The CO2 mistake: Climatic theory and an eco-political disaster

In Danish popular story telling, there’s a collection of tales about a special group of people in the eastern part of Jutland (Jylland). Ostensibly they hadn’t invented neither the wheel nor the deep plate, i.e. they were intellectually challenged - in modern parlance. One of them once had a problem with a stork trampling the growth in a wheat field and didn’t know how to chase it out. As he couldn’t walk in there himself without destroying even more, he asked 4 of his friends to carry him into the field to take care of matters.
The stork went away.
Case solved.

This story reminds me of the CO2 explanation to the climate change these days.
Why? Because CO2 is not the direct problem and in the meantime we are trampling our wheat fields into pieces.

Here’s another important graph, in addition to the information I provided in my blog before:

CO2 increase vs Global Temperature variation: falling, rising, falling, and - - - - ?

It can be seen, that from 1958 to 1977 the avg. global temperature decreased, while CO2 increased, bar small variations.
But then from 1977 to 2002 the average global temp. increased, at the same time as the CO2 content of the atmosphere increased.
OK, so there is a delayed effect, you say?
How about the general decrease in the avg. global temperature from 2003 till now then, while the CO2 level continues to rise?

Anyone with a little brain should begin to ask serious questions about CO2 by now.

The terrible fact, however, is, that the UN, the IPCC and most governments have signed up to the completely unscientific conclusion: it’s the CO2 that does it.
And now it is difficult to erase the signature without losing face.

Greenhouse Gasses (GHG - CO2, Methane, etc.) are major players in the Earth’s calorific accounts, no doubt.
Water (vapour), however, is one of them and by far the most voluminous and variable GHG we have.
This is important to understand, as we know relatively little about the details of how clouds are formed, the sun’s radiation effects and the multiple other parameters (aerosols, dust, cosmic rays, etc.) that make up the parameters of the physics of the atmosphere.

New research shows that there may be a direct correlation between the Sun’s activity, its radiation and the cloud formation and that this has a direct impact on our climate, both short and long term via amplifying effects, where CO2 very well could play a secondary role.
But not a primary one.

The Danish researcher, Henrik Svensmark from Denmark’s Technical University, has developed a series of theories that are as simple as they are revolutionary: cosmic rays over the past 500 mill years, e.g. from supernovae (and the Sun), hitting the earth and being primary agents of cloud formation, have, together with the tectonic movements and changing sea-levels, had a major impact on life on Earth.

And on the climate!!!

The impact of the Sun is not surprising. It is after all the key supplier of energy to the Earth, to the tune of 170.000 TW p.a.
But there’s is clearly much more going on than caused by a little CO2 released by Aussie BBQs in the summer time.

When it was proved, that the Sun had a major effect on aerosols, the very germs of cloud formation, IPCC retracted with some excuse, that laboratory experiments and real atmospheric processes could not be compared.
But even this excuse has been deflated, as it has been proven (and accepted) that a decrease in cosmic radiation causes less cloud formation and less water content in the clouds.
More clouds, lower temperature - less clouds: warming of the surface.
That simple.

This therefore has a major impact on the Earth’s heat-accounts, eliminating the conclusions drawn by IPCC in their 2007 report.

it seems clear to me that the Sun – and cosmic rays – have a major impact on the Earth’s climate and this is something that sits very badly with the IPCC.
The enormous role of the oceans (and Henry's law) also seem dramatically underplayed.

It is now fair to conclude, that CO2 must come way down on the list of active agents.

So there we stand!
Major political decisions are being made based on a probably totally wrong basis.
This has severe economic, social and cultural implications that we can’t even begin to contemplate.

It does now look like:
1) There is absolutely NO correlation between the atmospheric CO2 at present and in the immediate past and the global temperature development.

2) The climate models used by IPCC are numeric, use too many assumed factors and do not even predict the present status, if data from the past are entered. Using such models to predict the future is close to religion, certainly not to science.

It is now a political – and probably deeply psychological – problem, how we turn this situation around and declare: “we were wrong”, before major damage has been done.
Perhaps it is already too late.

Both the Danish and the British government (and likely others) have chosen an expensive, faulty and deeply disastrous route to green energy production: Windmills.
They are expensive, only work intermittently, energy cannot normally be stored and they will not cover more than a few % of our energy need at about 10 times the cost of e.g. gas or nuclear power stations. In the UK it means installing 10 windmills pr day for the next 30 years - and not achieving our target from COP 2009.
£120bill for the UK -- DKK 120bill for DK - - it will cripple us with no benefit.

I shall probably come back to the socio-economic consequences shortly.
The psychological factors determining group thinking and opinion manipulation also deserve my pen at a later time, but frankly, the present situation makes me feel tired – and who am I to hope, that politicians one day will exhibit some genuine brain function rather than just producing hollow cavity noises directed at vote collection?

Until then, here's a little home-work for the thinking population: if I am right in the above statements, what does it mean, economically, that we invest in everything "green"? How sensible is it to buy our right to CO2 production, e.g. when we fly or on a larger scale when our industries produce CO2? Haven't we sacrificed our competitive advantage on a guilt-altar to a CO2 god, that doesn't exist? Are we not throwing away the child with the bath-water?

Energy professors Ian Fells and Gordon Hughes have warned the British Government.
You'd do well in googling their opinions.

AGW nonsense, IPCC swindle, CO2 rubbish and Global Climate Change

The graph shows the temperature at the Ice Cap of Greenland as a function of time

On 5 Dec. 2009 I wrote in this blog about my reasons for calling the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)  a load of humbug.
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??

Consultant limerick

My colleague and friend Eddie Obeng from Pentacle, The Virtual Business School, has on his web-site posted this cartoon, which inspired me to the following Limerick *):

There once was a client in trouble

whose earnings had started to wobble

He called for support
and received a cohort
of consultants who swarmed on the double









*) Limerick: a 5-line verse following strict rules;
Line 1-2-5 have 3 beats and rhyme
Line 3-4 have 2 beats and rhyme

England and Europe in turmoil

Europe, the world perhaps, and definitely England are in turmoil.
11 state leaders have been toppled recently because of the financial crisis and more will fall. At the moment even the Coalition Government in the UK cannot come to grips with their responsibilities as a government.
Why?
Simply because they don’t listen, don’t understand their responsibilities as representatives of the people – and quite frankly are totally consumed by one thing only: being in power.

The kind of politicians we elect (or who put themselves forward) are incompetent money-grabbers and because power corrupts, they have created a chasm between themselves and the general population. Despite 200 years of economic theories (Keynes, Adams, Marx, et al.) we still don’t possess the ideal recipe for responsible governance.

The post war years with hope and signs of a peaceful future (1950s-1990s) have ended in global chaos. The very moment we had economic prosperity, human greed and lust for power took over and new incumbents joined the fray.

In the relatively well regulated world – normally called the West – it has slowly but surely begun to create the same socially divisive borders as we saw in past centuries.
This is paradoxically driven by an unheard of technological development (communication, electronics, computers) and the social, economical and cultural differences in the world in the wake of the second World War, creating the opportunity for asset rich states to “suck” the underdeveloped world.

It was initially a slow process, as we in the West do have some sort of a magnifying glass aimed at the politicians, making outright corruption difficult.
But as I have always maintained: “if they can, they will” – and as it proved: they could and they would.

The paradox is that the fast technological development also created a fertile ground for our demise, while the “sucker states” learnt and copied the rich countries.
The “poorer states” took over production and assets – or we even handed it to them on a silver tray - and the “rich states”, who had become specialists in the juggling of credit to pay for our exorbitant lifestyles, discovered they couldn’t pay themselves top salaries any more. So, while selling our crown jewels, the credits dried up – and everyone started to look around for a rich uncle.

There was none – but there was a lot of 3rd world countries with resources, willing to take over, work for less and using their new found power.

Are we surprised? We only have to look at what happened at the time of the Black Death in the 14-15 Century. With the Lords of the Manor in trouble and fewer labourers willing to do the slave-jobs, workers could begin to demand their share of life’s rewards.

Our learning is all in the history, if we care to look.

In other (shorter!) words: in the West – certainly in England - the good life has come to an abrupt halt, as the income to pay for a credit based lifestyle dried up, asset distribution has become unrealistic and the opportunity to “suck” others has vanished.

So – if we can’t “suck” other countries, as they have also collapsed, where do the politicians, i.e. the powers that be and who want to continue to be, turn?
Simple!
The answer is: Inwards.
We see it in various degrees in all European countries.

As human beings, as a species, we have hardly left the African Savannah, mentally spoken.
With the mentality of hunters and gatherers our behaviour has not changed much from the daily fight for survival.
We are still tribal, i.e. grouping into political parties and nurturing superstitious tendencies to form religious factions. We also naturally divide ourselves into “chiefs and Indians” and we still consider “the others” our enemies.
This is not new – just read “Lord of the Flies” by Golding or “1984” by Orwell.

It is said that you can tell a nation by the way it treats its elderly.
Coming from a country (Denmark) that praised itself of “few have too much and fewer too little”, I am watching the English Tories (Cameron/Osborne) in awe.
The 28th annual British Social Attitudes report from the National Centre for Social Research's is stomach churning reading.
It confirms, that my observations from 30 years ago concerning this island’s anachronistic class society, were correct – and that it has become worse.

Lord this and Lady that?
Who cares.
This school or that school?
Who cares.

Well – obviously a small group cares: Lord and Lady this and that care.
And they are the ones running society these days!
They have created a divide between ‘the haves and the have-nots’.
For the socially conscious of us this is hard to stomach.
The result is a growing disinterest in politics by us, the ordinary people.

We have entered a period of class war, as witnessed during the London riots and the fact that child poverty is more rampant than ever, elderly people die of hypothermia and pensioners are being robbed through a tax system that favours the rich.

Privatisation and greed has created a system with extortionate property and rental prices, the latter in particular, as the English have never understood the rental market other than as a source of extracting even more money from those who don’t own a home – in contrast to the rest of Europe, where rented quality apartments are considered normal, affordable and a must.

Energy and fuel prices are crippling and the banks, owned by the tax-payers, are allowed to stop lending and focus on own profit and bonuses, rather than on the banking objectives that are a vital part of the economic process.

While support of problem ridden parts of the world is a virtue, paying £bill to Pakistan and India and ignoring the old and the poor in our own country is disgusting.

Everything the present Tory government has done points in the direction of a deplorable attitude towards the less well off in society: granny tax, tax on state pensions, forcing people with just a little money in the bank to sell their houses in order to pay for old age nursing, relief of tax on the rich, hypocritical statements like “we are all in it together”, moving the venerable NHS from a social “serve all” towards a private money-spinner – every single item and the many mistakes that Cameron/Osborne have made, illustrate their lack of listening ears and total disinterest in what the population wants.

The statement that “we will continue to make unpopular decisions for the best of the country” is a smack in the face of the constituents,

England is doggedly tied to it’s class structure,.
Where once there were three main classes: working, middle and upper class, we now have an underclass and an upper-upper class and the disparity has never been sharper or more breath-taking in its extreme.
It is these divisive structures, captured in the British Social Attitudes report, which hold that poor and unemployed people are ‘lazy’ and the architects of their own impoverished misfortune.

To top it all, our politicians have allowed an unchecked huge influx of non-producing immigrants, who demand the implementation of their own culture and legal system while many of them “suck” us for benefits and threaten us with death and revenge once they have the majority.

We need immigrants to keep the wheels turning, but why not demand the simple things even the Romans 2000 years ago applied: speak our language, work - and respect our laws.

It is hardly rocket science and it kept the Romans in the black for 700 years – so why not for us?
Instead we have created a user and benefit society with surreal contrasts, such as a man, who is good at kicking a leather bag full of hot air around on a grass field, can become a multi-millionaire, while a woman who takes care of the sick and dying can barely make ends meet.

Will Cameron/Osborne listen?

Will Labour do much better?
The track record from 1997-2010 makes me wonder.

The creation of the Euro was a HUGE mistake.
Two major proponents, Kohl and Mitterand in the 1990s, were ostensibly unable to spell the word "economics" and yet they pushed ahead with an illusionary political idea that had the heading "Failure" written across it from the start.
Economic union without fiscal union?
Even a 6th former could see it was wrong for 3rd rank economies like Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal to have access to credit on a par with Germany. It opened the ball for a spending spree never seen before - and now the boomerang has returned.
In England Blair sanctioned the Euro idea based on the thought, that it would make business transactions much easier. Fortunately there was massive resistance to swap the £ with the Euro.
The joke is, that the UK has fared considerably better than the Euro-countries, but how Blair/Brown managed to lead the UK into a position as Europe's most indebted country (way over £1.4trill) is beyond me - and perhaps most other people.

So what now?
Alternatives, anyone?

We need a paradigm shift, but who will lead?
Mark Zuckerberg, perhaps ;-) !!!!

.

Triomphe d'Alsace, 2011 vintage, bottled today



From this: Grape bunch 3 Sept. 2011

Having picked and fermented my grapes (T. d'Alsace and Brant) on 4 Sept 2011, fermented and racked the juice in January 2012  and left the last demijohn with 100% T.d'Alsace in peace and quiet until today to ensure completion of a potential malolactic fermentation process, I was excited to see if it would prove any better than the 50-50 Brant/T.d'Alsace mix that I bottled in March 2012.

It does.

To the result: Triomphe d'Alsace, bottled 26 April 2012

There's nothing of the aggressive and slightly "brown" taste introduced by the Brant grape.



T.d'Alsace is clean, fruity and pleasant.

The colour is a deep ruby red, almost port colour with a slightly violet tone, which is no wonder, considering the grape's character as a "teinturier", and of course being very young.

The glycerine curtain draws a track down the side of the glass and the taste is one of fresh, young, well behaved plonk - - -  oops - did I say that?
OK - it is not a Mouton Rotschild nor a Corton - it is a Triomphe d'Alsace, but it carries its name with pride.

My problem now is whether I should leave it to rest in the bottles (a miserly 6 + 3 glasses for today!) or just enjoy the 5 and keep one for later (a number of years perhaps, as suggested by my friend and wine specialist Evy Halling).

That problem will be resolved when 3 or 4 bottles have gone the way wine usually goes: let temptation, decision making and discipline commence the battle in a couple of weeks!

But I am now, in my own mind, a fulfilled and content wine maker.
Wolf Blass, eat humble pie.
As Spielberg said: I made this!!!
.

New Paintings April 2012



Jorgen Faxholm: Branches in Green Park, London
Oil on 35x55cm canvas

  I have long wanted to try something different, so here goes.
The branches in the wintery Green Park of London was inspired by a photo by my friend Adam.
While painting, my daughter Iryna said: "STOP. That's it. Can I have it as it is?"
Who can resist a compliment like that?

She was right. The Japanese impression of naked branches, overlaid on a background in Lemony/Ochre Yellow (and a little Titanium White), divided into a couple of minimalistic Rothko squares was enough.

Hmm - well, I shall try another composition, including some unique 'needle-flowers', omitted from this picture.
Let's see what it brings.
But I am happy with the colours!




Jorgen Faxholm: Reflections, Chiswick House Lake
Oil on 50x70cm canvas

 During a walk to Chiswick House Park I took a couple of photos of the ripples on the surface of the lake, just using my little Panasonic Lumix camera. Using PSP7 and changing the colours to B/W, while increasing the contrast, some rather unique swirls and patterns appeared.
The strange thing was, that you couldn't see them with the naked eye.
I turned this into a painting, as shown here.

This is definitely an avenue with which I want to experiment - next time using just B/W and perhaps one background colour (Sunshine yellow or red).

The Angler; Danish island. Oil on canvas, 50x70 cm; 2012



Jorgen Faxholm: coastal landscape of a small Danish island, 2012

 If one waits long enough, little Danish islands like this one will disappear into the sea.
The southern part of Denmark already represents a partly drowned landscape, sinking steadily since the end of the last ice-age, fastest since 7000 BC.
In the shallow waters south of Funen (Fyn) one can observe submerged stone barrows and find drowned stone-age settlements. The deepest settlement is found at -47m in the waters between Funen and Sjaelland.
Thoughts about present climate change?

Danish Farm in Summer Dress; oil on canvas 50x70 cm - 2012.

Jorgen Faxholm: Late summer, a field of barley, beets and green, juicy grass

Here's a summer-view of the same old farm I painted in the mid of winter.
In Denmark even a summer's day can be rather chilly - something I have tried to indicate with the colour-palette.

There's little more to say about this landscape.
Let the painting talk.

Bottling Triomphe d'Alsace and Brant wine 11-4-2012

Finally
Having waited patiently for the malolactic fermentation, one of my 2 demi-Johns has now been emptied into 6 bottles - and a bit.


6  1/2 bottles Triomphe d'Alsace + Brant 11/4/2012


I racked the wine in December 2011, discarding the 'depot' and have observed progress with excitement.
Not a huge harvest, but the sugar content was promising and alcohol is around 12%.
Not a bad result - if I may say so?

The other demi-John still shows sign of life, so I have to wait until there is balance in the u-tube, proving fermentation has stopped.

The reason for the difference is probably, that the now bottled one was a 50-50 mix of Brant and Triomphe d'Alsace, while the last demi-John is a pure Tr. d'Alsace.
It is interesting to watch the difference.

And taste?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.!!!!

One bottle wil be put away for some years.
It was my friend and wine buff Evy Halling, who suggested that I take a bottle every year and store it.

When I bottled the 2010 harvest last year, Simon (friend and neighbour) knocked on the door at exactly the right time. It became an unforgettable bottling session, still talked about - but so were all meetings with Simon, who passed away October 2011.
I have used previously emptied bottles, cleaned them, stuck them in the oven at 220 C for 1/2 hour - filled them and corked them without worrying about branding. It is a pain in the proverbial to remove commercial ettiquettes - I think they use araldite these days, so I didn't worry!
With one exception: the bottle without label will be artistically embellished by "the wine grower cum artist" himself to be put away for some years.

Meanwhile, the vines in front of the house and in the patio are now producing leaves and the first sign of what will be flowers and grapes are showing. 3 Chardonnay have been added to the portfolio, but it will take a couple of years before they produce grapes.
The wonders of nature - - -