Archives for February 2008

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference to focus on issues and questions not answered by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming.

Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis.

——————————————————————————————————–
UPDATE

I was a delegate at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, March 2-4, 2008, New York City.
You can read some of my blog posts on the conference at the following links:

March 03, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 1, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002809.html

March 04, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 2, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002813.html

March 06, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 3, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002820.html
—————————————————————————————————————-

The debate over whether human activity is responsible for some or all of the modern warming, and then what to do if our presence on Earth is indeed affecting the global climate, has enormous consequences for everyone in virtually all parts of the globe. Proposals to drive down human greenhouse gas emissions by raising energy costs or imposing draconian caps could dramatically affect the quality of life of people in developed countries, and, due to globalization, the lives of people in less-developed countries too.

The global warming debate that the public and policymakers usually see is one-sided, dominated by government scientists and government organizations agenda-driven to find data that suggest a human impact on climate and to call for immediate government action, if only to fund their own continued research, but often to achieve political agendas entirely unrelated to the science of climate change. There is another side, but in recent years it has been denied a platform from which to speak.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change promises to be an exciting event and the point of departure for future conferences, publications, and educational campaigns to present both sides of this important topic.

The goals of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change are:

1. to bring together the world’s leading scientists, economists, and policy experts to explain the often-neglected “other side” of the climate change debate;

2. to sponsor presentations and papers that make genuine contributions to the global debate over climate change;

3. to share the results of the conference with policymakers, civic and business leaders, and the interested public as an antidote to the one-sided and alarmist bias that pervades much of the current public policy debate; and

4. to set the groundwork for future conferences and publications that can turn the debate toward sound science and economics, and away from hype and political manipulation.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference questioning global warming alarmism, but it will not be the last one. This event is intended to be a catalyst for future meetings, collaboration among scientists, economists, and policy experts, new research, and new publications.

The proceedings will be transcribed, edited, and published as a major contribution to the debate over global warming. Other possible follow-up activities now being discussed include:

1. an event in London in 2009;

2. launch of a new journal devoted to climate change;

3. launch of an association of philanthropists willing to support further research and public education opposing global warming alarmism;

4. support for an International Climate Science Coalition that will act as an alternative voice to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and

5. expanded cooperation among the scores of organizations currently sponsoring research, publications, and events on the dubious claims in support of the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming.

James M. Taylor
Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute

For more information visit: http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/program.cfm

I will be there.

—————–
UPDATE

I was a delegate at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, March 2-4, 2008, New York City.
You can read some of my blog posts on the conference at the following links:

February 25, 2008
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change: I’m off to New York
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002787.html

March 03, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 1, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002809.html

March 04, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 2, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002813.html

March 06, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 3, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002820.html

According to Lance Endersbee:

The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are damped by the oceans.

The oceans are a huge source and sink for volatile gases.

The surface area of the oceans is vast in relation to the depth of the oceans and the atmosphere.

Thus we are dealing with a surface phenomenon.

The above chart is an actual experience curve relating actual CO2 levels with actual global average sea surface temperatures.

It is not a time scale, just the simple relation between two physical parameters.

The line is made up of the succession of actual monthly plotted points.

If we have regard to the possible errors of measurement of CO2 and SST, it is remarkably consistent.

The clear relationship is what would be expected from solubility data.

It is only evident in the temperature data from satellite sources.

The 21 year moving average covers the double solar cycle, including the change in solar polarity.

It also covers El Nino and La Nina events. It also recognizes the longer response time of the oceans.

This chart proves that human emissions of CO2 cannot accumulate in the atmosphere.

They are scavenged as they occur.

We can use the chart to predict the decreased levels of CO2 that will result from cooling.

From Joe D’Aleo:

Below is the monthly Hadley land and ocean and UAH MSU LT temperatures over the last decade with the CO2. Note the temperatures have not warmed, something even IPCC’s Pachauri took note of (paraphrasing him – as for the plateauing of temperatures in recent years, we have to see if there are natural factors offsetting greenhouse gases).

Note the correlation with CO2 has vanished the last decade for both data sets.

Updated graph above:

The reasons some years appeared 3 times and some 2 in the originally posted graph was that I inadvertently choose an interval of 5 months instead of 6 months. It is fixed in the new graph.

As for Ian Mott’s comments, I started with 1998 which was 10 years ago to get a decadal plot. The last data point was January 2008 which is why 2008 appears at the end.

Aside from the brief bounce coming out of the moderate/strong La Nina of 1999, there has been no increase despite the steady climb of CO2. If we were nearing that ‘tipping point’ Hansen and Gore love to talk about, surely, a decade is not too short a period to expect some thermal response to CO2 increases.

Joe D’Aleo

The debate over whether there is an observable link between global warming and hurricanes rumbles on.

In this week’s Nature journal there is a comment and reply arising from Nyberg et al, Nature 447, 698-701 (7 June 2007):

Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the past 270 years:

Hurricane activity in the North Atlantic Ocean has increased significantly since 1995 (refs 1, 2). This trend has been attributed to both anthropogenically induced climate change(3) and natural variability(1), but the primary cause remains uncertain. Changes in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the past can provide insights into the factors that influence hurricane activity, but reliable observations of hurricane activity in the North Atlantic only cover the past few decades(2). Here we construct a record of the frequency of major Atlantic hurricanes over the past 270 years using proxy records of vertical wind shear and sea surface temperature (the main controls on the formation of major hurricanes in this region1, 3, 4, 5) from corals and a marine sediment core. The record indicates that the average frequency of major hurricanes decreased gradually from the 1760s until the early 1990s, reaching anomalously low values during the 1970s and 1980s. Furthermore, the phase of enhanced hurricane activity since 1995 is not unusual compared to other periods of high hurricane activity in the record and thus appears to represent a recovery to normal hurricane activity, rather than a direct response to increasing sea surface temperature. Comparison of the record with a reconstruction of vertical wind shear indicates that variability in this parameter primarily controlled the frequency of major hurricanes in the Atlantic over the past 270 years, suggesting that changes in the magnitude of vertical wind shear will have a significant influence on future hurricane activity.

The comment is from Urs Neu: Is recent major hurricane activity normal?

The first paragraph reads:

Arising from: Nyberg et al. Nature 447, 698–701 (2007);

The anomaly of the recent increase in Atlantic major hurricane activity (MHA) is controversial. From a reconstruction of past MHA, Nyberg et al. conclude that the present activity is not unusual by comparison with that of the past 270 years. However, here I estimate the uncertainty of average MHA in the hurricane record before 1945 and show that the reconstruction of Nyberg et al. differs strongly from that record, and probably overestimates past MHA. Owing to this and further reasons, I question whether their reconstruction provides an accurate basis for conclusions about past MHA.

Nyberg et al reply:

Neu suggests that the reconstruction of Atlantic major hurricane activity (MHA) (that is, frequency) in Nyberg et al. overestimates past MHA because it differs significantly from the known observational records of tropical storms and MHA before 1945 and overestimates the influence of vertical windshear |Vz|.

Nyberg et al point out that:

“Neu’s record shows a sudden rise in MHA around 1944, coincident with the start of aircraft reconnaissance, which allowed much better monitoring of tropical cyclones. Also, according to ref. 4, the undercount bias is up to six tropical cyclones per year between 1851 and 1885, and up to four per year between 1886 and 1910. These biases are higher than the ones Neu(1) uses in his record of major hurricane numbers. Furthermore, to quote from ref. 4, ‘‘conclusions from this paper on the number of missed tropical cyclones are likely conservative’’. Moreover, MHA shows a stronger variability, closely correlated to [Vz](ref. 2), than tropical storms and non-major hurricanes in the reliable record(1–3), indicating a varying MHA/tropical storm ratio back in time.”

and conclude:

“The proxies used in ref. 2 reflect the region where almost all Atlantic major hurricanes form (see Fig. 2 of ref. 2), and the nonlinear solution(2) allows for varying MHAin response to [Vz] and other influences such as SSTs. Absolute MHA values may change slightly given different model calibrations, but the proxies(2) still indicate a declining trend in MHA until the early 1990s superimposed on decadal and multi-decadal variability and that the conclusions in Nyberg et al(2) remain.”

1. Neu, U. Is recent major hurricane activity normal? Nature 451, doi: 10.1038/
nature06576 (2008).
2. Nyberg, J. et al. Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to
the past 270 years. Nature 447, 698–701 (2007).
2. Best track data of the NOAA National Hurricane Center (HURDAT). Æhttp://
www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.htmlæ (data used as published 11 June
2007). (Hurricane Research Division, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.)
4. Landsea, C. W. Counting Atlantic tropical cyclones back to 1900. Eos 18, 197–208
(2007).
5. Landsea, C. W. et al. in Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present and Future (eds
Murname, R. J. & Liu, K.-B.) 177–221 (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 2004).
6. Swanson, K. L. Impact of scaling behavior on tropical cyclone intensities. Geophys. Res.
Lett. 34, L18815 (2007).
7. Miller, D. L. et al. Tree-ring isotope records of tropical cyclone activity. Proc. Natl Acad.
Sci. USA 103, 14294–14297 (2006).
8. George, S. E. & Saunders, M. A. North Atlantic oscillation impact on tropical north
Atlantic winter atmospheric variability. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1015–1018 (2001).
9. Aiyyer, A. R. & Thorncroft, T. Climatology of vertical wind shear over the tropical
Atlantic. J. Clim. 19, 2969–2983 (2006).
10. Giannini, A., Cane, M. A. & Kushnir, Y. Interdecadal changes in the ENSO
teleconnection to the Caribbean region and the North Atlantic Oscillation. J. Clim. 14,
2867–2879 (2001).
11. Jury, M., Malmgren, B. A. & Winter, A. Subregional precipitation climate of the
Caribbean and relationships with ENSO and NAO. J. Geophys. Res. 112, D16107
(2007).
12. Hoerling, M. P., Hurrell, J. W. & Xu, T. Tropical origins for recent North Atlantic
climate change. Science 292, 90–92 (2001).
13. Osborn, T. N. et al. Evaluation of the North Atlantic oscillation as simulated by a
coupled climate model. Clim. Dyn. 15, 685–702 (1999).

A subscription to Nature is required in order to view the complete comment, reply and original article.

UPDATE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – February 21, 2008

*** NEWS FROM NOAA ***
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON, DC
Contact: Dennis Feltgen, NOAA 305-229-4404

Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People, Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms, New Study Says
A team of scientists have found that the economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the U.S. over time due to greater population, infrastructure, and wealth on the U.S. coastlines, and not to any spike in the number or intensity of hurricanes.

“We found that although some decades were quieter and less damaging in the U.S. and others had more land-falling hurricanes and more damage, the economic costs of land-falling hurricanes have steadily increased over time,” said Chris Landsea, one of the researchers as well as the science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami. “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.”

Full paper:

Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005

Roger A. Pielke Jr.1; Joel Gratz2; Christopher W. Landsea3; Douglas Collins4; Mark A. Saunders5; and
Rade Musulin6