Saturday, October 20, 2007


An email from John McLean []

Many of the collection of news reports today, 17 Oct, had one thing in common - they assumed that carbon dioxide had been the cause of recent warming and that steps should be taken to reduce anthropogenic emissions.

Look closely at chapter 9 of the IPCC report and the evidence for that claim collapses, as I explain in the ICECAP article here or on my own website here (PDF). Let me summarise:

1 - The IPCC accepts the unverified near surface temperature data as accurate when most of us accept that it is likely contaminated by the proximity of recording instruments to human settlements or man-made alterations to the environment.

2- The IPCC claims that the heat energy has not transferred from some other part of the terrestrial climate system, but that assumes perfect knowledge of the terrestrial climate system and ignores possible extra-terrestrial influences, some of which are poorly understood.

3 - The IPCC relies on models that, according to its own reports, cannot be correct because many climate factors are poorly understood. One application of models produces a "natural" heat distribution which does not accord with observations so the IPCC claims the mismatch must be due to a human influence. The other application of models produces temperatures that do not match the historical record unless a "human influence" is included. This second application assumes that the historical temperature data is accurate and assumes the models to be precise, but both are wishful thinking.

Demand that renewable energy sources supply 20% of Europe's power by 200, modify the earth's albedo or build space-based power generation systems on this weak evidence? Someone must be joking.


Once again, warming PRECEDED the CO2 rise and "insolation" (the sun) caused the warming

The details of how the different parts of the climate system act and interact during changes from glacial to interglacial states are still being resolved. Stott et al. (p. 435; published online 27 September; see the 28 September news story by Kerr) construct a chronology of high- and low-latitude climate change at the last glacial termination, in order to help answer the questions of where warming originated, and why. Their data, derived from both benthic and planktonic foraminifera recovered from the same marine sediment core, indicate that deep-sea temperatures in the western tropical Pacific warmed about 1500 years before the surface waters did, a result of the earlier warming of the high-latitude surface water from where the deep water originated. The deep-sea warming also preceded the rise in atmospheric CO2, which suggests that increasing insolation at high southern latitudes caused a retreat of sea ice that led to warming there and further a field.


Journal abstract below

Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming

By Lowell Stott et al.

Establishing what caused Earth's largest climatic changes in the past requires a precise knowledge of both the forcing and the regional responses. We determined the chronology of high- and low-latitude climate change at the last glacial termination by radiocarbon dating benthic and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and magnesium/calcium records from a marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific. Deep-sea temperatures warmed by ~ 1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep-water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 ky B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral-spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be the key factors responsible for this warming.

Science 19 October 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5849, pp. 435 - 438

Gore projection: It is OTHER people who are sensation-mongers

The findings by the UK judge announced last week that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth failed to tell the whole truth on more than a few occasions received a fair degree of press coverage and, of course, a great deal of outcry from Gore defenders worldwide. Now, "the Gore Team" has come to its own defense on a Washington Post blog site. In running down the list of supposed "errors" in An Inconvenient Truth, it is the basic contention of the Gore team that the scientific issues that Gore was trying to get a cross to a lay audience were far more complex than he had the time (or desire?) to adequately explain in a 90-minute feature film (or in the accompanying 328 page book; hint, use a smaller, albeit less dramatic, typeface next time).

For instance, concerning Gore's use of the glacier recession on Africa's Mt Kilimanjaro (through a series of historic photographs and flowery language) to illustrate the effects of global warming, despite the fact that the majority of scientific evidence is that factors other than temperature (such as exposure, humidity, and precipitation) are primarily responsible to the loss of ice atop the mountain, the Gore Team justifies that, well, global warming is undoubtedly making things worse there.

This sentiment, that, well, even though it may not be the primary cause, anthropogenic global warming is making things worse, is used in their justification of the Gorey pictures of the damage from Hurricane Katrina (even though we showed picture after picture of the damage from Katrina we never "ascribe any single weather event to climate change"), destruction of coral reefs, drowning polar bears, the drying of Lake Chad, and the flooding of low-lying Pacific islands.

Ultimately, the Gore Team has the following to say, acting dismayed at the state of media coverage these days, "To conclude, it's unfortunate that news coverage of the UK decision was so sensational and, once again, directed conversation away from a broader and much-needed discussion and debate about solutions to the climate crisis."

So sensational?! Apparently showing photo after photo of current and potential future environmental catastrophe (carefully ignoring instances of similar catastrophes in the past) while talking and writing in grave tones about climate change and mankind's role in it, but never admitting that many other factors are also at play and in many cases are the dominant ones, is a perfectly acceptable way of conveying issues to the public. But, pointing out that this is what is going on is "sensational."


More dissent from Russia

A Russian scientist claims global warming can be just a temporary inconvenience, since climatic changes show their natural fluctuating patterns and depend on our Sun's activity level

A research fellow of the Arctic and Antarctic research and science centre suggests the phenomenon, widely known as global warming, is no more than a natural variation. Recent 40 or 50 years showed that Arctic climate was getting warmer and now temperatures continue rising. Majority of scientists explains such behaviour with growing concentration of main greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and is sure that temperatures would definitely grow till the end of 21st century. If the tendency and growing speed remain the same, the Arctic would enter the year 2100 with air temperature 4-7 degrees higher than it has now, and with ice areas twice as little as the current ice cover of the North.

However, another point of view exists, suggesting long-term temperature rising to be just an episode of global history, a consequence of natural fluctuations, which depend on changes in solar activity and surface air pressure. The scientist has analyzed data of monthly average values of surface air pressure between November and April 1923-2005 in cellular mesh points, located northwards from 40th parallel of the northern hemisphere. Mesh step is 10 degrees in latitude and 30 degrees in longitude. Then the geographer compared air pressure fluctuations with changes of solar activity in the same time period. 1927 was the year, when 16th solar cycle ended, and now we live in the 23rd cycle, which is far from its end.

Every 11-year preiod contains three years of high solar activity and eight years, during whuich our Sun is not quite active. Intensification of solar activity in every cycle is accompanied with abnormal changes of surface air pressure in high and moderate latitudes. There exist two regions, in which mentioned abnormalities are detected most often. First one is located in the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean and Near-Atlantic Arctic, including waters around Greenland and Iceland, the North Sea, the Greenland Sea, the Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea and Canadian Arctic Islands. The second region includes the northern part of the Pacific Ocean and Near-Pacific Arctic together with waters around the Aleutian Islands, the Bering Sea and the Chukchee Sea, as well as north-eastern coast of Asia.

Pressure changes in these two regions always happen in antiphase. In case when solar activity rises and pressure increases in the Atlantic region, then in the Pacific one the pressure drops and vice versa. These pressure fluctuations are like scale balance with centre located in the Arctic. Pressure discrepancy in these centres changes from 4.5 to 7 millibar. Changes in surface air pressure can cause long-term natural anomalies, for instance, if pressure over Atlantic keeps growing, then warm waters from moderate latitudes travel to the Arctic through the strait between the Greenland and Europe slower.

Such situation was detected during 21st and 22nd solar cycles in the sixties and eighties of the previous century and coincided with cooling in the Arctic. If pressure over Atlantic drops, then speed of warm water transfer grows, like in 1920-1940s, when warming was detected in the Arctic. During the 22nd solar cycle, which started in 1986, the pressure over vast territories of the northern hemisphere, including Canada, Greenland, the Arctic Ocean, Eastern Europe, Eastern and Western Siberia, dropped significantly. This stage of natural fluctuations concurs with current climate state, which is usually called the global warming. However, in the next solar cycle the pressure over the Northern Atlantic may change, causing the end of global warming.


Brit fined for putting rubbish in rubbish bin

The outcome of the Greenie policy to stop weekly rubbish collections in Britain -- on reasoning that is purely Greenie

A Lincolnshire pensioner was fined 75 pounds for putting a bag of rubbish - in a bin. John Richards, 84, left a neatly parcelled carrier bag in a lamp-post bin rather than wait ten days for his fortnightly waste collection.

But council officials tracked him down and accused him of fly-tipping, reports The Sun. They said he faced a fine of up to 2,500 if he went to court so Mr Richards, of Boston, handed over nearly three-quarters of his weekly pension to pay the 75 pound penalty. He said: "It's just ludicrous. I've never thrown litter in my life. It's only a small house and it would be intolerable to keep rotting food waste indoors until the next collection."

A council spokesman said: "Public bins are there for everyone to use. If one is repeatedly filled by an individual it creates a problem."



A senior International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) official has said that China and India will outpace other countries in the next two decades with the help of nuclear power. "In China, in India, you have very definite plans for increasing the nuclear capacity six to 10 times for 20 years, this is really fast growth.The growth of the world is not so fast," said Yury Sokolov, IAEA's Deputy Director-General and the Head of the Department of Nuclear Energy. "Now, nuclear power exists in 30 countries, and 30 to 40 other countries have expressed their willingness to explore nuclear power," Sokolov added

He made the remarks on the sidelines of an IAEA symposium on nuclear power plant management, which opened here on Monday.

According to The China Daily, China started nuclear power operations in 1991, when Qinshan-I, a 300-megawatt (MW) presurized-water reactor unit, independently developed by China, plugged into the grid. China has since fast-tracked development of nuclear power in recent years with a target to take its nuclear power capacity from about 9,000 MW in 2007 to 40,000 MW by 2020, according to China's long-term development plan for the nuclear power industry.

The Indian Department of Atomic Energy also had plans to increase the country's installed nuclear power capacity, expected to reach 20,000 MW by 2020.

Sun Libin, a scholar with the Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology of Tsinghua University, was quoted as saying that: "Other forms of new energy, such as wind power and solar power, carry energy density much lower than nuclear power, and are unable to meet the tremendous power demand in China". (ANI)



For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.


No comments: