Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
January 30, 2013
A study released by Norwegian researchers state that predictions made by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were blown out of proportion; and that the assertions made previously were completely wrong. Climate change has turned out to not be as terrible as the alarmists claimed it would be.
According to a plethora of creditable scientific papers published by known scientists since 2010 show that there is an “overestimation” of the evidence allegedly proving that global warming is worsening and would continue through the 21st century.
The IPCC stated that temperatures would rise by 3 degrees across the planet by 2050 if carbon dioxide levels were not quelled worldwide. Yet Norwegian researchers concluded that temperatures could only rise by 1.9 degrees Celsius at the most.
Terje Berntsen, co-author of the study explained: “The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.”
Climate sensitivity is an assumption of how fast CO2 emissions will rise into the atmosphere, in what exact concentrations and how those gases will affect the temperature of the planet. This is anything but an exact science; but rather and educated guess.
Alarmist James Hansen, climatologist for the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, states that the study “has no good basis” and the public “should be very skeptical.”
A leaked document from the IPCC supports the findings of the Norwegian researchers by confirming that the IPCC elaborated their findings with respect to the actual temperature of the planet as opposed to their predictive computer models.
Roy Spencer, climatologist at the University of Alabama explains: “Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted. Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row… what that means is that it’s time for them to re-evaluate.”
Alarmists contend that even though the IPCC’s computer models and graphs wrongly predicted a warming trend that never manifested, the IPCC may still be right. Aaron Huertas, member of the Union of Concerned Scientists maintains: “It’s important to keep in mind that there are natural short-term variations in global temperature that happen right alongside human-induced warming.”
Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics at Potsdam University conducted a study in 2011 which showed that CO2 is having less of an effect on climate than the IPCC asserts to be true and that their “claim that they are 90 percent sure that humans have ‘contributed to’ the observed warming” cannot be proven without a reasonable doubt. Rahmstorf explains: “It is evidence that CO2 is not nearly as strong a climate driver as the IPCC has been assuming. This is the possibility they do not allow to be considered, because it would end all of their policy-changing goals.”
While Rahmstorf does believe that humans are having an effect on climate change, he maintains that simply blaming humanity solely for the changes is obscuring “the bigger picture.”
While conducting experiments on NASA DC-8 travels into the upper troposphere, a team of scientists discovered that microorganisms were alive at high-altitudes and could contribute to climate change, as well as the spreading of diseases along the surface of the planet.
The Genesis and Rapid Intensification Processes (GRIP) campaign allowed researchers to take samples from tropical hurricanes in 2010. In the laboratory, using genetic research, the scientists surmised that extremophile microorganisms were alive at extreme altitudes. Hurricanes disperse these microorganisms along with fungi and bacteria.
More than 17 types of bacteria were discovered with a portion of them able to metabolize carbon dioxide. Some of the bacteria found could be associated with human and animal feces which lead the scientists to conclude that this is a contributor to diseases and the spread of illness around the world.
These findings by GRIP could soon be used by alarmists to explain human effects on the planet as negative and contributing to the destruction of the ecosystem.
More alarmist agendas can be found in research conducted by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) which claim that “the heat generated by everyday activities in metropolitan areas has a significant enough warming effect to influence the character of the jet stream and other major atmospheric systems during winter months.”
Funding for this study was provided by:
• The National Science Foundation
• The US Department of Energy
• NOAA
Guang Zhang, research meteorologist for SIO, says: “What we found is that energy use from multiple urban areas collectively can warm the atmosphere remotely, thousands of miles away from the energy consumption regions. This is accomplished through atmospheric circulation change.”
The claim that the “release of waste heat” from cities are distributed into the atmosphere; with “human energy consumption” distribution energy from oil and coal being “highly concentrated in urban areas” which effect “major atmospheric troughs and jet streams.”
Zhang’s research finds that densely populated cities compared to unpopulated areas show dramatic differences in heat indexes which prove that humans are heating up the planet. While the study cannot state for certain that the warming is uniform across the globe, the conclusion is that there has been a change since the inception of the urban city.
Surprisingly, Zhang’s study only states that the global temperature increase is 0.01 degree Celsius. Although this change in temperature is basically insignificant, the findings are being touted as a reason to rethink urbanization and its effects on the planet.
Source Article from http://occupycorporatism.com/norwegian-study-shows-global-temperature-not-warming-as-ipcc-predicted/
Related posts:
Views: 0