Temperature Oscillation Cycles

According to a study entitled Temperature Oscillations in the North Atlantic: Michael E. Schlesinger, Navin Ramankutty, Natalia Andronova; Michael Margolis; and Richard A. Kerr: Science 28 July 2000: Vol. 289. no. 5479, pp. 547 – 548 DOI: 10.1126/science.289.5479.547b, There is a 50 to 70 year multi-decadal temperature oscillation cycle in the North Atlantic. This cycle heats not only ocean temperatures, but temperatures in all over the northern hemisphere. The peak of this cycle (the warmest part) happened in 1998. Since then we have been on the backside of this cycle. It is similar to the last peak during the 1930’s and the end of the cycle in the 1970s.
The findings of this cycle are confirmed in the 2003 study On the relation between ENSO and global climate change, Tsonis et al: Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 84, Numbers 3-4 / October, 2003; 10.1007/s00703-003-0001-7; 229-242.
Another temperature oscillation cycle is known as the Millennial Cycle or the Dansgaard-Oeschge cycle . This cycle is thought to be what caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period. A study by Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf entitled Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock; GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 10, 1510, doi:10.1029/2003GL017115, 2003
shows that this cycle takes approximately 1,500 years. It would appear that this cycle either has peaked or will peak within the next 100 years. The findings of this study are further back by the work of Prof. Donald Easterbrook. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/index.htm

Just one of these cycles peaking could account for the unusual warmth of 1998. If we are on the backend of these cycles, as most indicators would suggest, be prepared for an extended cooling trend.

CO2 Cannot be Blamed for Global Warming

According to the laws of thermodynamics, the mid to upper levels of the troposphere should be warming faster then the surface. This is because this is where the CO2 is supposed to be trapped. Co2 absorbs more heat then it reflects. Since it retains its heat, the area in which it is “trapped” has to be warming faster then an area where it is not “trapped.”

This has not happened. According to the data available from NOAA (The National Weather Service) the mid and upper levels of the atmosphere have not seen a dramatic warming.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/graphics/equator.gif
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/graphics/nhem.gif
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/graphics/shem.gif
Please notice the areas that would be considered mid to upper levels of the troposphere, 850 – 100 mb. The temperatures have not increased in a manner consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and AGW theory.

If you look at the data available from MSU, you can clearly see that in the Northern Hemisphere, troposphere temperatures have fallen since 1979.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
This is the exact opposite of what should be happening.

Another point that is often overlooked is that CO2 can absorb heat to extinction. This is a strange phenomenon first discovered by L.S.Rothman et al., Appl.Opt. 26, 4058 (1987). What was discovered is that CO2 has what is known as a depleting effect. It is easiest described as putting paint on a window. The first coat blocks most of the light. Each subsequent layer of paint does less and less until finally new coats of paint are doing nothing to block the light. This is the way in which CO2 reacts under atmospheric conditions. These findings are further backed by Heinz Hug, Chemische Rundschau, 20. Febr., p. 9 (1998) and: Klima 2000 (Heuseler), 2, 23-26 (1998).

Believers in AGW have blamed CO2 for the increase in surface temperatures. Human emissions of CO2 cannot be the culprit of the surface warming unless you throw out everything we know about how CO2 reacts within the atmosphere.

The Mythical Consensus

The IPCC has made the claim that they are 90% certain that humans are the cause of the warming since 1980. They claim that all their members believe this to be true. Upon closer examination, you can clearly see that there were very few people that actually wrote and reviewed the section attributing causation to humans.
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf
At best, they can claim a consensus that the climate is changing. That is somewhat a useless statement since the climate is always changing.

Even the scientists that worked on the IPCC 4AR had concerns about the “Official” findings of the IPCC.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html

Since the IPCC formed in 1988, there have been numerous scientists that have expressed doubts about AGW. Several studies and declarations have been signed and endorsed by skeptical scientists. The Latest being the Manhattan Declaration, which has been signed by over 1,000 scientists.
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1

Out of all of the declarations and studies to be reviewed and signed by skeptical scientists is the Global Warming Petition Project.
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
Currently there are over 31,000 verified scientists that have signed this petition.

As anyone can clearly see, the consensus that the media keeps hyping is in fact a myth. The only consensus is that the climate is changing. What is causing the climate to change is a matter of debate, but I would submit that most scientists believe it is part of natural processes and not due to humans.