When I started writing this piece I was firmly and painfully on the fence. With my background in meteorology and climatology, I have often been asked my opinion on global warming. It has always been, 'the planet is getting warmer; how much man is responsible for that is anybodies guess'. However, by the time I finished writing the piece, I became convinced that
global warming (from man-made pollution) is a sham and a scam.
Global warming enthusiasts proudly announce that 14 of the hottest years on record have occurred in the past 15 years. No argument there. But that is evidence of long-term global warming, a trend that has probably gone on for centuries. That it roughly coincides with the industrial revolution may be more coincidental than causal. At any rate it has little to do with the present. That the planet has warmed over the past 135 years is indisputable. That it has not warmed over the past 12 years and some would argue 18 years, is also well documented.
The two largest drops in global temperatures occurred in 1993 with the spectacular a Mt Pinatubo eruption, and in 1984 when volcanoes erupted in Hawaii, Chile and Colombia. The Colombia eruption claimed about 25,000 lives, so it was no minor event.
The point here is that natural events seem to have far, far greater effect on the global temperature than man-made events. An Australian geologist once said that all the pollution saving measures for 5 years could be wiped out with one volcano.
Nevertheless, if we dismiss those two events and examine the remaining 'troughs', we find a rise in temperature of about 1/3rd of a degree between 1979 and 2013. This, I suspect, is a representative measure of global warming over that period.
The IPCC, in 1990 predicted a 1.0 deg rise in temperature by 2025. The chart below indicates a less than half degree rise since 1979 – 35 years. Since 1990 we are looking at about 0.2 degree rise in temperature – 24 years. We have to jump 0.8 degrees in the next ten years to meet that target, twice the rise over the past 35 years.
We currently have raging the second or third strongest El Nino event in the history of studying El Nino – 1950. It may rise to the second strongest or even the strongest event before it ends – expected to be next May or June. This should result in a large increase in global temperature for 2015; that will help. However, the effect will wear off very quickly. In the chart above, each significant upward spike is caused by an el nino event; and each spike is followed by a cooling of between 0.25 and 0.5 deg C. So, by 2016, or at the latest 2017, the temperature should fall back down to about where it was before the el nino event began.
In the Bible, false prophecies resulted in the ‘prophet’ being stoned as a phony. Should the IPCC prediction fail significantly, it means the computer models are all an example of junk science and imagination, with little basis in reality.
Now this looks scary, until you look at the temperature scale – 0.2 degrees. The chart reveals some interesting trends. Very little change in the first 30 years (perhaps a small drop); Then a pretty steady rise from 1910 to about 1942, a rise of 0.4 deg. After that the temperature drops by 0.1 deg and stays there from about 1948 to about 1977. From 1977 to about 2005 another steady rise in temperature of about 0.6 degrees, although, if you look at the satellite-based temperatures (second chart above) it shows a rise of only 0.3 degrees during that period. I suspect the satellite data are more accurate than the ground data. (I used to be responsible for the quality control of ground data and my confidence in the integrity of it deteriorated rapidly in the past 20 years.) After that we have about 15 years of temperatures holding steady.
So, the two cycles of rising temperatures account for a rise of 0.7 degrees with each cycle preceded by a drop of 0.1 degrees resulting in a total increase of 0.5 degrees for the 20th century.
So, for the earth to reach the IPCC target of a 1.0 degree increase in temperature by 2025, we would have to warm in the next 9 years more than we have warmed over the past 135 years.
Here’s where it gets a little weird. When I worked in the Canadian Forces Weather Centre at Trenton, Ontario, in the late 1960s, I read an article by a climatologist who indicated that temperature patterns run in 30 year cycles. This was long before we even thought about global warming. But notice the periods I described above: 1880-1910; 1910-1945; 1945-1977; and 1977-2002. Those are either exactly 30 year cycles or remarkably close.
If the pattern of rising for 30 years followed by steady for 30 years repeats itself, then we are in the midst of a period of little change in temperature; a period that should last about another 15 years.
Furthermore, if we projected that pattern through to the end of the century we would find a roughly 1/3rd of a degree rise between about 2030 and 2060, followed by another 30 years of steady temperatures, then another cycle of rising temperatures. We would be in the middle of this last cycle at the end of the century so we could expect another 1/6th of a degree rise in temperature by 2100. Total temperature increase during the 21st century = 0.5 degrees.
Even if we used a 0.5 degree average for each rising cycle, it would only equal a 0.75 degree increase by 2100 - less than the IPCC is forecasting for 2025.
Global temperature increase by the year 2100 = 0.5 to 0.75 degs.
I realize that this is very simple climatology, but making it much more complex doesn't make it any more correct nor does it change the pattern. That pattern has been occurring for the past 135 years since we began documenting the global temperature. Who knows how long it existed before that? So the question is, why would we suddenly depart from that well-established pattern?
What's wrong with IPCC computer models?
Prof Murry Salby makes an excellent case for the idea that CO2 doesn’t drive the temperature, but the temperature drives CO2. His meticulous research reveals that increased CO2 follows increased temperatures rather than the reverse.
He calculated that 96% of CO2 that enters the atmosphere comes from the ground, not man-made activity. He also determined that the amount of CO2 that comes from the ground is determined by the temperature, and to a lesser amount, the moisture content of the ground.
Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has recently replicated the work of Dr. Murry Salby, finding that temperature, not man-made CO2, drives CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Dr. Björnbom confirms Salby's hypothesis that the rate of change in carbon dioxide concentration in the air follows an equation that only depends on temperature change, detailed in his report 'Reconstruction of Murry Salby's theory' that carbon dioxide increase is temperature driven [Google translation].
This is critical for Prof Salby has come under a lot of criticism for matters mostly unrelated to science. He was pressured into resigning after 20 years at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and suspended from receiving any grant money from the National Science Foundation. A reader in the 'Comments' section below this post has indicated that UofCBoulder attempted to 'steal' Prof. Salby's work and prevent him from having access to his own data. I can't verify that but it doesn't sound unreasonable.
Five years later he was fired from Macquarie University in Australia, again for reasons not related to science, apparently. Was Salby black-balled for his rebellious views on climate change? Some people think so. I have no idea, but it is not something that I would easily dismiss. In any case, it has no bearing on his science.
Aside from Pehr Björnbom , German climate scientist Hans von Storch also agreed with some of Salby’s findings. Hans von Storch is a Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, and Director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany.
He was interviewed in 2013 by Der Spiegel magazine:
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…
Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.
SPIEGEL: That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness. It's not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them. The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public's trust. We went through something similar with deforestation, too -- and then we didn't hear much about the topic for a long time.
Real science is not afraid of being questioned for it either reveals the science to be false and so is discarded, or it results in further refining. Either way, it's a good thing. But scientists don't seem to see things like that anymore. For instance, if a scientist were to 'come out' as someone who thinks there may be an argument of Intelligent Design, he is immediately attacked and ends up being treated much like Professor Salby. Why? Because their entire myopic understanding of science would come completely apart if God actually exists. (This in spite of the fact that almost every significant scientist prior to 1950 believed in God.)
I am somewhat concerned as to why it is happening but the near hysteria of global protests ought to be investigated as to who initiated and organized them, and what their connections are. All is not as it seems.