The Article: "Contrarian, or just Curious - Place Magazine April 2007"
This article was requested as a “contrarian” viewpoint, and provided as a part of USI’s
objective and self-funded research into the evidence for Climate Change and
Global Warming. Supporting information
for this article is available here. A more detailed discussion of this material is being prepared - sadly the process of verification and checking is slow. In the interim, we have provided supporting material with a rather "provocative" tone, that actually reflects the views we have come to so far. And, Yes, we are aware of the criticisms leveled against Monckton, Milloy and others, but facts are facts. The first entry of the EB Blog goes some way to explaining why we are doing this. Our priority at present is a comprehensive assessment of the Global Warming phenomenon, which provides a context for the wider material we have on the various scientific and technical aspects of climate science, and the attendant cultural phenomenon involving media, academic scientific institutions, political agenda, funding mechanisms and the sociology of belief.
In general we are greatly encouraged by the number of climate scientists now coming forward with the messages about the real science of climate rather than the media sensationalism with portents of disaster at every turn (but not for 100 years). We are also rather disillusioned that figures like Gore and Stern are accorded superstar status when the vast majority of their fervent admirers have never even questioned or researched their pronouncements. We wonder if this phenomenon is a result of a dumbed down society, or is people generally have lost the capacity for critical thought. Please forward any thoughts to mike@urban-strategic-intel.com. If it seems worthwhile we will start a discussion forum on this site.
A point you may like to consider, as it is the linchpin of the entire Global Warming argument, relates to the lack of a definitive and factual proof that Carbon Dioxide is having a heating effect on the atmosphere. Beyond simple atmospheric chemistry in isolation, there is no demonstrated mechanism for CO2 to have a heating effect in a working atmosphere. It is merely assumed to work in many models, but it is unproven. If you have proof, please take it to the media and use it to debunk this site and our views. But be warned. The Mauna Loa graph of CO2 levels does not match concurrent temperature data, and no IPCC report even addresses this issue. We leave it to you to wonder why not.
Are you up on the Science of Global Warming & Climate Change? Take the Challenge issued by Junkscience.com at...
Supporting information:
|
|
References - Good General Sources |
|
|
|
Christopher Monckton:
Apocalypse Cancelled: Discussion, Calculations & References Monckton, Christopher; 2006; Supporting material for articles appearing in the UK Sunday Telegraph on 5 and 12 November, 2006.
Junkscience.com:
So, you think you know your Climate Change Science then. Have a look at the box with "JunkScience.com's 'Warming' Features" on the site's Front Page. Samples...
. ..and yes, we do know Mr Milloy's background.
The Great Global Warming Swindle:
The movie aired by Channel 4 in the UK that put Al Gore's award-winning disaster epic rather firmly back in its box. It also stirred a hornet's nest of reaction from Climate Change Activists and the odd scientist.
National Public Radio (USA) - Intelligence Squared Debate (Audio)
Proposition: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis" from Video from YouTube
Gristmill's "How to talk to a Climate Skeptic"
This optimistically scathing website contains entries by subject to allow any Climate Change activist to counter the arguments of a Climate Change Skeptic. On 25 April, 2007 there were 260 entries in this list (some of which were repeated). The first thought that occurred to us was "with that many holes to be addressed, why would anybody give credence to such a theory?". An enquiring and critical mind will find that the answers to supposedly convert skeptics range from delightfully simplistic, through insulting, to pseudo-scientific tangles that only a mother could love.
A similar site that challenges one's intelligence is RealClimate.org. Billed as "Climate Science from Climate Scientists", it disappoints as there is much opinion, little balanced scientific discussion, joyous "ain't we good backslapping", and too much schoolyard mudslinging against anybody with dissenting view.
Documentary by Friends of Science
- Climate Change - Part 1 Climate Change - Part 2
Vaclav Klaus: President of the Czech Republic
Global Warming Is a Myth, The Brussels Journal, Feb 12, 2007
Freedom, not climate, is at risk: Published: Financial Times, June 13 2007
|
|
|
References - The Role of CO2 |
|
|
|
It seems that the role of CO2 in our atmosphere is not being accurately portrayed by climate change enthusiasts or by the media. The following links are just the "tip of the iceberg" but they describe essential points:
- the "greenhouse effect" keeps the Earth habitable for humans
|
- CO2 is essential for plant growth - increasing levels of atmospheric
CO2 in recent decades have resulted in about a 15% increase in
agricultural productivity.
|
- absorption of energy by CO2 is limited to certain wavelengths and varies logarithmically as density increases
|
- Water vapour & clouds account for 90% of the greenhouse effect
|
- CO2 accounts for about 2.5% of the greenhouse effect, and
|
- even drastic increases in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will have no discernable effect on atmospheric temperature.
|
CO2 Science:
-
Carbon Dioxide -- Summary --- "...there
are no historical analogues for CO2-induced climate change; but there
are many examples of climate change-induced CO2 variations."
- The Current and Future Status of Climate Change Science --- "Stanhill
notes, for example, that "the reasons for societies' interest in
climate change are many and complex and by no means confined to
scientific considerations." This is the situation, in fact, that
persists in the world today, where there is great political pressure
upon the industrialized nations to reduce their emissions of CO2 in an
attempt (more feigned than real) to save the planet from predicted (but
far from proven) catastrophic global warming."
Rising atmospheric CO2: trigger for the origin of agriculture?
- Jennifer Cunniff
- "Archaeological evidence demonstrates
that human societies have been gathering and processing wild
grasses for more than 40,000 yr. Yet the first cultivation
of grass crops occurred only 10,000 yr ago, in a wave of near-synchronous
independent domestication events across different continents.
These
events immediately followed a rapid 35% rise in atmospheric
CO2 at the end of the last glacial period.
Junkscience.com
- The Real 'Inconvenient Truth' ---Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts
- If you've ever wondered just what the actual science of the
"Greenhouse Effect" is, and how it relates to our atmosphere, this is
essential reading. This page also covers the actual role of CO2 in the
heating and cooling of the atmosphere.
- "Greenhouse gases do not
"trap heat," but could be fairly described as delaying the energy
transfer from Earth to space. "Trapping heat" implies that the energy
is stuck in the system forever -- this is a false notion. Greenhouse
gases do not emit energy in the same bandwidth that they absorb energy,
and thus emissions from carbon dioxide are not absorbed by carbon
dioxide. While energy may be delayed on its inevitable journey back to
space, it will eventually be emitted regardless of the number of
intervening stages."
- The following is from Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget (Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997). This is expressed in Watts per square meter (Wm-2) and tells the same story of the incoming 342 Wm-2 = outgoing (235 + 107 Wm-2).
Note that there is relatively little direct reflection and radiation
from surface to space but significant exchange via the atmosphere. Note
further that the surface receives almost twice the energy from the
atmosphere as it does directly from the sun. The exchange between
surface, atmosphere and surface is what is meant by greenhouse effect.
(Those not enjoying lots of numbers or missing primary colors might
prefer viewing this simplified Earth energy budget)
- The most important
players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon
dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly
from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various
forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by
what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the
atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse
effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts
for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to
water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some
estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect.
The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide,
methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an
example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that
changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent
to the effect of doubling CO2.
- The adjacent
radiation absorption window graphic gives an idea of which molecules
absorb various wavelengths. Where the shaded portions completely span
between 2 lines it indicates that particular wavelength is fully
absorbed and the "window" is saturated (or said to be "closed"). Rather
obviously, once a window is saturated adding more gases with the same
properties will do nothing.
- Theoretically, in a
dry atmosphere, carbon dioxide could absorb about three times more
energy than it actually does, as could clouds in the absence of all
other greenhouse gases -- look at it as there already being
"competition" for available suitable longwave radiation (energy these
gases can absorb), if you like. Readers should be aware that the
temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic
(that means there is a diminishing response as you keep adding more,
like the additional window shade example, above). If we consider the
warming effect of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon
dioxide (about 280 parts per million by volume or ppmv) as 1, then the
first half of that heating was delivered by about 20ppmv (0.002% of
atmosphere) while the second half required an additional 260ppmv
(0.026%). To double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv (9%) but we'd never see it - CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv (0.6%, although humans have absolutely no prospect of achieving such concentrations).
- Estimates vary, but
somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the
increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with
increased carbon dioxide since 1950
|
|
|
|
References - Temperature Changes |
|
|
|
The problem we have here is a lack of reliable evidence for one side of the Global Warming debate. Global Warming "science" is generally based around predicted rapidly rising atmospheric temperatures caused by increasing levels of CO2. The sources in the section above indicate that CO2 can not play any significant role in forcing atmospheric temperatures to rise. Past temperature records show no indication that atmospheric temperatures are likely to change rapidly in the foreseeable future.
- We know how atmospheric temperatures over the period 1900 to 2000 have varied with reasonable certainty because we were able to measure them with thermometers.
- We
also know that average temperatures rose slightly from 1900 to 1940,
fell slightly from 1940 to 1970 then rose slightly again from 1970 to
the present.
- From
proxy measurements (ice cores, tree rings, bore holes, etc) we are also
reasonably certain about temperature variations over the last 1000
years, and we have some certainty about temperature variations over the
last 420,000 years.
- The
only evidence that we should expect rapid changes in atmospheric
temperatures comes from atmospheric and climate computer models. These
computer models depend greatly on the expectations of, and assumptions
made by, their creators. I am not aware of any such model that has
correctly predicted current temperatures from past data.
- The
famous "hockey stick" temperature graph prepared by Mann et al (1998)
so beloved of the IPCC and Al Gore is currently considered unreliable
due to methodological and data sourcing errors.
- A longer discussion of atmospheric temperature changes can be found below.
Junkscience.com
Well, why is the planet warming so catastrophically if it's not CO2 then? -- Who
says it is warming catastrophically? Humans have only been trying to
measure the temperature fairly consistently since about 1880, during
which time we think the world may have warmed by about +0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C.
As we've already pointed out, the estimate of warming is less than the
error margin on our ability to take the Earth's temperature, generally
given as 14 °C ± 0.7 °C for the average 1961-1990 while the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) suggest 13.9 °C for their average 1880-2004.
We are pretty sure it was cold before the 1880 commencement of record
and we would probably not handle the situation too well if such
conditions returned but there has been no demonstrable catastrophic
warming while people have been trying to measure the planet's
temperature. If we have really been measuring a warming episode as we
think we have, then setting new records for "hottest ever in recorded
history" should happen just about every year -- although half a
degree over a century is hardly something to write home about -- so
there's really nothing exciting about scoring the highest number when
looking at such a short history.
Christopher Monckton
Monckton has been very effective in identifying gaps in the "science" of global warming. This document is worth reading in its entirety.
|
|
|
Environmental Balance 
