Monday, May 23, 2005


Letter sent to "Physics Today" on 28th June, 2004 but rejected without explanation

Need for re-assessment of global warming science

The present debate on Global Warming(GW) and the review of the book "The Discovery of Global warming" appearing in Physics Today ( June 2004) has prompted me to write this letter and make a case for re-assessment of the science of GW.

Several recent studies published in the last couple of years have seriously questioned many assumptions and observational evidence of GW that have been highlighted in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Climate Change documents as well as other scientific articles and news media. The earth's mean temperature variation over the past millennium has been derived using proxy data ( tree-rings, ice cores etc.) and is often presented by the well-known "Hockey Stick Curve" which shows an unprecedented warming of the earth's surface since about 1850 AD (Mann et al, 1999), the curve between 1850-2000 being shown in red representing the blade of the hockey stick, while the rest of the curve (hockey stick) shows mean temperature below a zero reference line. Recent studies (McIntyre &McKitrick, 2003: Esper et al, 2004) have questioned the methodology which produced the Hockey Stick Curve and have come up with revised earth's mean temperature variation which shows that during the MWP ( Medieval warm Period) of 8th thru 12th century, the earth's mean temperature was indeed warmer than the present warming of the recent 25 years. While the debate on this issue continues ( McIntyre & McKitrick, 2004), more and more questions are being asked about the earth's mean temperature calculation and whether the 20th century was indeed the warmest century in the last 1000 or more years.

A recent paper by McKitrick & Michaels (2004) documents that the recent mean temperature calculation of the earth may be significantly contaminated by extraneous factors like population growth, economic activity, GDP (Gross Domestic Product) etc. in many regions of the world. Thus the recent increase in earth's mean temperature, estimated to be about 0.32C in 25 years may not be all due to increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases(GHG). Another paper by Kalnay and Cai (2003) estimates that urbanization may account for up to half the recent increase in the mean temperature of the earth. A comprehensive paper by Pielke et al.(2002) suggests that urbanization and land-use change may be an important climate forcing and may overwhelm the GHG forcing in future climate projections.

The impact of GW on present and future climate and in particular on present and future worldwide extreme weather events is being debated extensively at present. In a report prepared for the Government of Alberta (western Canada), I have carefully examined 20th century data (Khandekar, 2002) and have concluded that extreme weather events like thunderstorms/tornadoes, heat waves, winter blizzards etc. are NOT increasing anywhere in Canada at present and the probability of these events increasing in future remains very small at this point in time. Many other reported studies, when carefully examined, show only a tenuous link between GW and extreme weather events.

There are many other issues re GW science that are being debated at present. The most recent projections of future warming suggest only a moderate warming of about 10C in the next fifty years or so. These and other studies strongly suggest a need for re-assessment of the GW science and a revised Climate Policy based on the present state of the GW science (Khandekar, 2004).


Esper, J.,D.C.Frank and R.J.S.Wilson, 2004: Climate reconstructions: low-frequency ambition and high-frequency ratification. EOS, Vol.85,No.12,23 March 2004,p.113

Kalnay, E. and M.Cai,2003: Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate. Nature, 423, p.528-531

Khandekar, M.L. 2002: Trends and changes in extreme weather events: An assessment with focus on Alberta and Canadian Prairies. Rept. Prepared for Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB, 56p. ( available on:

----2004: Are climate model projections reliable enough for climate policy? Energy and Environment, 15, 519-523

Mann, M.E.,R.S.Bradley and M.K.Hughes,1999: Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties and limitations. Geoph. Res. Lettters, 26,759-762.

McIntyre, S. and R.McKitrick, 2003: Corrections to Mann et al proxy data base and northern hemisphere average temperature series. Energy & Environment, 14, 751-771.

----2004: Global temperature patterns and climate forcings over the past six centuries: a comment. Submitted to Nature

McKitrick, R. and P. Michaels, 2004: A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data. Climate Research, 26, 159-173.

Pielke, R.A.,Sr. et al. 2002: The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to climate change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases. Phil.Trans.Royal Society,London,A,360:1705-1719


Madhav L Khandekar
(Consulting Meteorologist 52 Montrose Crescent Unionville, ON, L3R 7Z5, CANADA 1-905-940-0105: )

p.s. I am a former Research Scientist from Environment Canada and am presently on the Editorial Board of two international Journals, Natural Hazards (Kluwer, Netherlands) and Climate Research (Inter-Research, Germany).


I wouldn't be seen dead in one myself but I see it as a personal preference and nothing more

According to a report in the Daily Telegraph this week, household appliances produce more carbon emissions than a 4x4. One cycle of a kitchen dishwasher reportedly releases around 756g of CO2, more than double that produced by a short spin in a Range Rover Turbo Diesel, which releases 299g per kilometre.

An hour's use of a petrol lawnmower releases more than 1,000g of CO2, while a holiday for a family of four to Disneyworld in Florida, with all the travelling and consumption involved, releases a whopping 2,415,000g of CO2. London buses, which are bigger than any jeep, release around 1406g of CO2 per kilometre, four times the amount released by a 4x4. Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson tried to draw attention to this when he chained himself to a bus in west London this week.....

So why has this vehicle more than any other, and more than dishwashers, lawnmowers and buses, become a focus for anti-pollution campaigning? Austin Williams, a writer on motoring matters, says some people dislike 4x4s simply because they are an expression of conspicuous consumption. "The crusade to make everyone drive smaller cars is premised on high moral contempt for what is deemed to be 'unnecessary' and 'irresponsible' consumption," he says.

Some emails:

My Land Rover Discovery TD5 is no larger than a Renault Espace and has the same number of seats. The C02 emissions from the 2.5 TD5 Diesel engine are very similar to those of the Espace V6. So why is my Discovery any worse simply because it is a 4x4? Yes, I take my kids to school in it but I also take two of my neighbours children too, thus removing two other cars from the road in the morning. Do I need it? well you try towing a 6m boat trailer with anything else in safety. Then try reversing it down a slip way or hauling it up a beach. Enough said I think !

My family use a 7-seater Landrover for amongst other things, taking the kids to school. Why? With 4 kids, there aren't so many choices of vehicle anyway, and we certainly don't want our kids exposed to danger in estate cars with rear-facing seats in the back. As concerned parents, we're not prepared to compromise on our kids safety. When it comes to leisure travel, we all use two wheels and pedals, and here in Belgium, it is significantly safer to do that than the UK which provides almost no safety areas for real green transportation.

I drive a pick-up truck purely because I need it to tow my horse to shows. It is practical and I feel safer in it than I would in a little car. When I had smaller vehicles male drivers caused me hell and I had various stupid accidents. Now I get respect on the road for once! I DO NOT HAVE A DISHWASHER - the only dishwasher in the house is me. I could never afford to pay more road tax than I do already, just because I am a horse owner does not mean I'm rich! Quite the opposite in fact! It's time campaigns were fought against things that really matter instead of this blame culture that exists nowadays, it's pathetic. Lighten up people!

More here


DDT is often considered to be a relic of our industrial past -- but it also happens to be very effective at preventing malaria-carrying mosquitoes from transmitting the disease to humans. Although often eclipsed in the public eye by news about HIV/AIDS, malaria kills one million children and women each year and contributes indirectly to many more deaths. It also takes an often overlooked toll by incapacitating, for weeks every year, hundreds of millions of otherwise productive people.

A few months ago, though, EU representatives casually suggested to Ugandan ministers that if Uganda chooses to use DDT for malaria control, exporters will have to procure expensive equipment to ensure that their products do not contain any amount of residual DDT; otherwise they will face sanctions against their agricultural products. This negotiating technique is also known as blackmail.

Given the chemical's success at reducing the incidence of malaria in southern African nations, it is only natural that Uganda and other African countries are also considering using the chemical to battle one of their biggest human and economic scourges. "DDT has been proven, over an over again, to be the most effective and least expensive method of fighting malaria," said Ugandan health minister Jim Muhwezi. "Europe and America became malaria-free because of using DDT, and now we too intend to get rid of malaria by using it."

But thanks to the EU's not-so-subtle threats, many Ugandans have now second thoughts whether they can afford to save their people from dying. The country's $32 billion in annual agricultural exports to the EU are at risk.

As a result of this arm-twisting, two of Uganda's trade associations concluded that DDT ought not be used to control malaria. Producers of flowers -- 99% of which are not consumed -- contended that residual DDT would scare their consumers in foreign markets.

Uganda's coffee exporters followed suit. Paradoxically, coffee is a substance which contains hundreds of untested chemicals, many of which would probably be carcinogenic if consumed on their own in large doses. But (so far) no caffeine-deprived European bureaucrat has suggested that coffee production and consumption should be subject to the same chemicals and environmental treaty that regulates the use of DDT.

Interestingly, such threats were never waged against South Africa, Zambia and India, which also use DDT to control malaria. These countries already made the decision far too long ago for a threat by the EU to be meaningful. No European consumer has complained about agricultural produce from these countries, nor have their exporters been de facto forced into procuring expensive monitoring equipment.....

In Uganda, as in other countries, minimal amounts of DDT would be sprayed inside dwellings -- approximately one tablespoon of DDT is immersed in water, and sprayed on the walls. This program would be orchestrated by trained sprayers under intense government and international monitoring. The chemical would not be available in sufficient quantities to be used in any agricultural pursuit, nor would trace amounts of these chemicals find their way into flowers, coffee or other agricultural produce.

Luckily, at least some environmental groups seem to have abandoned their "zero-risk" approach. "If there's nothing else and it's going to save lives, we're all for it. Nobody's dogmatic about it," Greenpeace spokesperson Rick Hind said a few weeks ago, ahead of a meeting in Uruguay to negotiate the POPs treaty.

More here


All caused by global warming, of course

The world's largest ice sheet is growing due to increased snowfall caused by climate change, scientists announce today. The study of the east Antarctic ice sheet will be seized on by sceptics to dispute claims made about sea level rises caused by global warming. However, scientists point out that melting glaciers in other regions, especially the smaller but more rapidly changing west Antarctic ice sheet and in Greenland, will more than offset the effects reported today.

The study, described in the journal Science by scientists from the Desert Research Institute and Universities of Missouri and Arizona in America, and Edward Hanna at the University of Sheffield, used satellite measurements to assess the thickness of ice from 1992-2003. They also used weather forecast models and ice core data to study trends in snowfall during the same period. Dr Hanna said: "We found that, while the west Antarctic ice sheet was thickening in places and thinning in others, the east Antarctic ice sheet showed significant thickening in many areas, specifically towards the centre. "This thickening correlated very well with the snowfall modelling, showing that the increased snowfall is causing the ice sheet to grow in mass. We estimate that the ice sheet is holding an extra 45 billion tons of water each year, the equivalent of a sea level drop of 0.12mm a year.

"At the same time, the thinning of the Greenland ice sheet is contributing to [Do you like the weasel words? How much is Greenland contributing? And what is evidence for the 0.2mm quoted?] a sea level rise of 0.2mm a year. This is being offset to some extent by the sea level drop caused by the thickening of the east Antarctic ice sheet. "Global warming may mean a moister atmosphere and therefore a wetter climate that increases snowfall on the east Antarctic ice sheet," he said, adding that natural climate variations cannot be ruled out without more data.

(From The Daily Telegraph, 20 May 2005. Note: Contrary to the face-saving assertions above, the Greenland ice-cap is NOT melting. See here. Greenland is getting COLDER.)


Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.


No comments: