Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

jennifer

Four Reasons Why Carbon Dioxide is Not Driving Global Warming

By

“There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever…

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the “urban heat island” effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.”

Read more from David Evans in the article ‘No Smoking Hot Spot’ first published in The Australian here on July 18.

American Physical Society Retreats to the Consensus on Global Warming

By

Earlier in the week I received a note from Jan Pompe suggesting I might be interested in the editorial of the most recent issue of the journal of the American Physical Society. It included comment that:

“There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion.”

A first contribution was by well known climate change skeptic Christopher Monckton. A link and some comment was posted at this blog to the article entiled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered.

I was hopeful that at last maybe there would now be some opportunity for real debate and discussion amongst a mainstream community with some understanding of the relevant science. But just tonight I was copied the following letter from Christopher Monckton to the President of the society at Stanford University complaining that his paper is now prefaced with a warning …

“The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.

I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to
all of the reviewer’s requests for revision (see the attached reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity – a method which the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediately
after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC’s viewpoint. Some days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website of Physics and Society:

“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society
disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than
the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.

Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur’s findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council’s decision, together with the names of those present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the “overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”; and, tertio, that “The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions”? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?

Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?

Yours truly,
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY.”

The Society should not only apologize to Christopher Monckton, it should remove the “warning” and reread its editorial.

Was June 08 Hot or Not?

By

It is summer in the northern hemisphere and given the Americans and Europeans are pretty obsessed with temperatures records at the moment, and some with a fear that the Arctic might go ice free this northern summer, it was with some anticipation that the June 2008 temperature records were released.

According to the US National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) the Northern Hemisphere Arctic sea ice extent for June 2008 ranked third lowest for June since records began in 1979 while Southern Hemisphere Antarctic sea ice extent for June 2008 was above the 1979-2000 mean, ranking as the second largest June extent.

So there is still ice in the Arctic and more ice than usual in the Antarctic.

As regards the US, according to the NCDC, June 2008 was the 27th warmest June based on records dating back to 1895. Globally though June 2008 ranked eighth warmest for June since worldwide records began in 1880.

But according to Joe D’Aleo a meteorologist with a blog: Don’t believe a word of it.

Joe prefers the NASA satellite data compiled by Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and it shows June 2008 was the 22nd warmest in its 30 years of records, Figure 1. According to Joe, this satellite data indicated the globe was a full 1.1F degrees colder than the NCDC guesstimate.

MSUJUNE blog.jpg
Figure 1. The NASA MSU June Temperatures since 1979 via Joe D’Aleo.

Joe explains that he prefers the satellite data because: the thermometer global data bases suffer from major station dropout after 1990 (number dropped from 6000 to less than 2000) and a ten fold increase in the number of missing months in the stations that report. Furthermore, there are serious problems with algorithms for assessing whether a station is urban or rural and adjusting for local land use changes. And there are major siting issues. You can find more information here: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DATA_ISSUES.pdf

Interestingly though, even James Hansen’s monthly data for the last ten years to June 2008, shows some recent cooling and it looks like global temperaturs have plateaued, Figure 2.

MMGST_Jul08 blog.gif

Figure 2. The NASA GISS Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Analysis since 1998, (see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif ).

Viv Forbes Responds to the Green Paper

By

The Australian Government Green Paper completely ignores the main question – should Canberra try to control the weather, or is it better to foster a strong Australia able to cope with whatever climate change brings us?

The Government also justifies the need for action on completely worthless long term forecasts of Australia’s weather.

Not even the IPCC claims an ability to forecast the weather beyond a few days, but the CSIRO has sullied its reputation by pretending they can project temperature and rainfall 30 years into the future. Why have they not revealed the calculations for these predictions? In the corporate world, anyone making such wild unsubstantiated claims would be quickly disciplined by the regulators. Public figures who repeat and embellish these scaremongering prophecies lack common sense and should also be called to account.

The only credible weather forecast for such a long period is “It will Fluctuate”.

Minister Wong obviously believes that if we give her enough powers to tax and regulate, she can change the world’s weather.

This belief is as silly as the CSIRO weather forecasts out to 2040. Man has never been able to control the weather and there is no credible evidence that his activities have caused unusual weather. In fact, despite all the hot air about carbon emissions, the world has not warmed since 1998 and has been cooling for the last 6 years. Moreover, we have had extreme droughts, floods, ice ages and global warming long before man started using coal and oil.

Minister Wong should make sure Australia has the industrial ability and economic strength to cope with any adverse weather that occurs, be it floods, fires, droughts, snow, heat, cyclones or tsunamis.

Poor people cannot cope with Climate Change and the Rudd/Garnaut/Wong carbon taxes will make every Australian poorer.

This Deep Green Paper should be recycled and replaced by an enlightened White Paper outlining how to make Australia strong and prosperous. This will provide the best insurance for our children against any climate change.

Viv Forbes
Chairman
The Carbon Sense Coalition

Australian Government Releases Green Paper on Emissions Trading Scheme

By

The Australian Government today released proposals for a new plan to tackle climate change by
reducing carbon pollution. The associated media release entitled, GREEN PAPER ON CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME RELEASED’ states that:

“Releasing the Government’s Green Paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, Minister for
Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, said the time for action on climate change was
now.

“We confront a daunting reality: we cannot continue to pour carbon pollution into the atmosphere
as if there is no cost,” Senator Wong told the National Press Club in Canberra.

“The 12 hottest years in history have all been in the last 13 years.

“As one of the hottest and driest continents on earth, Australia’s economy and environment will be
one of the hardest and fastest hit by climate change if we don’t act now.

“Climate change threatens our food production, agriculture, and water supplies, as well as icons
like the Great Barrier Reef, the Kakadu wetlands and the multi billion dollar tourism industries they
support.

“The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is a response to climate change that is economically
responsible, supports families and prepares Australia for our future challenges.”

Senator Wong said the Green Paper sets out options and identifies the Government’s disposition
and preferred positions on emissions trading and the support proposed to help households and
businesses adjust to this economic transformation.

“At the heart of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is emissions trading, in which the
Government sets a limit on how much carbon pollution industry can produce, and then the
Government sells permits up to that limit, creating an incentive to look for cleaner energy options.

“Companies can buy and sell permits from each other depending on how much they value them,
thereby enabling the market to find the most efficient ways to reduce carbon pollution.”

Senator Wong said this was the most efficient, lowest cost and most economically responsible way
to reduce carbon pollution, but any move to tackle climate change was not without costs.

“The Government will ensure that every cent raised from the selling of permits will be used to help
households and business as they make the move to a clean energy future.”

Senator Wong said the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, that the Government intends to
implement in 2010, is a whole of economy reform on par with past economic reforms such as the
reduction in tariffs or deregulation of the financial system.

“Placing a limit and a price on pollution will change the things we produce, the way we produce
them, and the things we buy. It will open new doors to a cleaner energy future.”

“In this Green Paper, the Government has sought to strike the right balance, on the basis of
economically responsible policy in the national interest.”

Senator Wong said the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will cover stationary energy, transport,
fugitive emissions, industrial processes, waste and forestry sectors, and all six greenhouse gases
counted under the Kyoto Protocol from the time the scheme begins.

“To offset the initial price impact on fuel associated with the introduction of the Carbon Pollution
Reduction Scheme, the Government will cut fuel taxes on a cent for cent basis.

“We will periodically assess the adequacy of this adjustment measure for three years and adjust this
offset accordingly. At the end of the three year period the measure will be reviewed.”

For heavy vehicle road users, who transport goods across the country, fuel taxes will be cut on a
cent-for-cent basis to offset the initial price impact on fuel associated with the impact of the Carbon
Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Government will review this measure after one year.

To assist rural and regional areas, the Government will provide a rebate equivalent to the excise cut
for businesses in the agricultural and fishing industries for three years.

“The Government will increase payments, above automatic indexation, to people in receipt of
pensioner, carer, senior and allowance benefits and to provide other assistance to meet the overall
increase in the cost of living flowing from the scheme,” Senator Wong said.

“We will also increase assistance to other low-income households through the tax and payment
system to meet the overall increase in the cost of living flowing from the scheme.

“Middle-income households will also get assistance to help them meet any overall increase in the
cost of living flowing from the scheme.”

The Government will establish the Climate Change Action Fund (CCAF) to help business
transition to a cleaner economy, by providing in partnership funding for a range of activities,
including:
• Capital investment in innovative new low emissions processes
• Industrial energy efficiency projects with long payback periods
• Dissemination of best and innovative practice among small to medium sized enterprises.

The Government will provide transitional assistance in the form of a share of free permits to the
most emissions intensive trade exposed activities.

The Government also proposes to provide a limited amount of direct assistance to existing coalfired
electricity generators.

“After so many years of inaction, it is impossible for Australia to be in front of the rest of the world
in tackling climate change,” Senator Wong said.

“A greater risk is being left behind a world of emerging economic opportunities.”

———–
You can read the full report

CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME
Green Paper
July 2008

here: http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/greenpaper/report/index.html

Has Lord Peter Lost His Tools: A Note from Davey

By

England has produced a number of outstanding detective story writers. Agatha Christie comes to mind with her character Hercule Poirot. Another is Dorothy L. Sayers, with her diffident, yet steely-minded toff, Lord Peter Wimsey.

There were also other sides to Dorothy. She was a moderate feminist, and one of the first women to graduate from Oxford University. She was a reputable medieval scholar.

In 1947 she delivered a talk at Oxford University called ‘The Lost Tools of Learning’, in which she suggested that western education has lost its way, by trying to cram in facts, rather than first developing skills. She pointed to the medieval trivium as a good way of giving students the ‘tools of learning’, namely logic (to think clearly), grammar (to write and speak clearly), and rhetoric (to mount a persuasive argument).

We see plenty of environmental rhetoric on this blog site, but is it all logical? Is there too much quoting of ‘facts’ (some might say ‘factoids’), and not enough sound argument? Is the use of scientific jargon and acronyms intended to obfuscate or impress, rather than to seek the truth? Should not all ‘models’ be accompanied by a clearly written statement of their assumptions?

In my view Dorothy’s argument was valid in 1947, and is even more valid now. She also wrote it up as an essay, which is available at several websites. Search on (sayers tools trivium). Have a read – it’s only a few pages.

Dr. David Naugle (search on naugle trivium sayers) has reviewed her essay, and the benefits of the trivium have been discussed elsewhere, for example in the book ‘Chaucer and the Trivium:The Mindsong of the Canterbury Tales’, by J. Stephen Russell.

I suggest that the humanities, and the medieval trivium, have a great deal to offer in current political and environmental debate. It might help people to cope with the torrent of ‘news’, advertising, and ‘spin doctoring’. Any comments?

Green and Medieval Davey Gam Esq.
Perth, Western Australia