Climate & Climate Change

“A new report published today by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change challenges NASA scientist James Hansen’s claims of a dire global warming future. In the report, physicist Sherwood Idso and agronomist Craig Idso conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Hansen’s April 26, 2007 testimony before the House Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming and concluded there is “very little evidence to justify [Hansen’s] policy prescriptions for dealing with what he calls a ‘dangerous climate change.'”

“Considered by many to be perhaps the world’s foremost authority on the ‘greenhouse effect’ of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, Hansen’s statements are typically regarded as expressions of fact . “In many cases, however, they are merely his opinions ,” said Dr. Sherwood Idso, lead author of the report. “When Hansen’s testimony is compared with what has been revealed by the scientific investigations of a diverse assemblage of highly competent researchers in a wide variety of academic disciplines, we find that he paints a very different picture of the role of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in shaping the future fortunes of man and nature alike than what is suggested by that larger body of work.”

“Among the inconsistencies between Hansen’s House of Representatives’ testimony and the scientific literature is Hansen’s claim of a sea level rise this century measured in meters , due to “the likely demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet.” However, the most recent and comprehensive review of potential sea level rise due to contributions from the wastage of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets suggests a century-long rise measured in milli meters. Similarly, whereas Hansen claims the rate of sea level rise is accelerating , century-scale data indicate the mean rate-of-rise of the global ocean has either not accelerated at all or has actually slowed over the latter part of the past century.

“Another Hansen claim that is at odds with reality is that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are “skyrocketing,” which is not universally true. The most important contrary example is methane , which has historically provided a climate forcing equal to approximately half that provided by CO2 , but whose atmospheric concentration actually stabilized several years ago and has not risen since by any appreciable amount.

“Also contrary to what Hansen claims is the fact that the earth is not any warmer now – and is possibly a fair amount cooler – than it was many times in the past. These warmer-than-present periods include much of the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago, most of the Climatic Optimum that held sway during the central portion of the current interglacial, and significant portions of all four of the prior interglacials, when (in all six cases) the air’s CO2 concentration was much lower than it is today. These facts are extremely important because they demonstrate that today’s temperatures are not in any way unusual , unnatural or unprecedented, contrary to what Hansen claims.

“Hansen also foresees a warming-induced “extermination of a large fraction of plant and animal species,” with many at high latitudes and altitudes being “pushed off the planet.” However, as demonstrated by the scientific studies cited in the Center’s critique of Hansen’s testimony, warming – especially when accompanied by an increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration – typically results in an expansion of the ranges of terrestrial plants and animals, leading to increases in biodiversity almost everywhere on the planet. Likewise, where Hansen sees nothing but “destruction of coral reefs and other ocean life” in response to a predicted CO2 -induced acidification of the world’s oceans, real-world observations suggest just the opposite .

Read the entire report (pdf) at: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/HansenTestimonyCritique.pdf

To read the report in html format, go here: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp

End of the Media Release from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Climate change is likely to dominate discussions at the three day summit of the Group of Eight (G8) leading industrial economies beginning on Wednesday in Heiligendamm, Germany.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, host of the meeting, wants G8 members to agree that global warming should be kept to a maximum of 2° C; to reduce their emissions by 50 per cent of their 1990 level by 2050; and to start work on a global emissions trading scheme.

But Ma Kai, Director of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, which determines climate change policy, has said that the EU proposal to limit warming to 2C has not been subjected to proper study.

“I fear this lacks a scientific basis,” he said of the EU’s proposed goal.

Meanwhile Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper will bring his own climate change plan to the G8 talks. “We have our own plan. We don’t have the German plan. We don’t have the American plan. We have a Canadian plan … with excellent ingredients to bring down greenhouse gas emissions,” said Sandra Buckler, Harper’s spokeswoman.

But in fact Canada does appear to support the American plan because the US President, George Bush, is calling for the world’s biggest emitters of greenhouse gases to settle within 18 months on nation-by-nation programs for slowing emissions.

“NASA’s top administrator, Michael Griffin, speaking on National Public Radio (NPR) in the US made some refreshingly sensible comments about the present global warming scare,” said Robert Ferguson, Director of the Science and Public Policy Institute.

“Many rationalist scientists agree with him, clearly demonstrating there is no scientific consensus on man-made, catastrophic global warming,” said Ferguson.

Griffin said he doubted global warming is “a problem we must wrestle with,” and that it is arrogant to believe that today’s climate is the best we could have and that “we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change.”

While NASA scientist, James Hansen, was sharply critical of his boss, other scientists from around the world came to Griffin’s support.

Said Dr. Walter Starck, an Australian marine scientist, “Griffin makes an important distinction between the scientific findings of climate change and dramatic predictions of catastrophic consequences accompanied by policy demands. The former can be evaluated by its evidence, but; the latter rest only on assertions and claims to authority. Alternate predictions of benefits from projected changes have been proposed with comparable authority and plausibility. For example, unless one chooses to define the Little Ice Age as “normal” and “optimal” the net effect of any warming has only been beneficial and any anthropogenic contribution very small indeed. Dramatic predictions of imminent disaster have a near perfect record of failure. Griffin’s note of caution in the escalating concern over climate change deserves sober consideration.

Another Australian, who testified before a Senate panel last year, Professor Robert Carter, observed, “My main reaction to Michael Griffin is to congratulate him on his clear-sightedness, not to mention his courage in speaking out on such a controversial topic.”

Dr. Tim Ball, a Canadian climatologist, responded: “Griffin’s statement is sensible because it allows time for the testing of the man-made global warming hypothesis to continue as it should.”

“I certainly support Griffin’s comments,” said William Kininmonth, a former head of the Australian National Climate Centre. “Not only is it speculative to claim that humans can in any way influence the course of climate but it is arrogant to suggest that today’s climate is getting worse than it has been in the past. For example, who would prefer to return to pre-industrial conditions as they were during the Little Ice Age? Frost Fairs were common on many rivers of Europe and the London diarist John Evelyn records that in 1683-84 the Thames River froze from late December to early February. Conditions were terrible with men and cattle perishing and the seas locked with ice such that no vessels could stir out or come in. The fowls, fish and exotic plants and greens were universally perishing. Food and fuel were exceptionally dear and coal smoke hung so thickly that one could scarcely see across the street and one could scarcely breathe.”

Kansas geologist, Lee Gerhard added, “Griffin’s statement focuses on the hubris that affects much of public
policy. It is great to know that someone out there besides geologists understands that humans do not dominate earth’s dynamic systems.

Said Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, “Claims of major, impending catastrophe are speculative and go far beyond what has been credibly established by researchers to date. Hence Griffin’s view is not at all controversial or out of step with available evidence, and he should be commended for having the courage to say it. The fact that it took courage, however, points to the deeper problem that questioning the catastrophic propaganda we hear so much is now considered politically incorrect.”

Dr. Pat Michaels at the University of Virginia agrees: “NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s statement about whether or not it is in fact a “problem” is supported by a scientific literature that his employee, James Hansen, appears to ignore. It is well-known that much of the Eurasian arctic was between 4 and 12 degrees (F) warmer than modern temperatures for much of the 6,000 years between 3,000 and 9,000 years ago, and that such warming was caused by a massive intrusion of warm Atlantic water into the arctic. Given that the only way it can get there is to flow east of Greenland, Mr. Hansen’s well-publicized fears that a massive amount of Greenland’s ice will fall into the ocean in the next 100 years is mere science fiction. It is ironic that today President Bush appears to have given in to Hansen’s hysteria rather than to the calm reason of NASA Administrator Griffin.

Finally, Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl praised Griffin’s climate comments, calling them “sensible.” On his public blog, Motl said he applauds Michael Griffin and encourages him to act as “a self-confident boss of a highly prestigious institution.” “I have always believed that the people who actually work with hard sciences and technology simply shouldn’t buy a cheap and soft pseudoscientific propaganda such as the ‘fight against climate change,'” Motl added.

This is a media release from the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Hi Jen,

It looks as though ABC TV will be showing the UK Channel 4’s antidote to Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, The Great Global Warming Swindle in July:

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,21779177-10388,00.html .

Channel 4 defended the film, as has ABC director of television Kim Dalton, on the basis that all sides of the hotly contested global warming debate deserved to be represented.

“Currently the issue of global warming is being debated around the world,” Mr Dalton said.

“This documentary presents a controversial side to that debate.”

Expert commentators supporting the film’s claims include Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace who has spent the past 21 years as a critic of the environmentalist organisation, and oceanography professor Carl Wunsch, who was interviewed but later claimed his views had been misrepresented.

The ABC bought the rights to the international version of the hour-long program which had previously been passed on by the Nine Network.

“There are people who still question the link between human activity and global warming. I believe it’s important that these views are heard and debated,” Mr Dalton said.

In the UK, the documentary attracted an audience of 2.5 million viewers and 246 complaints were made to the television regulator, Ofcom.

Channel 4 said, however, supporters outweighed the critics six to one.

Since we last discussed this on Jennifer’s blog, TGGWS has been under almost constant attack from the global warming industry, culminating in a complaint to OFCOM
led by Bob Ward (formerly of The Royal Society), now with Risk Management Services.

Steve McIntyre has some observations here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=49

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1519

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1517

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1513

An Inconvenient Truth is also causing controversy in schools.

I think that The Great Global Warming Swindle did a good job of presenting the alternative view that there is no man-made climate catastrophe outside of flawed computer models, environmental groups are often more red than green, the politicised IPCC is not objective, and the sun-climate connection is the most likely explanation for over 4 billion years of climate change. Watch it and apply the same critical standards to An Inconvenient Truth.

Regards,
Paul Biggs

Someone asked Bill Kininmonth:

If AGW is a fiction, is it not a useful fiction?

He answered with a resounding NO!

“Firstly, the AGW debate (now proselytisation) is diverting attention from those real issues that you mention and causing public and private investment in a range of actions that will have no present or future benefit. How often does it need to be said that CO2 is a colourless, odourless gas whose only detrimental characteristic is to form a very weak acid (carbonic acid) when dissolved in water. On the other hand, CO2 is an essential component of photosynthesis – increased CO2 in the atmosphere is an effective fertiliser of the biosphere as shown by horticulturalists artificially increasing the CO2 content within glasshouses. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

There is every reason to believe that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will have no significant impact on the climate system. The greatest impact of atmospheric CO2 on the earth’s radiation budget was the first 20 ppmv. After this concentration the source of IR radiation to space from the active CO2 radiation bands was in the stratosphere, where temperature does not change as the emanation goes to higher and higher altitudes with increasing concentration.

There is every reason to believe that earth is near an upper temperature limit given its present distribution of land and ocean and the strength of solar irradiance. The earth’s surface is heated by way of solar radiation and back IR radiation emanating from clouds, greenhouse gases and aerosols; it is cooled by conduction, evaporation and IR emission. Solar radiation and conduction are essentially constant and the earth’s surface temperature will vary according to increasing back IR radiation (radiation forcing from CO2 and water vapour) being offset by surface IR emission and latent heat of evaporation. At a global average surface temperature of 15C the rate of increase of surface IR emission with temperature is about 5 W/m2 per degree C and the rate of increase of latent energy from evaporation is of similar magnitude. This means that back IR radiation from doubling of CO2 concentration must be at least 10 W/m2 to sustain a 1C temperature rise and more than 30 W/m2 to sustain a 3C temperature rise. Using the most accurate line-by-line radiation calculations the increase in back IR radiation due to doubling of CO2, increasing atmospheric temperature by 3C and holding relative humidity constant (the full positive feedback effect at 3C) only produces an increase in back IR radiation of 18 W/m2, well short of the 30 W/m2 necessary to sustain a 3C increase in equilibrium surface temperature. The rapidly increasing surface IR emission and latent heat loss with temperature are a barrier to significant surface temperature increase unless there is a change in the solar radiation input (either directly or through a change to cloudiness and albedo).

Secondly, the emphasis on CO2 emission reduction (so-called ‘clean coal’) is encouraging research in the wrong areas. Oil, gas, coal and uranium are all non-renewable sources of energy. Global demand is already causing price increases but the real concern will be as supplies become seriously depleted and more difficult to extract. The latter may not be in this century but will surely come. Investment in geosequestration and other forms of ‘clean coal’ are increasing the amount of resource needed to produce each unit of energy by up to 30 percent (according to one IPCC report). That is, we are contemplating using the non-renewable resource 30 percent faster (and bringing the effective lifetime forward by 30 percent) in order to achieve the chimera of CO2 emission reduction. Very poor policy if we are considering the needs of future generations!

AGW is a fiction and a very dangerous fiction.

William Kininmonth
Australasian Climate Research
and author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard