Blog

Yesterday (Monday 25th February) four Greenpeace protesters breached security at London’s Heathrow airport and climbed on the tail of a Boeing 777 in order to display a banner saying, ‘Climate Emergency, No 3rd Runway.’

Prometheus points out in an article entitled, ‘A sense of proportion’ that last month the Chinese government announced plans to build 97 new airports in the next 12 years. Furthermore, on Saturday China announced plans to build nearly 100 new airports by 2020 to cater for soaring demand.

So why can’t Heathrow have a much needed 3rd runway and what difference would it make to climate anyway? Not much point asking Greenpeace unless you want a silly answer devoid of facts.

Meanwhile back in Oz, The Australian carries a story today containing the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) explanation for cooler February temperatures across most of Australia straight after record hot temperatures in January. Another one of those ‘climate experts’ is qouted as saying, “It’s just year-to-year variability. Underneath that variability is this insidious slow warming, which is the greenhouse effect, but it’s not big enough to stop natural variability, and it’s going to take a long time before it is.”

Read the entire article entitled, ‘Natural changes blow hot and cold.’

British explorers in West Antarctica reported glacier movement in the region has picked up by a startling seven percent this season, a development, they said, which could lead to a significant rise in sea level.

The biggest of the glaciers, the Pine Island Glacier, is causing the most concern.

The reason does not seem to be warming in the surrounding air.

One possible culprit could be a deep ocean current that is channelled onto the continental shelf close to the mouth of the glacier. There is not much sea ice to protect it from the warm water, which seems to be undercutting the ice and lubricating its flow

Julian Scott, however, thinks there may be other forces at work as well.

Much higher up the course of the glacier there is evidence of a volcano that erupted through the ice about 2,000 years ago and the whole region could be volcanically active, releasing geothermal heat to melt the base of the ice and help its slide towards the sea.

Read more on the BBC website: ‘Antarctic glaciers surge to ocean’

Hi Jennifer,

Following on from the discussion at ‘Carbon Dioxide versus Temperature’ I have done two plots first is the normalises annual mean CO2 growth rate with annual fossil fuel usage the second is normalised CO2 mean growth rate compared with sea surface mean temperature anomalies.

First FYI the provenance of the data in some the actual data is ftp and current that causes safari to crash the links to actual data are in the page.

For fossil fuel usage: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

For mean annual growth rate of CO2: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

For mean annual sea surface temperature: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow

The covariance for this is .63. The motivation for comparing annual growth rate with usage is that if there is a relationship the difference if any will be due to what is actually put into the atmosphere this assumes (quite wrongly of course) that all the other sources and sinks are inactive. So the caveat here is there will be much more actually influencing CO2 concentrations and the correlation could well be meaningless or due to common factors if there is indeed a link. Bottom line is that apart from the general trend (which leads to the relatively high covariance) the growth rate varies much more than growth in usage and the CO2 peaks and troughs don’t match and I expect that if the data is detrended the covariance will be much smaller. I don’t have time to check this as I have to finish packing and putting stuff out for council clean up.

This has a better covariance of .73 (correlation is the same) but as I suspected we don’t see any lag. This is because there is a single data point at each year for each series and any lag less than year is likely to be completely obliterated. Since the CO2 levels have an annual cycle superimposed on the long term trend any such lag will be buried in the “noise”. However we do have a physical (chemical) link with partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 and concentration in solution that is also temperature sensitive this needs more work than I have time for at the moment. There is however this http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html . Where he plots concentration versus temperature difference from the vostok ice core, below I plot temperature versus concentration difference which is better I don’t know yet and I did it this way because that’s the way I had the data loaded I’ll look more closely when I get back [from Bellengen].

Looks similar to Jeffry Glasman’s maybe it makes no difference but I’ll have to convince my self of that on.

Cheers,
Jan Pompe

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

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

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