As the CO2-levels continue to rise relentlessly, some of the AGW-people state that it is too late to stop climate change in the conventional way of cutting down on emissions. The time has come for geo-engineering. Some of the, rather radical, ways to save our planet are, according to them, for example:

- seeding the oceans with iron filings to stimulate phytoplankton growth,

- putting a giant sunshield in space,

- creating artificial weather by spraying salt into the clouds, and

- covering glaciers with giant blankets to prevent them from melting.

Read more about the climate weirdness on Mail Online. And weep.

According to Australian scientists, kangaroos could be the answer to global warming, reports Medindia.com. Kangaroo farts contain virtually no methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent that CO2. Obviously, bacteria in kangaroos’ stomachs makes the digestive process much more efficient and could potentially save millions of dollars in feed costs for farmers. If we can transfer the kangaroo bacteria to cattle and sheep, it may be the answer to global warming.

“Fourteen percent of emissions from all sources in Australia is from enteric methane from cattle and sheep,” said Athol Klieve, a senior research scientist with the Queensland state government.

“Not only would they (cattle and sheep) not produce the methane, they would actually get something like 10 to 15 percent more energy out of the feed they are eating.”

This is great news. I only hope it also works for human flatulence.

You have probably heard of Mark Lynas, 35 years of age, alarmist writer and environmental activist focused on climate change. In today’s Guardian he serves us a scary dish - forget about the 2 degree C global warming. It’s going to be much, much worse.

According to Lynas, the former chairman of the IPCC, Bob Watson, warns us to prepare for 4C global warming. To avoid that, we must make drastic CO2 cuts now. Bob was kicked out of the IPCC by the Bush administration for being speaking too loudly about the global warming threat, Lynas says. Nevertheless, he has continued his quest for a carbon-free world. After leaving the IPCC, he chaired the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, a UN study looking at the sad future of our planet’s natrual systems. So he, if anybody, should know.

Lynas and Watson are very skeptic about the future of humanity.

“Yes, we should certainly prepare for the worst as far as possible – with flood defences, drought-resistant crops and strategies to ameliorate the loss of wildlife, at the very least – but a look at the likely impact of a four-degrees temperature rise suggests that such a dramatic change would probably stretch society’s capacity for adaptation to the limit, not to mention having a disastrous effect on the natural ecosystems that support humanity as a whole.

(…) The planet would be in the throes of a mass extinction of natural life approaching in magnitude that at the end of the Cretaceous period, 65m years ago, when more than half of global biodiversity was wiped out.”

Rivers will run dry, rainforests will collapse and burn, ferocious heatwaves will kill millions. We are heading for a total meltdown of life as we know it. The solution? STOP BURNING ALL FOSSIL FUELS NOW! Sure, there are no viable alternatives but Mark Lynas would rather see the world return to medieval living conditions than allow for the mercury to rise.

Do not miss to read the comments. Some of them are quite funny.

Wednesday’s Seattle Times article, ”UW Study Examines Decline of Snowpack” begins as follows,

“Maybe the snow in the Cascade Mountains isn’t in such immediate peril from global warming after all.

Despite previous studies suggesting a warmer climate is already taking a bite out of Washington’s snowpack, there’s no clear evidence that human-induced climate change has caused a drop in 20th century snow levels, according to a new study by University of Washington scientists.”

The study findings (note: the study has not yet been peer-reviewed) have already become part of a scientific debate with an unusually political tone. A leading scientist on the other side of the debate (presumably an AGW-supporter) said the latest analysis speculates about the future and offers little new about the past. Well, almost the same is applicable to IPCC’s reports. Aren’t they just loose speculations about the future with no empirical evidence whatsoever?

We’ve been warned that the North Pole will be ice-free this summer. But according to the latest ICESat thickness estimates, it appears that the first-year sea ice in the Arctic Ocean so far this season is comparable in thickness to what it was in 2006 and 2007. Why is that?

The NSIDC says that sparse snow cover over the Arctic Ocean last winter resulted in less insulation from the bitterly cold air, resulting in faster, first-year ice growth. Snow was unable to accumulate last autumn since much of the Arctic Ocean was still ice-free, causing the snow to just melt into the open waters. Once the ice formed later in the fall, it accumulated more quickly than normal as there was very little barrier (snow) between the ice and the cold air just above the surface.

And how about that global warming anyway? The recent years’ fall in global temperatures has led to increasing speculation that global warming is over. The AGW-supporters explain that even if global temperatures rise and fall year-on-year this does not mean that global warming has stopped; only that the continuing rise in temperatures due to man made emissions of greenhouse gases is being temporarily masked.

So the first important question we should ask is:

Is the Earth warming?

NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory has confirmed that an impending phase shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will likely bring colder temperatures for as many as the next 20-30 years.

What if the planet is actually entered a cooling phase while the world’s governments do their best to restrain the use of fossil fuels with no viable alternative at hand?

Regardless of the answer to the first question (“yes” or “no”), there are further uncertainties. Question number two is therefore:

If the world indeed is warming, what is the main cause of this warming and can we do anything to control climate change? And should the world be cooling, can we do anything to stop that?

If climate change is something beyond our control, shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to adapt instead of putting our money on useless mitigation measures?

IPCC indicates that the consequences of a global warming will be dire, with floods, droughts, famine and overall misery devastating the lives of all people.

But what if warming actually turns out beneficial? What is it is cooling we should worry about?

That is the third question we need to ask.

The papers are full of reports on shrinking glaciers, collapsing ice-sheets and worried polar bears. But the most important questions, those above, questions that still remain unanswered, have eluded us. So let’s get back to the basics of climate discussion instead of losing ourselves among thousands of fairly vague implications of what might or might not happen.

According to a recent British poll, more than one third of the Brits believe the 9/11 to be staged by the US government. Almost as many think that Apollo’s moon landing was shot right here on Earth. Obviously, we all prone to conspiracy thinking.

Today, the term “conspiration” has been widely adopted in the climate debate. The proponents of the AGW-theory claim that climate skepticism is directed and produced by conservative think tanks in cooperation with the oil business. Climate skeptics, on the other hand, argue that AGW may very well be the biggest scam ever pulled on the human race.

Who is right, if anybody? Who conspires against whom and for what purpose? Which side has the most to gain?

How come global warming has become so overexposed in media? Why is climate change to blame for almost everything? Is CO2 the perfect means to curtail technical and economic development? Is climate change just one of many scares presented to us humans over the past hundred years? Or is it a real threat, stubbornly denied by some shadowy interest groups?

What do you think?

The Guardian tells us today that world CO2 levels have reached a record high. Scientists at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii say that CO2 levels in the atmosphere now stand at 387 ppm, the highest for at least the last 650,000 years.

CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than expected. The annual mean growth rate for 2007 was 2.14 ppm – the fourth year in the past six to see an annual rise greater than 2ppm. From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5 ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm.

But now comes the big question. With the CO2 levels soaring, why won’t the temperatures rise? There is something rotten with this global warming…

“It’s Getting Hot in Here” is an activist blog about AGW. In its latest entry, Phil Aroneanu writes:

Remember that number global warming deniers throw around — those 500 scientists that have supposedly signed onto a letter denying the existence of anthropogenic climate change? 500. It’s a number you hear on the nightly news near the end of many stories on climate change, and it’s also a number invented by the Heartland Institute, one of Washington’s most conservative thinktanks.

As it turns out, that the number is a fabrication. Our friends over at DeSmogBlog sent questionnaires to each signer, and received back some interesting quotes.

According to It’s Getting Hot in Here, a large number of the signers were shocked when told that their names were on the “deniers” list. A few scientists are quoted: Dr Ming Cai, Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Dr. David Sugden, Dr. Gregory Cutter.

Now I am sorry to say, but NONE of these names are on the list of those who signed the Manhattan Declaration. You can check for yourselves at the ICSC site.
New addition:

As stated in the 1st comment, the 500 are to be found on a list by Dennis T. Avery from September 2007. Not in the Manhattan Declaration, as I first thought. But since the latter also comprises of 500 + names and is related to Heartland Institute, I drew the wrong conclusion. I am sorry for that.

I will ask Dennis Avery about the document. Meanwhile, may I would only like to bring to your attention that there are more than 500 scientists who doubt in AGW. The Manhattan Declaration endorsers are to be found here. There is also a list by the US Senate, naming more than 400 scientists who do not agree with the AGW-hypothesis.

According to Press TV, scientists from the University of Hawaii in Honolulu have discovered that the Earth’s climate was stabilized by a natural carbon thermostat regulating the carbon dioxide levels. Now, however, these slow cycles have been disrupted by man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

Scientists also found that the long-term change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been only 22 parts per million (ppm) over a period of 610,000 years, but two centuries of human industry have raised the levels by about 100 ppm.

Let me only say - what a load of bullshit!

1. Long term change of 22 ppm? Excuse me, if the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts? Use the 610,000 years that suit your purpose?

2. CO2 levels have been far higher in prehistoric periods than even the most pessemistic forecasts from the UN and had no greatly detrimental effects on the whole. Life thrived 200 million Paleozoic years above 3000 ppm and another 200 million Mesozoic years above 1000 ppm.

Incidentally, Earth’s temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.

3. Research shows plants function best with CO2 levels between 1,000 and 1,200 parts per million (ppm). Greenhouses inject CO2 to reach these levels and achieve significantly higher yields as a result. This suggests that plants evolved to suit levels around 1,000 ppm and are CO2 starved at today’s 385 ppm. In fact, at 200 ppm plants begin to suffer and at 120 ppm they start to die.

4. 350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.

“Despite persistent efforts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has never succeeded in the task set to it by the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), of supplying sound scientific evidence for the belief that human emissions of greenhouse gases are harming the climate. The evidence that has been supplied is based on unsound scientific methods and mathematics.”

This is the introduction to “Unsound Science by the IPCC”, a publication by Dr. Vincent Gray, which proves the main claims by the IPCC are scientifically unsound (the full report is available here). Dr. Gray is an expert reviewer for the IPCC and has submitted more than 1,800 comments on IPCC reports. I contacted Dr. Gray to get his view on global warming and here’s the exclusive interview.

Q: Dr Gray, you have stated that you consider IPCC as being corrupted. What is the basis for that criticism?

It is difficult to answer this in a few words. They were corrupt from the start, as they are a political organisation set up to provide evidence for “Climate Change”, defined by the Framework Convention on Climate Change as being exclusively caused by humans. The science is selected, distorted, and occasionally fabricated to support this view, and to downplay or marginalise any other climate influences. Their reports have to approved by the politicians who set them up and the Lead Authors are all chosen because they are willing to carry out their orders.

Q: I have read the comments to IPCC AR4. Your comments to the drafts have persistently been rejected. I imagine this is not the first time. Why do you continue to be Expert Reviewer? What is it that drives you?

It is immensely worthwhile. I consider that I have had a definite influence on them. For example, the first Report had a Chapter entitled “Validation of Climate Models”. When it appeared in the first draft of the next Report I commented that since no climate model has ever been validated the term was wrong. In the next draft they changed “validation” to “evaluation” no less than fifty times. They do not use the term or even discuss how it might be done.

The models are “evaluated” by seeking the opinions of those who are paid to produce the models. These are not “forecasts” but “projections” and they are no more than complete guesses from people with a conflict of interest, and thus worthless.

I have learned an unrivalled store of information about the climate while doing this and I know the attitude and activities of the IPCC scientists intimately. I am in a position to criticise them from the basis of this close knowledge.

It has been fascinating and immensely worthwhile.

Q: In your opinion, are we experiencing a global warming? What are your thoughts on the temperatures levelling off and even slightly falling since 1998? Has the warming trend stopped? Can we even anticipate a cooling?

The “climate” sometimes gets warmer and sometimes gets colder, and sometimes stays the same. I even believe it.

It is impossible to measure the average temperature of the Earth and even more difficult to find out whether it is increasing or decreasing. My studies, from all the data, indicate that the average temperature is passing through a cycle of about 65 years, and has reached the peak last seen in 1950. Since 1988 the average temperature has started to fall. 2007 was particularly cold and the IPCC people have even PREDICTED that 2008 will be cold. They are in deep trouble if it goes down much further for much longer. If the past trend continues it should continue to go down.

Q: Why do you believe that CO2 is not a major climate driver?

Because there is no evidence that it is. The models are worthless, as I have said. No model has successfully predicted any aspect of future climate. They completely failed to predict the measured temperature of the upper part of the atmosphere.

Q: Why don’t you believe in climate models?

The “weather” cannot be predicted more than a week or so ahead. If you call it “climate” the same applies; the system is too complex.

All the models are based on the “Flat Earth” theory of the climate where a quarter of the sunlight falls on all parts of the earth all the time and the temperature is constant. I regard this assumption as completely unrealistic. I might change my mind if they could show convincing predictions, but their “projections” are always so far ahead that they will have enjoyed their generous salaries and pensions before they are found out.

Q: What do you think is needed to turn the media and public opinion against climate alarmism?

A prolonged period of cold weather possibly combined with the economic downturn they have forced on the world.

Q: Some of the readers of my blog persist that there is no evidence that the current climate change is purely natural. Do you think that human activities affect the climate in any significant way?

I am a scientist and I like to be supplied with evidence. There is no question that humans influence the climate. Every city is warmer than the surrounding countryside. Shelter Belts modify the wind. Agriculture of all kinds has an influence. There is even such a thing as “pollution”. But I know of no evidence that it is, overall, harmful.

Q: In your opinion, what major environmental threats are we facing today?

The “Environment” has become a God who “threatens” us and demands constant sacrifice.

Humans, like other organisms have to work to set up surrounding circumstances, which are favourable to our prosperity, health and development. The greatest “threats” today are to the lives and existence of people in many countries, and response to these threats should have priority over the supposed threats to other creatures. Most of these are grossly exaggerated. Did you ever hear of an “Endangered Species” that actually became extinct?

I would like to thank Dr. Gray for answering my questions. It has been an honour.

Dr. Vincent Gray is a New Zealand-based climate scientist and an official expert reviewer of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientific reports.
Dr. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England and has had a long career as a research scientist in Britain, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. Dr. Gray has published over 100 scientific papers on energy and materials, plus a dozen in climate science.

Watch a brand new interview with Professor Bob Carter, shown in New Zealand TV on Friday, April 18.