The Global Warming Scare

8/16/2019 The Global Warming Scare

1/40

The Global Warming Scare

David Pratt

November 2006

Contents

1. Introduction2. The ever-changing climate3. IPCC pseudoscience challenged4. CO2 fixation, Kyoto and beyond5. Sun and climate

6. Modelling fantasies7. Global alarmism8. New science and technology9. Sources

1. Introduction

According to the reigning ideology in climate science, most of the slight warming of theearth over the past century is due to anthropogenic (man-made) emissions of gr eenhouse gases, and unless drastic steps are taken to curb these emissions thepr esent century will see worldwide catastrophes – increased droughts, floods, storms,hurricanes, agricultural disasters, and disease. This alarmist message is constantlyrepeated by mainstream scientific publications, environmentalist organizations, and theworld media. The UK’s chief scientist Sir David King has said that global warming is soserious that Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century!

Although it is frequently claimed that the science behind global warming is ‘settled’ and

that ‘consensus’ prevails, this is far from the truth. The earth has been alternatelywarming and cooling for billions of years, and many scientists argue that present climatechange is in no way unusual and could be caused mainly by natural processes. It is truethat the late 20th century was warmer than the earth has been for some 400 years, but400 years ago a large part of the earth was in the grip of the Little Ice Age – from whichwe are still emerging.

Climate reconstructions for the past thousand years reveal a fairly coherent picture of major climatic episodes: Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and Recent Warming,but the amplitude of the temperature variations in different reconstructions varies

significantly – a sign that the science is still very uncertain. A team of climatologists

http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w9http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w7http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w6http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w5http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w4http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w3http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w2http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w1http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w9http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w8http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w7http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w6http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w5http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w4http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w3http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w2http://davidpratt.info/warm.htm#w1


2/40

recently commented:

So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al.,2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberg et al., 2005) or smaller (Jones etal., 1998; Mann et al., 1999) temperature amplitude? We suggest that theformer situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, wouldresult in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors inforcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.(Esper et al., 2005, p. 2166)

Many researchers believe that about a thousand years ago, during the Medieval WarmPeriod, much of the earth was substantially warmer than today.

The standard view, as championed by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC), is that greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), are theprincipal driver of climate change. Since CO2 alone cannot explain the magnitude of thetemperature increase of about 0.6°C over the last century, a ‘positive water vapour feedback’ has to be invoked. However, a host of empirical observations are leading agrowing number of climatologists to conclude that the sun’s role has been

underestimated. The Little Ice Age, for example, coincided with a decline in solar activity, and solar influences have also been linked to the current warming. GeoscientistJán Veizer (2005, p. 20) writes: ‘empirical observations on all time scales point tocelestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases actingonly as potential amplifiers’.

The current fixation on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion makes littlesense; by far the most important greenhouse gas is water vapour, but its role is oftenminimized or ignored in the public discussion. Moreover, the correlation betweentemperature changes and CO2 increases over the past century is poor. Most of the

warming took place in the first half of the last century whereas 80% of the increase inCO2 didn’t happen until after the Second World War. From 1940 up to the mid-70s,when the buildup of CO2 was accelerating, global temperatures actually fell. This gaverise to scare stories about ‘global cooling’ and the threat of an imminent new ice age,which would bring wholesale death and misery to mankind. And then, as now, humanswere identified as the main culprits: the release of fine particles (carbon and sulphur aerosols) was identified as the principal cause of the cooling.

The modern global warming hysteria was ignited in 1988. During a second consecutiveunusually hot summer, a NASA scientist testified before Congress that his computer

models predicted an average global temperature rise of 0.45°C between 1988 and 1997and 8°C by 2050 due to greenhouse gas buildup. Despite enormous uncertainties in hissimulations, belief in a looming global warming catastrophe soon became the politicallycorrect view. Just 12 years earlier the National Science Board had announced that wewere heading for a new ice age! But fashions in science can change as abruptly as inother domains of life.

The earth’s climate is an immensely complex, dynamic, nonlinear system in which smalchanges in initial conditions can have disproportionately large effects. Even weather forecasts for the next day or two are often unreliable. The forecasts made for the rest of

this century based on biased and highly simplified computer models should be taken


3/40

with a huge pinch of salt. The models embody prevailing assumptions about thedominant role of CO2 in forcing climate change and the existence of unverifiedmechanisms for amplifying its effects. At the same time, they essentially ignore a linkbetween sun and climate, and are unable to handle the key role played by clouds.

As more and more variables have been incorporated into the models, climate forecastshave had to be revised downwards. In the 1980s climate modellers were predictingtemperature rises of 1.5 to 2.0°C by 2000 – more than five times what most scientistsnow believe occurred. So while atmospheric CO2 has increased substantially, the largetemperature increase predicted by the IPCC models has not occurred. The IPCC’sresponse is to speculate on what cooling factors must be offsetting the predicted rise,rather than to reassess its assumptions.

Despite over $50 billion spent on climate change research over the last 15 years,humans’ role in the modest warming over the past century remains highly controversialToo little is known at present about the natural internal variability of the climate systemand its various feedback mechanisms to say for certain what effect additional CO2 ishaving. Thousands of independent scientists disagree with the ‘consensus’ position thatCO2 is the dominant factor, but their views rarely receive a fair hearing in high-profilescience journals and the media. A recent survey found that 30% of scientists disagreed

to some extent that ‘climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes’, andthat less than 10% ‘strongly agreed’ (Murray, 2006).

A Canadian scientist who dared to ask critical questions at a meeting on global warmingwas shocked by the virulent reaction: ‘it was as if I was back in the Middle Ages and haddenied the Virgin Birth’. Geologist Gerrit van der Lingen (2005) remarks:

The global warming debate has left the realm of science a long time ago. Ithas become totally politicised. Any scientific criticism is not met with ascientific response, but with name-calling and a stepping up of the scare

tactics. Some sceptics have even lost their jobs or are told to shut up or else.... It is clear that the politicising of climate science has resulted in anabandoning of good scientific practice and ethics.

While dissident scientists with links to coal or oil companies are automatically dismissedas biased and untrustworthy, the financial interests of salaried green activists andgovernment-funded greenhouse bureaucrats and researchers are ignored.Palaeoclimatologist Mike Jorgensen (2004) says that although ‘green’ groups such asthe Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and WWF, like to present themselves as non-profi

and non-partisan, they are really neither.

They are just as biased and unscientific in their approach as the big oil, car,and chemicals companies are. They make money from fear mongering tocollect funds from well meaning, concerned, but scientifically naive people.... Global warming advocacy is big business, hundreds of millions inresearch and other funds are available annually for those scientists andorganizations who spout the party line ...

The media tend to uncritically publicize the doctrine of anthropogenic global warming


4/40

and make little effort to present a balanced perspective. Warming incidents, such ascollapsing ice shelves and record high temperatures, grab the headlines, while coolingincidents, such as thickening of ice caps, snow in Saudi Arabia, and record lowtemperatures, are ignored. UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett recently comparedclimate sceptics to advocates of Islamic terror, and said that both should be deniedaccess to the media!

In an article entitled ‘Got a problem? Blame global warming!’, John Brignell presents alist of over 300 phenomena that have been blamed on human-caused warming.Examples include: allergies, bananas destroyed, bananas grow, blackbirds stop singingdiarrhoea, extinction of pygmy possums, five million illnesses, glacial retreat, glacialgrowth, Maple syrup shortage, outdoor hockey threatened, rainfall increase, rainfallreduction, societal collapse, sour grapes, spiders invade Scotland, tree beetle attacks,wolves eat more moose, and yellow fever. The Stern Report (October 2006), whichbreaks new ground in climate sensationalism, adds many new items to the list, such asincreased gender inequalities, with men migrating and women subject toimpoverishment, forced marriage, labour exploitation, trafficking, and natural disasters!

All scientists accept that there has been some degree of overall planetary warmingduring the past hundred years, though the exact value is disputed. A wide range of

factors are at work and, contrary to the prevailing fad, humans are arguably a long wayfrom being the most significant.

2. The ever-changing climate

The climate is in constant flux. Warming and cooling cycles have succeeded oneanother throughout the earth’s history, with a periodicity ranging from tens of millions of years to several years.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfmhttp://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2045


5/40

Fig. 2.1 Changes in global climate through time. (www.scotese.com)

There is evidence that virtually the entire earth may have been covered with ice sheetstwice in the Precambrian, 700 million and 2.4 billion years ago. During the Phanerozoic(the period since the beginning of the Cambrian, 545 million years ago), the earth haspassed through eight great climate cycles. For more than 90% of the earth’s history,conditions were much warmer than today. Two million years ago forests extendednearly to the north pole. And as recently as 125,000 years ago, temperatures were so

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm


6/40

high that hippopotami and other animals now found only in Africa made their homes innorthern Europe.

Fig. 2.2 Temperature curve for the last 6 million years, based on an ocean core. (Carte2006)

The past million years have seen 8 to 10 ice ages, each about 100,000 years long, withshort, warm interglacial periods of about 10,000 years. The difference in globallyaveraged temperatures between glacials and interglacials is about 5°C.

The transition between glacial and interglacial conditions can take place inless than a thousand years – sometimes in as little as decades. Suchdramatic climatic shifts occurred near the end of the last major ice age,about 15,000 years ago. First, a brief warming occurred, and then the iceage returned for roughly a thousand years. Finally, by 11,500 years ago, theclimate quickly warmed again. Ice core data indicate that temperatures incentral Greenland rose by 7°C or more in a few decades. (Marshall Institute,2006, p. 27)

The present interglacial warm period (known as the Holocene), which began about10,000 years ago, has experienced a series of major temperature swings. A long-lastingHolocene Warming took place 3500 to 6000 years ago, when the average temperaturewas 2°C warmer than today.

This was when forests and herd animals numbering millions thrived acrosswhat today are barren Siberian tundra, the Sahara was green and traversedby rivers, and the plains of Europe and North America resembled safariparks. None of this was due to fossil-fuel power plants or refrigerationindustries operated by the Vikings or Paleolithic village dwellers. (Hogan,

2004, p. 241-2)


7/40

During the Medieval Warm Period (or Medieval Climatic Optimum), from about 900 to1300 AD, the earth was up to 3°C warmer than today. This made it possible for theVikings to colonize Greenland and Newfoundland. The forest boundary in Canadareached 130 km further north than today, and in Poland, England, and Scotlandvineyards flourished. The warmer climate brought a flowering of prosperity, knowledge,and art to Europe. Agricultural yields increased, marshes and swamps dried up,removing breeding grounds for mosquitoes that spread malaria, and wetlands wereturned into productive farmland. In general, civilization has tended to flourish duringwarm periods, while cold periods have brought more drought, famine, disease, andwars.

The Medieval Warm Period was followed by the Little Ice Age, which lastedintermittently from about 1350 to 1850. The Thames river in England froze regularly inwinter with ice thick enough for fairs to be held on it, and people were able to travel fromPoland to Sweden across the Baltic Sea on sleighs, staying overnight in taverns built onthe ice. We are still emerging from the Little Ice Age, and this is an important factor behind the moderate rise in temperature since the late 19th century.

Based on a detailed analysis of 240 proxy climate studies from all parts of the world,Soon & Baliunas (2003) concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age

were probably global in extent. Neither is explained by changes in atmosphericconcentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, since these remained relativelyconstant. Many researchers contend that a decline in solar output was a primary factor in triggering and sustaining the Little Ice Age, and that an increase in solar output maybe responsible for much of the warming in the 20th century (Balling, 2005).

Figure 2.3 Surface temperature in the Sargasso Sea (Northern Atlantic), asdetermined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in marinesediment. The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3000-year period. The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) areclearly evident. (Bluemle, 1999)


8/40

Temperature records based on thermometer readings began only in the mid-19thcentury. Temperatures in earlier times have to be inferred from proxy data (e.g. treerings and isotope ratios) and are therefore more uncertain. The instrumental recordshows that the globally averaged surface temperature remained nearly level from 1856to about 1910, rose until 1945, declined slightly until about 1975, and then increasedagain. The overall increase during the 20th century was 0.45°C according to

AccuWeather, 0.5°C according to the US National Climate Data Center, and 0.6°Caccording to the IPCC. The highest warming rates occurred in land areas poleward of 30°N, and minimum (night) temperatures have increased much more than maximum(day) temperatures. But some parts of the globe (e.g. northeastern Canada and westerGreenland) have cooled considerably since 1960.

The main natural driver of the climate system is the intensity of solar radiation reachingthe earth, determined by changes in the sun and shifts in the earth’s orbit and axial tilt.

About a third of the radiation entering the atmosphere is either reflected or absorbed byclouds and airborne particles (aerosols). Low-level clouds reflect solar radiation andhave a cooling effect, while some high-level clouds have a warming effect. Sulfate-based aerosols tend to cool the earth whereas black carbon (soot) tends to warm it.

Two thirds of the incoming solar energy reaches the earth’s surface and is either absorbed or reflected depending on the surface brightness (albedo); snow and icereflect much of the energy, while bare soil absorbs it. Some of the energy reaching thesurface is redistributed by atmospheric and oceanic circulations. Greenhouse gases,such as water vapour, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons,absorb the energy reradiated by the surface, warming the atmosphere. Volcaniceruptions emit both greenhouse gases and aerosols. Science still lacks a detailed,integrated understanding of how solar energy and the various components of theclimate system interact.

3. IPCC pseudoscience challenged

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) advises the UN on climateissues. It published assessment reports in 1990, 1996, and 2001, and its fourth reportwill appear in early 2007. Each report includes a ‘summary for policymakers’, which isan openly political document heavily influenced by government bureaucrats. The IPCCis not an impartial body, as most of the lead authors are enthusiastic proponents of anthropogenic global warming. Since the mid-1990s it has come under increasingcriticism for its biased and pseudoscientific practices, and several scientists haveresigned (New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, 2006b). For instance, ChrisLandsea, a world authority on hurricanes, resigned in January 2005, saying that theIPCC process was ‘motivated by pre-conceived agendas’ and ‘scientifically unsound’.

The Summary for Policymakers in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis states:

The global average surface temperature (the average of near surface air temperature over land, and sea surface temperature) has increased since

1861. Over the 20th century the increase has been 0.6 ± 0.2°C. ...


9/40

New analyses of proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that theincrease in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largestof any century during the past 1,000 years. It is also likely that, in theNorthern Hemisphere, the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 thewarmest year. (IPCC)

In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaininguncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likelyto have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. (IPCC)

Fig. 3.1 The year by year (blue curve) and 50 year average (black curve)variations of the average surface temperature of the northern hemisphere for the past 1000 years. The grey region is supposed to represent the 95%confidence range (i.e. level of uncertainty), but no one knows how it wascalculated and Mann refuses to say. (IPCC, 2001)

In support of its claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade and 1998 the warmestyear for a millennium, the 2001 IPCC report quoted the work of Mann, Bradley &Hughes (1998, 1999; ‘MBH98/99’) and reproduced their now infamous ‘hockey stick’graph (see fig. 3.1). The graph shows fairly constant temperatures for the lastmillennium followed by a dramatic rise in the 20th century (the blade of the hockeystick). The accepted view before that, as embodied in a graph in the IPCC’s 1990 repor

(fig. 3.2), was that the world had undergone a Medieval Warm Period that was warmer

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/wg1figspm-1.htmhttp://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/077.htmhttp://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/075.htm


10/40

than today.

Fig. 3.2 Graph from the IPCC’s 1990 report.

In the 1990 graph, the current warming falls within the range of natural historicalvariation, whereas the hockey stick graph makes it look anomalous and alarming. Theexistence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and further back the Dar

Ages Cold Period and the Roman Warm Period, had been accepted in textbooks for decades. But such natural climate fluctuations are an embarrassment to the hypothesisthat mankind is mainly to blame for the present warming. Indeed, one global warmingzealot, in an unguarded moment, stated: ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval WarmPeriod’ (see Deming, 1995, p. 249). That is exactly what Mann’s team did.

Statistical experts Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre published a critique of the hockeystick in the peer-reviewed journal Energy and Environment in 2003 and further critiquesin 2005 (www.climateaudit.org; McKitrick, 2005). They criticized MBH98/99 for inappropriate data selection and incorrect use of statistical methods. They had greatdifficulty getting the necessary information from Michael Mann, who put many obstaclesin their path. He refused to release his computer code, saying that ‘giving them thealgorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged inand that ‘if we allowed that sort of thing to stop us from progressing in science, thatwould be a very frightening world’!

The MBH temperature reconstruction was based mainly on bristlecone-pine datasets,even though the IPCC had recommended against reliance on bristlecone pines because20th century CO2 fertilization accelerated annual growth, creating a false impression of exceptional recent warming. Moreover, their statistical model had given these datasets390 times more prominence than the other datasets they had used. McKitrick andMcIntyre found that MBH’s statistical methods nearly always produce a hockey stickshaped graph, even when random numbers are used. They also discovered that MBHhad excluded from their calculations a dataset covering the later medieval warm period,which had been stored in a computer file marked ‘Censored-Data’. After correctingthese various errors, they found that the 15th century contained an extensive warmperiod with a higher temperature than the late 20th century.

http://www.climateaudit.org/


11/40

Prior to McIntyre and McKitrick’s work, no palaeoclimatologist had attempted to replicatMBH98/99. In fact, many climate scientists derided the very idea! The fact that theflawed MBH98 paper passed peer review for Nature magazine speaks volumes. Sodoes the fact that Nature, along with other leading peer-reviewed scientific journals,refused to publish McIntyre and McKitrick’s 2003 article exposing the flawed graph.Only after prolonged pressure did the editors of Nature publish a correction by MBH,who falsely claimed that the flaws made no difference to their results.

The IPCC itself never made any attempt to verify the MBH98/99 findings. This mayhave something to do with the fact that the lead author of the chapter that gaveprominence to the Mann study was none other than Michael Mann himself! Some senioclimate scientists have severely criticized the system that allows such conflicts of interest. But it remains in place for the fourth IPCC assessment report, due out inFebruary 2007. As reviewers of the next IPCC report, McIntyre and McKitrick (2006)write:

we have expressed concerns to the IPCC about prominent use of graphicsand empirical results from the lead authors’ own freshly published papers,which have not been in print long enough to have undergone adequate,independent review and assessment ...

Independent review is also hindered by the unscientific practice of refusing to disclosedatasets and calculations.

The US House of Representatives’ science committee asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to evaluate the criticisms of Mann’s work and assess the larger issue oclimate reconstructions. In its report (July 2006), it accepted virtually all the criticisms ofthe hockey stick, and said that Mann’s data and methodology did not permit him toclaim with confidence that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium or the 1990sthe warmest decade. But it still stated that his reconstruction was ‘plausible’ as studies

by several other scientists had also concluded that the 20th century was warmer thanthe Medieval Warm Period.

Another analysis of the hockey stick paper was carried out by a panel of threeindependent statisticians appointed by the US House of Representatives’ energy andcommerce committee. Its report (July 2006) states that the criticisms made by McKitrickand McIntyre are ‘valid and compelling’. Referring to the small band of scientists whodominate the field of climatology, the panel’s leader, Edward Wegman, says:

[T]here is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their

thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcingfeedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficientlypoliticized that they can hardly reassess their own public positions withoutlosing credibility. (Wall Street Journal, 2006)

‘In other words,’ says the Wall Street Journal , ‘climate research often more closelyresembles a mutual-admiration society than a competitive and open-minded search for scientific knowledge.’

Regarding the claim that many other studies support Mann’s conclusions, the panel

points out that the scientists concerned often work with Mann, and tend to use the same

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdfhttp://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf


12/40

datasets. McIntyre and McKitrick (2006) comment:

We’ve attempted to replicate these other studies as well, only to run into oneobstacle after another in identifying data and methods – similar to theproblems that led to the original congressional questions about the Mannstudy. In one case, the authors even refused to identify the sites from whichdata was collected for their study! Despite these pointless obstacles, we know enough about the ‘other studies’ to be confident that none of them meets the methodologicalstandards now recommended by the panel. In fact, somewhat remarkably,two of the most recent studies even continue to use Mann’s discreditedprincipal components series [bristlecone pines].

The hockey stick graph was featured six times in the IPCC’s 2001 report, and has beena key weapon in the campaign to convince the public and politicians of the dangers of human-caused warming. Although the graph has been convincingly discredited, theIPCC has not issued an apology or correction and continues to use it in its publications.The Canadian government circulated a copy of the graph to every household in thecountry, but it too has not circulated any correction.

The other main graph that the IPCC presented in its 2001 report to support its claimsabout anthropogenic global warming is shown in fig. 3.3. It is based on an analysis of world temperatures by main author Phil Jones, from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)of the University of East Anglia in the UK. Some independent scientists asked Jones forhis basic data, but he replied that he had invested 25 years in his work and wasn’t goingto turn it over to people who would try to find something wrong with it!

Fig. 3.3 Variations of the earth’s surface temperature for the period 1860 to

2000. The temperature is shown year by year (red bars) and approximately


13/40

decade by decade (black line). (IPCC, 2001)

The graph has come under strong criticism, because some of the data are of dubiousquality, especially those from third world countries, and because most of them comefrom land-based stations that are mostly located in or close to urban centres and aretherefore distorted by purely local warmth from urban heat islands. The ‘urban heatisland effect’ refers to the fact that the temperature of large cities with lots of asphalt andconcrete can be as much as 5°C above normal.

Independent scientists have found that there is no systematic compensation for urbanwarming in the Jones dataset. Warwick Hughes says that there is ‘no doubt that theCRU temperature graphs are contaminated with pervasive and substantial urban heatwhich has nothing to do with greenhouse gases’. De Freitas (2003, p. 8) states: ‘Wherewarming occurs, it results from a rise in the minimum temperature, rather than themaximum, and in cold climates, in winter, and at night – which is what one would expecfrom so-called “urbanisation” effects.’ Even the IPCC (2001) admits that the urban heatisland effect could account for up to 0.12°C of the temperature rise during the 20thcentury, or one fifth of the total observed.

A major problem in determining the average near-surface air temperature record for different periods is that substantial parts of the globe lack the necessary measurements

Ocean areas off major shipping lanes, ice-covered areas, many arid andhyperarid areas, and mountainous areas often lack the temperature recordsnecessary to generate the monthly temperature anomalies for individual gridcells. And not surprisingly, the area of the earth without valid data increasesfurther back in time and also during periods of global strife. Less than 30percent of the planet had temperature records at various times in the

twentieth century, and today, fully 20 percent of the earth is not covered bythe Jones database. ... [T]he longest, most reliable records tend to originate in land areas of theNorthern Hemisphere, particularly North America, Europe and the former Soviet Union. These areas should show enhanced warming under achanging greenhouse, so the fact that the observed greenhouse-onlywarming is still beneath the average global projections for the modelsremains somewhat troubling to the glib consensus of model rectitude.(Balling, 2005, p. 54-5)

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htmhttp://www.warwickhughes.com/climatehttp://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/wg1figspm-1.htm


14/40

Fig. 3.4 The thermometer record of surface temperature in the continentalUnited States shows no appreciable warming since about 1940. (Hansen etal., 2001)

Balling (2005) identifies various other problems which introduce warming biases into the

temperature record – e.g. the switch from traditional mercury-in-glass thermometers toelectronic thermistors, the deteriorating reflectivity of the white-painted shelters in whichequipment is housed, and time-of-observation biases. Furthermore, nearly alltemperature-measuring stations are land-based, whereas 71% of the earth (and 90% othe southern hemisphere) is covered with water. Far too few temperature-sensing buoyare deployed at sea to give an even remotely accurate assessment of the atmospherictemperature trends in these vast areas.

Many marine ‘surface’ temperatures are measurements of water, not the air adjacent to its surface ... Indeed, many decades ago, mariners would

measure sea-surface temperature after pulling canvas or wooden bucketsonto the deck and inserting a glass thermometer into the captured sea water.Later, mechanical injection systems for cooling water were used to measuresea-surface temperature, introducing an obvious warm bias from the shipitself. (Balling, 2005, p. 58)

Balling concludes that while the upward temperature trend over the past century isprobably real, ‘the general error is most likely in the positive direction, with a maximumpossible (though unlikely) value of 0.3°C’ (p. 59).

The same climate models that predict warming near the earth’s surface from CO2


15/40

emissions predict even more warming above the surface. However, measurements withweather balloons (radiosondes) since 1958 and with satellites (microwave soundingunits, or MSUs) since 1979 show that the lower troposphere is not warming at a rateconsistent with the models. The IPCC’s 2001 report conceded that the discrepancieswere ‘not fully resolved’. But Christy (2005, p. 73) asks:

Why ... was a full page of the brief ‘Summary for Policymakers’ devoted tosurface temperature charts that depict considerable warming with another half-page of supporting text, while changes in the full bulk temperature of theatmosphere – far more important for the physics of the greenhouse effect –garnered but seven sentences?

Various ‘adjustments’ and ‘corrections’ have been made to the satellite and balloondata, on the assumption that they ought to match the surface temperature records; thiscontrasts with the lack of effort to correct surface records for urban bias. But significantdiscrepancies between the two temperature trends remain, especially if account is takeof the enhanced influence of volcanoes and El Niño events in the lower troposphere.Gray (2006) writes:

If a temperature sequence comparatively free from these influences (1979-

1997) is chosen, there is no detectable warming in the lower atmosphere for six of the seven records, and for the seventh, no warming between 1988 and1997, whereas warming still prevails on the surface over these periods. Thesupposed enhanced greenhouse effect is thus currently undetectable in thelower atmosphere, where it is supposed to be the most prominent, so thewarming on the surface must have some other cause.

Fig. 3.5 Surface and satellite measurements compared.(www.brightremarks.com/mytrh%25202.htm)

In other words, once the perturbing effects of volcanic eruptions and El Niño oscillationsare removed, the tropospheric data show no significant temperature trend since 1970.

As Balling (2005, p. 68) states: ‘Warming near the surface with little or no warming in

http://www.brightremarks.com/mytrh%25202.htm


16/40

the lower to midtroposphere is not a clear greenhouse signal!’

4. CO2 fixation, Kyoto and beyond

When first drafted, the Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC’s 2001 report stated:‘there has been a discernible human influence on global climate’. Government-appointed scientists then changed this to: ‘it is likely that increasing concentrations of

anthropogenic greenhouse gases have contributed substantially to the observedwarming over the last 50 years’. In the final version the language was further toughenedup: ‘most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due tothe increase in greenhouse gas concentrations’. A UN spokesman admitted: ‘There wasno new science, but the scientists wanted to present a clear and strong message topolicymakers.’

Greenhouse gases absorb some of the solar radiation reflected from the earth’ssurface, thereby warming the atmosphere. Without this ‘greenhouse effect’, averagenear-surface air temperature would be -18°C, rather than +15°C, as it is now; in other

words, there would be permanent ice at the equator. CO2

is generally reckoned toaccount for 4.2 to 8.4% of the greenhouse effect, whereas water accounts for about90% – some 70% is due to water vapour and 20% to clouds (droplets) (Milloy, 2006a).

Over 99.9% of the earth’s atmosphere consists of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon.Whereas CO2 makes up about 95% of the atmospheres of Venus and Mars, it currentlyaccounts for only about 0.038% of the earth’s atmosphere (i.e. 380 parts per million),compared with a pre-industrial revolution figure of about 0.028%. Water in its variousforms ranges from 0 to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary according to whatform it is in and the altitude at which it is found. Humans are responsible for about 3.4%of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere annually, mostly from the burning of coal, oil, andnatural gas, and the production of cement; the rest comes from natural sources such asvolcanoes, the outgassing of the oceans, and the biosphere. Humans are probablyresponsible for about 2.5% of the total greenhouse effect (Milloy, 2006a).

The warming effect of CO2 is roughly logarithmic, meaning that the next 100-ppmincrease adds only half as much heat as the previous 100-ppm increase. This isbecause, whereas water vapour absorbs heat across the whole infrared range, heatabsorption by CO2 is confined to two narrow bands, and as CO2 levels rise, more andmore of the long-wave radiation that can be absorbed at those frequencies has alreadybeen absorbed. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (2006a, p. 8) writes:

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is near saturation in terms of its abilityto trap more heat. This means the effects of adding more CO2 into theatmosphere are likely to be insignificant. For significant global warming to occur, increased concentrations of CO2must set in motion positive (or destabilising) feedback processes. Suchprocesses would cause temperatures to rise by some other mechanism(such as increased absorption of solar energy) or cause increases in theconcentration of other greenhouse gases, the most important of which is, byfar, water vapour.

Yet to date, scientific evidence suggests that negative (or stabilising)


17/40

feedback processes prevail. This means that it is unlikely that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will greatly influence the climate.

Most standard computer simulations assume that CO2 concentrations are increasing at1% per year – compared to a measured rate of about 0.45%. This makes the doublingtime for CO2 just under 70 years, compared to the empirical estimate of 120 years. Evewhen other greenhouse gases are factored in, the rate of increase is only 0.6%. Thefigure of 1% is used for simplicity and convenience, though the IPCC, which uses afigure of 0.85%, admits that this is ‘arbitrary’ and ‘on the high side’ (Lomborg, 2001, p.278-80). The models therefore run far too fast. They also invoke positive feedback loopinvolving increased atmospheric water vapour and neglect negative feedback loopssuch as the generation of additional low cloud cover.

The IPCC (2001) predicts that a doubling of CO2 would lead to a temperature increaseof 1.5 to 4.5°C. Other researchers believe that a more realistic figure is less than 1°C.For instance, Soon et al. (2001, p. 5) say that analysis of the climatic response tovolcanic eruptions suggests that a doubling of CO2 would lead to a temperatureincrease of only 0.3°C to 0.5°C. Posmentier & Soon (2005) point out that there arecurrently no reliable predictions for the response of clouds to increased atmosphericCO2, and say that a 4% increase in the area of stratus clouds over the globe could

compensate for the warming produced by a doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration.Our grasp of the carbon cycle and the conversion processes that CO2 engages in ishighly tenuous. A key factor is the residence time of carbon in the atmosphere, but thisis uncertain. It is commonly said to be over 100 years, but Rudesill (2006a) argues thatthis is more than ten times too high.

It is instructive that the models used in the IPCC’s 1990 report and into the 1990spredicted far too much warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Thetemperature predicted for 2000 was almost half a degree higher than observed. TheIPCC assumes that sulphate aerosols and the depletion of atmospheric ozone are

partially counteracting the warming caused by increases in greenhouse gases. It hasalso been argued that the oceans hold the ‘missing’ global atmospheric warmingpredicted by climate models. But the strong oscillations in ocean temperature do notmatch variations in atmospheric CO2 content. Stevenson (2000) argues that oceanwarming occurs in 100-year cycles, independent of human influences. It seems verylikely that climate models are overestimating the warming caused by increasing CO2concentrations and underestimating the associated compensatory feedbacks.

There is no linear relationship between changes in atmospheric CO2 levels and theglobal mean temperature. At the end of the 19th century the amount of CO2 discharged

into the atmosphere by world industry was 13 times smaller than now, but the climate atthat time had warmed up, as a result of natural causes, emerging from the 500-year-long Little Ice Age. During the 20th century, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 andother greenhouse gases rose steadily, but average surface temperature rose over muchof the globe between 1910 and 1940, fell between 1940 and 1975 despite a more thanthreefold increase in CO2 emissions, and has been rising since. The idea of CO2increases causing temperature increases was abandoned in the 1940s preciselybecause global temperatures had not even remotely matched the 1°C predicted by thetheory.

Overpeck et al. (1997) found that the Arctic warmed by 1.5°C between 1840 and 1955,


18/40

during which time the air’s CO2 concentration rose by 28 ppm, whereas between 1955and 1990 the arctic air temperature declined by 0.4°C even though the CO2concentration rose by 41 ppm. Polyakov et al. (2003) found that from 1875 to 2000 thesurface air temperature of the region poleward of 62°N hardly rose at all, but thensuddenly climbed 1.7°C in just 20 years, even though the atmosphere’s CO2concentration rose by a mere 8 ppm. Over the next six decades the CO2 concentrationrose by about 55 ppm, but the region in question experienced no net warming and mayhave cooled slightly. This clearly indicates that CO2 is not the main driver of climatechange.

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 reached a low of about 180 ppm during severalperiods of glaciation over past 400,000 years, but rose to 300 ppm or more duringinterglacials. According to Fischer et al. (1999), ice core records show that at the end ofeach of the last three major ice ages, atmospheric temperatures rose 400 to 1000 yearsbefore CO2 levels increased. During the penultimate warm period, there was also a15,000-year time interval when distinct cooling took place without any change inatmospheric CO2, and when the air’s CO2 content gradually dropped over the next20,000 years, air temperatures either rose or remained fairly constant. We also knowthat, today, the global mean atmospheric concentration of CO2 lags behind changes intropical sea surface (and hence atmospheric) temperature by six to eight months. Thisis because as the ocean warms, it is unable to hold as much CO2 in solution andreleases it into the atmosphere.

In more ancient times, CO2 concentration in the air is generally thought to have been fahigher than today, without having a dramatic impact on temperature. In the Ordovician(440 million years ago), the concentration was 18 times higher, but glaciers existed onthe continents of both hemispheres. In the Eocene (50 million years ago) it was sixtimes larger than today but the temperature was only 1.5°C higher. There have beengeological times of global cooling with rising CO2, e.g. during the mid-Miocene (about12.5 to 14 million years ago), and times of global warming with low levels of atmospheric CO2, e.g. during the Miocene Climate Optimum (about 14.5 to 17 millionyears ago).


19/40

Fig. 4.1 Global temperature and atmospheric CO2 over geologic time. LateCarboniferous to Early Permian time (315 to 270 million years ago) is theonly period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 andtemperatures were as low as they are today. (www.geocraft.com)

Although CO2 is commonly labelled a pollutant, increases in atmospheric CO2 during the20th century have significantly increased plant growth rates. Hundreds of experimentswith plants growing in an atmosphere with double the present level of CO2 have shownproductivity increases of between 20 and 50%. Soon et al. (2001, p. 37-38) state:

The impacts of enhanced plant growth and related soil changes may evenprovide a strong quenching effect on warming from carbon dioxide. Thevegetation feedbacks as a result of carbon dioxide fertilization have yet to becorrectly incorporated in the climate simulations.

The IPCC’s second report, which gave the impression that the science was settled andhumans were known to be significantly interfering with an otherwise stable climate, ledto the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which calls for substantial reductions ingreenhouse gas emissions by industrialized nations, especially CO2 from fuel burning.The US and Australia have not ratified the Protocol, nor does it cover China, India, or developing countries. Most of the signatories are finding it difficult if not impossible tomeet their targets by the deadline of 2012.

Kyoto is a flop. The IPCC’s own projections indicate that, if fully implemented, the

Protocol will make the world only 0.15°C cooler in 2100 than it would otherwise be; in

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html


20/40

other words, the temperature in 2100 will be what it would otherwise have been sixyears earlier. And sea level will rise 2.5 cm less by 2100 than it would otherwise do. Yetimplementing Kyoto is estimated to cost 150 billion dollars a year! In other words, theagreement imposes crippling costs for no discernible environmental benefits.

Bjørn Lomborg, a statistician, environmentalist, and former Greenpeace member,accepts that man-made greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, but argues thasince the Kyoto Protocol will have negligible effects on climate change, the exorbitantcost of implementing it represents a colossal waste of resources. The money could bemuch better spent in providing health, education, clean water, and sanitation to the thirdworld; UNICEF estimates that this could be done for just $70-80 billion a year.

In his book The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), Lomborg exposes the fear-mongering tactics indulged in by many ‘environmentalists’. He concludes that ‘globalwarming is not anywhere near the most important problem facing the world’ (p. 323),and that ‘it will be far more expensive to cut CO2 emissions radically than to pay thecosts of adaptation to increased temperatures’ (p. 318). In response he has beensubjected to vilification; he has been called the ‘Antichrist’ and the IPCC chairmancompared him to Adolf Hitler.

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (October 2006) takes climatescaremongering to dizzying new heights. It was compiled by a team headed by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern at the request of Britain’s Blair government.It argues that ‘if we don’t act, the overall costs and risk of climate change will beequivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP [gross domestic product] each year, nowand forever’. In the worst-case scenario, ‘the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more’, causing ‘major disruption to economic and social activity, on a scalesimilar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the firsthalf of the 20th century’. In contrast, stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at no morethan 550 parts per million (ppm) would ‘avoid the worst impacts of climate change’, and

the cost would be ‘limited to around 1% of global GDP each year’. Stern’s message isthat either we spend $450 billion per year now, or we’ll end up paying up to $9.6 trillionper year later.

Many scientists and economists have expressed concern at the poor quality of the Sterreport (CSPP, 2006). Economist Richard Tol calls it ‘alarmist and incompetent’, andpoints out that it selectively quotes only the most pessimistic studies on the impacts of climate change. Stern’s doomsday visions are based on the use of an artificially lowdiscount rate to assess whether it makes sense to spend money now to reap ahypothetical payoff in many decades’ time. Stern never states what discount rate he is

using, but it appears to be less than half the figure of 5 to 6% recommended by the UKTreasury. Also, the social cost of CO2 is generally put at $2.5 per ton, but Stern uses afigure of $85 per ton. Stern actually developed a whole new computer model – theforecasts made by existing models were apparently not apocalyptic enough!

Stern claims that stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at 550 ppm (CO2 equivalent) –compared to the current level of 420 ppm – would cost 1% of GDP. But this iscontradicted by the IPCC. In its upcoming report it says that the cost would be up to 5%of GDP. Incredibly, nowhere does Stern say what the effect of such measures would beon temperature. It turns out that, according to conventional climate science, they would

reduce the rise in temperature from 2.53°C to just 2.42°C. ‘One can understand the

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm


21/40

reluctance of the Stern review to advertise such a puny effect,’ says Lomborg (CSPP,2006, p. 19). This means that on top of the 1 to 5% of GDP spent on curbing emissionsit would still be necessary to spend money on adapting to higher temperatures.Moreover, it is naive to think that all the countries of the world, including China andIndia, would flawlessly implement Stern’s multitrillion dollar, century-long policyproposal. Nor is there any good reason for them to do so given that orthodox climatescience has probably vastly overrated the role of greenhouse gases and vastlyunderrated the role of the sun.

As Balling (2005, p. 69) says: ‘This era should be a time of scientific assessment, not atime of impulsive policy actions targeted at a problem that may not even be a problem,and will not be significantly impacted by those very policy actions.’

5. Sun and climate

The dominant factor driving the earth’s climate system is the energy reaching the planefrom the sun. This is determined partly by the amount of energy emitted by the sun and

partly by changes in the earth’s orbital geometry: the Milankovitch theory takes accountof the 90-100,000-year eccentricity cycle, the 22,000-year climatic-precession cycle,and a 41,000-year axial-tilt cycle, which are believed to play a key role in triggering theonset and termination of ice ages.

There is still much to be learned about the impact on climate of the magnetic sunspotcycle (divided into two half-cycles of about 11 years each), which is modulated by theapprox. 90-year Gleissberg cycle and 210-year DeVries-Suess cycle. The mostimportant solar cycles are related to the sun’s irregular oscillation about the centre of mass of the solar system (Landscheidt, 1998).

There is abundant evidence that throughout the Holocene the earth has alternatelywarmed and cooled at 1500 ± 500-year intervals. Braun et al. suggested that theseclimate shifts might be linked to a combination of the DeVries-Suess and Gleissbergcycles (Idso et al., 2006). In a study of the 1500-year climatic cycle on the basis of solar-related cosmogenic nuclide variations, Bond et al. (2001) found that ‘over the last12,000 years virtually every centennial time-scale increase in drift ice documented inour North Atlantic records was tied to a solar minimum’, and concluded that the climateeffects were probably felt worldwide.

Other researchers have found evidence of these global, solar-induced climate

oscillations going back over a million years (Idso, 2001). The Medieval Warm Periodand Little Ice Age appear to be the latest examples, with the global warming of the pastcentury being essentially a solar-mediated recovery from the Little Ice Age. The mini iceage from 1420 to 1570 coincided with a prolonged lull in the sun’s activity, and theMaunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715 was an exceptionally cool period when the sunhad very few spots.


22/40

Fig. 5.1 Global temperature and solar activity compared. (www.john-daly.com)

Observations of the surface magnetism of solar-type stars show that their irradiancevaries by up to 0.6%. Our own sun’s total radiation output currently varies by about0.1%, which is generally considered too small to have a significant impact on climate.However, the solar wind (a continuous flow of energetic charged particles released bythe sun) and possible terrestrial amplification mechanisms also need to be taken into

account. A growing number of scientists are becoming convinced that the sun/climatelink is much stronger than so far recognized by the IPCC.

There are various pathways by which solar activity could influence the climate. Onesuggestion is that solar-induced changes high in the stratosphere are propagateddownward through the atmosphere and trigger an amplified response in deep oceancirculations. Another theory highlights the strong correlation between solar activity,cosmic rays, and low-altitude cloud cover (Svensmark & Friis-Christensen, 1997; Marsh& Svensmark, 2000; Usoskin et al., 2004; Shaviv, 2005). It proposes that cosmic rays(high-speed atomic particles originating in exploded stars) ionize air molecules,transforming them into condensation nuclei for cloud formation. Greater sunspot activityresults in a stronger solar wind and more powerful magnetic fields, which divert moregalactic cosmic rays away from the earth, leading to less low-level cloud formation andhigher surface temperatures.

http://www.john-daly.com/solar.htm


23/40

Fig. 5.2 The correlation between cosmic ray flux (red) measured in lowmagnetic latitudes and low-altitude cloud cover (blue) using ISCCP satellitedata. (Shaviv, 2005)

The idea that cosmic rays seed clouds has met with strong resistance from mainstreamclimate experts, who prefer to fixate on CO2. The IPCC (2001) concluded: ‘At presentthere is insufficient evidence to confirm that cloud cover responds to solar variability.’However, the causal mechanism linking cosmic rays and cloud formation has recentlyreceived support from an experiment in Denmark called SKY (Danish for ‘cloud’), which

was carried out in a large reaction chamber containing a mixture of gases to simulatethe atmosphere, and using ultraviolet lamps to mimic the action of the sun’s rays.

Theodor Landscheidt (1998) contends that the effect of clouds on weather and climateis a hundred times stronger than that of atmospheric CO2. Even if the atmosphere’s COcontent doubled, its effect would be cancelled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%.He writes:

The global cloud coverage diminished from its peak at the end of 1986 to itsbottom in the middle of 1990 by more than 3%. According to observations by

V. Ramanathan, B.R. Barkstrom, and E.F. Harrison [1989], clouds have a netcooling effect of -17 W/m!. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [1997]conclude from the diminution of this cooling effect between 1986 and 1990that the solar irradiance has increased by about 1.5 W/m! within these threeand a half years. A change of this order is quite remarkable, since the totalradiative forcing by carbon dioxide accumulated since 1750 has beenestimated by the IPCC not to go beyond 1.5 W/m!. This means that cosmicrays, strongly modulated by solar activity, achieve an effect within three anda half years for which the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphereneeds centuries. This shows clearly to what extent the greenhouse effect

has been overestimated in comparison with the solar contribution to climate

http://spacecenter.dk/projects/sky/index.htmlhttp://spacecenter.dk/cgi-bin/nyheder-m-m.cgi?id=1159917791%7Ccgifunction=formhttp://pame.arctic-council.org/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/246.htm


24/40

change, which turns out to be the most important factor.

In the same vein, Ján Veizer (2005) notes that the cloud-driven changes in earth’sradiation budget during last two decades (up to 10 W/m!) considerably exceed theforcing the IPCC (2001) attributes to the entire ‘industrial’, i.e. post-Little Ice Age,anthropogenic greenhouse impact (2.4 W/m!). He writes:

The tiny carbon cycle is piggybacking on the huge water cycle (cloudsincluded), not driving it. In such a perspective, CO2 can amplify or modulatenatural climatic trends, but it is not likely to be their principal ‘driver’. (p. 22)

Veizer says that the temperature trend over the past century correlates well with solar properties such as cosmic-ray flux (CRF) and total solar irradiance (TSI), exceptperhaps for the last two decades of the 20th century. Some researchers believe thatsolar activity is responsible for no more than 30% of warming since 1970 (Stuart, 2006)This is often interpreted as a sign that greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, have takenover as the main climate driver.

However, Veizer points out that climate models generally do not incorporate the activecarbon cycle and its dynamics; CO2 is inputted in the form of energy (~4 W/m! for a

doubling of CO2).

These models would yield outcomes in the same general direction,regardless of the source of this additional energy, be it CO2 or TSI.Moreover, taking into account the empirical evidence, such as theunprecedented solar activity during the late 20th century or the coevaldecline in global albedo (‘earthshine’) and considering that the 1915-1999TSI trend from the Mt. Wilson and Sacramento Peak Observatories canexplain 80% of the 11-year smoothed variance in global temperature, thecelestial cause as a primary driver again appears to be a more consistent

explanation. (p. 20)

He also argues that, while the balloon and satellite data do not show any clear temperature trend in recent decades, their interannual temperature oscillations correlateclearly with the solar irradiance and cosmic-ray flux, and he concludes that solar phenomena were probably the primary climate driver in both the distant and most recenpast.

Landscheidt (1998, 1999, 2000a,b, 2001, 2003), too, argues that solar forcing has been just as strong in recent decades as in the first half of the last century. He shows that El

Niño, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, maxima and minimain global temperature anomalies, drought in Africa and the USA, and European floodsare probably linked to cycles in solar activity. Having already made a number of accurate forecasts, he predicts that a trend towards global cooling should develop in thenext five to six decades – despite the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases.

Earth scientist Tim Patterson writes:

With our star’s variability accounting for about half of all the recordedwarming in the last hundred years, only 0.3°C is left over for everything else,

including urbanization and land use. The amount is even less if an additional


25/40

0.1-0.2°C of natural temperature fluctuation is factored in. If increased CO2levels have contributed to global warming at all in the past century, itscontribution must have been very minor indeed. (www.envirotruth.org)

We are living in a period of abnormally high solar activity; the latter half of the 20thcentury saw the highest sunspot numbers in the past 1150 years. High solar activitytends to last 50-100 years, followed by a crash. The sun’s activity will be weaker duringthe next decade than for over 100 years, and some calculations suggest that this couldlead to a cooling of the earth’s atmosphere by 0.2°C (Stuart, 2006) – greater than thereduction expected from Kyoto by the end of the century.

6. Modelling fantasies

A serious menace is posed by the large band of ‘climate modellers’ armed withsupercomputers and wedded to the anthropogenic global warming ideology andagenda. They are largely responsible for the widespread belief that humans aredisrupting the climate in ways already visible and about to spiral out of control. Although

the IPCC (2001) admits that, since the climate is a coupled nonlinear system, ‘theprediction of a specific future climate is not possible’, the Summary for Policymakerstends to play down uncertainty and presents alarmist scenarios for which there is noreal evidence.

Climate models (known as general circulation models or GCMs) inevitably fail to do justice to the immense complexity of the climate system. They reflect our incompleteunderstanding of how the various atmospheric, land surface, and oceanic componentsinteract. Even their own creators admit that they are no more than ‘an attempt atcomputer-aided story-telling’.

The models embody the basic assumption that CO2 is the principal climate driver andthat variations in solar input are of subordinate or negligible impact. Due to the models’coarse spatial resolution, important climate processes such as clouds or oceancirculations can only be roughly approximated (‘parameterized’). The models cannotaccurately reproduce the motions of the atmosphere and oceans, and do a poor job of simulating the natural variability of the climate. Key factors that are still poorly handledinclude volcanic eruptions, stratospheric ozone variations, sulfate aerosol changes,water vapour feedback, and the impact of solar particles and radiation.

Climate models are unable to project or back-cast cyclical climatic behaviour, such as

the El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which is the warm phase of a natural oceancycle and repeats every 2 to 8 years in the tropical Pacific, the 60-to-80-year North

Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Since CO2-basedmodels produce smooth temperature increases, not sudden jumps, they could neither predict nor explain the 1976 Great Pacific Climate Shift (a sudden warming, marking aphase shift in the PDO), or the temperature peak in 1998, when an unusually strong ElNiño led to an increase in water vapour at the equator, causing an almost 1°C spike inworldwide average temperatures. Nor did the models predict the slight cooling thatfollowed.

Commonly used climate models have higher rates of heat transfer to the deep ocean

http://www.envirotruth.org/myth3.cfm


26/40

than observed, and tend to over-predict the warming of the surface layer by a factor of up to three. Moreover, the heat content of the upper ocean decreased between 2003and 2005 by an amount equal to about 21% of the upper-ocean heat gain between1955 and 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006). This underlines the interannual variability in upperocean heat content – something which current climate models are unable to simulate.

As Roger Pielke says, this indicates that ‘we know less about natural- and human-climate forcings and feedbacks than included in the IPCC Reports’.

The present models have errors on the order of 50%. They are unable to calculatecorrectly either the present average temperature or the temperature ranges from theequator to the poles, and have to be ‘tuned’ to replicate the current climate. But a ‘tunedmodel may provide an adequate simulation of present-day climate for the wrongreasons. Computer-model predictions have consistently been wrong. In 1988, IPCCmodels predicted temperatures would rise 0.8°C per decade. By 1990, the estimateswere down to 0.3° and by 1995 it was 0.2°. The UK Hadley Centre’s models, too,predicted a temperature increase for the 20th century that was far too high. To solve theproblem, it simply divided the model output by three to ‘predict’ the temperaturecorrectly!

Apart from climate models being speculative, unverified, and deficient, the IPCC uses

them to project global temperature increases based on unrealistic future scenarios.Some of them include absurd assumptions such as an 11-fold increase in coalproduction, or a GDP for African countries higher than that of the US by 2100.Unfortunately the results of these climate computer games tend to be reported in themedia as facts. As De Freitas (2003, p. 10) says: ‘There is a difference betweenscientific findings and scientists’ speculations. Often the public is not told which iswhich.’

Climate models are made more interesting by including positive feedbacks (multiplier effects) so that a small temperature increase expected from increasing atmospheric

CO2 produces large increases in water vapour, which produce an exponential rather than a logarithmic temperature response in the models. Steve Milloy (2006a)comments:

It appears to have become something of a game to see who can add in themost creative feedback mechanisms to produce the scariest warmingscenarios from their models but there remains no evidence the planetincludes any such effects or behaves in a similar manner. ... [W]e can onlymeasure what the world actually does, and there simply isn’t room in themeasured change for the existence of significant unmitigated positive

feedbacks.

The IPCC expects a doubling of CO2 to lead to a 1.2°C temperature increase, but if feedbacks are taken into account the figure becomes 1.5 to 4.5°C. If estimates by otherresearchers and modellers are included, the range becomes 0.2 to 6.3°C. Milloy(2006a) says: ‘there has been no narrowing of the estimated range of “expected”warming from a doubling of CO2 – in fact the range has widened even further as ever more players attempt to stand out in a crowded publication field.’

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/08/14/more-information-on-the-geophysical-research-letters-article


27/40

7. Global alarmism

1998 was the warmest year in the instrumental record (which goes back 150 years), buit was also the year of a particularly strong El Niño event. Since then, globaltemperature has remained fairly stable. 2005 was the second warmest year in theinstrumental record but is in full accordance with the warming trend of 0.17°C per decade during the past 30 years. If this trend were to continue, the 21st century wouldexperience an average increase in surface temperature of about 1.7°C. By making a lotof unwarranted assumptions, however, the IPCC claims in its 2001 report that the

temperature could increase by up to 5.8°C. And the inimitable Nicholas Stern hasrecently suggested that the temperature could rise by up to 10°C.

It should be borne in mind that the 20th century did not see a constant, steady increasein temperature, and there is no reason to assume that the present century will be anydifferent. The late 20th-century temperature rise could represent a culmination, andperhaps even the last culmination, along a warming trend that started 150 years ago atend of the Little Ice Age. There are, in fact, empirical computer models which forecastthat early 21st century temperatures will fall (New Zealand Climate Science Coalition,2006b).

As already explained, there is no proof as yet that increasing CO2 concentrations haveplayed a significant role in the rise in temperature over the past century, let alone thatthey are the main factor. Global warming alarmists, however, denounce anyone whomakes such a statement as a ‘denialist’ or ‘flat-earther’, and repeat the mantra thatthere is ‘overwhelming evidence’ that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of climatechange. They also like to give the impression that a warming climate will bring onlymore calamities and suffering, but no benefits (e.g. warmer winters, wetter deserts,faster-growing plants).

In his book and accompanying documentary, An Inconvenient Truth (2006), globalwarming evangelist Al Gore accuses scientists who disagree with the ‘consensus’ of spreading disinformation. But as Marco Lewis (2006) and Iain Murray (2006) havedocumented in detail, Gore indulges in countless distortions of his own. A few examplesare presented below.

As far as Gore is concerned, scientists who question the anthropogenic global warmingdogma are just as untrustworthy as scientists funded by the tobacco industry. But asJohn Rudesill (2006b, p. 22) cautions, ‘alarmist appeals delivered by politicians in theguise of universal consensus science – with no fair acknowledgement of contrary views

– are likely to be more about money and power than about objective science’.


28/40

(courtesy of Ken Fallin)

Gore makes the false claim that the rate of global warming is accelerating. He calls CO2the ‘most important greenhouse gas’, ignoring the fact that water vapour is the leadingcontributor to the greenhouse effect. He presents a graph of CO2 levels and global

temperatures during the past 650,000 years, but fails to mention that it shows thatglobal temperatures were several degrees warmer than the present during each of thepast four interglacial periods, even though CO2 levels were lower. He implies thatthroughout this period, changes in CO2 levels preceded and largely caused changes inglobal temperature, whereas CO2 changes generally followed global temperaturechanges by hundreds to thousands of years (Lewis, p. 2, 25).

Gore claims that CO2 concentrations in the Holocene (the period since the last ice age)never rose above 300 ppm in pre-industrial times, and that the current level (380 ppm)is far above the range of natural variability. However, proxy data indicate that, in the

early Holocene, CO2 levels exceeded 330 ppm for centuries and reached 348 ppm(Lewis, p. 26).

Gore assumes that rising CO2 levels are responsible for recent rising temperatures anddeclining sea ice in the Arctic, whereas both are within the range of natural variability.He fails to mention that arctic temperatures in the 1930s equalled or exceeded those ofthe late 20th century, that the rate of warming during the earlier decade was 50%higher, and that the Arctic during the early- to mid-Holocene was significantly warmer than today (Murray 2006).

He warns that meltwater from Greenland could disrupt the Atlantic thermohalinecirculation (the ocean ‘conveyor belt’ that, along with the Gulf Stream, keeps Europerelatively warm in wintertime). This is based on research indicating that a major disruption occurred 8200 years ago when a giant ice dam burst in North America,allowing two lakes to drain rapidly into the sea. He forgets to mention that the lakesinjected more than 100,000 cubic kilometres of freshwater into the sea, whereasGreenland ice melt contributes just a few hundred cubic kilometres a year (Lewis, p.102-3).

Gore claims that global warming endangers polar bears even though polar bear

populations are increasing in Arctic areas where it is warming and declining in Arctic


29/40

areas where it is cooling. He states that polar bears ‘have been drowning in significantnumbers’ – based on a report that four drowned polar bears were found in one month inone year, following an abrupt storm!

Gore portrays the collapse in 2002 of the Larson-B iceshelf – a formation the ‘size of Rhode Island’ – as a harbinger of doom. For comparison, the Larson-B was 1/180th thesize of Texas and 1/246th the size of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Small areas of the

Antarctic Peninsula, where the iceshelf was situated, also broke up in earlier times. Butaccording to a forthcoming report from the IPCC, climate models based onanthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula(Murray 2006). The recent temperature increase in this part of Antarctica may be due toa small change in the position of low pressure systems. Although Gore gives theimpression that all of Antarctica is losing ice mass, from 1992 to 2003 the East AntarcticIce Sheet gained mass (from snow accumulation) faster than the western ice sheet lostmass, yielding a net increase in Antarctic ice (David et al., 2005).

Lewis writes:

[Gore cites] Turner et al. (2006), who found a 0.5°C to 0.7°C per decadewintertime warming trend in the mid-troposphere above Antarctica, as

measured by weather balloons, but neglects to mention that Turner et al.found much less warming – about 0.15°C/decade – at the Antarctic surface,or that NASA satellites, which also measure troposphere temperatures,show a 0.12°C/decade Antarctic cooling trend since November 1978. (p. 98)

Gore manages to blame anthropogenic global warming for each and every negativeclimate event. An example is the European heat wave of 2003 – but this is generallyattributed to an atmospheric pressure anomaly, not global warming. Gore exaggeratesthe link between global warming and the frequency and severity of tropical storms. Eventhe IPCC admits that storm intensity and frequency are dominated by interdecadal and

multidecadal variations, and that no significant trends are evident over the 20th century

Gore automatically assumes that retreating glaciers are evidence of anthropogenicglobal warming. But things are not so simple: many glaciers have been retreating sincethe Little Ice Age, long before any increase in man-made greenhouse gases, whileothers have been static or are advancing. Despite the warming, the world’s two major icecaps appear to be stable, and there is no compelling evidence that modern glacialchanges fall outside natural climate variability.

Gore cites the shrinking snows of Kilimanjaro as an illustration of the havoc wrought by

global warming. But Kilimanjaro’s glacier began to recede around 1880, well before themodern era of greenhouse warming. Moreover, the Kilimanjaro glacier has retreated inperiods of both global warming and cooling – and even in a period of regional cooling.The strong recession of all glaciers in equatorial East Africa in modern times seems tobe caused mainly by reduced precipitation and increased shortwave radiation due todecreases in cloudiness (Lewis, p. 7).

The number of floods has been increasing, but so have the reporting and recording of floods. For Gore, flood damage data are clear evidence of a global-warming ravagedplanet. For instance, he blames global warming for severe floods in China’s Sichuan

and Shandong provinces in 2003, even though far more damaging floods struck those


30/40

areas in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Gore blames global warming for the disappearance of Lake Chad, a disaster more likelystemming from a combination of regional climate variability, population increase, andovergrazing. He claims global warming is drying out soils all over the world, whereasevaporation studies indicate that the earth’s surface is generally becoming wetter. Hewarns that global warming is destroying coral reefs, even though today’s main reef builders evolved and thrived during the Mesozoic, when temperatures and CO2 levelswere far higher than today (Lewis, p. 102-3).

Gore blames global warming for the resurgence of malaria in Kenya, even thoughseveral studies found no climate link and attribute the problem to decreased spraying ofhomes with DDT, anti-malarial drug resistance, and incompetent public healthprogrammes. In The Lancet (June 2004) nine leading malariologists criticized modelslinking global warming to increased malaria as ‘misleading’ and displaying a ‘lack of knowledge’ (Murray, 2006). Gore insinuates that global warming is a factor in theemergence of some 30 ‘new’ diseases over the last three decades, but cites nosupporting research or evidence.

Sea level has risen by over 120 metres since the end of the last ice age. During the last

century it rose by about 18 cm and showed no sign of accelerating. If present trendscontinue, it will rise by about 31 cm (about one foot) by 2100 (Lewis, p. 72). The IPCC(2001) projects a sea level rise of 9 to 88 cm for 1990-2100, mainly due to thermalexpansion and loss of mass from glaciers and ice caps. However, in its forthcoming2007 report it reduces the expected rise to between 14 and 43 cm.

But none of this is scary or ‘gory’ enough for Gore, who creates the impression that sealevels could rise by 20 feet (6 metres) within our own lifetime! He presents 10 pages of before-and-after ‘photographs’ showing what 20 feet of sea level rise would do to theworld’s major coastal communities. Lewis comments:

There is no credible evidence of an impending collapse of the great icesheets. We do have fairly good data on ice mass balance changes and their effects on sea level. Zwally et al. (2005) found a combinedGreenland/Antarctica ice-loss-sea-level-rise equivalent of 0.05 mm per year during 1992-2002. At that rate it would take a full millennium to raise sealevel by just 5 cm. (p. 104)

Gore cites the Polynesian island of Tuvalu as a place where rising sea levels are forcingresidents to flee their homes. In reality, sea levels at Tuvalu fell during the latter half of

the 20th century and even during the 1990s, allegedly the warmest decade of themillennium (Lewis, p. 105). Alarmists also like to claim that the Maldives in the IndianOcean are about to disappear beneath the ocean waves. But a study in 2004 found thathe sea level there had been falling for the last 30 years (Van der Lingen, 2005).

Further warming could in fact slow down rather than accelerate the ongoing rise in sealevels: ‘Modest warming of the Earth would increase evaporation from the oceans,leading to increased deposition of snow on the polar ice caps, principally in the

Antarctic. ... During the strong warming episode of 1920-1940, sea-level rise did notaccelerate but actually stopped’ (De Freitas, 2003, p. 9).


31/40

Gore claimed in an interview that ‘the debate in the scientific community is over’. Butwhen confronted with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far lessdire than he suggests in his movie, he asserted that scientists ‘don’t have any modelsthat give them a high level of confidence’, and tried to defend his idiotic claims by sayingthat scientists ‘just don’t know’ (Lindzen, 2006).

Gore includes a quotation from Churchill about the era of half-measures and delayscoming to a close. But Iain Murray advises him to read what Churchill said when he wasasked what qualities a politician requires: ‘The ability to foretell what is going to happentomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards toexplain why it didn’t happen.’

8. New science and technology

The experimentally-grounded aether-science model known as aetherometry, developedby Paulo and Alexandra Correa, has identified fundamental deficiencies not only inmainstream physics, chemistry, and biology, but also in meteorology and climatology.

What official science lacks above all is any understanding of the world of the aether,which interpenetrates and largely generates and sustains our physical world of matter.

One of aetherometry’s key insights is that the sun does not emit electromagneticradiation that then travels through space and is absorbed or reflected in the earth’satmosphere or by its surface. What the sun emits is aetheric (‘massfree’) electric radiation. Aetherometry sees this electric radiation, whose spectrum it has identified, asone of the two primary components of the aether. It is ambipolar (whereas massboundcharges such as electrons and protons are monopolar), propagates as longitudinalwaves (whereas electromagnetic radiation consists of transverse waves), and is notlimited to the speed of light.

Photons are considered to be transient, locally-produced vortices of aether; ionizingphotons result from the decay of elements of matter, whereas nonionizing (blackbody)photons are generated when matter particles decelerate and shed the kinetic energygained from interaction with aetheric electric radiation. The local production of photonshas been established experimentally and is confirmed by some of the Correas’ aether-energy technologies.

Another key insight is that ‘heat’ comprises more than just sensible heat – which takesthe form of either molecular motion or thermal (infrared) electromagnetic radiation.

According to aetherometry, the second main component of the aether is latent energy :nonelectric energy with antigravitic properties, associated with the molecules of matter and their phase states. It is loosely known to chemists and meteorologists as ‘latentheat’, but its true nature remains unexplained by conventional science. The Correaswrite:

even though meteorologists are taught that most of the atmospheric energybudget exists only in the form of latent heat, there is no adequate physics or physical understanding of the circulation and key role of this latent form of energy in the atmosphere, nor a real understanding of the energy

conversions into and from it. All arguments are reduced to radiative


32/40

treatments of electromagnetic energy, plus the mechanics of the movementsof cold and hot air masses. (Correa & Correa, 2005)

Orthodox science lacks a proper understanding of atmospheric cycles:

Earth climate is inextricably linked to the fundamental allotropic cycle of gassubstrates that constantly regenerates the atmosphere, and in which water and oxygen play a privileged role. But climate modelers and global warmingacolytes make parameters such as ozone or CO2 concentrations into end-point references, disregarding the complexity of such interlinked processes.

... Ozone is not an end point, but a stage in the oxygen cycle, and cyclesexist exactly so that systems may self-regulate via negative feedback. (ibid.)

The most fundamental atmospheric cycle is the cycle of water, oxygen, and ozone. It isnoteworthy that official science has never managed to balance the energy budget(enthalpy) of this cycle. This is ‘one more proof of how far meteorology and climatologyare from grasping their subject’. The Correas (2001) were the first to publish a solutionto this problem, showing that the formation of oxygen and water requires the creation ofelectrons and photons from aether energy, and that it is through this process that thebulk of solar energy is transformed into blue light and infrared photons, i.e. radiant

sensible heat. They write:

most such radiant sensible heat is generated as blue light and IR photons,not by CO2 or water vapour, but by the atmospheric cycle that forms oxygenfrom ozone together with the formation of water from atomic oxygen, protonsand electrons. The joint formation of oxygen and water are the main naturalprocesses releasing heat in the atmosphere. (Correa & Correa, 2005)

The main energy reservoirs are the oceans, as land surfaces cannot hold energy for long periods, but it is a great mystery to oceanographers and climatologists how the

oceans absorb solar radiation and store it as latent heat. The question of latent heat isalso crucial to understanding processes involving water vapour:

How it forms noncovalent bonds with other molecules, how it rises in theatmosphere as a function of its latent heat content, how it stores this latentheat in its phase state, how its latent heat content is trapped in the formationof clouds – all these basic questions have been insufficiently explored to beunderstood or incorporated into general climatological models. (ibid.)

The Correas argue that the myth of anthropogenic global warming is based on a lack of

understanding of natural decadal, supradecadal, and intradecadal oscillations (not‘trends’) in the temperature and chemical composition of the atmosphere.

These oscillations reflect a complex interplay between various naturalfactors and their fluctuation, most prominent among which are solar radiation, atmospheric latent heat, atmospheric electricity and geothermalenergy. Without a serious physical and chemical grasp of these naturalfactors, there is little hope that one can isolate the climatic andmeteorological impact of man-made actions – deforestation, urbanization,pollution, warming and cooling. (ibid.)


33/40

One of the great myths of media geoscience is that stratospheric ozone protects theearth from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. The Correas say that ‘enthalpybalance and a painstaking analysis of energy and radiation shows that, in fact, ozonedoes not absorb harmful UV’. Rather, it emits near-UV upon its formation from oxygen.Once formed, it can absorb near-UV radiation, but this radiation is emitted locally fromfree electrons, and does not come from the sun. To say that stratospheric ozone over

Antarctica has decreased over a given period is not proof of anything, as it could be dueto reactions with pollutants or to variations in solar ambipolar radiation.

[C]laims of a ‘hole in the Antarctica ozone’ and ‘consequent increasedmelanoma risk of skin exposure’, etc, ... are only further instances of media-driven alarmist faddism, senseless scientifically, but with plenty of logic whenit comes to the jobs of Antarctic climatologists, or the profits of mediaempires and sunscreen industries. (ibid.)

As the Correas say, ‘the atmosphere is far too complex a system, and too dependent onthe oceans, on geothermal energy and solar radiation, to be arbitrarily reduced toprocesses driven by single causes, such as the emission of carbon dioxide, or even theproduction of “greenhouse gases” ’. The main effect of man-made pollution, they say, isnot global warming but a complex alteration of atmospheric chemistry and energy

conversion processes, little of which is being investigated. As a result, the role of CO2 inwarming the atmosphere has been overestimated.

They conclude:

Until a comprehensive account of all forms of sensible heat (radiant andconvective), latent heat (of state, as internal energy or noncovalent) andelectric energy (massbound kinetic energy and massfree radiation) is made,there will be no science of weather and climate, no meteorology or climatology that can claim to be a science and is able to predict climate

change and hurricane paths. Until then, it will remain what it is – a mediaspectacle of pseudoscientists in the pay of the State and corporate interests,an Official pseudo-Science. (ibid.)

A more accurate understanding of the climate system will therefore require new scienceBut there is also a need for new technologies. If the use of oil, coal, and gas for producing energ

The Global Warming Scare

Documents

Transcript of The Global Warming Scare