Edward R. Long | Global warming – man, or nature?
Both the new president and both sides of the aisle in the new Congress have been politically convinced, or see an opportunity for a government power play, that man’s carbon-dioxide emissions are the cause of global warming. But is man really responsible? More than 30,000 American scientists and engineers do not think man is the cause. More and more leaders in England and other parts of the English-speaking world are beginning to think not. The new head of the European Union is in doubt.
You probably have not heard from these doubters in the mainstream media. So, unless you and I make the effort and take the time we are not going to hear the arguments or see the data for why man probably has little or nothing to do with global warming. And if we don’t do so and if we do not speak clearly to our elected representatives, then cap and trade or some equally expensive form of government intervention and control is going to take place. No matter what the method, it will be a carbon tax, and it will be of unprecedented magnitude that will affect every aspect of life. We, the tax payers and consumers, will pay for it all.
In early 2007 I was of the mind that man probably was a significant cause of global warming. By the time Al Gore was awarded the Peace Prize, I was very much in doubt because of discussions I was hearing at American Physics Society meetings. By the end of 2007 I had heard and read enough for me know that the subject of global warming was not being honestly and openly publicly discussed. At the beginning of 2008 I began to assemble information on global warming for a client. By mid-2008 I had gathered a very large library of information and had concluded that man has little, if any, to do with global warming. Of the information I am free to disclose I want to share a very small portion of it with you.
Before I continue I should tell you that I am a physicist. That fact does not make me any better or worse than the rest of this community but having worked as a scientist/engineer for almost 45 years I tend to question almost everything I see, hear, touch, taste, and smell – and anything I happen to think about. Otherwise I am fairly human, even though I am also extremely conservative. Finally, I believe in being a good steward of the planet and will gladly stack my stewardship up against anyone’s, including any extreme environmentalist.
The information I would like for you to know is, for the most part, contained in four papers that you can find online. I hope you will take the time to at least briefly read them and learn what is within. The contents are accurate and are not manipulated. Their collective position is that global warming is due to nature. You are free to disagree with the thinking, but please do so after having read them and after having read the data and facts, not statements and opinions, from those who say man is the cause. If you will do this then you will have an informed opinion upon which to decide if you want to pay a very large sum of money in taxes and for the cost of goods and services in the coming years as part of a futile battle with nature.
The four papers you will find on the web page are listed below. A brief description of the content of each is provided.
1 – GlobalWarming(ItsNatureNotMan).pdf
A paper, by me, that contains hopefully understandable observational data and discussion pertaining to global warming. It provides
– A definition of global warming;
– Earth temperature data for the past 2,000 years and estimated data for the past 300,000 years that show there has been a cyclic heating and cooling of Earth throughout the centuries;
– Carbon dioxide (CO2) level data that varied with temperature. The maximums when man consumed little energy were the same as occurring now. The data suggest that CO2 varies because of the temperature variation, not the opposite;
– Data for the periodic variability of the incident sun energy for the same periods. The Earth’s temperature cycles correspond to the sun’s cycles, thus suggesting that temperature is driven by incident solar energy;
– A discussion of what is known as climate sensitivity, using observational data. The treatment addresses the prime weaknesses in the climate models that predict extreme global warming due to manmade CO2 and suggests why this modeling is in error.
(The data and discussion in part are from a paper by Dr. Roy Spencer, who has since refined his work to even more strongly make the case that the climate models used to predict extreme global warming are in error.)
2. – Global WarmingPrimer.pdf
This paper originates at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
– The levels and composition of greenhouse gases;
– Historical levels of atmospheric CO2 and Earth temperature and current CO2 emissions;
– CO2 emissions;
– Various modeled predictions of temperature;
– Consequences of the most recent warming;
– Results and costs for the options we have for responding to the current CO2 levels.
3. – ClimateSensitivityReconsidered.pdf
The article was published at the American Physical Society WEB page. The following web address is that from which it was copied. It is authored by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (Lord Monckton).
The APS printed a disclaimer that the article had not been reviewed after political pressure was applied. The disclaimer seems odd to me. I have never known the APS to publish an article unless it had been reviewed in some manner. Lord Monckton has been ridiculed by the scientists who advocate anthropological (manmade) global warming because he does not have a formal degree in science and thus his voice is not welcomed into their community. He is highly conservative and has been fairly direct in his castigating remarks about the proponents of anthropological causes of global warming.
– The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2,000 percent;
– CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
– Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
– The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
– The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
– Global warming halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
– Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
– The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1,000 percent;
– It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
– Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
– In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
4 – BrenchleyLetterToMcCain.pdf
This is an open letter to Sen. McCain when the senator was the 2008 Republican candidate for president of the United States. It was written by Lord Monckton and, seems to reflect frustration with the senator’s position that he would pursue a cap and trade bill. The reason for including it is that the author well-summarized a rebuttal to every red flag raised by proponents of anthropological causes of global warming.
– Edward R. Long is a physicist and vice president of the Augusta County-based Longhill Technologies.