There is a growing and consistent amount of evidence that the hype over global warming has been severely overplayed in the past and that not all the science is what it purports to be.
Politics has played a large part for the bulk of so called incontrovertible evidence communicated to the public and an atmosphere of fear exists in scientific communities, where any argument that the evidence doesn’t stack up is deemed crack-pot and politically motivated and possibly career limiting and any research to try to redress the balance is unlikely to attract funding.
More recently, the IPCC has had a good deal of media coverage, demonstrating that the science it has used in key reports is seriously flawed or downright wrong.
Now, a growing group of respected scientists (including former IPCC scientists) are providing evidence that warming itself is doubtful
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was formed in1998 under the UN.
o They follow an “anthropogenic” – (man-made) argument for climate change, refusing to consider a more naturally occurring alternative
1900 – 1920 – No change
1920 – 1940 - +0.4 degrees C
1940 – 1975 - -0.2 degrees C
1975 – 1999 - +0.5 degrees C
2000 – 2007 – No change at best or even a decline
…the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
[But] it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
(Paul Hudson - Climate correspondent, BBC News - Oct 2009)
The Southern hemisphere has seen slight cooling over this period whilst the northern hemisphere has seen warming
(Figures from Hadley Centre Climate Prediction & Research)
The 21st century’s flat/reducing temperatures were not predicted by any computer model. Although we’re expected to trust our wealth and living standards to those same models.
o Last qtr of 20th century there was a solar activity increase
o First part of 21st century solar activity decrease
USA records show only 3 of the last 12 yrs were the warmest on record. (IPCC say 11 of last 12 were warmest).
o They say the warmest year of all was 1934 (USA)
Urban heat island effect – most temperature recording stations are situated in or near cities or airports which are always warmer than surrounding countryside and have grown over the decades since measurements began
Scientists started warning about climate change in the early 70’s, even reaching the President of the USA and stories were published across the world about the impending disaster. The science even spotted that CO2 emissions could be causing the change. However, the change they predicted was of a new Ice Age with temperatures falling by around 3.5 degrees.
IPCC PREDICTION MODELS & SCIENCE
IPCC models assume that outside of climate and economic models all else will remain the same – clearly unrealistic. For instance, the effect of extreme weather incidences has not accounted for population increases, which themselves result in more damage, loss and cost even if weather events remain static.
Their predictions are over 100 yrs to 1000 yrs – unrealistic time frames considering the inaccuracy of most weather and climate predicting models even over far shorter periods.
o eg, no predictive computer model managed to predict the past decade of stagnant or falling temperatures.
The IPCC also admits to a “cascade of uncertainty” over predictions.
Current policy/decision making/media stories all based on the temperature increase predictions (1.8 – 4.0 degrees C by 2100) which were made before the Hadley Centre noticed the 9yr+ 21st century temperature lull/decrease)
1.8 degrees C over the next 100 years = 0.018 degrees C per year – less than that recorded in the last quarter of 20th century
Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
No climate computer models predicted or reflect the actual climate as it is today (source Climate Analysis section of US Nat Ctr for Atmospheric Research)
IPCC research has been proven inconsistent, erroneous and motivated by something other than a desire for the truth and the facts.
o The assertion that global warming or climate change has affected weather patterns and major weather events has been shown to be incorrect. The basis of the IPCC research was on an unpublished paper later to be dismissed even by its author.
See The Times Online - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece
o The IPCC statement that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 were disproved - it would in fact take many hundreds of years longer for melting of that magnitude, even if the glaciers were at risk. The report was based on a magazine article, itself based only on a telephone conversation with a little known Indian scientist who has since admitted he was just speculating - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
o Some Himalayan glaciers are static and some are in fact growing according to glaciologists. (The Times – Jan30 2010)
o An IPCC claim that climate change would cause the Amazonian rainforest to die in large measure was proved to be false – again based on shoddy research.
o The recent well publicised email scandal shows IPCC scientists are motivated to prove their theories at the expense of the truth or the facts. Dr Pacharui, chairman of the IPCC has been accused of using errors in reports to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
o The latest evidence shows “..with overwhelming statistical significance that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems.” (Prof. Ross McKitrick - Sunday Times, Feb 14th 2010).
Many weather stations are situated close to urban developments, airports and industrial areas that have grown up over the years, producing waste in the way of heat!
Some background information you may find interesting…
65% of so-called “greenhouse gas” is actually water-vapour.
o But clouds are the least understood science (IPCC & Hadley both agree)
The cloud effect added into all climate computer models has been pure conjecture on part of scientists.
No current model can account for, or measure, water-vapour concentrations and cloud formations – and as noted above, water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas by far.
CO2 levels have seen a steady 30% increase in 20th century
There has been a continuing increase in 21st century (note the 21st century lull in temp increases however)
Levels are now at around 380 parts per million as opposed to 280 parts per million a century ago.
CO2 not a poison or pollutant as depicted by IPCC and climate change believers but actually a fertilizer –
o eg crops will benefit – an increase in CO2 means plants need less water to grow, saving the Earth’s resources.
CO2 is actually a very inefficient insulator – a doubling of CO2 traps less than 2% of outgoing radiation emitted by the Earth.
Historically, concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have been higher by many magnitudes without corresponding hikes in temperature.
o Eg. at least 1000 parts per million 80m years ago when mammals evolved – for comparison, industrial greenhouses use 1400ppm as standard to encourage plant growth - CO2 isn’t a poisonous gas!
Evidence proves that global temperature rises more often precede increased CO2 concentrations and have done for several hundred thousand years. (from Myhrvold – Sunday Times Oct 09)
The extent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is hotly disputed and by no means proven. Exactly how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere by human activity is still unclear.
1000 years ago temperatures were as high or higher than today
In Roman times temperatures were higher than today (there were vineyards in Northamptonshire for instance)
17th & 18th century was the little ice age.
GREENLAND ICE SHEET
Fringes are melting – but the centre is thickening in places.
Greenland was warmest in 1930s/40s – coldest in 1980s/90s
Sea levels have been rising as long as records have been kept – and at least throughout the last 12,000 years
There is no sign of acceleration…
o …sea levels are 425ft higher now than 12,000 years ago – but in the past century have risen only 8ins
A recent report stated that the annual rise was slightly less in the 2nd half of the 20th century than the 1st half (1.5mm per year vs 2mm per year)
Headline grabbing reports of 20 - 30ft rises are in the extreme minority – most reports state a rise of “around 1.5ft by 2100…
o …that’s less than the twice daily tidal variation in most coastal locations” (Sunday Times Oct 09)
Any sea level changes are not caused by polar ice melting, but by warmer water temperatures.
“The oceans, [he says,] have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.”
Taken from BBC report – quote from Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University
West Antarctic ice is shrinking (but the WA peninsula only accounts for 10% of the total ice mass)
Most of remaining 90% of the Antarctic ice sheet is in fact growing or thickening.
Any warming in Antarctica would actually lead to more snow in places where it’s currently too cold for precipitation - and hence more ice.
Helsinki has an average annual temperature of less than 5 degrees centigrade
Singapore’s average annual temperature is more than 27 degrees centigrade
o Yet both places are successful human habitats – surely humans can adapt.
Warming leads to both costs & benefits
o Thus for warmer climates that have experienced less warming & colder climates have experienced more cost/benefits will be proportionate.
We should create better flood defences where there is more water
Better conservation where there is less
Current water shortages are due to population growth not warming.
o River flow was actually up 3% in 20th century
Desalination technology advances mean sea water will become more available to drink and irrigate
GM crops need less water – and more CO2 means plants need less water.
IPCC gives “medium confidence” to its predictions of extinction rates (ie a 50/50 chance of being wrong or right)
Scientific ecologists accept relatively few extinctions have occurred over past 2.5m years despite substantial climate fluctuations
Polar bears survived vast temperature variances. Their biggest threat is from hunting and population increases.
IPCC predicts food supply will increase with temp increase of between 1 – 3 degrees C.
A decrease is predicted above that range – without taking advances in technology/farming methods into account which could counter any growing issues anyway. They also don’t consider the increase in CO2 levels which would increase plant yields.
Sea levels have been rising as long as records have existed
Maldives sea levels decreased over past 30 years (journal of Geophysical Research, 2006)
IPCC predicts a possible increase (yet to be recorded in fact) from 1.8mm to 5.9mm per year (ie max 59cm by 2100) (Al Gore predicted 20-30ft rises – but then Al Gore is sensationalist at the best of times)
Malaria scares. Experts state there is no link between heat and spread of the disease
Heat related deaths? If it’s warmer then there could be a possible increase of 2000 deaths per year…but a decrease in cold related deaths by 20,000
IPPC worst case scenario of +4 degrees C = 1.6% annual growth in developed world therefore great-grandchildren in the developed world would only be 4.7 times better off than now rather than 4.8 times.
If the worst predictions about economic effects come true, then great-grandchildren in the undeveloped world will be just 45 times better off than now rather than 50 times if everything stayed the same.
o However, this is partly based on the catastrophic weather events now shown not to be linked to global warming.
Some pertinent questions:
Since global temperatures (and sea level) have changed (often hugely) for millions of years, there are obviously other factors than humans affecting the world's temperature. What is the full list of these other factors?
When looking at all the factors that affect global temperature, how important are greenhouse gases. Do they represent 1% of the effect, 99% or something in between?
When looking at greenhouse gases, how important is CO2. Does it represent 1% of the greenhouse gas effect, 99% or something in between?
How much of the CO2 that is added to the atmosphere each year is caused by humans. Is it 1%, 99% or something in between?
There is a natural carbon cycle. How much carbon is added to the atmosphere each year and how much is removed? What is the net effect? Does this net addition/removal change with time or as CO2 concentrations change?
Historic records show that CO2 levels follow temperature change (not the other way round) usually with a time lag of 500 - 800 years. If increases in CO2 are causing increases in temperature, what is the time-lag for each level of effect (or is this immediate)?
Human CO2 emissions have been rising exponentially, but the atmospheric level of CO2 has been rising at a linear rate. Why is that?
Why has Antarctic sea ice increased for the last 30 years?
Why has Arctic sea ice stopped decreasing and started increasing since 2007?
Why has global temperature been decreasing for 11 years - since 1998?
(As asked in an Oct 09 Richmond Events article)
Given the obvious flaws, errors and fabrications in IPCC research and reports, why is anyone listening to what they have to say any more?