10 reasons that show global warming is not man-made. Physics Prof explains his switch to skepticism.

10 reasons that show global warming is not man-made. Physics Prof explains his switch to skepticism.

Bit by bit, smart and influential thinkers are shifting. We’re seeing more and more of this type of exposition from people who are becoming skeptical. How much longer can the big bluff be maintained in the face of this kind of deep, considered and independent analysis?
Mike Van Biezen is a physics, maths and astronomy lecturer in the US. Until seven years ago, he accepted the premise that adding massive amounts of CO2 to the air would cause temperatures to rise. Then he noticed the slip in global temperatures from 1940-1980 and “could not ignore this subtle hint”. He did a lot of investigating over the ensuing years and has condensed that into ten very well written points. Like point 9: “It was so warm 4000 years ago that many of the glaciers around the world didn’t exist.” But things got so cold 150 years ago, people were afraid of glaciers and were asking “local bishops and even the Pope in Rome to come and pray in front of these glaciers in the hope of stopping their unrelenting advance.”
I also found point 7, and 10 particularly worth discussing. Point 10 is the one that he says captures the attention of his students.

The Most Comprehensive Assault On ‘Global Warming’ Ever

10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:

For the first several years of my research I relied on the climate data banks of NASA and GISS, two of the most prestigious scientific bodies of our country.  After years of painstaking gathering of data, and relentless graphing of that data, I discovered that I was not looking at the originally gathered data, but data that had been “adjusted” for what was deemed “scientific reasons.”  Unadjusted data is simply not available from these data banks. Fortunately I was able to find the original weather station data from over 7000 weather stations from around the world in the KNMI database.  (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute).  There I was able to review both the adjusted and unadjusted data as well as the breakout of the daytime and nighttime data.  The results were astounding.  I found that data from many stations around the world had been systematically “adjusted” to make it seem that global warming was happening when, in fact, for many places around the world the opposite was true.  Following will be a few of the myriad of examples of this data adjustment.  When I present my material during presentations at local colleges, these are the charts that have some of the greatest impact in affecting the opinion of the students, especially when they realize that there is a concerted effort to misrepresent what is actually happening.  Another amazing result was that when only graphing the daily highs from around the country, a very different picture arises from the historical temperature data.

…

7. The CO₂ cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:

The CO₂ molecule is a linear molecule and thus only has limited natural vibrational frequencies, which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated from the Earth’s surface.  The three main wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO₂ are 4.26 micrometers, 7.2 micrometers, and 15.0 micrometers.  Of those 3, only the 15-micrometer is significant because it falls right in range of the infrared frequencies emitted by Earth.  However, the H₂O molecule which is much more prevalent in the Earth’s atmosphere, and which is a bend molecule, thus having many more vibrational modes, absorbs many more frequencies emitted by the Earth, including to some extent the radiation absorbed by CO₂.  It turns out that between water vapor and CO_2, nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO₂ is already being absorbed. Thus increasing the CO₂ levels should have very minimal impact on the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat radiated from the Earth.  That explains why there appears to be a very weak correlation at best between CO₂ levels and global temperatures…

Once I started reading it was easy to keep going. He  has quite the knack for writing.
Van Beizen’s other points essentially were that modern temperatures are not unprecedented — it’s all been hotter before. The pattern of warming in satellites doesn’t fit the supposed “forcing”. The world cooled after WWII when it was supposed to warm. The urban heat island effect is real.Warming temperatures cause rises in CO2 (but not necessarily the other way around). (Quite a few of his points are the same as in the skeptics handbook. I too found the logarithmic curve of CO2 impact an eye-opener — at modern concentrations CO2 has little extra effect — it’s mostly already saturated.
He claims the 1980s were the coldest decade, which doesn’t sound right to me. I’d like to know more about that.
It’s well worth the read. Good on him