Posts from — April 2008

A group of four scientists has sent a letter to the UN’s IPCC asking them to “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.”

This is reprint of the letter sent to the IPCC on Monday, April 14

14 April 2008

Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC

We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.

If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.

We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.

More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.
The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below.

These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling.

A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]

IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food - maize as biofuel - has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].

Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?

We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.

Yours sincerely,

Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, mMensa, hans@tech-know.eu

Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist UK, Dir. WeatherAction.com, piers@weatheraction.com

Dr Don Parkes, Prof. Em. Human Ecology, Australia, dnp@networksmm.com.au

Svend Hendriksen, Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared), Greenland, hendriksen@greennet.gl

Cc: IPCC’s yu.izrael@g23.relcom.ru christy@nsstc.uah.edu spencer@nsstc.uah.edu dy.pitman@gmail.com

Tim Yeo MP (Chairman Environmental Audit Committee) Lord Martin Rees (President Royal Society)

Gordon Brown MP David Cameron MP Nick Glegg MP

Footnote 1: Two heavily publicised quotations which emerged from your organisation, respectively in February and December last year, are:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).{2.4} [6] and

The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction. (Summary statement, Bali Conference.) [7].

Footnote 2: “Data over the past two decades indicates that temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models. Before we radically rearrange the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of climate change, it might be worthwhile for anyone taking a position on the topic to consider whether or not this is indeed “well settled science.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, March 2008.

References:

1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html

2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

3. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

4. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consultant Meteorologist,

Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Executive Director Icecap.us

5. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0801.htm

6. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

7. http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/bali/

An 11-year-old girl is the youngest Canadian to enlist in Al Gore’s climate change army, according to Owen Sound Sun Times. Last year she helped her mother deliver more than 80 slide-show presentations based on Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. Now Gore has helped train the girl herself to deliver an updated slide presentation.

Children have become the No 1 target of the global warming fear campaign.

“We need to get the kids young,” Leonardo diCaprio told USA Weekend in an interview on Sept. 20, 2007.

Laurie David, co-producer of “An Inconvenient Truth” who co-authored a children’s global warming book has made it clear that her goal is to influence young minds. “We want you to grow up to be activists”, she wrote in an open letter.

A while ago, a bunch of sixth graders attacked the Heartland Institute, who had organized the New York Conference on Climate Change in March this year. The kids teamed up to write eight letters to the Heartland Institute describing what they had been taught about global warming.

If you doubt schoolchildren are being brainwashed with global warming alarmism, take a look at some of the letters (all the letters are found at the website of the Heartland Institute).

“Global warming means that if we don’t fix the climate, everything will be destroyed and we won’t be able to survive.”

“I think your fools for denying G.W. You know it could kill us all & you’re just adding to it. I want you to help stop G.W. Not increase it.”

“We are going to tell you about global warming. I don’t care if you don’t want to read, but I’m making you read it you horrible people.”

“I do not think that what you are doing is right because you are telling people that global warming is not a crisis. If this is not a crisis, how come floods have occurred in Asia, Mexico, and India. Plus, how can you explain why the glacier glaciers are melting. They can´t melt themselves, because they are in the coldest region in the world.”

“Air pollution shrinks fetus size, 31 states target global warming, World must fix Climate in 10 years-UNDP, National disasters have quadrupled in two decades, and Global Warming Denier Group funded by Big Oil Hosting Climate Change Denial conference.”

If you still have doubts, watch this video ad from Greenpeace. It’s scary.

One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand. The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, this week unveiled a novel technique for predicting hurricane activity. The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.

The research, appearing in the March issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is all the more remarkable coming from Emanuel, a highly visible leader in his field and long an ardent proponent of a link between global warming and much stronger hurricanes. His changing views could influence other scientists. “The results surprised me,” Emanuel said of his work, adding that global warming may still play a role in raising the intensity of hurricanes but what that role is remains far from certain.

Read more in Houston Chronicle.

Each year on April 7th, the world celebrates World Health Day. This year the focus was on “protecting health from climate change”. According to WHO, the changes in global climate bring a range of risks to health, from deaths in extreme high temperatures to changing patterns of infectious diseases.

But wait a second, isn’t extreme cold much more hazardous to human health and wellbeing? U.S. mortality rates peak in December and January and are at their lowest points from mid-July to mid-August. Deaths linked to extreme cold account for 0.8 percent of the US annual death rate and outnumber those attributed to leukemia, murder and chronic liver disease combined, the study reports. Cold-related deaths also reduce the average life expectancy of Americans by at least a decade, according to a new report.

In Helsinki, Finland, 55 people die each year from heat and 1,655 from cold. In Athens, Greece, a much warmer place, the deaths from excess heat are 1,376 each year and the deaths from cold 7,852.

According to the Danish scientist Bjorn Lomborg about 200,000 Europeans could die each year from excessive heat, and 1.5 million from excessive cold. So actually global warming will save human lives. And correspondingly, while cutting CO2 will save some people from dying from heat, it will simultaneously cause more people to die from cold.

Extremely cold temperatures also mean we have to cope with power failures and icy roads. The risk of car crashes and falls on the ice increase. When people must use space heaters and fireplaces to stay warm, the risk of household fires increases, as well as the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning.

This winter, for example, extreme cold and energy shortages create crisis in Tajikistan. Water lines have either broken or frozen, forcing families to rely on melted snow for drinking water. A major hydroelectric power plant had been affected by falling water levels as rivers froze, while energy supply from neighboring countries such as Uzbekistan has also been reduced. Many rural areas have access to just one or two hours of electricity a day. The price of wood as fuel has doubled to 20 dollars, out of range of many people. Heavy snowfall has blocked roads in some areas, cutting off or slowing access to critical medical services and markets.

The deteriorating living conditions result in a higher incidence of acute respiratory diseases, worse hygiene standards, increased incidence of water-borne diseases, the worsening of chronic diseases and an increased incidence of preventable maternal and infant deaths and unsafe deliveries. All of these happen to be consequences of excessive heat as well, as WHO points out.

WHO also counts weather extremes, such as Hurricane Katrina, as a result of global warming endangering health and destroying property. But why in the first place do people choose to settle down in hurricane prone areas?

It is true that hurricanes damage or destroy many buildings. However, with proper design and construction, this damage can be greatly reduced. Still, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find one US community that has changed its land-use and building codes based upon hurricane activity. Why can’t people learn their lesson?

Tjuk Eko Hari Basuki of the National Food Resilience Agency in Indonesia says there remains a lack of public awareness when it comes to extreme weather and its risks. He says a recent study in Yogyakarta found that 60 percent of people living in villages were spending large portions of their income on consumer goods.

Even though they live below the poverty line, they still spend money on motorcycle payments and cellular phones. That’s why educating people about how to adjust their lifestyle is truly important in order to improve their health standards.

There is one area of health, however, that is already affected by the climate threat. Psychotherapist Jenny Packard, from the University of Melbourne, found global warming was causing widespread anxiety. While climate change alone was probably not enough to drive people to seek counseling, it was part of the “insidious background of fear” being cultivated by the media, she said. “We live in an age of fear-mongering, where people feel under personal threat from many things beyond their control, such as climate change, violence etc.”

So the bottom line is that the climate change may not kill you, but it may very well drive you mad.

Panic is expected in pubs as a decline in the production of malting barley in Australia and New Zealand hits breweries. The decline is due to extensive drought, according to Jim Salinger of New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research.

“Most areas in Australia where malting barley is cropped are likely to experience production declines,” Salinger said, adding: “It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up.”

The nation with the highest beer per capita consumption in the world could face a beer deficit in future as the effects of climate change take their toll, it is claimed.

It seems that climate change has also made the news well run dry.

Here’s a presentation made by Professor Bob Carter from Australia. He is a paleontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience.

The movie clip is 37 minutes long and not the best quality, but still well worth seeing. I encourage you all to watch it.

Thanks to one of the readers on my Swedish blog, I found this interesting paper by Gerhard Gerlich och Ralf D. Tscheuschner:

“Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics”

Download the entire text document here - arXiv:0707.1161v3

Abstract:

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

source: The Korea Times