So you think man did it.

[Guest Guest]

So you say you are concerned about global warming and you all need to be informed well lets see how many read this report, take the 10-15 minutes to read it and understand it. And all that ridicule it keep your mouth shut and don't post because I don't need you to prove my point for me.

 

The Evidence Against Human Causation in Global Warming

Chris Towsey, MSc(Syd) BSc (Hons) Dip Ed FAusIMM

SUMMARY

The following data does not fit the assumption that human activities result in global

warming. It follows then that the assumption that anthropogenic CO2 causes global

warming is fundamentally flawed.

· Ice core data shows that there have been repeated heating and cooling events on

the earth long before human activity was significant. Global warming is a

naturally occurring event. Attempting to interfere in this process may have

unpredictable consequences

· The Earth cooled between 1940 and 1975 while fossil fuel consumption rose

dramatically. The Earth should have warmed if CO2 emissions from fossil fuel

consumption is a cause of global warming. The theory does not fit the data.

· Ignoring data that does not fit a theory is poor science. Only one inconsistent piece

of data is necessary to negate a theory.

· Reducing CO2 emissions and introducing carbon trading will not prevent global

warming, but will make energy dramatically more expensive to the consumer.

INTRODUCTION

The author is a geologist with 30 years experience in the metalliferous mining

industry. He is currently Chief Operating Officer of a public listed gold mining

company. Opponents of the following view will claim bias, but knowledge of, and

training and practise in, the subject does not equate with bias.

There are strident calls for the reduction and elimination of carbon dioxide (CO2)

emissions, based on the assumptions that (a) increasing carbon dioxide emissions are

the cause of global warming and ( that human activities are responsible for a rise in

carbon dioxide emissions. The conclusion is then drawn that restricting human

emissions of CO2 will reduce global warming.

The basis of the scientific method is that a series of observations are made, a

hypothesis is drawn up to explain the observations, then a series of tests are made to

see if the hypothesis holds under all circumstances. If test results indicate the

hypothesis is flawed, then the hypothesis must be altered to fit ALL data.

The following data DO NOT FIT the assumption that human activities result in global

warming. It follows then that the assumption that anthropogenic CO2 causes global

warming is fundamentally flawed.

The evidence against human causation in global warming

Page 2 of 12

1) Global warming is a naturally occurring and recurring event

The Vostock ice cores are a key piece of information. In January 1998, the

collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the

Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered,

reaching a depth of 3,623 m (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). Preliminary data indicate the

Vostok ice-core record extends through four climate cycles, with ice slightly older

than 400,000 years (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). An explanation of the project and the

original data can be found at:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/ant...tok/vostok.html

This is the web site of NESDIS ,the National Environmental Satellite, Data and

Information Service, part of the US Department of Commerce’s National Climatic

Data Centre. The data produced the following graph that can be found at:

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/p...400000yrfig.htm

This figure shows the temperature record from the Vostok ice core (dark blue),

together with CO2 (red) from the Vostok ice core, the Law Dome ice core, and from

the Mauna Loa monitoring station in Hawaii. The near vertical line on the right

represents the change in CO2 associated with the industrial revolution. Vostock data

are available from:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/ant...tok/vostok.html,

The Law Dome ice data are available from:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/ant...ca/law/law.html, and Mauna Loa data

are available from http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/CO2/sio-mlo.htm.

There is, overall, a good match between temperature and CO2. One important piece of

information that can be determined from ice core data is that changes in temperature

PRECEDE changes in CO2, with a lag of around 800 years.

The evidence against human causation in global warming

Page 3 of 12

The critical result from this work is that there have been FOUR PREVIOUS

WARMING EVENTS at roughly 80,000 to 120,000 year intervals before the current

cycle, LONG BEFORE HUMAN ACTIVITY.

Global warming is therefore a series of naturally occurring and regular events THAT

RESOLVE THEMSELVES WITHOUT HUMAN INTERVENTION. That does not

make dramatic news for the media, whereas the threat of a “global disaster” does.

This is not to say that we shouldn’t plan for the human and economic impact of this

event. However, it makes a mockery of any attempt to STOP OR CHANGE it. We

can’t even stop a local thunderstorm let alone change the planet’s weather. It’s as

useless as King Canute standing against the tide.

The evidence does not fit a human cause.

More importantly, if global warming is a naturally recurring event, then any attempt

by humans to interfere with the progress of this natural cycle could have unpredicted

and possibly dire consequences.

2) The Earth COOLED over 30 year periods while CO2 emissions

increased exponentially.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses the following

graphs of global temperature change from Jones & Palutikof (2006). It shows that

global temperatures declined in two periods, over extended periods of 35-40 years

from 1870 to 1910 and from 1940 to 1975. The Earth cooled during these times, not

warmed.

What is really fascinating is that fossil fuel consumption and therefore the

production of anthropogenic CO2 INCREASED EXPONENTIALLY during

these 35-40 year periods, as shown below, from Klyashtorin & Lyubushin, (2003):

The evidence against human causation in global warming

Page 4 of 12

The hypothesis does not fit the data. If fossil fuel consumption and resultant CO2

emissions increases, the temperature should increase. It didn’t. The Earth

cooled.

It would be far more useful for the IPCC to focus on this 35 year period to work

out what happened to cool the Earth. If it was an anthropogenic cause, maybe we

can reproduce it.

At the end of this 35 year cooling period, Newsweek magazine printed the following

quotes on April 28, 1975 in an article headlined “The Cooling World” (reproduced

from Walker, 2006),

“There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change

dramatically”

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so

massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.”

“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to

compensate for the climate change, or even allay its effects”

The fear here was that the world was cooling, but the call from the scientists to

politicians to take action then is the same as now. How the scientific community has

reversed its consensus view in just 25 years!

3) Humans have a minimal impact on the globe

Dry land, where humans dwell, makes up only 20% of the Earth’s surface. The other

80% is water. Water dissolves CO2. CO2 is heavier than air and sits at the lowest

The evidence against human causation in global warming

Page 5 of 12

levels where it is accessible to be dissolved by rain and sea water. Corals and shelled

animals extract the carbonate to form shells and coral skeletons. It’s a self-cleaning

system.

4) Why is there an emphasis on trading carbon credits?

Carbon credits are the perfect commodity. The carbon that is to be traded on the

commodities and futures markets does not have to be mined, refined, processed,

transported, stored, meet quality specifications, be produced profitably or marketed. It

is an investment product without substance, an ephemeral nothing that has a value.

No-one is ever going to ask to take delivery of their kilogram of black soot (carbon).

Trading of carbon credits is being pushed by the investment community as a new

investment product from which they can make money for nothing. It’s the best thing

since public company shares (now with no authorized capital limit) were invented. A

share is an ephemeral nothing, but can be sold for a dollar value. They are both

mechanisms for creating money from nothing.

Carbon trading does not reduce carbon emissions – it simply allows emitters a

financial penalty to continue operations unchanged. This penalty will be passed on to

consumers.

It will make electricity more expensive, penalizing the lower socio-economic groups

in all countries, the one group who can least afford it.

5) What about the Stern Review?

Chapter 1 of the Stern Review on Page 2, in the very first paragraph, states:

“The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, mainly as a result of increases in

greenhouse gases caused by human activities.”

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change did not even question that

human activities were the cause of climate change. The review was not a scientific

treatise on the causes of global warming – it was an economic examination of the

effects on society of climate change. Its non-questioning starting point was that

climate change was directly related to human activity. Stern’s brief was not to judge

whether or not global warming had human causes, but simply to predict the economic

impact of global warming, whether naturally occurring or not.

The Stern report is therefore irrelevant in the discussion on what causes global

warming.

6) The IPCC report concluded that human activities causing a

rise in CO2 are the most likely cause of global warming.

The IPCC report (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change

2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers) is an atrocious piece

The evidence against human causation in global warming

Page 6 of 12

of work masquerading as science. The IPCC report SPECIFICALLY excluded

volcanic activity as a source of CO2, and as a source of aerosols and particulates that

may cause solar reflection (and cooling) as it was “episodic” or intermittent (see Page

16 of the IPCC report, “Volcanic aerosols contribute an additional natural forcing but

are not included in this figure due to their episodic nature.”).

Volcanic activity may be intermittent on a local scale, but is continuous on a global

scale, and is a major source of natural CO2 emissions, producing some 200 million

tonnes of CO2 per year (US Geological Survey, 15 Feb 2007 -

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html )

Interestingly enough, global atmospheric measurements of CO2 are recorded at the

Mauna Loa observatory in Hawai’i. Mauna Loa is an active volcano, producing CO2!

Most of the IPCC data focuses on the period since 1750, nowhere near long enough to

take into account even the first 80,000 year cycle, let alone its four predecessors. The

IPCC looked at ice core data, but only for the last 10,000 years – IT

SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED THE WHOLE OF THE DATA, SELECTING

OUT ONLY THE MOST RECENT DATA, and only part of one cycle. To exclude

evidence is a serious flaw in any scientific analysis.

The IPCC report DID NOT EVEN CONSIDER the weathering of rocks. A word

search of the IPCC document for “rock”, “soil”, “erosion” and “weather” for

“weathering” and its derivatives returned no hits at all. How do they think limestone

caves formed? Limestone caves form from the action of acidic groundwaters on

dissolving the calcium carbonate, releasing bicarbonate ions that convert to CO2. Rain

is naturally acidic, from CO2 dissolving in rain to form carbonic acid. Other

groundwaters become acidic through humic acids in decaying vegetation.

As the world’s biggest carbon reservoir, carbonate rocks contain about 6.1x107 billion

tons of carbon, which is 1,694 times and 1.1x105 times larger than those of oceans and

world vegetation respectively (Houghton & Woodwell, 1989). Carbonate rocks

occupy an area of about 22 million square kilometers in the world (Yuan, 1997).

If you exclude the two MOST COMMON NATURALLY OCCURRING sources

of CO2, volcanic activity and the weathering of rocks, from the report, then

obviously the conclusion will be drawn that CO2 results from UNNATURAL

(human) activity.

The IPCC report was a self-fulfilling prophecy because it excluded or did not

adequately consider NATURAL sources of CO2.

The IPCC Report can be found at the IPCC Website: http://www.ipcc.ch .

The evidence against human causation in global warming

Page 7 of 12

7) Several thousand scientists contributed to the IPCC report.

How can they all be wrong?

Just because a large number of people hold a particular view does not make it correct.

The world’s leading scientists at one time were firmly of the opinion that the Earth

was flat, and that the Sun revolved around a stationary Earth. These were earnestly

held views by intelligent, highly educated people, the leaders in the scientific

community of their time. It took Galileo and Christopher Columbus to prove

otherwise. A simple observation by sailors that as a ship sailed into the distance, its

hull disappeared from view, then its deck, then its rigging and finally its flag at the

masthead, led Columbus to conclude that the Earth was a sphere. The evidence did

not fit a flat Earth.

There are almost no geologists in the panel of IPCC scientists. The majority were

climatologists and atmospheric physicists. If you want to know about the history of

the Earth, talk to a geologist, not a climatologist, especially one who depends on

government grants to fund his tenure or research.

The ABC TV program “The Global Warming Swindle” interviewed a number of

scientists who did not agree with human causation of global warming but whose

names were included in the 2,500 authors because in the words of the IPCC “they had

contributed” to the research. These scientists were irate that their names had been

included, one threatening the IPCC with legal action until they removed his name.

8) The retreat of glaciers is not due to human activities

The Illinois State Museum in the US is an independent scientific authority, not

connected to mining interests. Its Ice Ages exhibit shows a map of the North

American ice sheet over the last 20,000 years on its web site at:

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ During most of the last 1 billion

years the Earth had no permanent ice. Polar ice caps are a rarity, not the norm. The

exhibit shows that 20,000 years ago, at the height of glacial advancement, ice sheets

covered most of North America as far south as Kentucky and Missouri. The graphic

on their web site shows the ice sheets retreating for the last 20,000 years, long before

humans were burning coal or petroleum products in any quantity.

9) Australia is in the worst drought for a thousand years

This comment has been bandied about the media and repeated by various politicians

to suit their own purposes. It’s another furphy. Look at the Australian rainfall figures

below:

The evidence against human causation in global warming

Page 8 of 12

The data in the above chart shows that aggregate rainfall has actually INCREASED

since the 1970s.

Based on the rolling 5-year average, there were more severe droughts in the mid

1920s, 1930s and 1960s. There was a period of low rainfall in 2002 but it was lower

in 1994. However, the recovery from the 2002 drought has been weaker than both the

1994 and 1972 droughts.

The Australian climate in 2006 was only the 11th warmest since records began nearly

100 years ago, even though parts of the country were suffering their longest drought

in history. In its Annual Climate Statement, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology

said despite record warm daytime temperatures in the drought-hit south-east, 2006

was cooler than the previous year when averaged across the whole nation.

If global warming is constant, shouldn’t EVERY YEAR THEN BE HOTTER than

the preceding year? Certainly recent years should be hotter than 100 years ago, not

cooler.

10) If the Earth warms, the polar ice caps will melt and flood

coastal areas.

A summary of the major climate statistics recorded at the Casey Antarctic Base is

provided by the Bureau of Meteorology for the years 1989-2006 at:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tab...cw_300017.shtml

The Casey base is on the northern edge of Antarctica at an elevation of 40m above sea

level. The average maximum temperature for the 18 year period from 1989-2006 was

minus 6 degrees (-6°C) and the average minimum temperature was -12.6°C degrees.

The IPCC states, “The total temperature increase from 1850 – 1899 to 2001 – 2005 is

0.76 [with a range of 0.57 to 0.95]°C.” That is, in 150 years, the temperature has risen

by 0.76°C. To melt the polar ice in Antarctica, the temperature has to rise 7°C before

ice will melt under maximum temperature conditions, and 13°C to stop it re-freezing

under minimum conditions. At an increase of even 1°C per 100 years, it will take

The evidence against human causation in global warming

Page 9 of 12

1,300 years for this to happen, and even then, this is simply returning the Earth to its

normal average state of not having any polar ice.

We can plan for the results of coastal flooding, but cannot prevent the event.

CONCLUSION

The evidence does not support the commonly held view that human activities that

produce increased levels of CO2, is a cause of global warming.

Global warming is a naturally occurring and recurring event unrelated to human

activity.

Cutting CO2 emissions therefore will not alter global warming. Trading carbon

credits will have no effect on global warming.

It would be more useful to study the period from 1940 to 1975, when the Earth cooled

while fossil fuel consumption skyrocketed, to find out why the Earth cooled. This

period holds the key to the root cause of global warming.

[Guest Guest]

"The investment vehicle headed by Al Gore has closed a new $683m fund to invest in early-stage environmental companies and has mounted a robust defence of green investing."

 

$uckers. Tho$e of you who believed him, watched hi$ movie, and bought hi$ book. He i$ in it for the money.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f78fbec2-161b-11dd...;nclick_check=1

 

 

 

 

[Guest Guest]

I would like to say I'm proud of you liberals for restraining yourself and letting the facts speak for themselves congratulations

 

 

@