Go to: => TOP Page;   What's New? Page;   ROAD MAP;   Emmaus Ministries Page;   Search Page


Global Warming/Cooling
2 Articles

See 2nd Article below

[COMMENT:   The debate continues, but my bet is on the viewpoint below.   E. Fox]

Climate facts to warm to

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html#

Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.

A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.

The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".

Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.

It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.

THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.

The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".

What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"

The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.

Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?

 

 

 

 
Hawaii Reporter
Freedom to Report Real News

2008 International Conference on Climate Change:
An Intellectual Feast

By Michael R. Fox, 3/17/2008 8:19:04 AM

As an attendee and speaker at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City, I found it to be a profound experience and the best scientific meeting I had ever attended. From the President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus to John Stossel for luncheon speaker, to hundreds of scientists, economists, and world class statisticians in between, it was an intellectual feast. It was a meeting of realists.

The conference was organized by the Heartland Institute along with some 50 co-sponsors. According to Heartland’s president Joe Bast, Al Gore had been invited, and even offered his usual speaker fee of $200,000. Others from the Gore camp were also invited, yet did not show. Scientific accountability is not among their strong suits, when deceptions are so much more lucrative. Dozens of media did not take notice.

Dr. Fred Singer continued to contribute solid analyses of the global warming issues which he presented. He and 23 co-authors have written an excellent new summary (http://tinyurl.com/327vkg). Singer introduced the recent findings of global warming complexities entitled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate. This was the Summary for Policymakers from Singer’s new group the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change or NIPCC. The report is the perfect foil for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policy Makers.

What many people do not appreciate is that the UN’s IPCC has been an activist program from the very beginning. It has not been devoted to better understanding of the climate, but to develop documentation “proving” only a human link (read capitalist) to climate change. Considering natural forces on climate such as the influence of the Sun were off limits.

Those IPCC documents have been historically drafted by international bureaucrats to better fit the UN and the IPCC political agendas. They have been known to re-write scientific conclusions without knowledge or approval of the originating authors. This is not science, nor a scientific process, but is hubristic (and destructive) politics, unbecoming of “world class” scientists.

In sharp contrast was Singer’s NIPCC Summary document written by 23 solid, identified scientists, a number of whom were quite available for discussion and questions at the meeting. This was quite a refreshing difference in candor and openness than what we’ve seen from the IPCC.

Singer briefly describes some of the history behind the global warming scare which can be traced back to the early 70’s. Manmade CO2 emissions were recognized by the left as the ideal “threat” by which western economies could be crippled. This is in spite of the fact that 97% of the atmospheric CO2 is from natural sources such as the oceans.

It requires a lot of energy to run these industrial economies such as ours, much of it coming from fossil fuels with the necessary production of CO2. Portraying manmade CO2 emissions as a global menace by which to frighten an uninformed public appears to be working. The hysteria is widely promoted by the media which seems to be invested in “catastrophe”, again. It is enough to make one wonder why teach or study science at all, if it is to be so uniformly ignored.

The Singer document provides a withering analysis of the current understanding of the Anthropogenic Warming (AGW) hypothesis itemizing many weaknesses. The current understanding of the climate forces is very poor and incomplete. Additionally, the surface temperature data are a scientific embarrassment in terms of poor data quality and control.

Singer and 3 co-authors also have recently reported their findings of computer runs of 22 different but widely used computer models (http://tinyurl.com/2fpj7b). In fact these are the same computer models used by the UN’s IPCC. Their research examined the abilities of the models to replicate climate temperature data over the past several decades, that is, to test if they can replicate data already in the historical record. All 22 models failed to replicate the real world temperature data, all of which overstated the actual measured temperatures. In polite company this is called an “upward bias” in the computer models. To repeat: ALL 22 of the computer climate models predicted temperatures which were higher that actually observed by measurement. This is stunning.

Meeting some of the world class scientists was very special and reassuring. Dr. Vincent Gray, a retired New Zealand climatologist now 88 years old, is still wise, pointed, and at the top of his game in his diagnosis of the IPCC scams (his words).

He has been an IPCC expert reviewer of the IPCC reports from the beginning. He submitted 1878 comments (16% of the total) on the 2007 report and is keenly aware of the highly questionable editing practices of the IPCC authors of such documents.

Not to be confused, there is a second scientist named Gray among the realists. Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University has also been in the climatology field for more than 50 years. Much of this was of an observational research, field research, a point Gray emphasized. He emphasizes that too much of climate research work today is dominated by the use of huge computer models with little apparent use of actual field data. Energy policy should never be determined by such questionable means. Dr. Gray informed us that he and many colleagues familiar with climate field data have never been contacted by computer modelers.

John Stossel’s luncheon talk was entertaining. He said that the media’s non-support of the realists was not so much because there were “evil”, but because they were dumb. He also noted the media’s large and common hatred for free market capitalism, defying all logic. Socialism failed around the world during the 20th century, killed tens of millions and creating deprivation, destitution, and enslavement for hundreds of millions more. This forces one to ask whether the media has any analytical skills with which to produce the news. Seven figure salaries among the news anchors apparently haven’t purchased much wisdom.

The significance of the advice from Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus is that his profound warnings are based upon his experience living for decades under totalitarian communism. He knows them intimately. He concluded “It is not about the climate”, and we should all stay alert to the underlying politics.

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyist for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:mike@foxreport.org

HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com

Fox Energy and Environment Reports...

© 2008 Hawaii Reporter, Inc.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to: => TOP Page;   Science/Global Warming;   Politics/Global Warming;   ROAD MAP