 |
| The graph shows the temperature at the Ice Cap of Greenland as a function of time |
Al Gore, David Cameron, Kofi Anan and most journalists apparently don't understand scientific method at all. They have all jumped the popular band wagon of claiming human responsibility for the change of climate in recent years.
I warned in 2009 against the political implications of accepting a theory based on very thin arguments, while refusing to listen to the many people, who had competent reasons to field serious objections to the idea about AGW.
When it is said that 100s of scientists, if not 1000s, support the theory, the first comment should be: who exactly are they?
Myrmecologists?
Why not people in the field of Physical Geography?
In fact, I found one, who has the courage to speak up and say that “the emperor has no clothes on”, Professor Ole Humlum at Oslo University. The following is based on his observations – unfortunately his book is in Danish, but it deserves a wider readership.
The second comment, I have, is the classical Aristotle statement, repeated by Einstein: Majority never decided the value of a theory; 1 person, who can put a spanner in a theory, is enough to eliminate every other argument. This is entirely in line with Karl Popper’s ideas of Scientific Falsification – to which I subscribe 100%.
The third comment must be to express the shock I got, when I read through the goings on at the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I first heard about IPCC during the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, COP-15, in 2009.
The conference was basically a disaster, as a) only IPCC’s AGW-positive opinion was presented (not exactly a scientific approach) and b) no decisions were taken – or at least only a set of pseudo-decisions that are unlikely to have any bearing on the assumed problem: human action causing warming of the globe.
So why is there such an adherence to IPCC’s beliefs (OBS, NOT proof, as their conclusions are a forgone matter) and often times public ridicule of people who have a different opinion?
Could it be that IPCC has been established under UN, that UN has a level of credibility and that states that follow IPCC’s recommendations and findings therefore seem credible and also add to both IPCC’s and UN’s credibility – repeating the circle?
The graph above, constructed according to isotopic analyses (GISP2) after drilling into the Greenland ice cap, tells an interesting story without using many words: throughout the last 11000 years, from the “Big Freeze” during Younger Dryas, the reasons for which remains enigmatic, and once again in 6000 BC and until today, there have been rather large climatic changes going on – none of which can be allocated with any reason to human activity in the form of excessive man-generated CO2 output. In fact CO2 levels were almost constant in the period 600-1850. (The well known Hockey Stick graph, see below).
As Prof. Humlum points out, periods with warming correlate to positive heavy human cultural activity, while cooling off periods are synchronous with problems, even disasters, such as the black death and the "Little Ice Age."
One of the problems with the CO2 theory is, that we actually know much to little about the origins of the climatic mechanisms, the impact of the oceans, atmospheric distribution and the proportion of Human CO2 to geological CO2 (volcanoes and other).
There are many good reasons to focus on water vapour, ozone, cloud cover, dust, sun activity, tilting variations of the Earth’s axis and – in particular – Henry’s law of CO2 absorption in water. Most of the CO2/water interaction happen in the upper 3m of the oceans’ surface! It is not rocket science to realise, that at various pressures and temperatures there is some dramatic chemical reactions going on.
Here are some really important facts that help understand the speed with which CO2 distribution over the two hemispheres takes place.
Ashes from a volcano eruption well to the north or the south of equator will take a long time to become evenly distributed in the atmosphere – probably several years. In contrast, the ashes from an equatorial volcano are distributed rather quickly. After the nuclear tests in 1950-70, that all took place on the northern hemisphere, CO2 with a C14 signature (i.e. humanly generated) took several years to become evenly distributed.
This contrasts with the observations from Mauna Loa, Hawaii, since 1958, that the variation in atmospheric CO2, i.e. bang in the middle of a highly industrial period, happens synchronously on the northern and southern hemisphere! As most human CO2 is produced north of the 30th latitude, we should have seen a clear difference between the northern and southern hemisphere.
BUT WE DON’T!!!!
This means that the majority of CO2, although increasing at various rates, is NOT humanly generated.
Something, therefore is afoot.
When Mount Pinatubo blew up in 1992, there was only a very minor increase in atmospheric CO2 despite million of tonnes of CO2 being released. As IPCC is of the opinion that the oceans only slowly absorb CO2, something is clearly wrong with their assumptions.
IPCC – and thereby the politicians – have jumped to conclusions they should have been too clever to adapt. It helps nobody to form a final opinion and implement policies based on erroneous models, unless this opinion has a political value for the people in charge. Perhaps this is where “der Hund liegt begraben”?
The result is that professional scientists with diverging opinions find it difficult to join the discussion. It is also a fact that funding and budgets favour those who fall in line!
Another buried dog, perhaps.
When we have excessively warm summers, it is taken as a confirmation of the theory.
When we have rain and chill (like 2011 in the UK, it is "just a seasonal variation" that confirms the theory.
Ehh?
It was the Hockey-stick curve from the GISP2 measurements in Greenland that caused the furore about the correlation between humanly generated CO2 and climate change. It showed an ostensible increase of atmospheric CO2 from a stable 280 ppm in the period 600-1850 to the rapid "industrial increase" of 380 ppm today.
 |
| The Hockey Stick graph - deflated |
This model has since been discredited to a certain extent, but the important conclusion people forget to draw is, that if the CO2 level previously was stable, why do we then see the rather dramatic climatic changes that made it possible for the Vikings to grow barley on Greenland (ca. 1000-1100) and that later made the Thames freeze over in the winter (the Little ice Age in 15-1700)?
The real conclusion, although not a solution to the issue, is,
a) that the climate has changed considerably in the past, without any relation to the change in CO2 level!! and
b) that the concept "global warming" must be seen in context - we are actually a good deal colder than experienced by the Romans and the Minoans!!
and
c) the graph has been used as an indication that we are on the way to a new ice age.
Well, that one I shall leave uncommented, avoiding predicting the future, as I otherwise would have made the same mistakes as the IPCC.
Our politicians are leading the train down the wrong track with totally misunderstood investments, that prevent us from allocating money to a much more balanced research situation.
Worse: our scarce resources are being spent on solving a problem over which we have no impact whatsoever!
Here's an ominous example:
In the UK all energy companies are increasing their prices way faster than inflation would predict.
The average family now pays £1300/year for gas/electricity.
This is double the amount of 3 years ago.
The prediction is, that in 2018 they will pay £2800/year.
Why?
Because all companies are falling over each other's feet to become "green", i.e. investing in renewable energy supply - despite a) no solid direction of what that means (= ineffective and haphazard investment with little predictable ROI) and b) developing solutions to a non existing problem (= the totally absent correlation between a global warming, that actually is not happening, and the humanly generated CO2 output.)
In England there are 6mill families that have to choose between heating and food during the winter months. This number will more than double by 2018.
If this is not madness, what is??
No comments:
Post a Comment