I arrived in Tokyo yesterday for a meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society.
My mobile phone is not working, so any messages will go unanswered for at least a week. If you need to contact me, try email.
The four pale-coloured elongated images in the pond are fish. The photograph was taken this morning at the New Otani Japanese Garden in Tokyo.
Bill Kininmonth knows a lot about climate science, he is a meteorologist and he was the head of Australia’s National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998. He is also a well known global warming skeptic and is particularly critical of the idea that the principles for sustaining the greenhouse effect are well understood. While this may seem like a ridiculous proposition, indeed the greenhouse effect is the underpinning science for the hypothesis of dangerous global warming, in a recent letter to the Federation of Australian Scientists and Technologists (FASTS) he explains how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are neither consistent in their explanation for the greenhouse effect nor provide a mechanism that accords with the global average earth energy budget.
Mr Kininmonth’s letter to FASTS follows their issuing of a media release on climate change including comment that:
“The scientific evidence is compelling that global policy objectives must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions.”
The media release was accompanied by a statement that included comment:
“The physical principles of the greenhouse effect are well-understood. Without greenhouse gases, clouds or aerosols, the surface of the Earth would have a mean temperature of about 18oC below zero. While the natural atmospheric composition varies over time, the observed warming in the late 20th century can be attributed with a very high degree of confidence to additional human emissions of greenhouse gases.
The statement was developed and published without input from rank and file member of FASTS and indeed not everyone agrees that the scientific evidence is compelling. Mr Kininmonth explains why in the following open letter:
Bradley Smith
Executive Director
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Dear Bradley,
In the “Statement on Climate Change” issued by FASTS on 4 September is included the sentence, ‘The physical principles of the greenhouse effect are well-understood.’
I would be grateful if you would provide a summary of the physical principles of the greenhouse effect. In making this request I do not doubt the existence of the greenhouse effect, only that the scientific principles for sustaining the greenhouse effect are well understood.
The IPCC, in its most recent (2007) report has the statement (Frequently Asked Question 1.1):
“The reason that the Earth’s surface is this warm (14oC) is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the surface. This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect.”
There are two problems with this statement. Firstly, a blanket acts as an inhibitor of conduction and not radiation; oxygen and nitrogen are equally as good insulators as water vapour and carbon dioxide and adding greenhouse gases does not materially affect the conducting properties of the atmosphere. Secondly, net upward longwave radiation increases with altitude (according to the IPCC global average data, from 66 Wm-2 at the surface to
235 Wm-2 at the top of the atmosphere); the increase is due to the greenhouse gases and can hardly be described as inhibiting (ie, blanketing) radiation loss to space!
In an attempt to clarify the situation, the IPCC has an additional explanation (Frequently Asked Question 1.3):
“Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.”
As the IPCC’s global average data clearly show, there is more longwave radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface than is emitted by the atmosphere back to the surface. The net effect of longwave radiation is to cool the Earth’s surface, not to warm it.
The above two explanations from the IPCC are quite different and neither accord with the data presented on the global average Earth energy budget. As you will appreciate, the greenhouse effect is the underpinning science for the hypothesis of dangerous global warming from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by human activities. If we cannot get the underpinning science as a clear and logical construct then the edifice is no more than a house of cards! Also, if it is not possible to explain how the Earth’s greenhouse effect is sustained then how can we be confident that the computer models used to project global warming are adequately representing the greenhouse effect?
As FASTS claims that the physical principles of the greenhouse effect are well understood I presume FASTS has a different explanation than what IPCC has presented. I would be grateful for a summary of the FASTS principles of the greenhouse effect.
Yours sincerely,
William Kininmonth
Kew, Victoria
As long as institutions and organisations like FASTS demand that governments impose new taxes and regulations on the basis that the science is settled, they must be prepared to publicly engage in discussion on the same. Indeed I look forward to posting the response from FASTS to Mr Kininmonth’s open letter.
Regular readers of this website will have noticed that since yesterday we have a new blog banner and upgraded blog format.
I am not yet familiar with all the new gadgets, widgets, asides and facilities that come with the new format and I am still to add links and develop comment policy settings. So, please be patient, there are more changes to come.
A redesign like this doesn’t just happen. I would like to thank Chris for the new banner and Dewi for the tedious transfer from moveable type to wordpress. If you want a new website or blog you might consider the team at www.internet-thinking.com.au headed by Graham Young. They also publish www.onlineopinion.com.au.
The new banner is from a photograph of an escarpment in the Blue Mountains that I took in December 2007. An uplifting about 200 million years ago was followed by erosion exposing layers of sedimentary rock. Superimposed on this is new vegetation after what was a devastating bushfire in November 2006. Also shown in the picture is a staircase and interestingly Charles Darwin visited this site in January 1836.
Along with the new banner and format I am planning other changes. I’ve tried to make this blog a gathering place for people with a common interest in environmental issues, to strive for tolerance and respect and to give different perspectives an opportunity to be heard. This necessarily involves tolerating what many would consider offensive ideas; indeed it is increasingly easy to offend when you take an evidence-based approach to many emotive environmental issues including whaling and climate change.
While I don’t have a problem with what some would consider offensive ideas, I do have a problem with offensive behaviour in particular language that is designed to be personal and derogatory while not progressing understanding.
So, with the new upgraded format, I hope we can lift the standard of commentary.
Many thanks to all those who have contributed to this blog over the last three years; particularly Paul Biggs and Neil Hewett who have made a really significant contribution over the last year. Paul will have a new blog up soon and I will have links to his blog and also Neil’s established blog soon.
Cheers,
The UK Meteorology Bureau is running a training course on climate change, but not just any course. According to the flyer you don’t need any prior scientific training and you will learn how to “dispel sceptism”.
Climate change — what you need to know
A seminar for professionals 2008
The scientific evidence is overwhelming — our climate is changing. These changes will affect all organisations – commercial and governmental, local and international.
To plan effectively for the future, influencers and decision-makers need to understand how the climate will change and how this may impact their organisation. This one-day seminar from the Met Office will equip you with the knowledge of climate change you need to:
Make the best decisions for your organisation, so that the plans you make today safeguard your future success in a changing climate.
Using the latest research from the world-leading Met Office Hadley Centre – the authoritative voice on climate change – this seminar builds an understanding of why and how our climate is changing and the likely impacts. Focusing on how we can plan for the future, this seminar also explores some of the options available for organisations to reduce (mitigate) and prepare for (adapt to) climate change.
What you’ll learn
By the end of the seminar, you will:
- understand why and how our climate is changing and the likely impacts;
- be equipped to dispel scepticism about climate change in your organisation and ensure your colleagues’ engagement;
- know the steps you need to take to factor climate change into the decisions you make for your organisation.
Who should attend
This seminar is designed for professionals in the public and private sectors. It’s particularly appropriate for those with responsibility for, or interest in, planning, projects and policies. No prior scientific training is required.
I find it extraordinary that an institution that purports to be about science, a bureau of meteorology, would seek to “dispel sceptism”.
Science is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation. Science is about inquiry and is best undertaken by those who are inquisitive, prepared to question, to doubt, to ruthlessly follow the evidence.
That the UK Meteorology Bureau, a place of science, is concerned with “dispelling sceptism” is a worrying sign. Indeed without scepticism, can education be more than propaganda?
THIRTY years ago polar bear experts were discussing ‘climatic fluctuations’ rather than climate change, and the effect this can have on polar bear distribution in the Arctic. In fact, Christian Vibe, the Greenland representative on the Polar Bear Specialist Group, was more focused on how climatic fluctuations affected distribution, than abundance. His observations back then, for example polar bears drowning in scattered drift ice, are similar to what is being observed now. But back then such incidences were not considered unusual or causing long term decline in polar bear numbers.
At the 2nd Working Meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, in 1970, Dr Vibe said:
“The ecological conditions of the Arctic have changed as a result of this alteration of the climate. Some high Arctic regions get colder winters and less open water in summer. The productivity of the sea decreases in the Arctic and in regions nearer the Atlantic. The ringed seal moves to the areas of higher productivity, and the polar bear follows the seal.
This is the situation today in Northwest as well as in Northeast and Southeast Greenland. All other animals in Greenland, in the sea as well as on land, are affected by the same climatical fluctuations, which are reflected in a regular shift between Arctic and Atlantic conditions (or Continental and Atlantic) over a period of 56 to 66 years; they are more marked every second time the period culminates. The climatic situation of today, with intense movements in the drift ice in summer, is very similar to that 110-120 years ago. For the polar bear, especially in East Greenland, that means unstable living conditions, more roaming, and probably greater loss of animals by drowning in scattered drift ice off South Greenland.
Under the Atlantic conditions of forty years ago [1930], the drift ice from the Polar Basin kept moving throughout the winter and melted at high latitudes in summer. The situation for the polar bear was quite the opposite to that today [1970]. It then had to go ashore early in summer at high latitudes –and fewer got lost.
Alternatively, we could say that the polar bear probably was more numerous 30-40 years ago – as all Arctic animals were – but the Arctic-Continental climate of today has forced it south to regions with unstable drift ice conditions and within the range of man.” (pgs 20-21)
In this extract from Dr Vibe, written in 1970, he notes the negative effects of colder Arctic winters and less open water in summer. He explains that polar bears in the late 1960s were moving southwards to unstable sea conditions, with the possibility that more polar bears were dying. However, Dr Vibe also noted that polar bears adapt to climatic fluctuations in the Arctic by moving to the areas with more of their primary prey, ringed seals, as ringed seals move to more suitable habitats.
This note was sent to me by Nichole Hoskin from the Blue Moutains in Australia.
Americans will go to the elections in November and the Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain, has chosen a woman who believes in hunting wildlife and drilling for oil in Alaska as his running mate.
Hunting and drilling in wilderness areas are issues that many politicians in the western world tend to shy away from or actively reject, but not Palin.
According to Larry Kudlow, writing for the National Review Online, Palin knows more about energy policy than McCain, Obama, or Biden and she knows that there is a lot of oil under Alaska and she believes that the expectation it can be exploited will bring the price of petrol down.
—————
Sarah Palin has the Energy Answer
By Larry Kudlow, National Review Online
September 3, 2008
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzYyMmU0ODE1ZjFlMjZkODcwNTdiOTgzYjI4ODdlYWI
Hat tip to Benny Peiser for the link.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation.
Read more