UNITE! Info #165en: 4/4 The big "greenhouse" hoax (1)
[Posted: 22.02.02]
[Continued from part 3/4]
AN OCEANOGRAPHER LOOKS AT THE NON-SCIENCE OF
GLOBAL WARMING, by Robert E. Stevenson [ctd.]
IPCC'S 1995 MODIFICATION
Yes, CO2 would continue to increase in response to the burning
of fossil fuels, the report said. Interestingly, there was no
mention of the data and results from the University of Oslo,
nor of the information regarding the introduction of CO2 from
the oceans.
There was considerable space used to address the increasing
methane in the atmosphere - failing to mention, however, the
production of methane by volcanic eruptions, of which there in
this past decade have been three times the number that occur-
red in the past 40 years.
It was declared that "recent years have been the warmest since
1960", and that "global mean temperatures have increased by
between 0.3 and 0.6º Celsius since the late 19th century". The
IPCC did not note, however, that the years between 1920 and
1940 were the warmest of this century.
It was interesting, too, that the century-long increase "cer-
tified" by the IPCC is almost precisely that measured by me-
teorologists, and analysed and reported by Bob Balling. He, of
course, was not mentioned, even though the report had a rather
extensive bibliography.
For the "future", CO2 would reach 500 ppm, the report said -
by the year 2100, I guess. They didn't really say. And, during
that century-long period, atmospheric temperatures would rise
by 1º C. One degree Celsius! *In other words, we're going
through all this for 1º Celsius.*
Three-tenths of a degree is easily within the margin of error
(for thermometers), and five-tenths of a degree is still di-
cey, because of the "heat island effect" of cities, which
tends to artificially raise the average of temperatures mea-
sured.
As for sea levels: The report claimed that "global sea levels
have risen by between 10 to 25 centimeters over the past cen-
tury". [Ten yes, but 25, no way.] The increasing atmospheric
temperature from 0.6º C (taking the highest) to 1.0º C will
result in "sea levels rising by another 15 cm". Naturally,
the IPCC report doesn't describe the cause of this rise.
Were they simply to do some elementary-school math, taking the
coefficient of expansion of water (sea or otherwise), and ap-
plying an atmospheric temperature rise of 0.4º C, then recko-
ning with the manner of thermal distribution through the
ocean surface, they would have easily produced the answer that
the additional heat would raise sea level by *0.03 millimeter
by the year 2100* - a three-orders-of-magnitude miscalcula-
tion.
As for the temperature record: The accompanying illustrations
show the following: Figure 1 compares 16 years of temperatures
from U.S. satellites, as analysed at Marshall Space Center in
Huntsville, Ala., to the predictions of the climate modelers.
[Figure 1 showing graphs 1979-1995, not reproduced
here; its text:
*Climate models predictions vs. satellite measure-
ments*
Climate model predictions for temperature in the Nor-
thern and Southern hemispheres are far higher than the
actual satellite measurements. The observed warming is
0.5º C {Note 24.02.02, after this was first posted:
The author probably meant, warming to be predicted for
2100 if the satellite-measured trend for 1979-1995
would continue - RM}, while the models cited by the
United Nations in 1992 predict warming between 1.3º
and 2.3º C. In its 1995 report, the IPCC acknowledged
that the earlier predictions were too high.
Adapted from Patrick J. Michaels, testimony Nov. 16,
1995, before the House Committee on Science Subcommit-
tee on Energy and Environment]
Figure 2 is a graph produced by the staff of the "Great and
Good" at WMO of global temperature anomalies from 1860, using
1951 to 1980 as a base.
[Figure 2, a graph 1860-1995, not reproduced here;
its text:
*Sea surface temperature and surface global tempera-
ture anomalies combined (1860-1980)*
Global land, air and sea surface temperature anomalies
in º C are computed as departures from the 1951-1980
base-period means. The fitted curve is a 21-point bi-
nomial filter. The graph is updated from the one used
in the 1992 IPCC report.
Source: Hadley Centre, Meteorological Office, U.K.]
Notice the difference it would have made, if they had used
1935 to 1965 as the base. [Cannot be seen here. - RM]
Figure 3 is an extremely interesting graph of air temperatures
and sea surface temperatures from 1856 to 1987.
[Figure 3, graphs 1856-1987, not reproduced here;
its text:
*Air and sea surface temperatures (1856 to 1987)*
These data, taken from ships' logs over 130 years, in-
dicate no change in sea surface temperatures. The
higher line is water temperature; the lower line is
air temperature.
The range in this graph and in Figure 2 is nearly the
same; the graph in Figure 2 simply uses a larger
scale than that of the seagoing ddata. The difference
between the extremes of the data peaks in Figure 3 is
0.14º C. In Figure 2, the difference between the ex-
tremes is 0.08º C - in other words, nearly the same.
Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the
British Meteorological Office]
This is from a joint study by people at the Massachusetts In-
stitute of Technology (MIT) and the British Meteorological Of-
fice, taking the data from the logs of thousands of ships that
sailed the world's oceans and seas in the 130 years in ques-
tion. The researchers went to the effort to learn how water
temperatures might be affected by winds blowing around the
wooden and canvas buckets used to collect the water sample,
and the influence of the ship on air temperature, modifying
the numbers by these results.
Everyone has agreed that the British/MIT graph indicates no
change in sea-surface or marine air temperature in the 130
years since 1856. Notice, too, that the range in the WMO and
the British/MIT graphs are nearly identical; the WMO simply
uses a more exaggerated scale than that of the sea-going data.
MAJOR *FAUX PAS*
Up to this point, I've not elucidated any major *faux pas* in
the IPCC report. Believe me, though, they made them: two
wing-dingers, wowies, holy cows, you-got-to-be-kiddings, and
you-clearly-were-absent-when-they-passed-out-brains.
The main advisory panel of the IPCC endorsed the conclusion
that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a dis-
cernible human influence on global climate". This misguided
judgement created bitter arguments during a meeting in Madrid
in fall 1995, when "experts" from more than one country em-
phasized the "uncertain" nature of recent evidence pointing to
human effects on climate.
The result of this discussion was to be a compromise in the
language of the statement, but that did not happen. Despite
the opposition of many signatory countries and their scien-
tists, the leaders of the IPCC published the "final version"
using the phrase "discernible human influence", on the global
climate.
The unethical changes were exposed and published by Dr. Fred
Seitz, the premier American scientist in the field. Even when
exposed, the IPCC leaders claimed it was their "right" to
change scientific conclusions so that political leaders could
better understand the report. Unbelievable!
To the world's geophysical community, these unethical prac-
tices and total lack of integrity by the leadership of the
IPCC have been enough to reveal that their collective claims
were - and are - fraudulent.
The most interesting aspect of this ridiculous *faux pas* is
that the responsible panel of the IPCC produced no documenta-
tion - raw data or otherwise - for their claim.
Then came the boldly false statement, of greater interest to
me and other oceanographers than to others. The IPCC wrote:
It is clear that the oceans are warming significantly
in response to the global warming of the atmosphere.
Furthermore, this matches the evidence that coral
reefs are dying.
I've already addressed the non-warming ocean to some extent,
but let me add some more documentation.
At meetings of the American Geophysical Union in 1992 (Hong-
kong), 1993 (San Fransisco), 1994 and 1995 (San Fransisco),
Warren B. White of Scripps, and six colleagues, presented a
series of papers on the "Global Interannual/Interdecadal Va-
riations in the Upper Ocean Thermal Structure".
They had made careful examinations and analysis of more than
5,200,000 temperature-depth measurements between 30º S and
60º N in the oceans from 1979 to 1994. Both sea-surface tem-
peratures and the upper ocean to a depth of 400 meters exhi-
bited a *cooling* trend throughout the 1980s of about 0.1º C,
followed by a similar warming through 1994. Although not a
large change, the trends were clear and certain in all oceans,
especially in the mid-latitudes.
In the tropics, the two extensive El Niños in the 1980s mode-
rated the cooling tendency. By 1995, Warren had enough data
and had conducted sufficient analyses, to be convinced that
the variations in both the Atlantic and Pacific followed
closely the 11-year sunspot cycle.
Now for that blather about coral reefs: Richard Grigg, coral-
reef expert of the University of Hawaii, has surveyed Pacific
reefs and atolls multiple times in the past two decades.
*There is no evidence of any reduction or detrimental modifi-
cation in the growth of the corals on any Pacific or Indian
Ocean reef that can be attributed to warming waters.*
Furthermore, Grigg has learned of no such change in the reefs
in any other tropical ocean or sea.
THE IAPSO DATA
At the August 1995 General Assembly of the International As-
sociation for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans, held in
Hawaii, there were 14 symposia presented, 5 of which dealt
with subjects related to climate scale variations in the
ocean and marine atmosphere, in both time and space.
These were (1) Large-Scale Ocean Circulation, (2) Decadal and
Interdecadal Variations in the Oceans, (3) Carbon Dioxide in
the Ocean, (4) Air-Sea-Ice Interactions and High Latitude
Ocean Processes, and (5) Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling and the
Tropical Ocean and Global Atmosphere.
In these symposia, about 450 oceanographers and atmospheric
physicists/chemists gave papers based on research conducted
in the past four years.
Without going into great detail, the "bottom lines" were as
follows:
(1) *There is no warming trend in the oceans, and has not
been in the past 50 years.*
There are places in the ocean that get warmer than other lo-
cations for periods of time up to decades, but those waters
then cool as other ocean areas warm. These periods are so
close to the 11-year sunspot cycle that it is difficult not
to consider a correlation. Yet, over all, there are no warming
or cooling trends in any ocean, including the Southern Ocean
near Antarctica.
[Note: At
www.john-daly.com, there is a comment, dated
17.02.2002, on a recent report concerning this:
'A paper by Sarah T. Gille in Science (vol.295, p.
1275, 15 Feb 2002) reports temperature results from
drifting floats deployed during the 1990s, circling
the Southern Ocean at depths of 700 to 1,100 metres.
...
The comparison with the 1950s data showed the Southern
Ocean at that 700-1100 metre depth warmed +0.17°C ±
0.06°C, giving an uncertainty range of 0.11° to
0.23°C.
The author claims the ocean temperature increase is
"comparable to Southern Ocean atmospheric temperature
increases". The problem with that claim is that there
are very few weather stations down there, even fewer
with data back to the 1950s. But there is one, Gough
Island, deep in the South Atlantic, about 1,600 miles
E-SE of Capetown, South Africa, and its record is
shown left. {Not shown here. - RM} A crude linear
trend indicates a warming there of +0.2°C., but it is
also clear from the graph that this warming was con-
centrated in the pre-1980 part of the record and
little change since. If the Southern Ocean warming was
induced by the atmosphere, the results in this latest
study are consistent with a slight pre-1980 warming,
and not indicative of any warming in recent decades.'
- RM]
(2) Special attention was paid to the Arctic Ocean, when teams
from the United States, Canada and Russia occupied stations
that had been visited repeatedly since 1937. The results?
*There is no warming trend in the Arctic, and has been none
since 1937.*
Indications by the Canadian teams of warmer than normal water
turned out to be an intrusion of water from the Atlantic. In
the past 60 years, *the Arctic ice pack has neither retreated
nor thinned*. These data are not controversial!
(3) *There is increasing evidence that the computer model
calculations of the ocean's absorption of anthropogenic CO2
may be seriously biased.*
Furthermore, intermidate latitudes of the ocean are highly
variable CO2 sinks throughout the year, being disrupted by
storms and mineralization of carbonates by biological proces-
ses. The ocean's summer warming, or warming by water-mass in-
trusions, or El Niños, makes the ocean a *source* of CO2 ra-
ther than a sink, as is usually supposed. The consequence is
that there is far more ocean-produced CO2 in the atmosphere
than hitherto considered.
(4) *There is a growing volume of evidence, and therefore, a
rapidly growing suspicion, that an El Niño does not produce
weather*, such as, "El Niño rains", "El Niño droughts", and
so on.
Quite to the contrary. It seems that the weather comes first,
then comes El Niño! This will cause a lot of heartburn among
weather forecasters, and it also ruins the contention of the
"global warmers", that much of the "warming" comes from El
Niños.
(5) *It seems that the prime source of global weather (maybe
even climate) lies in the tropics.*
Throughout the 10 years of the international Tropical Ocean-
Global program (TOGA), there was great evidence (a) for the
basic, equatorial origin of tropical storms, such as hurri-
canes, typhoons and cyclones; (b) that the equatorial ocean
and atmosphere are more energetic than suspected; (c) that
the Asian monsoons play significant roles in the formation of
El Niños, droughts and modifications in the ITCZ (Intertropi-
cal Convergence Zone); and (d) that El Niño characteristics
in the Pacific and Indian oceans do not correlate, one with
the other, in time and space.
Now, here is a discovery that will have extraordinary conse-
quences on global circulation models and the forecast models
for weather systems!
(6) *There is a long way to go before we really understand
all of the interactions, the vagaries, and products of weather
and climate.*
Furthermore, it is clear that mankind is at least an order of
magnitude, in numbers, from becoming a "geophysical force" on
Earth, if ever!
[Note: On that last, "if ever", I beg to disagree.
And one article under "Guest Papers" at
www.john-daly.
com, "The Big Bangs !" by Ken Parish, merits attention
even as to present-day conditions, I hold. - RM]
Were there ever any environmental groups, or advocates giving
papers, or even in attendance at the Honolulu IAPSO Assembly?
Need you ask?
TIME TO GET ON WITH REAL SCIENCE
So, despite the cries of Jim Hansen, Carl Sagan, Stephen
Schneider, James Anderson, Susan Solomon, Rowland and Molina,
Robert Redford, Barbara Streisand, Jimmy Carter, the Club of
Rome, the United Nations Environmental Program, the 1992
Earth Summit in Rio, the Montreal Protocol, and Worldwatch,
Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Prince Philip, or even Al
Gore, the human population of the Earth has not reached un-
tenable numbers, has not become a geophysical force, and has
not established practices nor products leading to "global
warming!".
The evidence supporting the above six statements has become
too voluminous to ignore. The "bottom line" of today is that
the advocates of "global warming / ozone hole / There's no
more room at the inn" have lost the game. Yet, they have so
much invested in treaties, regulations, intra- and intergo-
vernmental agencies, organizations, NGOs, prestigious posi-
tions, personal endorsements, and so on, that their efforts
to blow true and selfless science out of the saddle must grow
more and more pernicious by the day.
To the general populace, there may seem to be no battle at
all - especially for those who read only the popular media,
who are unfortunate enough to be in schools ruled by politi-
cally correct environmentalists, or who watch and believe on-
ly network news, PBS, the Discovery Channel, or the Captain
Planet cartoons on CNN. But there is a battle, and the real
geophysical scientists around the world are rising to fight
and intend to win - right over might, to coin a phrase.
I believe that the unabashed lies put out to the world by
UNEP, IPCC and WMO are a true injustice, a great crime, that
is causing completely unwarranted anxieties for many people
around the world. Officials in such international organiza-
tions are mouthing disinformation - information that is to-
tally without merit of truth.
It is past time to bury these officials and their claque of
supporters and get on with real science.
[So far Robert E. Stevenson, 1996]
UNITE! / VEREINIGT EUCH! / UNISSEZ-VOUS! / ¡UNIOS! /
FÖRENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series:
Advocates the political line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong.
Each item # will be posted in one or more language(s). Leaf-
lets in the INFORMATIONSBLAD series published by me, mainly
in Swedish, since 1975 are available on request.
Befürwortet die politische Linie von Marx, Lenin und Mao Ze-
dong. Jedes Nummer # wird in einer oder mehreren Sprache(n)
gesandt werden. Flugblätter der Reihe INFORMATIONSBLAD, von
mir hauptsächlich in Schwedisch seit 1975 veröffentlicht,
sind auf Anfrage erhaltlich.
Avocate de la ligne politique de Marx, Lénine et Mao Zedong.
Chaque numéro # sera envoyé en une ou plusieurs langue(s).
Volantes de la série INFORMATIONSBLAD, publiée par moi prin-
cipalement en suédois depuis 1975, sont accessibles sur de-
mande.
Partidaria de la línea política de Marx, Lenin y Mao Zedong.
Cada número # se envía en uno o más idiomas. Están a su dis-
posición, bajo petición previa, distintos folletos de la
serie INFORMATIONSBLAD, publicada por mi principalmente en
sueco desde 1975.
Förespråkar Marx', Lenins och Mao Zedongs politiska linje.
Varje nummer # kommer att sändas på ett eller flera språk.
Flygblad i serien INFORMATIONSBLAD, publicerad av mig huvud-
sakligen på svenska sedan 1975, kan fås på begäran.
Postal address:
Rolf Martens
Nobelvaegen 38U4
SE - 214 33 Malmoe
SWEDEN
Tel: +46 - 40 - 124832
E-mail (main, since Oct 1995:)
rolf.martens@mailbox.swipnet.se
(reserve, since Oct 2000:)
rolf_martens@hotmail.com
martens_rolf@hotmail.com