New Studies on Climate Further Discredit Kyoto

Another new, very thorough analysis of historical data throws a lot of cold water on the GHG hypothesis. Sixteen authors from six different countries looked at fifty globally distributed paleoclimate records to ascertain probable causes of what they dsecribed as rapid climate change (RCC) over the Holocene. Mayewski, P.A., Rohling, E.E., Stager, J.C., Karlen, W., Maasch, K.A., Meeker, L.D., Meyerson, E.A., Gasse, F., van Kreveld, S., Holmgren, K., Lee-Thorp, J., Rosqvist, G. Rack, F., Staubwasser, M., Schneider, R.R. and Steig, E.J. 2004. Holocene climate variability. Quaternary Research 62: 243-255. With respect to the causes of Holocene RCCs, the international team of scientists says that “of all the potential climate forcing mechanisms, solar variability superimposed on long-term changes in insolation (Bond et al., 2001; Denton and Karlen, 1973; Mayewski et al., 1997; O’Brien et al., 1995) seems to be the most likely important forcing mechanism.” In addition, they note that “negligible forcing roles are played by CH4 and CO2,” and that “changes in the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 appear to have been more the result than the cause of the RCCs.”

Another new study provides more evidence that the Antarctic is getting colder: “overall, the total Antarctic sea ice extent (the cumulative area of grid boxes covering at least 15% ice concentrations) has shown an increasing trend (~4,801 km2/yr).” In addition, they find that “the total Antarctic sea ice area (the cumulative area of the ocean actually covered by at least 15% ice concentrations) has increased significantly by ~13,295 km2/yr, exceeding the 95% confidence level,” noting that “the upward trends in the total ice extent and area are robust for different cutoffs of 15, 20, and 30% ice concentrations (used to define the ice extent and area).” Liu, J., Curry, J.A. and Martinson, D.G. 2004. Interpretation of recent Antarctic sea ice variability. Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2003GL018732.

Finally, a study of atmospheric temperatures in the zone where the GHG theory hypothesizes that warming would start has shown no wazrming. “Getting the vertical distribution of temperature wrong means that everything dependent upon that -- precipitation and cloudiness, as examples -- must be wrong. Patrick J. Michaels, S. Fred Singer and David H. Douglass,”Settling Global Warming Science,” Washington Times, Aug 16, 2004 [referring to the weather baloon and satellite data that show no warming]. Their recent technical report indicates that the atmosphere is not acting like it is assumed to act in the global warming models. http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0407/0407075.pdf. The study looked at satellite and weather balloon data compared to surface temperatures: “ the models generally predict an increased warming rate with height (outside of local polar regions). Neither the satellite nor the balloon records can find it.” “Meltdown for Global Warming Science,” by Patrick J. Michaels, S. Fred Singer and David H. Douglass, August 19, 2004, Cato Institute, online. These results are not unusual to anyone who has studied the global warming “greenhouse gas” theory.

As the climate "chicken littles" get further and further away from science, the mainstream press seems to be more and more stringent in its claims. You will never see the real studies on CNN, but they exist and come out in every round of professional journals.