Scepticism Rises

The following is from Andrew Bolt’s blog on the Courier Mail website:

Scepticism rises

93 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | Permalink    Andrew Bolt Blog

Andrew Bolt    Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 02:25pm



No wonder:


Meanwhile, the ABC’s Lateline confuses predictions with observations:

LISA MILLAR, PRESENTER: Alarming new research suggests sea levels may be rising a lot faster than was previously thought.

Not true:


Seriously worser

 This one from American Thinker caught my eye –  

Global Warming: Seriously Worse than Worse

Larrey Anderson

An IPCC spokesman has now made it clear: Global warming is seriously worse than everything else anywhere and always that ever was bad. Worser than that.

Chris Field is the IPCC panel member. Reuters quotes Field as saying, “The consequence of that is we are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we’ve considered seriously.”

Seriously. Fields said, “the actual trajectory of climate change is more serious” than any of the climate predictions in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report called “Climate Change 2007.” Seriously … this time it is worse than serious.

At least this worse than serious time, the IPCC is not blaming it on my non-florescent light bulbs. Reuters states :

The climate is heating up far faster than scientists had predicted, spurred by sharp increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries like China and India, a top climate scientist said on Saturday.

Well maybe. There is no doubt about which countries can’t keep their carbon emissions in their pockets. And it ain’t the West. So, sure, China and India are worse than serious polluters.

But Field couldn’t leave it at that. He just had to do it. He had to throw in the doomsday sound bite. Here it comes:

“There is a real risk that human-caused climate change will accelerate the release of carbon dioxide from forest and tundra ecosystems, which have been storing a lot of carbon for thousands of years,” Field, of Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science, said in a statement.

Field claims that global warming will cause huge wildfires in the tropical rain forests and will also melt the permafrost in the arctic. (That’s where all of that carbon dioxide is going to come from — er … it comes after the carbon dioxide from China and India, I guess. So man made global warming is causing non-made made global warming. This is worse than worser than serious.)

Now a first year high school chemistry student can tell you that fire burns because of, say it together class, oxygen, not carbon dioxide. Most scientists know that what this planet does not need is more oxygen in the atmosphere. A 5% richer oxygen mix in the air — and wild fires would burn and burn and never stop.  But carbon dioxide causes fires? Not on this planet.

And the permafrost is going to melt? Not unless the planet gets much warmer than even the most dire IPCC predicti…. Sorry. I misspoke. This new predication is the direst IPCC prediction.

Are you starting to see the pattern?  The less evidence that is found for man made global warming … the worse the predications about the outcome of global warming.

Remember the movie “Dumb and Dumber?” Al Gore and the global warming crowd need to produce a new movie: “Worse and Worser.” Seriously.

 Hmmm, reminds me of something I read as a child….. Seriouser and seriouser?  No, that’s right, curiouser and curiouser.

American Thinker has a heap of writers contributing seriously interesting articles.

Hansen’s former boss is a global warming sceptic!

In case you haven’t read it elsewhere, here is a copy of an item on the website of the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. It speaks for itself and is chock-a-block full of interesting references and links.

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’
January 27, 2009

Posted By Marc Morano – 6:08 PM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov

  James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic 

Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’ 

Gore Faces Scientific Blowback  

Also See: Gore’s Inconvenient Astronaut: NASA Moonwalker Defies Gore’s Claim That Climate Skeptics Believe Moon Landing was ‘Staged’   

Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.


Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.”  Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. [See: U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims & See Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm ‘Mistaken’  &  Gore laments global warming efforts: ‘I’ve failed badly’ – Washington Post – November 11, 2008  ]


“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.


“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote.  [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! – See: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom – Get the Facts on James Hansen  UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says ‘lock up the oil men’ – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for ‘high crimes against humanity’ for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ]  


Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.


“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the  research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added. (LINK) Theon also co-authored the book “Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods.” [Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former  top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility]


 Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced in 2006 when his film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released. According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released,  Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears. [See: Peer-Reviewed Study challenges ‘notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming’ & New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears ]

“Vice President Gore and the other promoters of man-made climate fears endless claims that the “debate is over” appear to be ignoring scientific reality,” Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee.

A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 details over 650 international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming fears promoted by the UN and yourself. Many of the scientists profiled are former UN IPCC scientists and former believers in man-made climate change that have reversed their views in recent years. The report continues to grow almost daily. We have just received a request from an Italian scientist, and a Czech scientist to join the 650 dissenting scientists report. A chemist from the U.S. Naval Academy is about to be added, and more Japanese scientists are dissenting. Finally, many more meteorologists will be added and another former UN IPCC scientist is about to be included. These scientists are openly rebelling against the climate orthodoxy promoted by Gore and the UN IPCC.

The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with  ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ ( See full reports here & here ]  In addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”   A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.”  More evidence that the global warming fear machine is breaking down. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.  An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”.  India Issued a report challenging global warming fears.  International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices.”  

The scientists and peer-reviewed studies countering climate claims are the key reason that the U.S. public has grown ever more skeptical of man-made climate doom predictions. [See: Global warming ranks dead last, 20 out of 20 in new Pew survey. Pew Survey  & Survey finds majority of U.S. Voters – ‘51% — now believe that humans are not the predominant cause of climate change’ – January 20, 2009 – Rasmussen Reports ]  


 The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.”

On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears.  Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warminga failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.    

What can I say, but “Wow!”?

Professor Will Alexander says he has proven AGW is not the main player in climate change

Now you have to admit this story has WOW factor.

I have copied it straight off An Honest Climate Debate’s website. Just click the website name and that will take you there. He has heaps of other very interesting stuff on his website.

The reason I have copied this in full is because the contributor asked for his story to be broadcast as widely as possible. I am helping to oblige his request because I have questions. (Yes, I am sceptical. An occupational hazard!) I am hoping the wide range of readers that drift hrough this website will be kind enough to answer them.

Is he comparing apples with apples? ie change to anthropogenic global warming to change in solar influenced warming?

Do these arguments hold water scientifically?


Professor Will Alexander

Professor Will Alexander

By Professor Will Alexander

Via Email, January 26, 2009

Until now the climate alarmists exploited their untouchable status within the shelter of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. This has come to an end.

Our studies confirm that variations in received solar energy and not atmospheric discharges by burning fossil fuels are far and away the dominant cause of climate variability.

We can demonstrate beyond doubt that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will not have the slightest effect on South Africa’s climate now or in the future.

Please distribute the attached memo widely.


Memo 07/09

Climate change – solar influence underestimated

Monday 26 January 2009


The scientific advisers to the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism have created the impression that climate change is one of the greatest threats to our planet and to our people.

This statement is totally false and misleading.

As shown in this memo, during the past five years the range of received solar energy was 28 units compared with a range of only 1.6 units resulting from human activities.

Reducing undesirable emissions arising from burning fossil fuels will not have any measurable effect on climatic processes.

This conclusion is confirmed by comprehensive studies of our extensive hydro-climatic database during the past 30 years. These studies demonstrated the unequivocal linkage with variations in solar activity and complete lack of evidence of the effects of human activities.

The Minister is urged to appoint an independent, multi-disciplinary commission of enquiry to advise him before he commits South Africa to undertake costly and fruitless measures that can only damage our economy at a time of a global economic recession and rising unemployment.

The Minister is further informed that South Africa has now entered a period when severe subcontinental droughts can be expected. The basis for this prediction has been denied by his advisers.

I must also record that the Minister’s advisers are well aware of our studies but have rejected my frequent suggestions that we meet to discuss our differences on this nationally important issue.

Midrand Summit

The Midrand Summit is only four weeks away. The South African authorities are about to make some irreversible decisions that will affect the future prosperity of our nation and its citizens. There will be no benefits — just penalties.

This might be in order if we were facing a national emergency but we are not. There is no enemy at our gates. The threats are entirely imaginary as this memo demonstrates.

I am reminded of Adolf Hitler’s infamous statement that the bigger the lie the more believable it will be. I also recall Winston Churchill’s rallying cry that we will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them on the landing grounds, —- we will never surrender.

Am I exaggerating? Here is yet another example of a big lie perpetrated by climate alarmists. It goes to the very heart of the issue.

I received several responses to my request for one-page contributions that challenge the underlying science of climate change. I have attached a one-page comment from Fred Bailey in the UK. Here is some background to his comments.

Everybody accepts that solar energy received on earth drives the earth’s climate. It must follow that changes in the received energy will result in corresponding changes in climate. It is also elementary knowledge that the magnitude of the received energy will depend on the earth’s distance from the sun.

The first thing that scientists should do is therefore to determine the magnitude of changes in the earth-to-sun distance and then calculate the corresponding changes in received energy. This is what Fred Bailey did. His results are attached. More details of the methods that he used are provided in his book Textbook of gravity, sunspots and climate. Details of the linkage with the earth’s climate are given in our five-authored, refereed paper Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development. (Alexander, Bailey, Bredenkamp, van der Merwe and Willemse, in the Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, June 2007.)

In the attached note Fred Bailey demonstrates that wattage changes in the range of 30 Wm-2 have been taking place over millions of years. Compare this with the IPCC’s figures below.

The IPCC’s big lie

Climate alarmists have gone to great lengths to discredit the influence of variations in solar activity on climatic variations. They are forced to do this in order to establish their claims of exclusive human causality of undesirable climatic fluctuations. This is how they propagated their big lie. The emphases are mine. Note in particular that the IPCC’s variations are determined from proxy and satellite observations and not direct calculations. Why did they not carry out direct calculations based on the variations in the earth-to-sun distance? The answer is obvious.

IPCC third assessment report, 2001, working group 1, section C6.

Radiative forcing of the climate system due to solar irradiance change is estimated to be 0.3 ± -0.2Wm-2 for the period 1750 to the present. Most of the change is estimated to have occurred during the first half of the 20th century. The fundamental source of all energy in the earth’s climate system is radiation from the sun. Therefore, variation in solar output is a radiative forcing agent. The absolute value of the spectrally integrated total solar irradiance (TSI) incident on the earth is not known to better than about 4Wm-2, but satellite observations since the late 1970s show relative variations over the past two solar 11-year activity cycles of about 0.1%, which is equivalent to a variation in radiative forcing of about 0.2 Wm-2 . Variations over longer periods may have been larger, but the techniques used to reconstruct historical values of TSI from proxy observations (e.g.sunspots) have not been adequately verified.

IPCC fourth assessment report, 2007, working group 1, section 2.2.

There is a very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] Wm-2.

In comparison, changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to have caused a small radiative forcing of about +0.12 [+0.06 to + 0.30] Wm-2, which is less than half the estimate given in the third assessment report.

Figure 2.4 of the report provides the following radiative forcing components.

Long-lived greenhouse gasses: 2.14

Ozone: 0.30

Stratospheric water vapour: 0.07

Surface albedo: -0.1

Total aerosol: -1.2

Linear contrails: 0.01

Solar irradiance: 0.12

Total net anthropogenic: 1.6

However, Fred Bailey calculated that for the past five years the range was equal to 28 Wm-2 compared with the IPCC’s estimate of the anthropogenic component of 1.6 Wm-2 !

The solar influence is therefore 17.5 times greater than the human influence. No wonder the IPCC cooked the books.

For the past 30 years I have repeatedly demonstrated that there is NO evidence in the hydro-climatological data of human-caused abnormalities against the background of the undeniable evidence of the influence of variations in solar activity.

Midrand Summit

The IPCC’s fourth assessment report will be discussed at the Midrand Summit. It will be very interesting to hear how the presenter treats this problem. Will he quote the overwhelming ignorance of the vast majority of climate alarmists? How will he account for undeniable linkage with the hydroclimatological processes described in our joint paper?

Drought alert

For the past two years I have repeatedly drawn attention to the probable occurrence of severe global droughts from 2009 to 2016. This warning is described in detail in my article The likelihood of a global drought in 2009 – 2016 <click here to read>, published in Civil Engineering in June 2008.

There are already signs of a developing drought in parts of South Africa. Other parts of Africa are in the grip of a drought but confirmation is difficult. Argentina is also currently experiencing a severe drought. The country faces a potential loss of revenue from agricultural production of US$4.4 billion.

My prediction is based on the observed, regular and therefore predictable, periodicity in the hydrometeorological data. The existence of this periodicity is denied by climate alarmists.

Soon it will be far too late to take any action to avoid the consequences, particularly to the rural and farming communities as well as the water supply authorities.


[Fred Bailey’s comments are attached.]

(I wish I could figure out how to make the lettering larger in this software – my apologies.)

See – I told you it was interesting.

Now – what do YOU think?

Vote of no confidence for temperature charts

How can a person have confidence in the global warming caused by CO2 emissions theory when the temperature j0437711charts seem to be so full of discrepancies, bad data, data cleansing, poor placement of measuring equipment and indications of political manipulation?

One of my favourite blogs is WattsUpWithThat because I am amazed at the number of problems there seem to be with what I would have expected was very straight forward basic data.

Placement of weather stations

 Weather stations are often placed at airports. This makes sense on an efficiency basis, because aircraft pilots need weather information for take-off and landing. However, they are not great places for getting temperature data. Planes create heat from their engines. Runways are upgraded from grass to bitumen. Carparks are built and expanded. Buildings are built up and airconditioners and other heat creating plant built in.

Many other weather stations are in urban centres. This also makes sense as weather bureaus want to give weather information to the largest section of the population. However, urban centres have also become more built up – more roads, more buildings, more heat producing car engines, air conditioners, etc. A weather station placed close to a building, and/ or with new buildings and new airconitioning condensing units blowing towards them would provide higher temperature readings over time as more of the warming infrastructure is placed around it.

The problem here is the local environment of many weather stations have become warmer due to urbanisation, and don’t necessarily reflect climate changes.

 Moving weather stations to new locations

From time to time the powers that be deem the existing location of a weather station to be unsuitable and relocate it elsewhere. Sometimes the new location is more suitable, sometimes less suitable. The problem here is that the readings before and after the move are no longer comparable. A move closer or further from heat sources, up or down hill, into or out of breeze ways can change the temperature readings significantly from a move of even a short distance.

 Change in surrounding land use

 A change in the use of the land in the district where the weather station is located will cause the local temperature to change over time. A change from forest to agriculture, or from agriculture to suburbia, or even suburbia to high density buiildings will change the amount of heat absorbed and reflected in the district. 

Old equipment or faulty equipment

I have read a number of discussions about the accuracy and reliability of different types of equipment used for measuring temperature. While I admit I only understand part of it, I do understand enough that some equipment gives a warming feedback into itself by the way it has been designed. There is also the issue of calibration which I will include under human error. 

Human error

Not all weather stations are electronically interfaced with the recording and reporting authority. Many weather stations still require physical readings by a human being. Others give electronic readouts, but the data needs to be transcribed by a human being into the database or a communications system.

There are gaps in some data sets because the person who is responsible for taking the readings didn’t do it that hour/ that day/ that week.

Temperature measuring equipment needs to calibrated by the manufacturer and/ or installer and/ or maintenance staff.

There are a few ways human error can come into the data. 

Data adjustment

 Apparently one doesn’t just collect all of the readings for a certain time and take the average to work out the global temperature. There is an algorithm which is used to take into account a number of factors, one of which I hope is the area covered. However, this algorithm and the data sets put into the algorithm apparently change from time to time. Possibly this is due to better understanding of how the data should be amalgamated, but it is also open to the suspicion of political interference. 

Change in number of weather stations

 The number and location of weather stations around the world changes from time to time. There is a very interesting post about the change in the number of weather stations around the world from the 1950’s through to current times at  M4GW‘s website. The figures and area quoted aren’t quite correct, but the official GISS website does report a gradual increase in the number of stations used from a few hundred in 1860 to about 3000 in 1950, then a quick increase to about 6000 in about 1970, and then a rapid drop in about 1990 from about 5000 to about 2500 stations. How does one maintain comparability of data with this degree of change in the source data set?

This is the graph from GISS:


Another interesting point is that there is much greater coverage of the northern hemisphere than of the southern hemisphere. Don’t two halves make a whole?

Different data sets used for different charts

There are different collections of temperature data, and each one gives a different picture. The best trick I have heard of yet is the allegation that IPCC stitched together the data up to about 1980 from one data set and the data from another source from 1980. This resulted in the famous “hockey stick” graph which purported to show the planet has been warming at an alarming rate. The recent trend in the graph was then extrapolated to show that in about 100 years time the global temperature would go through the roof. Such stunts do not do anything for public confidence in the global warming theory, particularly when it came from the IPCC. 

Ignoring or removing readings

 A couple of places in the US have recorded the lowest temperature ever. Watts Up With That website is concerned that these lowest ever readings have been struck from the official record –

 The above problems are with regard to weather stations which measure surface temperature.

 Satellite data is now available. Satellites measure the temperature in the lower atmosphere, not surface temperatures, so one would expect the raw data to be different, but the trends should be the same. However, can one have confidence in the published data from that source? How much of the planet is covered by these temperature readings? How often are temperatures measured at each point? What data “adjustment” is applied to these readings?

Has anyone got the answers to these questions?

US to announce War Against Global Warming?

Reuters has just posted news that US President elect Obama has filled his new administration with AGW proponents.

President-elect Barack Obama‘s new “green dream team” is committed to battling climate change and ready to push for big policy reforms, in stark contrast with the Bush administration, environmental advocates said on Monday.

“If this team can’t advance strong national policy on global warming, then no one can,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, referring to Obama’s picks for the top energy and environment jobs in his administration, which takes office on January 20.

Just great! From the country that brought us the war in IRAQ, the global financial collapse, ENRON and other startling failures, they are now going to inflict on us the perpetuation of the man made CO2 is bad for us myth.

… Karpinski said that with Obama’s “great new green dream team” and more members in the U.S. Congress who support action to curb climate change, a law to limit greenhouse gas emissions is more likely, as is a global agreement to succeed the current phase of the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol.

Or is this just wishful thinking by the AGW proponents?

At least they didn’t mention an emissions trading scheme, or is that what they mean by a “law to limit greenhouse gas emissions”?

Policy to protect the environment is good, but only if it is directed at the real causes and takes action that is going to make a real difference.

Why argue with solid ice core data?

You freeze water and you get ice. During the freezing process some of the air that is around or dissolved in the water gets frozen too. However, when the ice melts, the frozen air goes too. See?

Back to my key credible source of information on global warming and climate change. Page 33 of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers in the Climate Change 2001 reports has a great chart which illustrates the CO2 levels found in core ice which they somehow worked out was formed as far back as the year 1000. This shows very even concentrations of CO2 right up until more recent times when the scientists used direct atmospheric measurements (ie they used some real air).
This is very impressive evidence that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were incredibly stable until the 20th century. When I read this graph I wondered what the ice core readings would show compared to the atmospheric readings for the past few decades. That would be really interesting! Hmmm. Maybe the ice core data isn’t available because the polar ice caps have been melting, not building up to provide evidence for us to study?
Ahhhh! That’s why the CO2 concentration levels in ice cores are so consistent for the past thousand years! When there was more CO2, the world was warmer, the ice melted a little, and didn’t build up. There is no evidence in the ice of higher CO2 concentrations because the evidence melted!

What interesting item will I find in these reports next?

Is Global Warming a Northern Hemisphere thing?

An illustration in the IPCC report “Summary for Policymakers” based on the fourth Assessment Report “Climate Change 2007” shows a very interesting pattern.

(I’ll need to print the page and scan it in – sorry for the delay.)

Refer to page 4 where there is a diagram of the world showing changes in surface temperatures from 1970 to 2004. There is a clear gradient in the degree of temperature change from the Arctic region with up to +3.5o C (increase) to -1o C (DECREASE!) in areas close to the Antarctic in the southern hemisphere.

Why is this? (If you know, please post a comment.)

It is also interesting that over 90% of the “Observed Data Series” for both physical and biological systems are for the Northern Hemisphere.

So, what about these options?

  • There is greater land mass in the northern hemisphere. But doesn’t the land heat and cool faster than the sea?
  • There have been more temperature readings taken in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere temperature data isn’t as complete.
  • There is a change in the position of the northern hemisphere relative to the southern hemisphere in relation to the sun in the long term cycle of the Earth’s orbit.
  • There is more industry in the northern hemisphere and temperature change is localised to a greater extent than global.
  • Changes in the Earth’s magnetic field has caused some particles (which absorb heat such as water vapour) to concentrate more in areas north of the Equator.
  • The scientists obtained temperature increase readings in the northern hemisphere more easily than in the southern hemisphere, so they have concentrated on studying those areas.
  • There are more politicians in the northern hemisphere (sorry – I couldn’t resist that one!)
  • The readings which didn’t support the Global Warming theory were filtered out.

Interesting, but the illustration covers only a 34 year period. I did enough science at school to know that climatic trends span much greater time periods than that.

Also, the report talks about “average” surface temperature change. If more readings are taken in the northern hemisphere land masses close to cities, then doesn’t that make the “average” data skew towards those areas, and not give a picture of the globe overall? That’s what I had thought they meant by “average” temperature change up until I saw this illustration. Now I need to find out what data points they used for this average, and how many readings were taken from each.

Concern – Average means average of the data received, not average in global coverage.

Another noteworthy point is that very few of the “Observed Data Readings” are in countries which the United Nation’s Millenium Development Goals aim to assist. Hmmmm – that could be worthy of a blog post all on it’s own!

Interesting, but not conclusive. I’ll keep reading…………….

IPCC says global warming is not a certainty!

Have you ever read an IPCC report?

Having become increasingly curious and concerned about the direction governments are heading in the name of saving the planet from this thing called Global Warming, or Climate Change, I decided to do my own research. After reading a number of assorted items I found by searching Google, I decided I was ready to tackle the big one – IPCC.

First, let’s tackle the acronym. IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Their website is at

On their website they have a number of reports dating back to 1990.

The IPCC is a scientific body which was set up by the WMO and UNEP in 1988. More acronyms! WMO is Wolrd Meteorological Organisation and UNEP is the United Nations Environment Programme. On their About IPCC page they describes themselves as:

The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :

  • The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of [member countries] participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate [in] the review of IPCC Reports.
  • The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the
    work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
  • The people: as [an] United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals

So, this seems to be a very credible organisation. Pity the third dot point says they speak for “the people”, and not that they consult them.

It is their work that lead to the Kyoto Protocol and the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). See why they use acronyms?

The IPCC has several classifications of publications:

  • Assessment Reports
  • Special Reports
  • Technical Papers
  • Methodology Reports
  • Supporting material

IPCC has produced four Assessment Reports – 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007. The Assessment Reports have a number of parts or volumes. I found one of these, the Synthesis Report, which has a sub-report called “Summary for Policymakers” or SPM. Aha! This sounded like a good place to start. I downloaded the Summary for Policymakers for 2007 and 2001 last night.

Talk about good bed time reading!

I had a quick overview of the headings and diagrams, and glanced through some of the text. I will progressively study some the IPCC documents and post some observations and questions as I go. Be patient, it will take me a while!

Glancing through the 2007 Summary for Policymakers, some words caught my attention – “likely”, “very likely”, “high confidence”, “very high confidence”, “medium confidence” and “more likely than not”!

Having studied a little bit of statistics, and having worked in bureaucracy, I noted that the use of these words is significant. The words caught my attention because I don’t recall the reports I have read and heard in the popular media using them.

IPCC says that global warming is not a certainty!

Talk about an “Aha!” moment!

They have my attention now. More reading and more blogging to come…………