John Penhallurick’s Blog 7: Is carbon dioxide a threat? Further evidence from the Earth’s total CO2 budget


Is carbon dioxide a threat?

Despite their obsession with carbon dioxide, the IPCC and supporters of the drive to cut human emissions of CO2 show amazing ignorance of the Earth’s total carbon budget. The atmosphere contains about 780 Gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 (0.039% of the whole atmosphere), of which about 90 Gt are exchanged with the ocean every year and another 120 Gt with plants. Thus about 25% of CO2 is turned over every year, which is consistent with the statements in the section on “How long does CO2 remain in the atmosphere?”.

A 2005 estimate of total CO2 emissions from all sources is as follows:

1. Respiration Humans, Animals, Phytoplankton 43.5 – 52 Gt C/ year 2. Ocean Outgassing (Tropical Areas) 90 – 100 Gt C/year 3. Volcanoes, Soil degassing 0.5 – 2 Gt C/ year 4. Soil Bacteria, Decomposition 50 – 60 Gt C/ year 5. Forest cutting, Forest fires 0.6 – 2.6 Gt C/year 6. Anthropogenic emissions (2010)  Including land-use change and deforestation, in 2010 emissions reached 10.0 GtCC/year (http://co2now.org/) TOTAL 194.6 to 226.6 Gt C/ year

(see Houghton, R. A. (2005). “The contemporary carbon cycle”. In William H Schlesinger (editor). Biogeochemistry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. pp.473–513.)

Given that the estimate of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 is about 10  Gt per year (http://co2now.org/), Canadian climatologist Timothy Ball (2008 “Environmentalists seize green moral high ground ignoring science” Canada Free Press, 13 June. Available at http://www.solopassion.com/node/2291?page=14 ) has estimated that this figure is more than four times less than the combined error (32 Gt) on the estimated CO2 production from all other sources.

The Skeptical Science website (available at http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-     vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm) states that what this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a ‘positive feedback loop’ in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

” How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1° change caused by CO2 is, in reality,as much as 3°C.”

An obvious defect of IPCC climate models is that they emphasize positive feedback while neglecting negative feedbacks. Kininmonth (2010 A Natural Constraint To Anthropogenic Global Warming. Energy and Environment 21, no.4: 225-236) pointed out that current computer models of the climate system apparently underestimate the rate of increase of surface evaporation with temperature leading to a gross exaggeration of the surface temperature response to radiative forcing. He pointed out that the rate of increase of evaporation (and latent heat exchange) with temperature at the surface is a critical restraining factor that damps surface temperature response to radiative forcing. So even if one accepts the assumptions of the IPCC (as I certainly do not) global average surface temperature is unlikely to rise beyond 1°C. It is the climate models alone that suggest such devastating effects of human emissions of CO2.

A further important point about CO2 is that climate models ignore the fact that   as extra gas is added to the atmosphere, incremental temperature increases occur in a declining logarithmic fashion. As Carter (Climate: the Counter-Consensus, p.76) has pointed out:    “A good analogy is of painting the windows of a room with white paint: the first coat  or two of white paint block much of the light and cause a marked darkening of the room, but by the time the tenth coat and more are added, little additional darkening is observed. Similarly, the first 60ppm of carbon dioxide added to the newly forming Earth atmosphere is modelled as causing 2°C of warming, whereas adding another 60 ppm from, say, 300-260 ppm causes less than one tenth of a degree of warming…The 100 ppm post-industrial increase in carbon dioxide from ~280 to ~380 ppm must therefore have already caused most (about 75%) of the anticipated 1.2°C of human warming which supposedly is being caused by a doubling of carbon dioxide from its pre-industrial level. So even if one concedes that about 1°C of warming would occur for a doubling, all that remains to occur for a completion of doubling now is additional warming of an insignificant few tenths of a degree.”

Figure 2 shows different projections for the amount of warming by 2100. The research papers by independent scientists, which are largely based on observational evidence, predict that if current levels of human emissions continue, the temperature should increase by 0.6°C to 1.2°C. Even from recent evidence, the increase in CO2 does

Figure 2

Projected Warming to 2100 for a doubling of CO2 as indicated by IPCC and various independent researchers

not show a close correlation with any increase in temperature, as can be seen from Figure 3. Temperature fell between 1940 and 1975, while CO2    shows a striking increase over the same period.

Figure 3

Comparison of temperature increases (determined by Hadley Climate Centre) and CO2

(Taken from Carter (2010), Fig. 10.)

Also, it must be pointed out that because of the well-known urban heat-island effect, official thermometer readings are highly suspect. For countries including the United States, Australia and New Zealand, temperature measurements from a sample of rural stations reveal no statistically significant warming during the twentieth century. Figure 5 reveals how significant the impact of a drastic reduction of earth measuring stations since 1990 has been. The temperature data is based on uncorrected measurements, which are available from such sources as GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The decline in the number of ground measurements which, as shown in Figure 4, began in 1970 and became severe in 1990, is not randomly distributed. Most stations were lost in the former Soviet Union, China, Africa and South America. And most of the stations that closed were in relatively remote areas. (To examine these closures go to University of Delaware global temperature archive, click Available Climate Data; log in; under Global Climate Data select Time Series 1950 to 1999; then select Station Locations (MPEG file for downloading)). As early as 1991, there was evidence that station closure beginning in the 1970s had added a permanent upward bias to the global average temperature. Willmott, Robeson and Feddema (“Influence of Spatially Variable Instrument Networks on Climatic Averages”,

Figure 4

Uncorrected global surface temperature measurements against number of reporting stations

(Available from http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html )

Geophysical Research Letters vol. 18 No. 12, pp. 2249-2251, Dec 1991) calculated a +0.2C bias in the global average due to pre-1990 station closures, and the effect since 1990 must be considerably greater. The climate modellers claim to have corrected for the urban heat island effect, but they refuse to reveal the nature and basis of their corrections. Meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts in their 2010 paper “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception” stated that instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era have been so widely, systematically and undirectionally tampered with that it does not constitute a reliable record of land-based temperatures.

It is also appropriate to mention here the notorious case of China temperature. Jones, P. D., Groisman, P. Ya., Coughlan, M., Plummer, N., Wang, W-C. & Ka, T. R. published a 1990 study entitled “Assessment of urbanisation effects in time series of surface temperatures over land”  (Nature, 347 (13 Sept.):169-172 Available at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v347/n6289/abs/347169a0.html   They argued that their data proved that local urban heating was not a significant factor in the warming trend. This paper has been repeatedly relied on by the IPCC, including in its 2007 report. A particular problem was with details of 42 weather stations in China, namely that crucial data about the location of the weather stations could not be verified because documents containing the information no longer exist. It would take too much time to go into all the details here, but one is left with the conclusion that the 1990 paper should not carry the weight with which the IPCC has invested in it. Also, the issue of the post-1990 major declines in land-based measurement stations has not been addressed by the IPCC.

Some supporters of the IPCC actually greeted with glee the UAH satellite temperature figure for 2010, when it came in at 0.54°C, as if this vindicated their views. Similarly, the Government’s former climate minister, Senator Penny Wong, recently stated (The Australian, 2 Feb. 2010): “Globally 14 of the 15 warmest years on record occurred between 1995 and 2009.” Since direct temperature records date from only about 1850, and since during that period we have been in a recovery from the Little Ice Age, this is nothing to marvel at. Also, a serious error was found in the NASA temperature data for the United States in 2007. When corrected, it was determined that the warmest year in the past 100 years was not in 1998 and 2006 as previously believed, but was 1934, followed by 1998. 1921 became the third hottest year, followed by 2006 and 1933. Out of the five hottest years, three occurred in the 1920s and 30s and only two were in the past 10 years. We should also take into account that in that 15-year period, there have been two strong El Nino events (1997 and 2009), and one moderate (2002) (See http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm .)

The 2009 event does much to explain the relatively sudden increase in temperature of 2010. In contrast, during the same period, there were only three moderate La Nina Events (1999, 2007 and late 2010). The floods in Eastern Australia during early 2011 indicated that the La Nina cycle has strengthened, and a decrease in the earth’s mean temperature was recorded by the University of Alabama at Huntsville satellite-based global temperature measurements: it fell from +0.55° C during a major rise caused by the 2010 El Nino, which had been preceded by a fall to -0.30°C during 2009, to -0.10°C in March 2011 (Available at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/global-temperature-still-headed-down-uah-negative-territory/ )

More fundamentally, the suggestion that meaningful judgements about climate change can be made on the basis of a single year, or even the 150 years since instrumental recordings of temperature began, is laughable. Carter (2010: 38-69) explains the need to work in terms of climate points, based on 30 year averages. Even the 150 years of instrumental temperature measures represents only five climate points, and such intervals are too short to carry statistical significance for long-term climate change. Nonetheless, the warming that has been observed since the last severe stages of the Little Ice Age is likely to be followed like its predecessors, the Roman Warming and the Early Medieval Warming, by cooling, which some measurements, such as the microwave sounding units borne on NOAA polar orbiting satellites (MSUs), suggest has already started. It is also true that the temperatures we are experiencing around the transition from the twentieth to the twenty-first centuries are not unusually warm, in terms of past climate measurements. They are about one degree C cooler than those that obtained in the Holocene Climate Optima several thousand years ago; about 2° C cooler than those reached in the last interglacial period (125,000 years ago); and about 2°-3° C cooler than those that prevailed in the Pliocene age (6-3 million years ago). Also, a 2012 study showed that the Early Medieval Warm Period was ~1°C warmer than today.

You can either go back to my no.1 blog to access any of the documents

1. The IPCC’s case is a fraud.

or you can go to the next document.

8. Further evidence of the lack of correlation between human emissions of CO2 and temperature.

Advertisements
Posted in Climate Change | 3 Comments

John Penhallurick’s Blog 6:How long does CO2 remain in the atmosphere


How long does CO2 remain in the atmosphere

This question is importantbecause the IPCC and its supporters argue that human emissions of CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and this persistence of human emissions in the atmosphere intensifies their contribution to global warming.  The most authoritative estimates of the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere were stated in a number of recent papers by a Norwegian, Professor Tom Segalstad of the University of Oslo. (See especially Segelstad, T.V. (1996) “The distribution of CO2 between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere; minimal influence from anthropogenic CO2 on the global ‘Greenhouse Effect’”. In Emsley, J.(Ed.),The Global Warming Debate. The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum. Bourne Press Ltd, Dorset ,U.K. Available at http://www.co2web.info/ESEFVO1.pdf ). He found that the measured lifetime, based on the studies of some 50 independent researchers, is at most about 5 years. The observed decrease in radioactive C14 after the cessation of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons confirms that the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 10 years. Segelstad concluded that even using the IPCC’s exaggerated estimate of the amount of CO2 emissions, human emissions would still only account for 0.45% (= 3.5 parts in 780) of the greenhouse warming in any particular year. This is equivalent to a rise of 0.1°C in the whole warming effect detected.

You can now either go back to my no.1 document to view all or any posts:

1.Evidence that the IPCC’s case is a fraud.

or you can go the next document:

7. Is carbon dioxide a threat?

Posted in Climate Change | 3 Comments

John Penhallurick’s Blog 5:The role of the ocean in climate change


4. The role of the ocean in climate change

The IPCC and its supporters also betray a remarkable ignorance about the role of the worldwide ocean in climate change. First, they argue that the extra contribution to global CO2 by human emissions is dangerous because the ocean has reached saturation point with carbon dioxide. They believe that this extra contribution from human emissions is causing sea levels to rise.

a) Are human emissions of CO2 causing sea level to rise?

One of the main scare tactics employed by the IPCC and its supporters is to claim that human emissions of  CO2 are causing sea level to rise in a way that will threaten much of the world. There is in fact no evidence that sea level is rising in the way that climate models predict.

Statements made by the IPCC and its followers talk about “sea-level change” as if this were a simple matter.  It is not. For a start, it is necessary to distinguish between eustatic changes, which relate to a notional world-wide average; and local relative sea-level (LRSL), which corresponds to changes in actual sea-levels at real and particular coastal locations.

Figure 1 displays eustatic changes in sea-level based on evidence from many sites since the end of the last ice-age.  It shows a dramatic rise in sea-level, of about 130 m between about 20,000 years and 7,000 years before the present (BP), with a much milder rise since, of much less than a metre in the last 1,000 years. It should be noted, however, that such data do not permit the prediction of future shore-line positions at any one location, which would need to take into account local uplift or subsidence of the land substrate and also local sediment supply.

                        

FIGURE 1

Post-glacial sea-level rise (Global Warming Art (2011))

As Robert Carter has stated: …the geological substrates differ from place to place and are rarely absolutely stable; rather the substrate is sinking in some places (for example, on delta coasts, such as around the Gulf of Mexico or in Blangladesh) and rising in others (for example, in many, but again not all, places in earthquake-prone countries like Japan or New Zealand). As a result, we see around the world a complex pastiche of different rates of local sea-level rise or fall, with the position of the shoreline at any one time or place being dependent on the interaction of three things – the rate of substrate movement up or down, the rate of sediment supply from rivers versus marine transport or erosion, and the rate of change in eustatic sea-level. (see Carter, 2010,Climate: the counter-consensus,p. 92)

All the evidence in fact shows that contrary to the IPCC’s claims, sea-level rise is not accelerating. UK oceanographer Simon Holgate (2008) analysed nine long sea-level records for the period 1904-2003.  He found that between 1904 and 1953, sea-level rise was 2.03 mm per year, compared with 1.45 mm per year for the period 1953-2003.

Further proof that sea-level rises are not increasing, as the climate models predict, comes from a paper by Phillip Watson (2011). Based on century-long tide gauge records from Fremantle, Western Australia (1897 to present); Auckland Harbour in New Zealand (1903 to present); Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour (1914-present); and Pilot Station at Newcastle (1925 to present), Watson concluded there was a consistent trend of weak deceleration from 1940 to 2000. Climate change researcher Howard Brady of Macquarie University was quoted in The Australian of Friday 22 July 2011, p. 1, as saying that the recent research meant sea level rises accepted by CSIRO were already dead in the water as having no sound basis in probability. He added that divergence between sea-level trends from climate models and sea-level change from the tide-gauge records was now so great that it was clear there is a serious problem with the model.

b) Can human emissions of CO2 warm the oceans?

This view that human emissions are the cause of rises in sea level can in part be rejected in terms of the Earth’s actual annual Carbon Budget, which is discussed at greater length in the document  6 Is CO2  a threat? As is pointed out there, the total emissions from the earth range from 192 to 224 gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt C/ year), while human emissions in 2011 amounted to 10 Gt C/ year. Note that the human emissions are considerably less than the natural variability in the total emissions. So how can the 0.05% of emissions due to human emissions be upsetting the balance?

Secondly, the IPCC has claimed on numerous occasions that human emissions of CO2 are heating the ocean. Robert M. Carter, 2010, Climate: the counter consensus, ch.4 has pointed out that the ocean has a heat capacity 3,300 times more than the atmosphere.  I believe that even this figure is an underestimate. It is easy to see why this is so. At standard temperature and pressure (0°C and 100 kPa) dry air has a density of 1.2754 Kg/m3. The density of water at 0°C is 999.8395 kg/m3. In other words, water has 783.94 times the density of air. In addition, we must consider the total mass of both the atmosphere and the oceans.  The oceans of the world have a far greater mass than the atmosphere: 1.5 x 1018 tonnes compared with 5 x 1015 tonnes. In consequence, the mass of the ocean is about 300 times that of the atmosphere. It follows from this that the ocean has a far greater heat capacity than the atmosphere, specifically 783.94 x 300 = ~235,000 times more. The oceans of the world have an average depth of 5 km.  If all the available heat in the atmosphere were applied to the ocean, it would warm only the upper 0.21 meters of the worldwide ocean to the same temperature as the atmosphere. Thus it is impossible for the atmosphere to exert a significant heating effect on the ocean, as the IPCC and its supporters have claimed.

Far from the atmosphere warming the ocean, it is the ocean that controls the warmth of the lower atmosphere in three main ways: through direct contact; by infrared radiation from the ocean’s surface; and by removal of latent heat by evaporation. We have had a demonstration of the power of oceans to influence the atmosphere in that fact that in late 2010, a strong El Niño event raised world temperature by ~0.55°C, according to the University of Alabama’s satellite-based measurement of temperatures. The strong La Niña event, in early 2011, which followed, caused a rapid fall of ~0.65° to a decline of -0.10°C below average. Incidentally, the 2010 El Niño rise was preceded by a fall in temperature averages of -0.30°C during 2009.

A  further point made by Professor Carter is that while the time constant of the atmosphere, during which a molecule of CO2 may be circulated worldwide, is about one year, that of the ocean is one thousand years or longer.  Thus it is quite likely that the outgassing of CO2 evident in the twentieth century may have been caused by the Medieval Warm Period, of about 1,000 years ago.

You can either go back to my no.1 blog, to access any of the pages:

1. Evidence that the IPCC’s case is a fraud.

or you can go to the next document:

6. How long does CO2 remain in the atmosphere?

Posted in Climate Change | 2 Comments

John Penhallurick’s Blog 3: How the IPCC has corrupted science


How the IPCC has corrupted science

The Government’s Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, has recently stated that anyone who disagrees with the government’s proposal is ignorant of the findings of “real science”.  Other climate alarmists have trumpeted the importance of “peer-reviewed science” and “the scientific consensus”. Both of these statements betray appalling ignorance of the true nature of science. I will show below that so-called “climate scientists” have abandoned any claim to the title of “scientist” They are merely propagandists, and the academics among them have been seduced by the grants and public admiration they receive.

As Robert Carter (2010: 192) has stated: Regrettably…the global warming discussions in the public domain ceased to be about science many years ago, ever since the coining of the silly mantras that ‘science is settled’ and ‘there is a consensus’. As the December 2009, Copenhagen Conference confirmed…, the climate change issue is now primarily about very big politics and very big business.

Given their political aims, therefore, it is no surprise that most of today’s commentators on global warming stress the authority of the climate pronouncements made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its supporting organizations. As far as I can recall, movements appealing to qualifications as the basis for accepting their arguments usually fall back on this tired chestnut when they have run out of substantive arguments.  Of course, the Gillard Government, in the person of  minister Greg Combet, have repeated this rubbish, neglecting to reflect that if they really believed that only persons with the requisite formal qualifications should be listened to, the government would have to sack their two chief “Climate Change Advisers”, who possess a total lack of relevant qualifications: Ross Garnaut, who is an economist and statistician; and Tim Flannery who is a mammologist and palaentologist.

Often added to this is the vacuous claim that a consensus of scientists agrees with the IPCC views, as if that were scientifically relevant, even if it were true.  At the same time, continual unsolicited ad hominem attacks are made on qualified persons who espouse different views, and who are often disparaged as ‘sceptics’, ‘deniers’, or worse.

Appeals to “scientific consensus” have nothing to do with real science.  At the time of Galileo, the scientific consensus was that the Sun moved around the Earth. During the nineteenth century, the scientific consensus was that the universe was permeated by a substance named “aether”, thought to be necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. And although Alfred Wegener postulated the theory of continental drift in 1912, it was not until 1960 that it was accepted.  In the meantime, the scientific consensus remained that the continents were fixed in place.

It is often claimed that the authority of the IPCC’s policy advice rests on the fact that its scientists use only information which has been published in reputable, refereed journals, and that their science summaries are also subjected to high standards of peer review.  Yet the 2007 4th Assessment Report contains at least 20 references to reports and papers commissioned by environmental advocacy groups.

John McLean (2008), a climate data analyst from Melbourne, has pointed out that whereas the IPCC claims that more than 2500 scientists have participated in or approved the recommendations in the 2007 4th Assessment Report, in actuality, just 51 persons participated in the final approval of the policymakers’ summary for the Working Group 1 report. And out of the 62 expert reviewers of the critical Chapter 9 of the 2007 4th Assessment Report, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, 55 had a conflicting or vested interest.  The chapter itself was written by a small, interlinked group of authors, many of whom were employed at only three climate change institutions from among hundreds of such institutions worldwide.

A further fact that reveals that the IPCC has no claim to be respected as an institution devoted to the search for scientific truth is the fact that it sought the help of advertising in furthering its case. In 2009, M. Cohen, writing in the Times Educational Supplement of December 10, stated that the IPCC had sought the advice of several of the world’s top advertising agencies to help the IPCC fashion the most effective climate alarmist messages possible. One of the pieces of advice furnished by the agencies was to reverse the null hypothesis. In a complete perversion of normal scientific method, the onus of proof is now claimed to fall upon those who disagree with the IPCC’s case. It is this that lies behind Greg Combet’s remarks quoted above.

The Government’s Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, has recently stated that anyone who disagrees with the government’s proposal is ignorant of the findings of “real science”. On the contrary, the IPCC and its minions have committed major scientific fraud. To understand how the process has become controlled by activists, rather than scientists, it needs to be understood that any document in a IPCC report comes in three forms: the report proper, written by scientists; an executive summary; and a summary for policymakers.  The summary for policymakers is written by activists. IPCC procedure requires that the chapters  and executive summary have to be made consistent with the summary for policy-makers, rather than vice versa. This is because the ultimate authors of the ‘intergovernmental reports’ are the governments. But they get to read and approve only the summary for policy-makers. So if the summary says something different from the chapter it supposedly summarises, then it is the chapter that has to be changed.” (Pearce F.(2010)

A notorious example of this was the handling of a key chapter in its 1995 Second Assessment Report. It allowed a single activist, Ben Santer, who also figured in the Climategate scandal, to rewrite parts of Chapter 8 (Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes). This was to make the summary of the chapter agree with a politically contrived statement in the Summary for Policymakers: namely “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” See http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-Santer.htm .

This statement was precisely the opposite of the conclusion drawn in the original Chapter 8 text by the scientists who were its authors. The two versions of Chapter 8 can be examined at Sceptical Real Climate Science http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-95-Ch8.htm.

R. Pielke Snr concluded: “The IPCC is actually a relatively small group of individuals who are using the IPCC process to control what policymakers and the public learn about climate on multi-decadal time scales. This NRC planning process further demonstrates the intent of the IPCC members to manipulate the science, so that their viewpoints are the only ones that reach the policymakers.”  (http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/protecting-the-ipcc-turf-%E2%80%93-there-are-no-independent-climate-assessments-of-the-ipcc-wg1-report-funded-and-sanctioned-by-the-nsf-nasa-or-the-nrc-a-repost-of-and-comment-on-a-january-13-2009/ )

The Climategate scandal also revealed the coterie of climate modellers acted to prevent the publication of papers that questioned their methods and results. They have also repeatedly denied access to other researchers who have sought their data, and information on their methods. There is a reference below to the climate modellers “tweaking” their results to get them to match (to some degree) current climates.

The origins of the IPCC

It is natural to wonder where all this propaganda started from. And the answer, as revealed in an article published in Quadrant magazine of January 31, 2010, is a shady character named Maurice Strong, who believed in world government, and who despised  western governments. His first proposal to achieve world government was a proposal for the United Nations to levy a a world tax on monetary transactions of 0.5% which would have given the UN an annual income of $1.5 trillion, which was about equal then to the income of theUSA. When this was blocked, he hit on the idea that global warming might just be the device to get his World Governance proposal up and running. The article from Quadrant follows.

Discovering Maurice Strong

by John Izzard

January 31, 2010

TheYellow Brick Roadto Climate Change

January has certainly been a defining month in the quest for truth about climate change, and the custodians of that “truth” aren’t looking that flash at the moment. Indeed in the month of January some of the major doomsday prophecies unravelled and the prophets themselves seemed to undergo vows of silence. Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong, Tim Flannery — who are never lost for words — seemed, well… totally lost for words!

Like Dorothy, Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, we’ve all been dancing down the Yellow Brick Road of “settled science” in search of answers from the Emerald City, only to find that what we suspected all along — the Wizard has been telling us fibs.

But who exactly is the Wizard? And where did this seeming-madness all begin?

Undoubtedly there are many “wizards”, but the man behind the green curtain, the man who managed to get the climate industry to where it is today is a mild mannered character by the name of Maurice Strong. The whole climate change business, and it is a business, started with Mr Strong.

Maurice Strong, a self-confessed socialist, was the man who put the United Nations into the environmental business, being the shadowy-figure behind the UN secretaries general from U Thant to Kofi Annan. His reign of influence in world affairs lasted from 1962 to 2005. Strong has been variously called “the international man of mystery”, the “new guy in your future” and “a very dangerous ideologue”.

Strong made his fortune in the oil and energy business running companies such as Petro Canada, Power Corporation, CalTex Africa, Hydro Canada, theColoradoLandand Cattle Company, Ajax Petroleum, Canadian Industrial Oil and Gas— to name just a few. His private interests always seemed to be in conflict with his public persona and his work on the world stage. Strong’s extensive range of contacts within the power brokers of the world was exceptional. One admirer christened him “the Michelangelo of networking”.

Maurice Strong described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology”. In 1972 he organised for U Thant the first Earth Summit, The Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. This led to the formation of UN Environment Program with Maurice Strong at its head. Later, as the UNEP boss he organised the first international expert group meeting on climate change.

This led to exotic UN sponsored organizations such at Earth Council and Earth Charter, The World Resources Institute, the World Wildlife Fund and later The Commission for World Governance and the UN’s University for Peace. Strong was the driving force behind the idea of world governance by the United Nations when he dreamt up a world tax on monetary transactions of 0.5% which would have given theUN an annual income of $1.5 trillion. About equal then to the income of the USA. The stumbling block was the Security Council, and their power of veto. He devised a plan to get rid of the Security Council but failed to get it implemented. Then came along the idea that global warming might just be the device to get his World Governance proposal up and running.

In 1989 Maurice Strong was appointed Secretary General of the Earth Summit and in 1992, addressing Earth Summit II inRio, he told the thousands of climate change delegates:

“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburbanhousing — are not sustainable.”

There goes the Sunday roast, a house to live in, the car, the occasional hamburger and generally, life on earth as we know it. But what Strong didn’t tell the delegates was that he was involved in the purchase of the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, which he bought from Adnan Khashoggi, an arms dealer who had strong connections with the Bin Laden family.

This 200,000 acre cattle property, called the Baca had two hidden secrets. One was that it sat above vast underground water systems, which Strong wanted to remove. He formed the American Water Development Corporation to exploit the water by pumping it out for commercial intent but was stopped by the locals as they feared it would destroy the delicate environment.

The second secret was that Maurice Strong had been told by a mystic that: The Baca would become the centre for a new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the globe in the years to come.

As a result of these revelations Strong created the Manitou Foundation, a New Age institution located at the Baca ranch — above the sacred waters that Strong had been denied permission to pump out. This hocus-pocus continued with the foundation of The Conservation Fund (with financial help of Laurance Rockefeller) to study the mystical properties of the ManitouMountain. At the Baca ranch there is a circular temple devoted to the world’s mystical and religious movements.

The valley in which the Baca establishment is located is also traditional home for various Navajo tribes. They believe that their ancestors were led underground here by “Ant People” and according to Navajo tradition they were warned of a coming cataclysm by “sky katchinas” (sky spirits). No wonder Strong wanted to buy the Baca.

Meanwhile Maurice was also busy founding the Earth Council Institute in 1992 and recruiting world luminaries such as Mikhail Gorbachev, Shimon Peres, Al Gore and David Rockefeller. In 2000 Earth Charter was formed as a further push by Strong to create a world governing body.

Unfortunately, in 2005, the most powerful man in the push to save of humanity — by steady promotion of the theory of human induced greenhouse gases — was caught with his hand in the till.

Investigations into the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong — issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to Chinawhere he has been living ever since.

Strong is believed to have sanctuary in China because of his cousin, Anne Louise Strong, a Marxist who lived with Mao Tse Tung for two years, and when she died in 1970, her funeral was arranged by Premier Chou En-Lai. Anne Louise Strong was a Comintern member — an organization formed in 1919 as the Third International, with one of its aims to use “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie…”

Maurice Strong, as an 18-year-old Canadian fromManitoba, started work at the United Nations in 1947 as a junior officer in the UN Security Section, living with the UN Treasurer, Noah Monod. Following his exposure for bribery and corruption in the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal Maurice Strong was stripped of many of his 53 international awards and honours he had collected during his lifetime working in dual role of arch conservationist and ruthless businessman.

The exposure and downfall of climate change’s most powerful wizard? Dorothy and Toto would have loved it!

So make no mistake about what the ultimate purpose of the campaign against human emissions of CO2 is: it is to promote world government.  And is it is the second greatest fraud or hoax in the history of mankind.

You can either go back to the initial blog to access all of the pages:

1. Evidence that the IPCC’s case is a fraud.

or you can go to the next page:

4. Flaws in Climate Models.

Posted in Climate Change | 4 Comments

why-i-remain-a-sceptic-in-relation-to-human-emissions-of-co2


Hi Friends,

Thanks for seeking out my blog on the fact that the IPCC’s case against human emissions of CO2 is a fraud.

I have changed the title to make it easier to find. To see it, click on this address:

https://jpenhall.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/john-penhalluricks-blog-1-evidence-that-the-ipccs-case-is-a-fraud/

Posted in Climate Change | Leave a comment

References


REFERENCES

Archibald, P. (2010), Solar cycle 24 update. Available at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/solar cycle 24 Update (Accessed 22/07/2011)

Archibald, D. (2011) Average near-surface temperatures of the northern hemisphere during the past 11,000 years Available at http://climate.geologist-1011.net/ (Accessed 22/07/2011)

Courtillot, V. (2011). Solar UV Climate Connection. Available at        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/courtillot-on-the-solar-uv-climate-connection/ (Accessed 22/07/2011)

D’Aleo, J. & Watts,A. (2010) Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception. Available at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf (Accessed 22/07/2011)

Ananthaswamy, A. (2011).Casting a critical eye on climate models New Scientist 27 January.

AustralianAcademyof Science (2010) The Science of Climate Change Questions and Answers. Available at http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange2010.html

Becker, W. S. (2001) Was the Medieval Warm Period global? Science 291: 1497-99

Bellamy,D. & Jarret, J (2005), Letter, Chemistry World(Oct.) p.27)

Carter, R. M. (2010) Climate: the Counter-Consensus. Stacey International,London.

Cioccale, M. A. (1999) Climatic fluctuations in the central region of Argentina in the last 1000 years. Quartenary International 57-58: 93-112).

CO2 Now (2011) Available at http://co2now.org/ 2011. (Accessed 22/07/11)

Esper, J., Schweingruber, F. H. and Winiger, M, (2002). 1,300 years of climate history for West Central Asia inferred from tree rings. The Holocene 12; 267-277.

Espere.net (2010) Available at http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html (Accessed 22/07/2011)

Global Warming Art (2011) Available at http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_png (Accessed 22/07/11)

Green, K. & Armstrong, J. S. (2007) Global warming: Forecasts by scientists versus scientific forecasting. Energy and Environment 18: 997-1022. also see http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/images/stories/pdf/ags2011congress.pdf) Accessed 22/07/2011)

Greenhouse Gas Absorption Spectrum (2010)Available at http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif (Accessed 22/07/2011)

Grove, J. M. (1988). The Little Ice Age. Routledge London.

Herfort, L.,Thake, B. & Taubner, I.(2008)Bicarbonate stimulation of calcification and photosynthesis in two hermatypic corals. Journal of Phycology 44:91-8.

Holgate, S.J. (2010) On the decadal rates of sea-level change during the twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters. 34.

Houghton, R. A. (2005). “The contemporary carbon cycle”. In William H Schlesinger (editor). Biogeochemistry.Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. pp.473–513

Iglesias-Rodriguez, M. D., Halloran, P. R., Rickaby, R. E. M.,  Hall, I.R., Colmenero-Hidalgo, E., Gittins, J. R., Green, D. R. H., Tyrrell, T., Gibbs, S. J., von Dassow, P.,Rehm, E., Armbrust, E. V. & Boessenkool, K. P. (2008) Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World. Science 18 April: 336-340

Inman, M. (2009) Where warming hits hard. Nature Reports Climate Change. Available at http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0902/full/climate/2009.3.html#B6.

Izzard, J. (2010) “Discovering Maurice Strong” Quadrant, Jan. 31.

Jones, P. D., Groisman, P. Ya., Coughlan, M., Plummer, N., Wang, W-C. & Ka, T. R. (1990). Assessment of urbanisation effects in time series of surface temperatures over land. (Nature 347 (13 Sept.):169-172 Available at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v347/n6289/abs/347169a0.html. Accessed 22/07/2011.

Kininmonth, W. (2010) A Natural Constraint To Anthropogenic Global Warming. Energy and Environment 21, no.4: 225-236.

Kitagawa, H. and Matsumoto, K. (1995) Climatic implications of 13C variations in a Japanese Cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) during the last two millenia. Geophysical Research Letters 22:2155-2158.

Ko Chen. C. (1973) A preliminary study on the climate fluctuations during the last 5,000 years in China. Scientia Sinica,16: 483-486.

McLean, J. (2008) Climate case built on thin foundation. The Australian, Sept.9. Available at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-case-built-on-thin-foundation/story-e6frg6zo-1111117427913. (Accessed 22/07/2011)

Moy, A. D.,Howard, W. R., Bray, S. G. & Trull, T. W. (2009) Reduced calcification in modern Southern Ocean planktonic foramenifera. Nature Geoscience 2: 276-80.

Munroe, J. S., Crocker, T.A.,  Giesche, A.M. Rahlson,L. E., Duran.L. T.,  Bigl, M. F. &  Laabs, B. J.C. (2012) A lacustrine-based Neoglacial record for Glacier National Park. Montana, USA. Quaternary Science Review 53: 39-54.

Nicholson, S.E. (1980) Saharan climates in historic times. In The Sahara and the Nile (ed. M. A. J. Williams), Balkema Press.

Pearce F.(2010) The Climate Files. Guardian Books,London.

Pichler, T., Heikoop, J. M., Risk, M. J., Veizer, J. & Campbell, I. L. (2000) Hydrothermal effects on isotope and trace element records in modern reef corals: a study of Porites lobata from Tutum Bay, Ambitle Island, Papua New Guinea. Palaios 15: 225-34.

Pichler, T. & Dix, G. R. (1996) Hydrothermal venting with as coral reef system, Ambitle Island, Papua New Guinea. Geology 24:435-38.

Raven, J.,Caldeira, K., Elderfeld, H.,Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Liss, P.,Riebesell, U., Shepherd, J.,Turley, C., Watson, A. (2005)Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.Policy Document 12/05, The Royal Society of London, 57pp. Available at http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=3249.

Roberts, D. et al. (2008) Interannual variability of pteropod shell weights in high-CO2 Southern Ocean. Biogeosciences Discussions 5:4453-80.

Santer (2010) http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-Santer.htm ). (Accessed 22/07/2011)

Segelstad, T.V. (1996) “The distribution of CO2 between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere; minimal influence from anthropogenic CO2 on the global ‘Greenhouse Effect’”. In Emsley, J.(Ed.),The Global Warming Debate. The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum. Bourne Press Ltd,Dorset ,U.K.

Surge, D. & Barrett, J. H. (2012) Marine climatic seasonality during early medieval times (10th to 12th centuries) based on isotopic records in Viking Age shells from Orkney, Scotland. Palaeogreography, Palaeoclimatology and Palaeoecology, 317-318, 104-113,

Tagami, Y. (1993) Climate change reconstructed from historical data in Japan. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Global Change, International Geosphere-Biosphere Program, 720-729,

Trenberth,  K. E. (2011). Changes in precipitation with climate change. Climate Research 47: 123-138.

Tyson, D., Karlen, W., Holmgren, K. and Heiss, G. A. (2000) The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 96: 121-26.

Watson,P. (2011) Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia? Journal of Coastal Research,27.no.2:368-377 available at http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1

Webb, A.P. & Kench, P.S.(2010) The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific. Global and Planetary Change 72: 234-246

Willmott, C.J., Robeson, S.M. and Feddema,J.J. (1991) Influence of Spatially Variable Instrument Networks on Climatic Averages. Geophysical Research Letters 18, No. 12(Dec.): 2249-2251.

Posted in Climate Change | Leave a comment

John Penhallurick’s Blog 12. Significant correlations argue against IPCC’s model


Significant correlations

In a recent paper “US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895”, Joe D’Aleo has studied the R2 correlations since 1895 between U.S. temperature measurements, measurements of CO2, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). The R2 correlation is a way of stating how well data trends match, with 1.0 being a perfect match, 0.90 being a very good match, 0.50 a fair match, 0.25 a poor match and 0.00 no match at all. A negative number means that the two trends are reversed. A comparison of the 11 year running mean between temperature and CO2 was 0.44, that is fair to poor. The R2 correlation between TSI (which is a good proxy for total solar effect) and CO2 was 0.57, between fair and good. Finally, since the warm modes of the PDO and AMO both favor warming and their cold modes cooling, he thought the sum of the two may provide a useful index of ocean induced warming for the hemisphere (and USA). He standardized the two data bases and summed them and correlated with the USHCN data, again using a 11 point smoothing as with the CO2 and TSI. The correlation in this case is 0.83, which is close to very good. Also, coming back to the claim that the last 15 years were among the hottest ever recorded: D’Aleo also measured the correlations between global temperature as measured by the Hadley Climate Unit (HADCRUTv3), CO2 (as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii), and the Ocean Warming Index (OWI combining PDO, AMO and TSI). The correlation between temperature and CO2 was 0.02, which is abysmal. The correlation with OWI was 0.83, which is very good.

Posted in Climate Change | 5 Comments