Archive for August 2009

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


Deforestration Abates


This is a welcome bit of information to act as an anecdote to the more hysterical reports of past years. In a way it is unsurprising. Central governments need their tax revenue and illegal cutting is all about operating out of government oversight and taxation. Obviously, if the local government cannot collect taxes on these logs and new fields, then there is slim chance they can hope to regulate the practice.

Thus the economic necessity of central governments is doing what all the laws and police can never quite do.

Slash and burn will continue until the farmers are encouraged to adopt biochar and are given homestead rights on that basis. At which point it will disappear in a hurry.

It was my lot to once visit a site in the jungles of Borneo a couple of decades ago. It was situated on a small river with a good flow a few miles inland. I saw a steady stream of logs tied up in small booms of perhaps several logs each with a logger riding each boom down to the sea. In the river mouth, there was a tramp ship collecting these logs and loading them. At best the local constabulary had speed boats thirty miles away and easier fish to fry. I got the distinct impression that no one asked too many questions.

I am sure today that the mill exists and that the tramp is no longer collecting logs and who ever comes down that river may even be paying taxes.

INTERVIEW-Global forest destruction seen overestimated
Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:46pm EDT

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN2165866

By Stuart Grudgings

RIO DE JANEIRO, Aug 21 (Reuters) - The amount of carbon emissions caused by world forest destruction is likely far less than the 20 percent figure being widely used before global climate talks in December, said the head of the Brazilian institute that measures Amazon deforestation.

Gilberto Camara, the director of Brazil's respected National Institute for Space Research, said the 20 percent tally was based on poor science but that rich countries had no interest in questioning it because the number put more pressure on developing countries to stem greenhouse gases.

"I'm not in favor of conspiracy theories," Camara told Reuters in a telephone interview on Friday.

"But I should only state that the two people who like these figures are developed nations, who would like to overstress the contribution of developing nations to global carbon, and of course environmentalists."
A lower estimate for carbon emissions from deforestation would have an impact on the Copenhagen talks, where preserving forests is a top item on the agenda.

The summit will negotiate a follow-up to the Kyoto climate change treaty that could introduce forest credit trade to cut developing nation deforestation.

Camara, who stressed that he thought Brazil's deforestation rates remain too high, said recent calculations by his institute using detailed satellite data showed clearing of the world's biggest forest accounted for about 2.5 percent of annual global carbon emissions.

Given that the Amazon accounts for about a quarter of deforestation globally, a figure of about 10 percent for total emissions caused by forest destruction is likely to be more accurate, Camara said.

The 20 percent figure used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was based on calculations from sampling of forests by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), he said.

The FAO method came up with an average annual figure of 31,000 sq km (12,000 sq miles) deforested in the Amazon from 2000-2005. But Brazil's method of using satellite images to measure deforestation "pixel by pixel" was far more accurate and showed a figure of 21,500 sq km for the period, Camara said.

DEFORESTATION HEADING LOWER

For 2005-2009, the FAO estimate was double the correct figure, Camara said.

"The FAO grossly overestimated deforestation in Brazil and there are papers that show that such overestimation is also true for many other countries, including of course Indonesia."

Indonesia is among the world's biggest deforesters.

Camara said he was skeptical of any deal involving Brazil being rewarded for "avoided deforestation" because the average rate of destruction remained far too high.

"Deforestation in 2004 was 27,000 sq km and let's say in 2009 it is 10,000 sq km. It is not fair to say that we avoided 17,000 sq km of deforestation in as much as our current level is still too much, and 90 percent of that is illegal," he said.

"The concept of avoided deforestation is a weak concept. It would not stand up to scrutiny."Deforestation of the Amazon, which makes Brazil one of the biggest global carbon emitters, is on course to fall sharply in the August-to-July annual period in which it is measured.
Satellite data shows that new, large deforested areas are about half the area they were in the previous year, when total deforestation was 12,000 sq km.

"We are hopeful that deforestation will go down. In areas where deforestation had been high in previous years, like Mato Grosso and Rondonia state, it is relatively under control," Camara said.

The government has taken steps to crack down on illegal deforestation over the past year. Falling deforestation may also be due to the fall in commodity prices over the past year, reducing the incentive for farmers and ranchers to clear land. (Editing by John O'Callaghan)

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


Mapping Ocean Heat Flux


This is truly odd and highly suggestive. Here we have a measurable switching behavior rather than a fuzzy trend line. This is very important because actual global temperature declines are clearly switching events.

The example of the switch in the late seventies coincides with a steady improvement in our northwest climate since. This is a subjective impression, but the northern hemisphere has had a surplus of atmospheric heat since about that time.

I do not know how significant that this is and I am sure that it is too soon. We also do not understand the mechanism itself.

However a switching mechanism is quite able to dump us into a little ice age tomorrow morning. It may be made worse by the odd nasty volcano, but in fairness, with very rare exceptions, their impact lasts a year or two.

That does mean something odd is happening to the oceanic heat engine that we know nothing about and cannot anticipate.

I would like to get a handle on what induced this last event. I would really like to understand cause and effect. The build up may be quite gradual but the switching behavior acts like catastrophic changeover somewhere.

Why would heat flow change direction three times? How does this happen if solar input is a constant? Are we noting the effects of an injection of deep Antarctic cold waters across the equator itself?

This last idea makes some sense. It has been noted that the Antarctic has been getting colder over the past decades. This means a buildup of deep colder waters south of the equator. It is plausible that this periodically is injected into the northern hemisphere to redress balance. Let us propose that a normal injection is into the Pacific and this happens perhaps every fifty years of so and is largely responsible for global cooling.

Let us then propose that a rare occasion is an injection instead into the Atlantic. This delivers the little ice age and similar events. My point is that a periodic readjustment in the global heat sink by way of an injection across the equator nicely rebalances the books.


That it goes occasionally astray into the Atlantic is also a natural system.

I think that we can tentatively accept this bit of evidence as a first hard contribution to a robust model of heat transfer through the ocean. It does not answer the question but it does confirm we need to look here.


Changes In Net Flow Of Ocean Heat Correlate With Past Climate Anomalies


by Staff Writers
Rochester NY (SPX) Aug 21, 2009

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Net_Flow_Of_Ocean_Heat_Correlate_With_Past_Climate_Anomalies_999.html

Physicists at the University of Rochester have combed through data from satellites and ocean buoys and found evidence that in the last 50 years, the net flow of heat into and out of the oceans has changed direction three times.


These shifts in the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and radiated from the oceans correlate well with past anomalies that have been associated with abrupt shifts in the earth's climate, say the researchers. These anomalies include changes in normal storm intensities, unusual land temperatures, and a large drop in salmon populations along the western United States.


The physicists also say these changes in ocean heat-flow direction should be taken into account when predicting global climate because the oceans represent 90 percent of the total heat in the earth's climate system.


The study, which will appear in an upcoming issue of Physics Letters A, differs from most previous studies in two ways, the researchers say. First, the physicists look at the overall heat content of the Earth's climate system, measuring the net balance of radiation from both the sun and Earth. And second, it analyzes more completely the data sets the researchers believe are of the highest quality, and not those that are less robust.


"These shifts happened relatively abruptly," says David Douglass, professor of physics at the University of Rochester, and co-author of the paper. "One, for example, happened between 1976 and 1977, right when a number of other climate-related phenomenons were happening, such as significant changes in U. S. precipitation."


Douglass says the last oceanic shift occurred about 10 years ago, and that the oceans are currently emitting slightly more radiation than they are receiving.


The members of the team, which includes Robert Knox, emeritus professor of physics at the University, believe these heat-flux shifts had previously gone unnoticed because no one had analyzed the data as thoroughly as the Rochester team has.


The team believes that the oceans may change how much they absorb and radiate depending on factors such as shifts in ocean currents that might change how the deep water and surface waters exchange heat.
In addition to the correlation with strange global effects that some scientists suspect were caused by climate shifts, the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming-a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring "warming in the pipeline." Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.


"An interesting aspect of this research is that no reference to the surface temperature itself is needed," says Knox.


"The heat content data we used, gathered by oceanographers, was gleaned from temperature measurements at various ocean depths up to 750 meters." The team also found that the radiative imbalance was sufficiently small that it was necessary to consider the effect of geothermal heating. Knox believes this is the first time this additional source of heat has been accounted for in such a model.


The team notes that it's impossible to predict when another shift might occur, but they suspect future shifts might be similar to the three observed. Both Douglass and Knox are continuing to analyze various climate-related data to find any new information or correlations that may have so far gone unnoticed.

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


Synthetic Trees to Gather CO2


Somehow this one is a bit difficult to choke down. The startling item is that so much CO2 can be collected. It does not promise to convert it into something g conv3enien so we are still left with a disposal problem. Not a solution that competes with biocharing crop residue and plowing it into the field.


We are given too little technical information here to devel0ope any comfort regarding method. So we cannot comment much.


This article also chatters about algae and paint jobs, so it is clear that the reporter is new to the subject also.


Therefore we better wait for a more detailed story that is not a recycled press release. At the end of the day, we want the CO2 been used.


Long before a strategy like this is adopted; a strategy of simply planting trees will be long implemented not so much for the substantial CO2 locked up but for all the additional benefits provided.


How planting forests of fake trees across Britain could fight global warming


By
Daily Mail Reporter


Last updated at 12:27 PM on 27th August 2009


Forests of artificial 'trees' should be planted across Britain to soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, according to a report into climate change.


Engineers claim 100,000 of the devices which would be two-thirds as tall as a wind turbine - would remove the carbon emissions of every car, lorry and bus in Britain.


The call comes in a study by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers into how technology could prevent climate change. It says using technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere could buy the world vital time.


The future? The artificial trees pictured in between the giant wind turbines would help soak up carbon dioxide


The institution says a single synthetic tree costing £15,000 could capture ten tons of carbon dioxide from the air every day, making it thousands of times more efficient at absorbing CO2 than a real tree.


The trees would be coated with synthetic materials that absorb CO2, which would then be removed and stored underground in depleted oil and natural gas reservoirs. The institution wants millions of pounds to be invested in research on technology to beat the threat of global warming to Britain.


The study also calls for buildings to be lined with pots of algae that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. The algae could then be used as green biofuels for cars.


Painting buildings white can also help reduce the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth, keeping it cool.


The report says attempts to prevent global temperatures rising are doomed, predicting they could increase as much as 6c by 2100, creating food and water shortages, sea level rises and massive refugee crises.


Author Dr Tim Fox said: 'Geo-engineering may give us those extra few years of transition to a low- carbon world and prevent any one of the future climatechange scenarios we all fear.'


Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209358/How-forests-fake-trees-Britain-fight-global-warming.html#ixzz0Pc9DnHP4

Written by fatih al-farahat in ,


Photos taken during the Arctic Sunrise's Greenpeace expedition to northern Greenland

A link to must see photos taken during the Arctic Sunrise's Greenpeace expedition to northern Greenland:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/index.php?option=com_registration&task=gallerycat&exist=yes&thumbid=1804&photocat=5&issueid=

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


James Lovelock on biochar -- Let the Earth remove CO2 for us

James Lovelock on biochar: Let the Earth remove CO2 for us

James Lovelock: George Monbiot is wrong to dismiss biochar out of hand – burying carbon is one way to tackle climate change

by James Lovelock, The Guardian, March 24, 2009

I usually agree with George Monbiot and love the way he says it, but this time – with his assertion that the latest miracle mass fuel cure, biochar, does not stand up – he has got it only half right.

Yes, it is silly to rename charcoal as biochar and yes, it would be wrong to plant anything specifically to make charcoal. So I agree, George, it would be wrong to have plantations in the tropics just to make charcoal.

I said in my recent book that perhaps the only tool we had to bring carbon dioxide back to pre-industrial levels was to let the biosphere pump it from the air for us. It currently removes 550 bn tons a year, about 18 times more than we emit, but 99.9% of the carbon captured this way goes back to the air as CO2 when things are eaten.

What we have to do is turn a portion of all the waste of agriculture into charcoal and bury it. Consider grain like wheat or rice; most of the plant mass is in the stems, stalks and roots and we only eat the seeds. So instead of just ploughing in the stalks or turning them into cardboard, make it into charcoal and bury it or sink it in the ocean. We don't need plantations or crops planted for biochar, what we need is a charcoal maker on every farm so the farmer can turn his waste into carbon. Charcoal making might even work instead of landfill for waste paper and plastic.

Incidentally, in making charcoal this way, there is a by-product of biofuel that the farmer can sell. If we are to make this idea work it is vital that it pays for itself and requires no subsidy. Subsidies almost always breed scams and this is true of most forms of renewable energy now proposed and used. No one would invest in plantations to make charcoal without a subsidy, but if we can show the farmers they can turn their waste to profit they will do it freely and help us and Gaia too.

There is no chance that carbon capture and storage from industry or power stations will make a dent in CO2 accumulation, even if we had the will and money to do it. But we have to grow food, so why not help Gaia do the job of CO2 removal for us?

• James Lovelock is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist. He is known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis.

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/biochar-earth-c02

Written by fatih al-farahat in


G. C. Sewant, Arctic Sunrise at the Helheim Glacier: Greenland's Shrinking Glaciers

Greenland's shrinking glaciers


by Gaurav C. Sewant, blogging from the Greenpeace ship, Arctic Sunrise, in Headlines Today, in association with India Today, August 21, 2009

"Lucky bird to Arctic Sunrise...Permission to lift off.'' The Greenpeace helicopter lucky bird lifted off effortless and so did my spirits. For the first time I was to have a bird's eye view of Greenland's famous Hellheim glacier, one of the largest and also one of the most dangerous. The five-seater Eurocopter 120 B flew low over the hundreds and thousands of ice bergs breaking off from the glacier and literally choking the mouth of Sermilik Fjord in the area.

I was flying, but will we be lucky enough to land on the glacier, that was the million dollar question. While the glacier a part of the Arctic Greenland ice sheet is supposed to be rock solid, glaciologists and scientists over the past couple of years have found to their dismay it isn't. This year the news is far more depressing. The Glacier is not only melting faster it is breaking into millions of pieces and ice bergs are increasing the volume of the sea. The impact ... from New York to Sydney and from Mumbai to the Sundarbans, scientists fear the sea will continue to eat up more land.

Arctic Sunrise off the coast of Greenland
Walrus on 1st year sea ice in Kane Basin, in north Greenland

With me is Professor Gordon Hamilton, a glaciologist from the University of Maine, USA. He and his team have planted several global positioning systems and cameras along the glacier and on the glacier. The GPS devices are moving with the glacier. The speed is alarming...25 metres a day. Why are the glaciers that too in the Arctic moving so fast and breaking up? There is cutting edge scientific activity underway off the Arctic coast of Greenland.

The helicopter door is open. My camera colleague Jari Stalh, a veteran of several polar missions is leaning out in sub zero temperatures and filming. The pilot Martin Duggam swoops low to enable Jari to get better pictures. I miss a heartbeat. It is almost as if we can lean out and touch the collapsing ice wall. Visually it is a treat. We are flying over the artic ice sheet. It should be one solid mass of ice. But it isn't. Knife edged jagged ice peaks jut out into the sky. All crumbling or ready to crumble. Hellheim is one of the biggest glaciers. Though there is no scientific evidence but the folklore is that the mighty Titanic sank due to one of the ice bergs that came off either Hellheim or the other Greenlandic glaciers.

The pilot takes us to the scary part of the glacier. It is not only very crevassed but there are rivers that are flowing along. The helicopter lands on a thick ice sheet. The pilot first gently lowers the bird, tests the strength of the ice, adds a little pressure but the rotors are still whirring ready to take off if the ice gives way and then lands. We wait for a few seconds wondering if the ice will give way. But Prof Hamilton and Martin are confident. I jump out along with the professor. We walk some distance and stop. There is a river flowing down the glacier. Fast and furious. It forms a whirlpool some distance away and water gushes down. God forbid if someone falls, he will just go straight down hundreds of metres in freezing waters. I step back.

Arctic Sunrise off the coast of Greenland
A shot of the Arctic Sunrise

It is waters like these that are a cause of concern for the glaciologists. This water acts like a lubricant under the glacier forcing it to tilt forward and ultimately fall in the icy waters of the arctic. ``It is like few cubes of ice added to your drink. The volume increases. Where does that sea water go when huge chunks of ice fall in it? Well it moves into land,'' explains the professor.

For him rising sea level is not a climate issue. For him this is now a national security issue. And he gives me the example of India. Land in the Sundarban area is being eaten up by sea. What do farmers do...look for new land. It will lead to violence. But imagine when countries start losing land. What will populations do? For example in the years to come when Bangladesh loses land to the sea, the population will look to India. There will be large scale population movements in less than a decade, he predicts.

Several small islands and some island countries in the south Pacific will be wiped off the globe, he warns. The melting Greenland ice sheet will be the catalyst but the reason is climate change. Our helicopter takes off again and we land on one side of the glacier. Prof Hamilton's team has been studying the Greenlandic glaciers for several years and each year the picture is more alarming than the previous years. This year he says it is most depressing. Several time lapse cameras along the glacier have captured the collapse - the calving of the glacier. The Greenpeace team is hopeful the new scientific data will influence global leaders when they meet in Copenhagen in December to sit back and realise the enormity of the situation.

On Board the Arctic Sunrise Melanie Duchin, the Greenpeace campaigner from USA says the new scientific data points to a far more alarming picture than earlier anticipated. The political leaders world over need to appreciate there is no half way house when it comes to arresting the damage. 40 per cent green house gasses cut by the developed world and at least 15 per cent by developing world is what the environment lobby is hoping for.

After all we want our children and their children to live in a clean world. We must clean up our act...At least for their sake.

Photo Gallery: Arctic Meltdown
Link to blog post:

Written by fatih al-farahat in ,


Joseph Romm: The Storm of the Century -- so far

The Storm of the Century (so far)

 by Joseph Romm, Climate Progress blog, August 28, 2009

katrina-aftermath.jpgOn August 23, 2005, a tropical depression formed 175 miles southeast of Nassau. By the next day, it had grown into tropical storm Katrina and was intensifying rapidly. Early in the evening on August 25, Hurricane Katrina made landfall near North Miami Beach. Even though it was only a Category 1 storm, with sustained wind speeds of about 80 miles per hour, it caused significant damage and flooding, and took 14 lives.

The hurricane’s quick nighttime trip across Florida barely fazed the storm. Entering the Gulf of Mexico’s warm waters quickly kicked Katrina into overdrive, like a supercharged engine on high-octane fuel. Hurricanes fuel themselves by continually sucking in and spinning up warm, moist air.

On August 28, Katrina reached Category 5 status, with sustained wind speeds of 160 mph and a pressure of 908 millibars. A few hours later, wind speeds hit 175 mph, which they maintained until the afternoon.

At 4:00 p.m., the National Hurricane Center warned that local storm surges could hit 28 feet, and “Some levees in the Greater New Orleans Area could be overtopped,” a warning that was tragically ignored by federal, state, and local emergency officials. Over the next 14 hours, Katrina’s strength dropped steadily. When the hurricane’s center made landfall Monday morning, it was a strong Category 3, battering coastal Louisiana with wind speeds of about 127 mph. The central pressure of 920 millibars was the third lowest pressure every recorded for a storm hitting the U.S. mainland.

The devastation to the Gulf region was biblical. The death toll exceeded 1300. The damage exceeded $100 billion. [Combined with the effects of Hurricane Rita] two million people were forced to leave their homes, more than were displaced during the 1930’s Dust Bowl. One of the nation’s great cities was devastated.

About 20 miles to the west of the second Gulf landfall was the small town named Pass Christian, Mississippi, where my brother lived with his wife and son.

Tropical cyclones in the northern hemisphere rotate counterclockwise, and so the most intense storm surge is just to the east of the eye, because the surge represents the intense winds pushing the sea against the shore. A 30-foot wall of water with waves up to 55 feet crashed over the town. Although my brother and his family lived one mile inland, their house was ravaged with water up to 22 feet high, leaving the contents of the house looking like they had been churned “inside of a washing machine,” in my brother’s words. While they lost virtually all their possessions, they were safe in a Biloxi shelter.

Thanks to the generosity of many people, my brother’s family was able to find a temporary home in Atlanta. But like many families whose lives were ripped apart by the storm, they had difficult choices in the ensuing months. Perhaps the toughest decision was whether to rebuild their home or to uproot themselves and try to create a new life somewhere else.

I very much wanted to give my brother an expert opinion on what was likely to come in the future. After all, climate change was my field, and while my focus has been on climate solutions, I had done my Ph.D. thesis on physical oceanography.

As I listened and talked to many of the top climate experts, it quickly became clear that the climate situation was far more dire than most people-and even many scientists, myself included-realized. Almost every major climate impact was occurring faster than the computer models had suggested. Arctic sea ice was shrinking far faster than every single model had projected. And the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica were shedding ice decades earlier than the models said. Soils appear to be losing their ability to take up carbon dioxide faster than expected. At the same time, global carbon dioxide emissions and concentrations were rising faster than most had expected.

As for hurricanes, global warming had been widely projected to make them more intense and destructive, but again the recent increase in intensity was coming sooner than the computer models had suggested. Why is that a concern? Since 1970, the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean’s hurricane-forming region has risen 0.5 °C (0.9 °F). Over the path of a typical hurricane, this recent ocean warming added the energy equivalent of a few hundred thousand Hiroshima nuclear bombs. On our current emissions path, the Atlantic will warm twice as much, another 1 °C, by mid-century, and perhaps another 2 °C beyond that by century’s end. Who can even imagine the hurricane seasons such warming might bring?

ornl-final.jpg2050-ornl-final.jpg

This is what I ultimately told my brother, the same advice I would give anyone contemplating living near the Gulf Coast:

Only a quarter of Atlantic hurricanes make U.S. landfall, and while there is no question that the frequency of intense Atlantic hurricanes is rising, it is somewhat random as to where they will actually go any given year.

That said, the Gulf of Mexico is going to get warmer and warmer, as is the Atlantic Ocean, and so hurricanes that enter the Gulf are likely to start out and end up far more destructive than usual. I would not bet that the Mississippi Gulf Coast will get hit by a super-hurricane in any particular year, but I would certainly plan on it being hit again some time over the next ten years; I wouldn’t be surprised if it were hit by more than one.

Coastal dwellers from Houston to Miami are now playing Russian roulette with maybe two bullets in the gun chamber each year. In a couple of decades, it may be three bullets.

[This is excerpted from my book, Hell and High Water. The description of Katrina is from two terrific sources: Grauman et al., Hurricane Katrina: A Climatological Perspective, Technical Report 2005-01, NCDC, October 2005, update Jan 06, and Richard D. Knabb, Jamie R. Rhome, and Daniel P. Brown, Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Katrina, 23-30 August 2005, National Hurricane Center 20 December 2005.]

Subsequently, the scientific literature has supported the view that human-caused global warming is “more likely than not” partly responsible for the fact that “In the period 1971–2005, since the beginning of a trend towards increased intense cyclone activity, [economic] losses excluding socio-economic effects show an annual increase of 4% per annum” (see here).

I have further elaborated on the growing threat to the Gulf from warming-driven superstorms:

And the literature also supports that analysis:

Needless to say, sea level rise will turn many other coastal cities into sitting ducks pre-Katrina New-Orleans:

3 Responses to “The Storm of the Century (so far)”
Aaron Lewis says August 28, 2009 at 5:29 pm

The global circulation models (GCM) understated loss of Arctic Sea Ice in the 2007 to 2009 timeframe. The GCM now underestimate feedbacks from loss of ice that result in accelerated warming. This is consistent with ocean temperatures observed by NOAA last July being significantly higher than what was projected by any of the GCM for 2009. In short, it appears that actual warming will be greater than projected by the IPCC, which is the baseline for the storm damage baseline in the above post.

For engineering and public policy decisions, we should allow some margin of error. (If you expect a 10-foot storm surge, you do not evacuate to some place that is 10 feet above sea level, you go someplace that is more than 10 above sea above sea level to provide a margin of error.) In another example, building codes require stronger roofs than storms expected by the local weatherman would require. Building codes are policy documents and have a margin of error built into them. All long term public planning documents require similar margins of error.

An example of such failure is: only two years after the FAR was published we had clear evidence of significant methane releases in the Arctic. This is a powerful feedback mechanism that is not in any way contemplated in the 2007 FAR. To have it documented so soon after the publication of the 2007 FAR is indicative of the flaws in the FAR. In summary, the IPCC projections do not provide a basis for engineering design or provide decision support for public policy. We can only be sure that global warming will come sooner and be more intense than suggested by the IPCC 2007 FAR. Thus, changes in storm intensity will come sooner and be greater than suggested above.

To get back on BAU Track that the basis for the above, would take more polictial will than the globe seems to have at this time. The longer we delay, the deeper the changes will have to be, and the more polictial will required. However, we not only have to get back to the BAU, we have to get past the BAU to something that is sustainable.

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


In Conan's Land


As I have made clear in my postings, the ice age polar ice cap needed to be centered on the pole as much as possible to minimize growing imbalance in the crust. We have already dealt with the real slipperiness of the crust itself and shown that this objection is no objection at all.

We have asserted that humanity chose to trigger a crustal movement about 12900 BP in order to position the crust in such a way as to induce the full effect of the Gulf Stream and usher in the Holocene. This was clearly a precisely targeted event induced by a Comet strike on the pole itself. It is literally too good to be true if it was not planned deliberately.

However, it appears that a similar crustal movement occurred coincident with the peak of the ice age at around 19,000 BP that was a natural outcome of the building imbalance of the crust and though a random event, it did begin the process of deglaciation itself, but not nearly so effectively as the 12,900 BP event which completed the job in a couple of millennia.

The best evidence for this occurring is simply the fact that the second event was planned at all. You would only try that if you knew it would work.

A little bit of Pleistocene geography now needs to be reconstructed. Firstly, the temperate zone was the home of our known Pleistocene menagerie of mammoths, bison, mega lions, huge bears and of course humanity. Because it was in the temperate belt a long growing season was available. However it was all dominated by glacial weather that kept temperature variation changing over several degrees making agriculture very difficult and unlikely.

In Eurasia, this zone was most of two thousand kilometers wide and several thousand kilometers long. It was well watered and replete with ample plant fodder to support the massive herds. There were also ample semi protected valleys in which humanity could commence pastoralism and perhaps even some garden plot agriculture. The human population was likely huge because of the ease of big game hunting.

Secondly, the Indian sub continent was positioned on the equator and had a climate similar to the Amazon, Indonesia and the Congo. Human populations would have been organized as hunter gatherers as common in these regions. Successful agriculture has only occurred on tropical soils with the advent of terra preta in the Amazon five thousand years ago and more recently with some application of modern capital intensive methods.

That made it unattractive to northern hunting cultures that could migrate easily from Central Asia.

We can also surmise from the forgoing that these populations had ample prewarning of the coming impact event of 12,900 BP and were able to properly shelter themselves from the atmospheric shock waves.

Pleistocene Central Asia in particular was thirty degrees in latitude further south and obviously a much moister environment that was rich in food and fodder for the Pleistocene menagerie. It was certainly well populated with human hunters to a density comparable to such societies in Africa. Thus we have a dominant Central Asian culture with a southern tropical perimeter not unlike the surrounds of the Congo and the Amazon. They had plausibly already domesticated cattle to stabilize their lifeway and liberate themselves from following the wild herds were all the predators were.

My point is that the Northern Pleistocene was far richer and dominant than we have ever imagined and once understood in that light the later emergence of derivative populations becomes understandable. This huge areal expanse interacted with a likely host of local tribal groupings on the perimeter that to day are still recognizable as Europeans, Aryans and Chinese with all gradations in between.

The claim in the Vedas that the Indian populations and culture arose from an influx from the ‘Arctic’ and environs then is clearly explained. That influx was ongoing long before the 12,900 BP event, but lacked the necessary large herds to support hunting unless they brought cattle with them. If they brought cattle herds then they would have established large populations early on just as we are doing so in the Amazon today.

The crustal shift northward changed all that into the present climate regime and effectively forced populations out of their old hunting grounds as they dried out. They would naturally have gone south to join their kinsmen.

We have always been assuming geographical association with specific characteristics. The littoral of central Asia was rich and well connected for the mixing of a wide range of characteristics to be able to accommodate all of this in a population that was notably brown skinned but also highly variable.

Thus we can make a first basic generalization about the pre agricultural human populations. There were two obvious lifeways. The one was centered in tropical conditions, of which a modern day example is Papua - New Guinea. Their lifeway engaged in local gardening and small game hunting and inter tribal predatory warfare.

The second dominant lifeway was the temperate big game hunting society with a plausible application of pastoralism. We have images of Conan confronting these monsters with a spear in hand. Somehow, that never happened. Stampeding such an animal over a cliff is much safer or crowding it into a sealable box canyon, or as in Africa, simply dig a really good pit fall. You still need the big spear, but you will not be endangering yourself.

Converting the meat into strips for drying and producing pemmican was surely the principle method of using all such meat. Most of it was tough and needing prolonged stewing otherwise. Obviously a single mammoth would provide many thousands of pounds of fresh meat which could be dried and preserved in fat after pulverizing to produce thousands of individual daily rations. It is realistic to expect a single mammoth to provide a year’s rations for a single hunting band totaling up to twenty members. Pretty good return on a month’s effort.

That also explains the general economy of the plains Indians who maintained buffalo jumps. Once the preserved meat was in place, all other hunting was a pleasant pastime.

Thus we find that the post 12,900 BP world became difficult for the northern populations at the same time that the southern perimeter dried out and became more amenable to the lifeways of pastoralists. Of course they migrated bringing a more productive lifeway with them.

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


Promotion of Global Warming Derailed


Of course Marc Morano has been the center of dispensing information contrary to the pro global warming material. We have not had a public debate so much as a battle of the apologists.


Again, for the record, the northern hemisphere warmed up quite nicely for a decade or two until 1998. At that point as should be obvious, the northern hemisphere was warm. The sea ice had already been reduced by sixty percent by the warming process. This melt continued for the past ten years because conditions were warmer but also stable. The sea ice is now much further reduced and could easily be eliminated by another cycle of warming or even maintenance of the past decade’s warmth.


Instead, we presently have dropped a degree or so in apparent temperature. Thus it is also plausible that the sea ice is presently on neutral and may swing lower to induce the regrowth of sea ice.


What is completely convincing is the proposition that the climate is been managed with zero regard to the amount of CO2 we dump into the atmosphere. I am using the word zero here because most people seem to have difficulty with approximate, or negligible. To put it as clearly as possible, I do not need haul in CO2 as a cause to explain anything, particularly now when the climate is showing itself to be a hugely independent variable.


After all, if the coincidence of a decadal temperature rise is to be successfully associated with rising CO2 until 1998, how do we explain the effect of twice as much CO2 dumped into the atmosphere since? The warming effect must be much greater! If we accept their simple minded arithmetic, then the only explanation is that we have just staved of a little ice age. We are certainly heading there in terms of logical consistency,


When I started this blog, I began by clearly delinking the two phenomena. I said at the time that such linkage was both weak science and likely to damage the important cause of CO2 management. Such management leads directly to a program of terraforming the Earth. The only problem with that, is that the natural supporters are so called environmentalists who are so biased that they can not do any thing constructive. That leaves the rest of us to push at small beginnings.


http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2597/Exposed-Climate-Fear-Promoters-Greatest-Fear--A-Public-Trial-of-the-Evidence-of-Global-Warming-Fears-Inconvenient-Developments-Continue-to-Mount


Exposed: Climate Fear Promoters Greatest Fear -- A Public Trial of the 'Evidence' of Global Warming Fears! Inconvenient Developments Continue to Mount


'Series of inconvenient developments for promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated'


Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - By
Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Climate Depot Editorial

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has shocked the global warming debate by its formal call to hold a public global warming trial to decide on the “evidence” that mankind is driving a climate catastrophe. The Chamber seeks to have a complete trial “complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.” Some are referring to the potential for a global warming trial as the “U.S. Chamber of Commerce wanting to put AGW (anthropogenic global warming) creationism on trial.”

Brenda Ekwurzel of the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists, is discouraging the idea of a trial. This is the same Ekwurzel who claimed global warming made it “less cool” this summer. See: Climate Fear Promoters Try to Spin Record Cold and Snow: 'Global warming made it less cool' – July 27, 2009

More significantly, it is the same Ekwurzel who badly lost a public debate over man-made climate fears in 2007. See:
Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate – March 16, 2007 & see: Climate Fear Promoters Avoid Debates and Lose When They Engage in Them)

No wonder the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called for a full trial on global warming claims. Desperation time has arrived for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, as the science of man-made climate fears continues to collapse.

In 2009, a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated.

A small sampling of developments include: new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies, more evidence that rising CO2 is a boon for the atmosphere, and the Earth's failure to warm.

In addition,
public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion and even activists at green festivals are now expressing doubts over man-made climate fears and a Nobel Prize-winning economist is wishing for 'tornadoes' and 'a lot of horrid things' to convince Americans of a climate threat.

There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years. Lack of warming for past decade and recent global cooling, follow a peer-reviewed analysis showing the 20th century was not unusually warm. In addition, a global temperature analysis on April 24, 2009 found "No continents have set a record high temperature since 1974."

The news is so grim for man-made climate fear activists that they are already looking for the next environmental scare to hype! See: AGW RIP? Is It Time for Next Eco-Scare Already? Gore's producer Laure David touts plastic crisis: 'Plastic waste is in some ways more alarming for us humans than global warming' - July 31, 2009 & UK Green Party: 'There exists a more serious crisis than the 'CO2 crisis': the oxygen levels are dropping and the human activity has decreased them by 1/3 or ½'

The environmental activists who are choosing to ride out the unfounded CO2 scare are getting more and more comical and shrill.

Climate campaigner Adam D. Sacks declared in Grist Magazine on August 24, 2009: “We must leave behind 10,000 years of civilization” to deal with global warming."

“If we live at all...'live locally...means we are able get everything we need within walking (or animal riding) distance,” Sacks wrote.

Former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm has also reached the heights of desperation. Romm
claimed on June 6, 2009 that skeptical websites like Climate Depot were spreading “disinformation” that may end up being responsible for “unspeakable misery and/or violence to billions of people!”

The New York Times has also waded into global warming “desperation” territory with an uncritical article touting “national security” fears from global warming. (See:
Climate Depot's Inconvenient Rebuttal to 'National Security' Climate Argument – August 9, 2009)

The Obama EPA has been accused of censoring science in an apparent effort to produce the best science that politics can manufacture. See: EPA further muzzles global warming skeptic Dr. Alan Carlin - August 25, 2009

Other climate fear promoters are using threats and intimidation to silence the climate debate. See: 'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' - June 3, 2009

As the climate fear activists point fingers and regress into amusing rants, the evidence that the global warming fear movement is collapsing -- abounds.

In July 2009, the world's largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) was “startled” by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate fears, with many calling for the removal of the ACS's climate activist editor.

But the American Chemical Society's scientific revolt is only the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.

Another development in shattering the so-called “consensus” was an Open Letter signed by more than 130 German scientists urging German Chancellor to “reconsider” her climate views. See: 'Consensus' Takes Another Hit! More than 130 German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears 'Pseudo 'Religion'; Urge Chancellor to 'reconsider' views – August 4, 2009

On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”

The petition was signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University's Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In addition, in 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

The year 2009 also saw a report from 35 international scientists countering the UN IPCC. See: “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change”

This year also saw the flow of peer-reviewed scientific papers continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. as well. See: Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009

Peer-Reviewed Study Demonstrates Anthropogenic Contribution to Global Warming Overestimated, Solar Contribution Underestimated - Geophysical Research Letters- March 3, 2009

New Peer-Reviewed Study: Evidence that Global Temperature Trends Have Been Overstated: 'Effects of CO2 on global temp trends may have been overstated in past assessments by some amount' - August 13, 2009

Another New Peer-Reviewed Study: Ocean net heat flow is connected with climate shifts – CO2 not correlated – no 'warming in the pipeline' - August 17, 2009

Science is Settled! CO2 irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist Lindzen: 'We know that CO2 is having very little effect on the climate' - August 18, 2009

'Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!?'

New peer-reviewed scientific studies now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 )

This means that today's high school kids being forced to watch Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” – some of them 4 times in 4 different classes – will be nearly eligible for AARP (age 50) retirement group membership by the time warming resumes if these new studies turn out to be correct. (Editor's Note: Claims that warming will “resume” due to explosive heat in the "pipeline" have also been thoroughly debunked. See: Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. 'There is no warming in the pipeline' )

In addition, many scientists and reports are predicting a coming global cooling. See:
Astronomers: 'Sun's output may decline significantly inducing another Little Ice Age on Earth' - August 15, 2009 & Scientific evidence now points to global COOLING, contrary to U.N. alarmism - August 4, 2009

A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims." 2009's continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears.

In addition, the following recent developments further challenged the “consensus” of global warming.

Scientist Dr. William Schlesinger admitted in 2009 that only 20% of UN IPCC scientists deal with climate. Schlesinger said he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent [of UN scientists] have had some dealing with climate.” By Schlesinger's own admission, 80% of the UN IPCC membership has no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.

In April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science “published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.”

In 2008, a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian Earth scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”, with only 26% of the scientists attributing global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.”

A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”

Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here ]

In addition, there has been failure of the oceans to warm, and Antarctic ice continues to grow. Even the poster child of the warming fear campaign, the Arctic is not cooperating . (See: April 'Arctic sea ice extent within expected range of natural variability' -- ice grew by 'more than the size of Texas over last two years' & UK Met Office: Arctic Ice Changes 'Could Easily be Due to Natural Fluctuations in the Weather' & 'These are good times to be a climate skeptic' - 'Global sea ice extent presently above long-term average' )

New Zealand Climate Scientist Chris de Freitas revealed on May 1, 2009 that "warming and CO2 are not well correlated." de Freitas added, "the effect of CO2 on global temperature is already close to its maximum. Adding more has an ever decreasing effect."

Australian Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer wrote on August 8, 2009: "At present, the Earth's atmosphere is starved of CO2...One big volcanic eruption can add as much CO2 in a day as humans do in a year."

Plimer, who authored the skeptical book Heaven and Earth, added, "On all time scales, there is no correlation between temps and CO2. If there is no correlation, then there can be no causation."

A growing number of scientists challenge the premise of CO2 driving climate change. Professor Dr. Doug L. Hoffman, mathematician, computer programmer and engineer, wrote on August 24, 2009: "There have been ice ages when the levels of Co2 in Earth's atmosphere have been many times higher than today's." Hoffman, who worked on environmental models and conducted research in molecular dynamics, co-authored the 2009 book, The Resilient Earth.

'Climate change issue is about to fall apart'

Many scientists are now realizing that the UN IPCC and the promoters of man-made climate fear are in a “panic” about the lack of global warming, the growing number of scientific defectors and sinking public support. South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander wrote in March 2009, “'The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart...Heads will roll!”

UK scientist Dr. David Bellamy once believed man-made climate fears, but has since reversed his views and become a skeptic. “The ­science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it's not even science any more, it's anti-science, Bellamy said in November 2008.

It is no wonder that the environmental movement is urging its troops to no longer use the term “global warming,” as temperatures fail to cooperate. (See: NYT obtains enviro strategy memo: Stop use of term global warming! ) The man-made climate fear promotion movement has descended into “climate astrology.”

Skeptical scientists generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is
currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions, which even the UN concedes do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are unreliable. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

Climate models 'violate basic principles of forecasting'

Since real world observations are not supporting the alleged climate catastrophe, climate fear promoters are instead touting unverified computer models predicting doom 50 or 100 years from now. But even the UN admits the models are flawed and do not account for “half the variability in the climate” and they are instead referred to as “story lines” not even “predictions.” (See: IPCC lead author Trenberth, refers climate models as “story lines.” ) In addition, top forecasting experts say the models violate the basic principles of forecasting. (See: Ivy League forecasting pioneer “Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the UN IPCC violated 72.” )

Other Inconvenient Developments for Climate Fear Promoters:

'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise' says Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute – December 12, 2008




Alaskan glaciers at Icy Bay advance one-third of a mile in less than a year
Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier advancing
Hubbard Glacier in Alaska Advances
Western Canadian glaciers advance
'Weather variations, not global warming cause Himalayan glaciers to melt' - August 8, 2009
Research Reveals global warming not cause of Kilimanjaro glacier reduction – September 24, 2008

[Editor's Note: Climate Depot is publishing a series of exclusive A-Z fact sheets on every aspect of the global warming debate. Climate Depot has already published comprehensive fact sheets on: the Arctic; RealClimate.org; Climate Models; Sea Level Rise; Climate Threats & Intimidation; Climate Funding; CO2; Global Warming's Global Governance; Amazon and Rainforests; Warming Activists Stuck in Polar Ice; Congressional Cap-and-Trade Bill; Record Cold Temps; Lack of Warming; Report on Obama Admin. Climate Report; Overpopulation Myths; Hurricanes; Climate Astrology; Gore Effect;]

Marc Morano ClimateDepot.comCFACT1875 Eye Street, NWFifth FloorWashington, D.C. 20006202-536-5052Morano@ClimateDepot.com

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


Sugar Wars


Maybe this is how we should be buying it henceforth :)
The sugar trade has been politically hands off in the USA for a century even in the face of pretty simple and compelling statistics that strongly imply a real need for access management.

A big part of the problem is that the human body resets its sweet tooth as high as availability allows. It is perhaps not quite that bad, but near enough to make a big difference to you and your health. If you never have sugar, a small amount sweetens your food. If you have a lot then you need more to notice the effect. So if you are merely looking for sweetness, a restricted sugar diet is actually a good idea.

The best solution is to impose a blanket portion reduction of sugar content by eighty percent. Most product can be reformulated with glucose if necessary (soft drinks) and safely sweetened with newly approved stevia.

The point I want to make is that our taste buds will reset to accept the much lower sugar exposure. In a couple of years we will wonder what the fuss was about.

I suspect that this article is an early shot across the bows of the upcoming sugar wars.

Aug 25, 2009


Semi-sweet: Americans should cut sugar consumption by more than half, says AHA


By
Katherine Harmon

The average American consumes about 22 teaspoons (355 calories) of added sugar a day, according to a report released yesterday by the American Heart Association (AHA). That amount should be cut down to a maximum of six teaspoons (100 calories) a day for women and nine teaspoons (150 calories) for men, the group recommends.

"For the first time we've created specific recommendations about the amount of sugars that can be consumed in a heart-healthy diet," lead report author Rachel Johnson, of the University of Vermont in Burlington,
told Reuters.

A diet high in added sugar—the sort that makes up the sanguine
syrups in sodas and saccharine snacks, rather than the natural sugars found, for instance, in whole fruits—could lead to obesity and cardiovascular disease, as well as diabetes and a host of other illnesses, according to the research compiled by the American Heart Association. And if Americans slim down, Johnson and her colleagues note, the country could shed billions of dollars in health care costs.

The biggest cloying culprit in the U.S. is soft drinks, which account for a third of the added sugars people consume. Next on the list are candies and sugar itself (16 percent) and cakes, cookies and pies (13 percent).


The report also notes that observational research has linked a high-sugar diet with one that's also low in important nutrients.


"Sugar has no nutritional value other than to provide calories," Johnson said in a prepared statement.


For its part, the industry group the Sugar Association did not see a sweet side to the report, issuing a statement that said, "Very few of the cited references by the AHA are directly related to sugars and heart health impacts," Reuters reports.


Diet drinks and
artificial sweeteners might not hold the answer for those with a sweet tooth either, as studies have linked them to increased consumption and weight gain.

The Wall Street Journal's health blog has a handy list for locating the extra sugar in your daily diet.

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


Anthrophogenic Global Cooling


The nasty news presented into this article is something that should have been accounted for from day one of the great global warming debate. It is really quite simple. CO2 absorbs thermal energy in the 14.77 micron slot. Testing in the early seventies showed this notch in the spectrum to be fully used up to the ninety percent or better level. This means that if all the incoming energy was already been absorbed with the available CO2 to hand and that any increase in CO2 would produce zero effect.


Whatever the interpretation of the role of CO2 in the atmosphere, this alone tells us that it has been optimized already and has nowhere to go.


Besides that this is an excellent exercise in logical thinking regarding the present state of the so called theory. He demonstrates the presence of logical absurdities in the theoretical framework.


I would welcome a scientific argument that counters this particular argument in the of chance that somewhere someone has it all wrong.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL COOLING?


An email from Norm Kalmanovitch [kalhnd@shaw.ca]


There is a very good case to be made for anthropogenic global cooling from CO2 emissions. The beginning of rapid increases in global CO2 emissions started in 1945 with the rapid increase in post war industrialization that has seen CO2 emissions rise from under 4gt/year in 1945, to over 31.5gt/year today. This increase in CO2 emissions over the past 63 years has resulted in over 40 years of global cooling. The only time that there was a decrease in emissions was from 1979 to 1982 when the world was warming.


This forms a positive correlation of sufficient statistical significance to make a reasonable case for this relationship to be valid. Although correlation is not causation, there is nothing in the current science literature database that demonstrates any contrary evidence so based solely on "peer reviewed" science literature (as is the case for AGW), this hypothesis could be taken as valid.


The original paper on this topic by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 can be shown to be in error because at the time quantum physics had not yet revealed the physical process of interaction between the Earth's radiative energy and atmospheric CO2.


The only part of the Earth's thermal radiative spectrum that is affected by CO2 is the 14.77micron band, but Arrhenius, unaware of this fact used measurements limited to only 9.7microns and therefore was not actually measuring the effect from CO2. He also used an experimental source for thermal radiation that was at 100°C, and the radiative spectrum from this source includes the 4.2micron wavelength band of CO2 that is not part of the Earth's radiative spectrum, so he was not measuring the actual effect from the thermal radiation from the Earth.


In 1970 the Nimbus 4 satellite measured the Earth's radiative spectrum showing that the spectral band affected by CO2 had a deep notch in it centred on 14.77microns. This deep notch demonstrated that well over 90% of the possible effect had already been achieved from just the 325 ppmv atmospheric concentration of CO2, so further changes in concentration would have only minor effects, and increases in CO2 concentration could neither be responsible for either global warming or global cooling of any significant degree.


While CO2 concentration increases can be demonstrated to have little further effect on global temperatures, this has no bearing on CO2 emissions because there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration, and CO2 emissions may alter the global temperature by processes other than changes to the greenhouse effect. It is easily demonstrated that there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Over the three years from 1979 to 1982 when CO2 emissions were decreasing due to the rapid increase in the price of oil that drastically reduced consumption, there was no change in the rate of increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 proving that humans were not the primary source for the increase in concentration.


The science literature data base is filled with articles about global warming and CO2, but none of these articles actually relate CO2 emissions to global warming, and just falsely assume that emissions and concentration are interchangeable. All of the articles are based on projections from climate models, which also make this false assumption about emissions and concentration, and these models have yet to demonstrate a result that matches physical observation. This is because models use a contrived CO2 forcing parameter that was clearly not designed on any physical basis either experimental or empirical. In fact there is nothing in all the global warming literature, even the articles about polar bears and melting ice, that can refute the anthropogenic global cooling hypothesis.


Even though there is nothing in the literature data base that can refute the hypothesis of anthropogenic global cooling, the hypothesis can be clearly shown to be false by strict adherence to science protocol and the scientific method. There is clear observational evidence that the Earth warmed from 1975 to 1998 as emissions increased, so even though the world cooled for more years than it warmed with increasing CO2 emissions, these 23 years provide observations contrary to the hypothesis that can't be explained by the hypothesis, and therefore the hypothesis must be abandoned.


Another hypothesis that explains the current global cooling is based on solar cycles and their effect on solar output and changes to the Earth's albedo from cloud cover. The driving mechanism for this is not fully understood, but to date there is absolutely no contrary evidence to the overall hypothesis. There is in fact clear supportive evidence including observational evidence from a project called Earth Shine which measures the Earth's albedo by its reflection on the moon. The albedo measurements show reducing albedo concurrent with global warming, changing to increasing albedo concurrent with global cooling in 1998. (Figure 2 page 21). See
here (PDF).

This is the way science is supposed to work, and while it is a simple matter to falsify the Anthropogenic Global Cooling hypothesis, it should be far easier to falsify the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, because everything stated in the theory is contrary not only to observation, but contrary to established physical principles and physical laws as well. The fact that AGW still exists as a valid hypothesis seven years after the Earth started to cool in spite of the continued rapid increase in global CO2 emissions, is testament to how easy it is to misinform the public with well executed propaganda and media control.