this year is the result of 'greenhouse warming.' As you very well know, climate is highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these variations are not at all well understood. My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." A few days later, in another letter he cautioned "... we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer." Today we know his caution was merited.

Roger Revelle died in 1988. as quoted by John Coleman "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways."

Roger Revelle said we should wait 10 to 20 years to see if this is "important for human beings". It has been 20 years since Roger Revelle wrote the letter proclaimed by Mr. Coleman. We now know that Co2 and other human caused greenhouse gases are not only driving climate but have significantly altered the natural cycle of climate on earth.

In context, human added GHG's have positive and negative effects, however it is clear that the negatives outweigh the positives in relation to the human population and socio-economic systems.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace element essential to plant growth and a natural product of human breathing and many other normal processes. Yes, it is way up in the atmosphere; but still it is only 37 of every 100,000 atmospheric molecules. Despite all the shouting by global warming advocates that CO2, carbon dioxide, is the smoking gun of global warming, there is absolutely no proven evidence that CO2 has effected temperatures and plenty of evidence it has not.

NCDC/NOAA: "There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr^-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO₂ in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21^st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration)."

NASA: "The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space."

As of May 2008 "37 of every 100,000" is no longer correct, it is 38.5 (that is 15 molecules in ppm of increase in a very short period of time).

The smoking gun is industrial GHG output and it is still smoking. The claim that "there is absolutely no  evidence that Co2 has effected temperatures and plenty of evidence it has not." at this point in time, is patently absurd.

The earth climate system has its own rhythm that it achieved without human interference. By increasing GHG output through industrial processes we have essentially added the straw that broke the camels back with regard to interfering with the natural cycle of earth climate.

Said another way a lever in equilibrium will tilt when weight is added to one side and not the other. Essentially we have tilted the equilibrium.

So if atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not causing the Earth to warm up, what is?  The answer seems to be Sun cycles. I will post a brief on that topic soon.

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 10)

THE FORCE BEHIND CLIMATE CHANGE ON EARTH

By John Coleman
Written about November 28, 2007

Solar cycles have been tracked since 1755.  A plot of solar activity and average temperatures on Earth is a clear match; it seems likely it is cause and effect.

Actually, it is not a clear match. If you ignore other relevant factors such as forcing amounts and albedo as well as time scale, then you are still missing the big picture.

31 March 2006 Another study on solar influence

3 August 2005 Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?

In the 'Great Global Warming Swindle (2007)' they tried to correlate solar forcing and temperature.

Unfortunately they committed the lie of omission. They only showed the parts that fit, and ignored the actual data that did not support their swindling ways.

Here is the same image with the actual solar influence plotted in. There is a complete disconnect between the warming and the solar activity. The blue line is the warming and the red line is the solar activity. This is not to say that solar is not an influence as it is but that the additional greenhouse gases are overriding the system.

9 March 2007 Swindled!

12 March 2007 Swindled: Carl Wunsch responds

14 June 2007 Curve manipulation: lesson 2

29 May 2007 The weirdest millennium

Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt1

Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt2

///// Where did this chart come from? Can not locate in scientific literature. What is it's relevance? Need source?

31 March 2006 Another study on solar influence

This significantly complicates the claims of man-made or anthropogenic global warming.

Only if it's real and makes sense.

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 11)

All energy on earth comes from the sun in the form or both radiation including visible light and invisible ultraviolet and from variable streams of charged particles from solar eruptions or from holes in the suns corona.

When the sun is very active, there is more radiation to directly warm the earth and ultraviolet to form and destroy ozone in low and middle latitudes in the high atmosphere, both reactions releasing heat.

The 11.1 year solar cycle is well known and oscillates up and down in the cycle causing an average forcing shift of .3 W/m2. Any other real effects he is referring to, (I have not checked) are obviously part of the natural cycle unless one were referring to CFC  pollution that resulted form human industrial output.

5 April 2007 Ozone Hole Leaks and Other Tales

31 March 2006 Another study on solar influence

When the sun is more active and the earth’s magnetic field in energized, less cosmic rays that have a low cloud enhancement capability can penetrate the atmosphere from space. Low clouds cool the earth by reflecting the sun's radiation. And during these active sun times, there are less low clouds and more sun to warm the earth. For all these reasons an active sun means a warmer earth, a quiet sun a cooler earth.

Influences have been noted but direct correlations to this global warming event are not established.

18 December 2007 Les Chevaliers de l’Ordre de la Terre Plate, Part II: Courtillot's Geomagnetic Excursion

The Sun contains 99.8% of the mass of solar system.  Its constant hydrogen fueled atomic fusion consumes more mass in a second that all the fossil fuel ever burned on Earth.  It is difficult to imagine man's activities overwhelming the heat from the Sun.  But, that is exactly what global warming advocates want you to believe.

To be sure, "It is difficult to imagine man's activities overwhelming the heat from the Sun". But again context is key. Man's activities are not overwhelming the heat from the sun. They are only adding forcing to the earth climate system here. I am quite confident that we will never "overwhelm the heat from the sun". But here on earth, 93,000,000 miles away from the sun, we can and in fact have, affected our own climate system.

Forget about global warming advocates and concentrate on global warming science. The earth system has it's own balance, which has been achieved over billions of years. In the past 150 years, mankind dug up fossil fuels from under the ground and burned them, releasing billion of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere. This altered the natural  balance of trace gas concentrations, which has interrupted the natural climate forcing cycles.

Indeed, as the chart above showed clearly, the solar cycles clearly synchronize better with historical ups and downs in temperatures far better than anything man has done.

///// ck ref data // The chart above may be a cartoon drawing, not a data plot.

According to the NASA solar experts Earth is emerging from an 11-year solar cycle that began in May of 1996. In theory that cycle would have ended a couple of years ago.  Longer cycles are often precursors to a quiet sun.

It is hard to tell what Mr. Coleman is talking about here? He is not citing any references, so we are left to wonder if the concept has validity, or even any relevance?

Thus far, there is insufficient evidence to judge longer solar cycles. Besides he forgot to define what emerging from a cycle means?

Where he says, "in theory that cycle would have ended a couple of years ago", what does that mean?

In theory it should follow its average 11.1 year solar cycle and increase and decrease the sunspot number as it goes through the cycle, which increases or decreases the solar forcing around .3 W/m2.

Then he says "longer cycles are often precursors to a quiet sun". Based on what? Is he referring to the Maunder Minimum? Long term solar cycles are not very well understood, so unless he has some special knowledge that experts in solar don't have, it's hard to tell what this is.

And many solar scientists are now predicting a much quieter sun in our very near future, some suggest as quiet as during the last little ice age. The Russian Academy has actually issued an Imminent Global Cooling Warning. The late Rhodes Fairbridge, an eminent Astronomer, became particularly expert on the solar cycles during his long academic career at Columbia University.  He developed the interesting hypothesis that the orbits of the major planets had a strong impact on the amount of energy radiated from the Sun and the pattern of that radiation in the form of solar cycles.

Again no citations. An "interesting hypothesis" is actually not relevant. Maybe this is a mix up of Milankovitch Cycles with something else? Never the less, the sun is a fusion reactor of immense proportions, while one must admit possibility of such an influence one might also consider Mr. Colemans own statement (see above)

"The Sun contains 99.8% of the mass of solar system."

So here, this astronomer is postulating, "that the orbits of the major planets had a strong impact on the amount of energy radiated from the Sun and the pattern of that radiation in the form of solar cycles."

One must admit to possibility, but think about it.

He is saying that less than .2% (he is only including the major planets) of the mass of the solar system is regulating the sunspot cycle. While this is certainly possible, then you must consider the relevance.

The sunspot cycle has an average variance of .3 W/m2 on the thermal forcing inside the earth climate system. We are now estimated to be around 2 W/m2 in the forcing above pre-industrial levels of forcing. So even if this is a factor what is it's relevance to current warming? The 2 W/m2 is 1500% more forcing than the .3 W/m2. Again, how are the above claims from Mr. Coleman and the late Rhodes Fairbridge relevant?

He and other experts have identified more than a half dozen solar cycles ranging from 11 years to 420 years. Here is a plot of solar energy reaching the Earth in the last 30 years (last 3 solar cycles).

Okay, here is another question. If an expert has identified a 420 year long solar cycle and we have only been looking as sunspots for about 400 years (since the invention of the telescope in 1608) that would mean that this person has observed less than one full cycle of information?

Therefore, since the cycle is not yet over, how does he know the cycle will end in 20 years? And how can he rule out long term natural variability in a system like the sun that is 8 billion years old?

[Mr. Coleman. Have the support materials for this argument been peer reviewed by relevant peers in the relevant community of study? Please provide citations for these claims and relevance to the current understanding.]

While one must admit to possibility, there really is not enough data to make strong assertions beyond the 11.1 year solar cycle. Unfortunately we will have to keep measuring on this one, to see how it plays out.

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 12)

You may have heard of the solar constant when you were in school.  It is a figure that is the sum total of the Sun's output received on Earth.  It turns out, however, to be an average, not a constant at all.  The chart above makes that very clear.

It's true. When the solar constant was defined in 1862 they believed it was actually a constant at 1370W/m2 ref. Webster

But that was a long time ago. Luckily, since then Our government created this great new agency called NASA. They look at things like this Solar Constant and since 1978 when we started taking direct satellite measurements of solar output from outer space, where they could see more clearly the solar variance.

Well, as you can imagine, back in the day when Mr. Coleman was in school they were still calling it a constant. Mr. Coleman seems to want you to 'believe' that because it is an average, global warming can't be human caused. It must be the sun!

NASA: The Inconstant Sun

Wikipedia

If you plot average annual temperatures on Earth, solar cycles and mankind's supposed most significant climate altering activity, the burning of fossil fuels, the solar cycles and temperatures match and the use of fossil fuels seems to be unrelated.

Correlation is not causation, but when a model is working it is a good indication, and further studies should then be done to verify the potential, and refine the model. Coincidentally non correlation does not mean no causation. To find what causes something, you have to look beyond the surface and examine the influences that impact the data you see. Then you are getting closer to the truth.

In this case when the larger scope of the data is examined there is no correlation between solar irradiance and this global warming event. As is pointed out further above (the Swindled images), there is a strong disconnect between solar influence and this global warming event.

The cooling between 1940-1970 is likely due to a combination of natural forcing in the negative and the large increase in sulfate pollution from industrial output which caused tremendous smog and acid rain, which caused the Montreal Protocol to reign in sulfate and CFC production. The sulfates were actually blocking the sunlight and causing a cooling effect. Consequently, the sulfates removed from the atmosphere removed the threat of acid rain and CFC but allowed the human caused climate forcing to resume its course.

///// Where did this chart come from? Can not locate in scientific literature. What is it's relevance? Need source? If it is arctic, need to couple  GHG mix to GCM variance and relevance of GCR in polar v. GMT

///// Get context. If this is only temp related to solar IR at poles? how does that differ from TSI and variables such as magnetic flux variation at poles +++ plus other variables.

When they run out of counter arguments to the solar cycle explanation of the climate change on Earth, Global Warming advocates often turn the polar ice melt at the North Pole.  Pictures of ice calving from the Arctic ice pack and polar bears stranded on ice sheets drifting in the frigid water bring an emotional charge to the discussion. I will deal with all of that in my next brief.

Here are some links on solar cycles:

www.agu.org

Perhaps the most publicized recent example was the publication of a study by astronomer Willie Soon of the Harvard University-affiliated Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-authors, claiming to demonstrate that 20th century global warmth was not unusual in comparison with conditions during Medieval times. Indeed, this study serves as a prime example of one of the "myths" that we have debunked elsewhere on this site. The study was summarily discredited in articles by teams of climate scientists (including several of the scientists here at RealClimate), in the American Geophysical Union (AGU) journal Eos and in Science. However, it took some time the rebuttals to work their way through the slow process of the scientific peer review. In the meantime the study was quickly seized upon by those seeking to sow doubt in the validity behind the scientific consensus concerning the evidence for human-induced climate change (see news articles in the New York Times, and Wall Street Journal). The publication of the study had wider reverberations throughout the academic and scientific institutions connected with it. The association of the study with the "Harvard" name caused some notable unease among members of the Harvard University community (see here and here) and the reputation of the journal publishing the study was seriously tarnished in the process. The editor at Climate Research that handled the Soon et al paper, Dr. Chris de Frietas, has a controversial record of past editorial practices (see this 'sidebar' to an article in Scientific American by science journalist David Appell). In an unprecedented (to our knowledge) act of protest, chief editor Hans von Storch and 3 additional editors subsequently resigned from Climate Research in response to the fundamental documented failures of the editorial process at the journal. A detailed account of these events are provided by Chris Mooney in the Skeptical Inquirer and The American Prospect, by David Appell in Scientific American, and in a news brief in Nature. The journal's publisher himself (Otto Kline) eventually stated that "[the conclusions drawn] cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper".

icecap.us_Solar_Changes_and_the_Climate.pdf
icecap.us/FORECASTING_SOLAR_CYCLE.pdf
next_solar_cycle_late_and_likely_to_be_a_dud_the_implications/
www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023429.shtml\
icecap.us/solar_cylces_24_and_25_and_predicted_climate_response/

One of the problems these projections run into is that in the relevant known/understood 11.1 solar cycle, a 'quiet sun' removes .3 w/m2 from the forcing. If we remove that .3 W/m2 from the current forcing, the we still have around 1.7 W/m2 of positive forcing and will therefore continue warming.

icecap.us/joes-blog/a_critical_review_of_lockwood_and/

20 January 2005 Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 13)

IS GLOBAL WARMING MELTING THE ARCTIC ICE CAP?

By John Coleman
Written about December 8, 2007

The alarming headlines were everywhere during the late summer and early fall:

The Melting Arctic Melting Ice Displaces Walruses In The Russian Arctic Ice Melt Causing Death of Polar Bears And there were the pictures of polar bears stranded on sheets of floating ice, accounts of their deaths  "as a result of Global Warming" and even a documentary about the plight of the polar bears.

The emotional appeal was enormous.

And the stories on the ice melt made it seem certain that the chart in Al Gore's book and movie must be accurate.

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 14)

Arctic sea-ice extent as depicted by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth. (Source: An Inconvenient Truth, p. 143) The constant urgent message is that Global Warming is happening now, and as the Arctic ice cap melts the climate disaster is beginning to unfold before our eyes.  We were told that the ice is melting fast; it has melted far beyond anyone's predictions; at this rate the ice will all be melted by 2020.  And we are told it is all a result of Global Warming; the result of our use of fossil fuels and their atmospheric by-product Carbon Dioxide.

Nowhere in Al Gores movie does he state that the ice will all be melted by 2020. The ice is melting fast and is melting outside of the natural cycle.

How can I possibly convince you it is not true; that none of it is really true?  I will try. First, of all, may I ask you if you know what is the status of the Arctic ice cap at this moment?  Is it continuing to melt away?  Is it all most all gone?  No, no.

After the long Arctic "Day" of 4,464 hours of constant sunshine at the North Pole, the long winter night is now settling in.  Soon the Sun will totally disappear at the North Pole for 4,296 hours of darkness.  So now the Arctic is freezing up .  Ice is forming fast again.

According to Walt Meier, from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Denver, Colorado, regarding the graph below from the Canadian Ice Service web site:

"There are several things wrong with his perspective:

The graph he is using is for the Canadian Arctic only.

Most of the Canadian Arctic is always covered by ice in winter (e.g., Hudson Bay).  Thus it's hard to have much of an anomaly, high or low, during winter.  The only place ice extent can vary is in Davis Strait and the Saint Lawrence region and even there, the variability is limited.

Even in terms of the entire Arctic, he doesn't understand what is going on - or he is being deliberately misleading.  In winter, the Arctic grows ice - it's cold, it's dark, things freeze.  So it's no surprise that the ice recovers and it tends to recover to near the same amount.  The summer trends the more important trends because

1. that defines the more permanent, perennial ice, that is thicker and is an indicator of the overall health of the Arctic sea ice,

2. summer is where the albedo effect of the ice comes into play and the loss of ice significantly changes the amount of energy absorbed in the system."

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 15)

The chart above from the Canadian government Ice Service depicts the extend of ice coverage in the Arctic waters north of Canada on a week-to-week basis from May to late November in 2007.  The red line is all time average ice cover.  As you can see the melt this season significantly exceeded the "normal", but as you can al see, by late November the ice cover had returned to normal.  Typical of the media frenzy about Global Warming the news was full of stories about the melt all summer but as the ice began to return to normal the news coverage ended.  The general public is left with the impression that the Arctic is continuing to melt and climate change Armageddon is upon us.

The red line is not the all time average ice cover. It certainly does not reflect the average ice cover for the past 100,000 years, which would then include the last ice age. He seems to be using drama for effect and but it is incorrect.

What Mr. Coleman is not telling you is that on the same page web page that contains this chart (The Canadian Ice Service), there is a report in pdf form that states, regarding the ice melt rate:

"The new record came a full month before the historic summer minimum typically occurs. There is still a month or more of melt likely this year. It is therefore almost certain that the previous 2005 record will be annihilated by the final 2007 annual minima closer to the end of this summer. In previous record sea ice minima years, ice area anomalies were confined to certain sectors (N. Atlantic, Beaufort/Bering Sea, etc.). The character of 2007’s sea ice melt is unique in that it is dramatic and covers the entire Arctic sector. Atlantic, Pacific and even the central Arctic sectors are showing large negative sea ice area anomalies."

There are several things wrong here. Not with the chart but with how Mr. Coleman is using the chart.

1. It is a chart of 2007 ice. So it does not show you the long term trend.
   

2. The chart does not represent the average arctic ice. This chart only represents the 2007 ice compared to past average ice in the straight between Canada and Greenland. Also, this chart does NOT represent the polar ice cap.

3. Other mistakes that Mr. Coleman makes include the following. He states that this graph "depicts the extent of ice coverage in the Arctic waters north of Canada". That is not correct, this graph represents the ice north-east of Canada between Canada and Greenland.

4. This is not an ice extent chart. It is an ice coverage chart. That means only surface ice and does not include perennial ice and ice thickness as an ice extent chart does include. There is a difference between ice coverage and ice extent.

The simple meteorological facts are that the melt happens every year.  In the spring and summer some of the ice melts and in the fall and winter it reforms again.  This year, however, more ice melted than had ever melted since the pole has been under satellite observation. But that satellite surveillance only began around 1976.

Melting does happen every year but the melt rates due to the increased climate forcing is exceeding natural cycle tendencies for current conditions on a massive scale as it pertains to ice extent loss.

While we didn't have satellites to record it, we know from historical accounts that more of the ice of the Arctic melted on at least two previous occasions.  One of those is medieval warm period when much of Greenland was ice-free and the Vikings settled there and established successful farms. 

Incorrect, "much of Greenland was" not "ice free", just a slightly larger portion around the southern tip of Greenland and some edge melting moving upwards north.

But, as that warm era ended, the ice spread again to the coast of Greenland and the farms were abandoned.  There is also evidence of a dramatic warm period on the northern perimeter of Canada, where as the ice retreated during a recent summer, an array of hundreds of large tree stumps was revealed.  Investigation indicated that a forest of giant redwoods once stood there. Neither of these Arctic warm spells and the ice melt of those ancient times can be attributed to mankind and our fossil fuels.  They stand as solid evidence that natural climate change has continued on planet Earth throughout its history.

Since we are in a negative forcing phase of the natural cycle and a positive forcing of human GHG output current positive outweighs the negative. The recent Canada melt can be attributed to human caused climate change; not the MWP or older warming events that occurred in the natural cycle with no human influence.

Since we are in a negative forcing phase of natural cycle and a positive forcing of human GHG output current positive outweighs the negative.

A report published online by World Climate Report for the science and public policity institute says there exist historic observations, as well as currently active research efforts, that strongly indicate that there was a large sea-ice extent decline from about the mid-1920s to the mid-1940s.  Writing in 1953, arctic researcher Hans Ahlmann noted that “The extent of drift ice in Arctic waters has also diminished considerably in the last decades. According to information received in the U.S.S.R. in 1945, the area of drift ice in the Russian sector of the Arctic was reduced by no less than 1,000,000 square kilometers between 1924 and 1944.”

The World Climate Report (website) is funded by the Western Fuels Association (website) which promote various forms of climate change skepticism and have funded individual skeptics, such as Patrick Michaels.

World Climate Report Staff:

Chief Editor: Patrick J. Michaels

Contributing Editor: Robert C. Balling, Jr.

Contributing Editor: Robert E. Davis

Again no citation on his data unfortunately. However, that was a period of warming just prior to the industrial surge of atmospheric sulfates, so if the ice did diminish at that time, it would likely be attributed to human caused global warming.

It is clear that Al Gore's Arctic Ice chart, like the infamous hockey stick temperature chart, is flagrantly inaccurate.

It is only clear that Mr. Coleman seems to be ignoring the relevant science and 'believing' narrowly scoped views that do not include the relevant science on the issue.

18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 16)

Here is the bottom line: This past summer's Arctic ice melt was neither unique nor unprecedented.

Mr. Coleman is apparently incorrect. According to the NSIDC National Snow and Ice Data Center:

1 October 2007

Arctic Sea Ice Shatters All Previous Record Lows

Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September on record, shattering the previous record for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent (see Figure 1). At the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (see Figure 2). If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year (see Figure 3).

And as the for the reason for this year's Arctic ice melt, NASA and university scientists have detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that varies on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.  While the causes of the influx of warm water will require further study, the latest observations from a research project underway in the Arctic suggest that the Arctic Ocean is moving toward a warmer state, a change that could have global implications.  But any link with mankind's activities remains unproven.

The relevant natural cycles are all in cooling mode. He is possibly confusing the 11.1 year solar cycle with long term natural cycles (Milankovitch Cycles). Generally his argument seems to be confusing multiple issues with little clarification of what he means or the specific cycles he may or may not be referring to. This is the difference between weathermen and climatologists. Weathermen think short term and climatologists think long term.

Nasa: The difference between weather and climate.

Mr. Coleman may be a good weatherman, but his knowledge of scientific process and climatology seems lacking in most all his assertions. According to the natural cycles of earth climate we are supposed to be cooling. We are not.

The only variable that is quantifiable that can explain the warming is additional greenhouse gases due to industrial processes. The output of the greenhouse gases are well measured; and those gases are known to have a positive forcing component. Therefore, we have high confidence that these additional greenhouse gases in the system are increasing the global temperature.

The warming of the Arctic ocean is contrary to the natural cycle and the only reasonable explanation is  additional greenhouse added to the climate system due to industrial output.

This brings up Ockham's Razor. Which states that entities should not be multiplied more than necessary; And Einsteins antithesis, "things should be made as simple as possible but not any simpler."

By the way, Global Warming doomsdayers have tried to pretend the medieval warm period never happened. And when faced with the proof that it did occur, they dismiss it as "just a regional anomaly." 

The MWP is better explained by the Arctic Amplification effect whereas northern hemisphere warming is amplified due to faster thermal response to climate forcing due to greater land mass and less ocean mass; compared to the southern hemisphere which is largely water (which has a slower thermal inertial response to climate forcings).

My retort to them is that this season's Arctic melt could also be dismissed as a regional anomaly.   After all, at the same time the Arctic was melting, the Antarctic Ice Cap at the South Pole was setting a record for the greatest extent of polar ice in observed history and at the same time South America and much of the Southern Hemisphere was experiencing the coldest and longest winter in at least 50 years. 

NASA climate models predicted that with global warming you would get more snow/ice buildup in the Antarctic region while the Arctic would be losing ice. This unfortunately confirms the validity of the Global Climate Models which means we are warming and it is human caused.

Dept. of Energy: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: As climate changes, more rain and snow could increase U.S. crop damage

NASA/GISS Link: "The computer model simulations of ocean and atmosphere processes used in this study imply a similar phenomenon has the potential to occur in the future due to freshwater additions from increased rain and