Perhaps Chalmers should consider the scientists?
Dear Professor Martin Hultman,
Pardon my writing to you in English, because my Swedish has just about disappeared since I lived in Stockholm in the early 1950s as a small boy.
I see that you are studying why many people refuse to accept the claimed “consensus” on Global Warming. From your brief summary here at your Centre for Studies of Climate Change Denialism, you appear to miss the most important point of all. Scientists who have studied this subject extensively and have no conflicts of interests, such as a job dependent on the paradigm, disagree with the scientific conclusions of those who are heavily conflicted.
We do so based on the science. In other words, we feel that the long logic chain beginning with human emissions of carbon dioxide and ending with a climate catastrophe do not stand up to even elementary scrutiny. The paradigm says that human emissions lead to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, and indeed, atmospheric CO2 is rising. But the assumption that the increase comes from human CO2 is unlikely, because Mother Nature is the big player in the carbon cycle. According to both the UN IPCC and my fellow skeptics, Mother Nature pours 200 GtC (Gigatons of carbon) into the atmosphere every year and humans augment that with about 9 GtC. That makes the human concentration about 5%, which is far from concerning. Increasing atmospheric CO2 has led to a greening of the Earth, as seen from space. That is good not bad. However, we cannot take credit for it, because we are only 5% of the effect.
Then there is the question of warming from so-called “Greenhouse gases” where water vapor is the completely dominant such gas. That may not be totally apparent to someone living in Sweden, but it certainly is to those of us who have lived in the tropics. And most importantly, it is apparent to scientists who support the paradigm. They know that the theoretical warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is about one degree C in the absence of feedbacks. They get the additional warming they expect from a positive feedback from water vapor (another one or two degrees C) – especially in the tropics. That in turn leads them to predict substantial warming in the tropical mid-troposphere, leading to the so-called “Hot Spot.” Such predictions are exactly what we need to verify the theory.
Unfortunately for the theory, there is no “Hot Spot” developing. Both satellite and radiosonde data very clearly show the lack of a “Hot Spot.” In the words of Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman, that means your theory is “dead.” It does not matter how many supporters you have or who they are. The theory is dead.
So, where has the recent warming come from? A look at the NASA UAH satellite temperature data shows impressive ocean effects like El Ninos, but only a tiny overall upward trend. That could be CO2 warming, but not of the magnitude claimed by the paradigm. Or it could just be another ocean or perhaps solar effect. We do not know for sure.
But we do know for sure that Warm Periods like the present one have occurred many times in the past over this Holocene Interglacial. Previous Warm Periods go by names like Medieval, Roman, and Minoan, emphasizing the civilizations that they assisted. They clearly had nothing to do with humans burning fossil fuels. Hence, there is nothing unusual going on today.
I realize that you are a sociologist and not a scientist. So the imperatives of the science likely slip past you.
But there are still some of us who are highly qualified scientists (without conflicts of interest) and firmly believe in an objective reality that we work hard to discover. I’m surprised that you completely ignore the objective component of the climate discussion. It is all that really counts in the end.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
The Porto Climate Conference – It’s all natural
Global Green Airbag versus Global Greenhouse
Basic Science of a Changing Climate – the topic of the Conference that took place at Porto University in Porto, Portugal on Sept. 07. – 09. 2018. Attended by leading scientists in many domains, experts of engineering and critical thinkers of meteorology, oceanography, mathematics, geophysics, geology, chemistry and geography they confronted a very competent audience of about 80 people all over the globe from New Zealand, Australia, Canada, US, GB, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Portugal. The primary focus of the conference was on basic climate science, nevertheless along the proceeding of the topics questions of communication to the public audience arose.
Opened by the Rector of Porto University there was a broad consensus that freedom of research is the absolute necessary basis for the progress of science. The speeches and discussions concentrated on four aspects: 1. Changes in Climate and Weather 2. CO2, Climate Sensitivity and Greenhouse Effects 3. Forcing Functions in Climate Change 4. Observational Facts, Interpretations and Geoethics. Nils Alex Mörner, former head of Paleophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University moderated the course of the conference that was hosted by the Faculty of Letters and represented by Maria Assunçao Araùjo of the Department of Geography and member of the Portuguese Sea Level Project together with Pamela Mattlock-Klein. Eventually some demonstrators turned up to protest against this conference without even trying to talk to the audience.
Drivers and fare dodgers
Unanimously all the assembled scientist put the human-emitted CO2 on the back seat of the climate-mobile. NO one supported in any way the “hysteria” in media and politics to reduce this assumed “threat” propelled by IPCC political papers and lobbies behind dominant media releases. Considering the quantity of water vapor in atmosphere which is the most dominant “greenhouse” player on earth with about 20% of the present gases, CO2 – representing roughly only 7% – is 94% of natural origin and only 6% out of anthropogenic (Veyre) – “anthropo(n)” meaning “human” and “genic” meaning origin. Consumption of fossil energy and other consumptions contribute only 18 ppm (parts per million) of 410 ppm of all CO2 in the atmosphere (from sea level up to 24000 feet) or 1 out of 2500 particles of the atmosphere! The main driver of atmospheric gases is water vapor, and CO2 of human consumption is negligible, thus the consensus (Gervais, Harde). Same observations and conclusions for the already passed so-called “greenhouse gases” like ozone and FCKW.
Global Green Airbag
Compared to Venus and Saturn the Earth luckily developed a so-to-say “airbag” or “Global green belt” as security features for our life. Water vapor and CO2 have minimum three very beneficial properties: they protect the earth from cooling – otherwise temperatures on earth would drop to a unlivable around minus 20 degrees Celsius. They act as a thermal cushion. Second, they protect our life and that of the plants and animals from solar and cosmic over-radiation like polaroid sunglasses. Third, they assure proper growing of all the green plant life on earth. Without CO2 no photosynthesis, no growth of plants below 150 ppm (Veyre, Gervais, Harde)! Global greening progressed thanks to CO2 – more growing of veggies and fruit and cereals and algae for an ever-growing population on earth that will soon arrive at 10 billion people. Without this Global Green Belt there will soon be more hunger and more starving instead.
Thanks to the Oceans
Oceans not only define the face of the earth from outer space as “blue planet”, as all astronauts observe full of emotions. Oceans are the heat tank with an enormous capacity – 2,7m water below surface contains the same energy as the air column of 8000m over it. Oceans produce 50% of the oxygen by the algae they contain, as an ad in the streets of Porto tells. And Oceans absorb 70% of the CO2 and stock it, transport it into the deep blue and there it is transformed into Calciumcarbonate and other carbonates and sinks to the ground as sediments. CO2 is also stocked in the waters as gas. Oceans contain 50 times the quantity of all naturally and in minor quantity humanly emitted CO2. Their role is still very much underestimated as there are only few measuring points and the quantity of them is tiniest compared to the surface of the oceans. Deep cold water-currents move slowly from the north to the south pole. This thermo-haline (“thermo” means “dependent on temperature, “haline” from “hals (gr.)” for salt (concentration) circulation takes about 140 years (!) and is one of the major drivers of climate besides water vapor and the sun (Mörner, Corbyn). The Ocean blues goes on – slowly and surely as its musical sister.
Moon, Sun and Stars
Everybody knows the tides controlled by the moon. At least also all main-landers that passed vacations at the coast of the ocean. Water level changes by influence of the gravity of the mass of the moon, more precisely said. But in space there is also the sun and the planets and their moons and the far-away stars. Mass effects add to another like the more people are in a bus the longer the distance to accelerate or to slow it down. Like this also the planets: if they are all in a line this makes the earth bump and slow or accelerate. (Tattersall, Zeller) Same the sun: the more energy it sends by magnetic and light radiation, and energy is mass by speed to the square as Einstein told us the more the rotation of the earth speeds up. And like in a merry-go-round the seats fly higher and more distant to the center with more speed – water rises at the equator the faster the planet turns. Follows the effect that as the amount of water is fix in the oceans the sea level is rising in the equatorial zone and decreasing in the higher latitudes. And the same when solar activity is low then sea levels rise in northern and southern high latitudes near the poles and water level decreases in a medium range of time in the equatorial zone. (Wysmuller, Mörner, Corbyn, Assunçao) Sea-level change comes and goes like the tide.
Suntan desperately needed
Like anybody is getting cold at night when sun is down and sky is clear – the same the earth. Without the sun radiation earth would freeze down to the temperature of Mars, nobody would like to live there. As the earth is a net-receiver it depends on the sun as net-donor. When sun gives much, earth is getting warmer than usual – a warm period, when sun is avaricious, earth temperature goes down and we can do ice-scating on rivers and lakes like in the 15th century in London, Amsterdam and Rome! This was the last little ice age. (Solheim, Yndestadt, Scafetta). The sun radiation is the prior clock of the climate, the highs and lows of the radiation – observed also by the number and length of the sunspot-number per period) makes the difference of our terrestrial sages. The sun activity is the main direct climate driver – the Mayas and Incas knew well!
Complexity, Chaos and Climate
In 16th century people burnt witches as a drought devastated Europe and emptied wells and Lakes like the Lake of Constance -as reported from Wittenberg 1540 where Martin Luther probably assisted. People do not like weather chaos, climate chaos, they want it orderly and cyclically like everything else. And if it comes worse, they want to “do” something instead of waiting for heaven or hell. Either someone has to “pay” or “confess” or “burn”. And people like it simple and hate complicated matters, in politics as in a lot of other dimensions like education, alimentation, relationships, work and fun. Nobody likes fatality today without a chance to turn it around, be it cancer or Parkinson. (Rieth) This is the time for “healers” and “quacks” and gurus. Climate is a complex affair – like a love affair sometimes – and we like it simple. We seek simple recipes for tricky matters. Who falls in love for maths and quants? And nonetheless this is the only way to tell the real story (Essex, Gervais, Rittaud, Monckton). Simple suggestions like take this and avoid this – like methane and CO2, avoid to eat meat and go vegan(so opposed to by Glatzle), stop inhaling, pay compensation for flying to Bali, confess your energy consumption, … is like a part of the simple messages of some guru-trip with the buddy driving a Rolls and people worshipping like mad for “his Highness”.
Porto Conference was about that – finding a sober and evidence-based message for a complex climate issue. Honest scientific research meeting blunt degradation in a time where middle-age thought-climate seems to regain power on enlightenment driven research. Gut versus head, fear versus sovereignty, panic versus coolness. The message of the second Porto Climate Conference – after the Obama decorated in June – is: Keep cool, no fear. Climate is fine, no need to save it and no means to do it either. Maybe it’s even getting cooler, the history of the sun-cycles may tell it. Enjoy life in the Global Green Airbag!
Claus U. Rieth
MBA, M.Div., phil.bot.
Director CRConsult, Rev.
Nils-Axel Mörner: Weather always changes but memory is short
We have just ended a remarkably hot and dry summer. This is how weather works – it changes from day to day, from month to month and from year to year. There is nothing strange by this, just as it usually is, only this Summer was exceptionally hot and dry.
Let us look at the temperature for July 2018 (Fig. 1a). In Europe and West Asia, it was 1.5-2.0 °C warmer than normal (the average of the last 10 years). On a global scale, however, temperature was quite normal. All talk about “extreme heat” does not apply on a global scale, only on a regional sector of Europe and West Asia. Hence, the map shows regional variations in weather over the globe.
Now, let us compare the global temperature patterns for July 2018 and 2017 (Fig. 1b). What we see is similar map of regional variations in weather over the globe. But there are two remarkable facts:
- Skandinavia and Balticum were exceptionally cold in 2017 (but warm in 2018)
- Argentine was extremely warm in 2017 (but extremely cold 2018)
Consequently, the fact is that July 2918 and 2017 rather are each others’ opposite in regional weather. Obviously, one cannot talk about “trends” in one or the other direction. The truth is quite different from the scenario of a general warming, which the climate lobbyists claim.
During the summer, this misuse of facts has been astonishing in Sweden. It is simple to understand why this has been the case: there it is the approaching general election, which make activists take on spreading of “fake news”.
The maps (Fig. 1) documents reality – it is the maps that apply: not the claims by climate lobbyists.
Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University (1991-2005)
Author of more than 650 scientific papers and several books
President of Independent Committee on Geoethics
Figure1. Surface air temperature for July 2018 (a: above) and July 2017 (b: below) compared to the average of the last 10 years (www.climate4you.com).
The London Conference
Windows on the World filmed at The Dawn of Truth Conference 8-9th September 2016. The participants of the conference will be featured in future videos. Here is our first video from the conference Banned Climate Conference Goes Ahead. The show covers the political agenda behind the problems with getting the conference on and the specialities of some of the participants. The WOTW site posts articles from the Geoethics group and does regular interviews with members. Here is an interview on Sea Levels with Nils-Axl Morner. The interview is about the “managed retreat” of coastal communities on the back of sea level rise projections. Nils offers the solution in Law to the village of Fairbourne in Wales. These videos and our whole archive are also available on our You Tube Channel
Quality in Science
By Jerome Ravetz
To start, ‘quality’ now means ‘goodness’. But it is not a simple property. In fact, it is complex, recursive and moral. First, for any thing or action, there are a plurality of attributes of quality, each of which will have its own criteria and standards. These do not come from nowhere; for each there will be a social system that defines and then monitors them. This immediately raises the question in the Latin motto, ‘who guards the guardians?’
For each answer, the question is reiterated, and so there is a recursive process. The tasks are different, at the different levels; and ultimately there is a sanction in an informal, perhaps indefinable thing called ‘public opinion’. We see this most clearly in the case of school exams, where children are tested by special agencies, and these are inspected by other agencies, up to the political level where a Minister is responsible; and (as happened not long ago) if things go very wrong then the Minister resigns because public opinion has made their position untenable.
There is a distinction between quality control and quality assurance; the latter refers to the total complex process. The maintenance of quality is very much a moral process. This is because it is impossible to make a complete specification of tasks at the lowest level; evasion of imposed standards is always possible. Hence if operatives do not believe in the system to some extent, it will fail. Their adherence to the system will depend on their morale, and that is conditioned by what they observe of the behavior of those who govern them. In that sense, corruption starts at the top.
Climate Changes in view of Science and Geoethics
By Nils-Axel Mörner
Paul Driessen (photo left) and Ron Arnold just published a very interesting article (CFACT, April 17, 2016) where they write:
What we contest are false assertions that “humans are creating a dangerous climate change crisis.” We do not accept false claims that “the science is settled” and will not be limited to discussing only “what we must do now to avert looming climate catastrophes.”
That’s not just constitutionally protected free speech. It is the foundation of scientific progress and informed public policy.
The words are very well formulated, and it perfectly well fits with the basic idea of the foundation of our Independent Committee on Geoethics.
The authors continue:
Meanwhile, EPA and other federal agencies, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate activist organizations, state legal and environmental agencies, and legions of scientists who receive government grants for advancing the “manmade climate cataclysm” mantra are themselves engaging in what many say is truly misleading or fraudulent climate science, policy and regulation.
Millions in poor countries die annually from preventable diseases, because hysterical climate claims justify denying them access to affordable modern electricity and transportation that could be provided by coal, natural gas and petroleum products. In developed nations, climate hysteria has cost millions of jobs, adversely affecting people’s living standards, health and welfare. In European countries, thousands are dying each winter, because they can no longer afford proper heat.
The problem is not human intervention in the climate; it’s improper political intervention in climate science. It has corrupted scientific findings from the very beginning.
Let me congratulate the authors for their excellent review based on true Science and Geoethical principles. The full text is accessible on the web (address above).
Climate Change: Nothing to Fear
For the past few decades, the media and a few high-profile public figures (chiefly Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States and winner of a Nobel Prize for creating terror in the minds of millions) have been screaming at us that we are all doomed because the climate is changing! Not only is it changing, it is OUR Entire Fault!
We puny humans have really done it now, in our quest for cheap energy and hot cars, we have spewed this horribly polluting but invisible gas into the atmosphere. That’s right, you are exhaling this “pollutant” as you read this. The gas to which I refer is none other than Carbon Dioxide (CO2)!
Reflections on the future of our Planet’s climate.
Uberto Crescenti: Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Geologia Università G. d’Annunzio Chieti-Pescara (Italia) e-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
Translation and comments by Franco Maranzana, Consulting Geologist
Abstract. The article deals with the prediction of the future climate of our Planet. At present we have some reliable data on the past through the historical studies of the climate. They cannot be projected towards the future. Hence, the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC and of those adhering to this organization, These predictions cannot be seriously taken into consideration but they influence the world economy because of the application of the Kyoto Protocol which, only in 2013, has mobilized some 160 billion dollars on the so called carbon tax.
In the occasion of the Lectio Magistralis at the Royal Society of Arts of Edinburgh, on 31 October 2011, Matt Ridley stated :” Never count on the consensus of experts about the future. The experts deserve to be listened to themes related to the past. Futurology is pseudoscience”. Such a statement very seldom can so well be applied to the field of climate predictions.
Professor Bob Carter 1942-2016
It is with great sadness that we have to announce the passing of Professor Bob Carter following a sudden heart attack at his home in Townsville Australia.
”One thing is for sure, Bob made the most of every minute he had and was a fighter to the very end”, said Bob’s wife Anne.
We surely understand this in view all the excellent things Bob has said and written through the years – and his great friendship.
The loss of Bob, is a very great loss for Science. Things will not be as they were before.
For his friends all over the world it is a tragedy.
But we have his excellent contributions to science to use as a well of knowledge and understanding – and our memories of a Great Friend.
The Independent Committee on Geoethics is in mourning.
Challenging the AGW hypothesis
by Giovanni P. Gregori
Istituto di Acustica e Sensoristica (IDASC) – Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR) email@example.com
The global climate change (or global warming, GW) is in progress, closely analogously to several other – eventually also much more violent – documented occurrences reported during the long history of the Earth. At present, the demographic expansion – altogether with the ever increasing energy demand – make humankind to be an unprecedented driving factor in the “climate” system. The consequent pollution has certainly to be suitably taken into account as an important aspect in climatology. However, contrary to a well known and often strongly claimed warning, no objective evidence seems to support the hypothesis of any leading role of CO2. Other drivers, which are essentially independent of the humans, certainly play a paramount and most relevant role. The very recent maps of the CO2 planetary distribution provided by the NASA satellite OCO2 give an unexpected clear support for the inferences of a major contribution from sub-surface degassing as further discussed in a recent paper by Gregori (New Concept in Global Tectonics, vol. 3, no. 4, 2015).