Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Global warming- you decide.

After taking over two years compiling the data rarely mentioned in all but a few newspapers, I've put it all together on my website, and copied it here as well. The fact that Britain's government now seem to believe 'climate change', as they now carefully put it, is the most important reason for policy making (read 'taxation at a phenomenal and otherwise unjustified level'), here are a list of scientifically gained facts and comments I have collected in one place.

Once you look around, there's actually no concensus on global warming, one reason they now prefer to call it climate change. This states a certainty. Yes, climate changes by its nature, but it's not actually news. And if there is a general warming up (a 50-50 chance over any point in history) is it man-made? Who can prove it? And finally, if you re-read any article saying global warming is real, see how many facts are quoted in the present? Hardly any, most, in fact, are placed outside our lifetimes.



Seas rising: The North Atlantic is rising, but the seas around Australia aren't, and the sea level round New Zealand is falling. When temperatures rose from 1900-1940, mean sea levels dropped, showing there is not an automatic correlation.

Ice caps are moving, not breaking up. For example, while the Larsen shelf in the Antarctic is breaking up, much of the rest of it is increasing. Between 1992 and 1997 numerous meterologists, geologists and other experts said global warming was based on theoretical models that weren't supported by existing records, and based on unproven theories and imperfect computer models. Carbon dioxide levels also aren't automatically related to temperature. From 1940-75 when levels increased, temperatures went down, and historically it increases after, not during periods of warming.

Rising overall temperatures since 1880 have mainly been due to the ending of a mini ice age, which would have to end with a warming. Prior to this, Europe was at least 2 degrees warmer in 1100, with no dire consequences. The official figure turns out to be 0.6 degrees. When history proves 2 whole degrees was not a problem. Sudden changes are normal in world climate. 11,000 years ago (no industry present) temperatures dropped by 10'C, and then rose between 7 and 15' in around 50 years. NASA is beginning to doubt original predictions. James Hansen says temperatures in the 21st century are now likely to rise by 0.7'C maximum, the same as the last century. Ian Joughin, from their jet propulsion laboratory and Slawek Tulaczyk from The University of California found, using satellite radar, West Antarctica has added about 27 billion tons of ice, and could indicate an actual reversal of the 10,000 year trend of glacier shrinkage (which is clearly then not a recent problem).

By measuring air temperature rather than sea, it has cooled over the past 20 years. The European Science and Environmental Forum has found the troposphere, which rises from the surface to 30,000 feet, has not warmed at all since 1979 according to satellite readings Prof Ole Humlum of the Norwegian research centre "The greatest jump in temperature was in the Twenties, since then they have been relatively stable'. The European Science and Environment Forum says since 1979 satellite measurements have not detected any significant warming in the troposphere. The UN official figure for temperature increase in the 20th century was 0.6'C, but they themselves predict a rise of around 2' for the 21st (ie facts followed by speculation, which is not scientific). However, James Hansen who was a major cause of the original theory at NASA 15 years ago now says that the warming in the 21st century is far more likely to be no more than 0.7C, which is normal. The air, if measured as a single factor from water, has actually got cooler over the last 2 decades. In the year 1200 Europe was 2'C warmer than it is now, and has since undergone a mini ice age which lasted from 1400 to almost 1900, and the small increase since is what it took to stop it becoming a major one.

Sir Ian Lloyd, Conservative MP 1964-92, describes the consensus of the 1989 Select committee on energy " What is disturbing is the reluctance of the political (and to a significant extent the scientific) community to accept that there is no consensus on the existence, let alone the causes of this phenomenon..." adding now in 2004 "This has not diminished.

Petrol vehicles account for 0.18% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, over 99% of the atmosphere altogether is unaffected by man's activities. Finally, the best current temperature measurements have been made by an independent Norwegian scientist Nils-Axel Morner, using a satellite. He doesn't seem to have a website, but a search on his name will turn up plenty of his findings, and those alone should have been sufficient to finish all the speculation for good.

2 comments:

Stef said...

I'll let you in on a secret ...

The Earth's temperature IS indisputably changing.

It must be. It's a dynamic natural system.

Whether it's up or down, only God knows.

And I wouldn't trust Earth scientists either. Until the 1960's the consensus was there was no such thing as plate tectonics. Until the late 1990s the consensus was meteorite impacts had no relevance to past extinctions. etc etc

And, given that oil is going to run out over the next 20 years, predicting the impact of hydrocarbon emissions into 2100 is a tad silly.

I'm a suspicious guy and I'm always willing to suspect ulterior motives on the part of government. So, why else would they be on about climate change? My money is on it being an excuse for resource wars with emerging economies such as China and India over the next 5 - 10 years, but I'm always open to other suggestions ...

David said...

Just one word Stef, taxation. This time, Bush has actually got it right. By attempting to restrict CO2 emissions, businesses and drivers both in western and developing countries will be taxed to the point of bankruptcy as an excuse to pay back the 'damage they're doing to the climate'.

Including my old mate, Ken the antichrist (I thought there could only be one, but surely not only Rupert Murdoch qualifies after Ken's recent lies and fiddles over the congestion charge). Back to the point, Ken was the only one who voted against a desalination plant in the Thames estuary that would actually help London's leaky water problems. The ONLY reason was it would contribute to global warming. QED.