09 January 2013

Anthropogenic Global Warming is Dead

We have shown that anthropogenic forcings do not polynomially cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, data for 1880–2007 do not support the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming during this period. This key result is shown graphically in Fig. 3 where the vertical axis measures the component of global temperature that is unexplained by solar irradiance according to our estimates. In panel a the horizontal axis measures the anomaly in the anthropogenic trend when the latter is derived from forcings of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. In panel b the horizontal axis measures this anthropogenic anomaly when apart from these greenhouse gas forcings, it includes tropospheric aerosols and black carbon. Panels a and b both show that there is no relationship between temperature and the anthropogenic anomaly, once the warming effect of solar irradiance is taken into consideration.

So, someone finally decided to account for the sun’s impact on global temperature (not to beat a dead horse here, but this is basically the most obvious adjustment to make, but it’s no surprise that researchers would fail to do this since it doesn’t fit the official narrative).  Consequently, the data now suggests that man has little impact on global temperatures.

Of course, this conclusion shouldn’t be all that surprising.  In the first place, it is hilariously arrogant to think that man can have such a profound and immediate impact on the entire planet.  In the second place, the scientific support for anthropogenic global warming was never all that sound, as evidenced by the fact that most policy recommendation for dealing with global warming weren’t particularly efficient at solving the problem (this was addressed quite thoroughly at the end of Superfreakonomics).

At any rate, the final nails are being pounded in the coffin of the anthropogenic global warming narrative.  Finally.

1 comment:

  1. The whole global warming/climate change "movement" is a collective delusion. Who buys into this delusion? Generally, it is leftist, moderately affluent middle class professionals and public service employees. The worst of the true believers are teachers.

    The "truth" never needs an army of true believers.

    So, what is the real motivation for this concern with global warming? I think that it is rooted in the idea that feelings of wealth and security are derived from looking at one's position relative to the wealth of neighbors. So if you feel that you are a bit wealthier than your neighbors, your happiness is likely to be more than if the reverse was true.

    So, our Birkinstock crowd might be saying, heah, we have "enough" and maybe its time to put a halt to real development (which ALWAYS means increased energy consumption) of our third world neighbors. So, if we limit energy consumption from here on in, then we can maintain our relative superiority in wealth rather that allowing more energy consumption to feed the rise in wealth of our rivals.

    This, I think, is a completely unconscious motivation for the climate change phenomenon amongst the (usually) innumerate. Also, some confuse pollution control (toxic waste control) from climate change.

    Also, most scientists in this area are second and third raters who have to eat. So to get grants and keep their careers, they readily feed the "movement". The innumerate still are informed by images of selfless scientists of 100 to 60 years ago. Most of the real master minds were independently wealthy or in a university milieu where grants and publication volume were not the primary means of income.