Global Warming – Global Winter
What sayeth the Data, Open Questions, a new Theory.
Klaus P. Heiss
Science & Environmental Policy Project
May 27, 2007
The Main Report as to the Science of Global Warming has just been released,
three months after the Summary was published in February. A few curious
things have happened since the 2001 convolute of assertions of impending
doom and mankind’s guilt therein:
1. The “Hockey Stick” – diagram 1 on page 1 of the 2001IPCC “Summary”,
allegedly depicting temperatures for the past 1,000 or so years and the
unique rise
these past decades - has disappeared. No wonder: it has been thoroughly
discredited as fake statistics, reviews by “insiders” and fake data
manipulation, an
insult to the scientific process;
2. However, another “Stick” has replaced it: an “exploding” CO2 Hockey
Stick,
seemingly going off into the infinite – unstoppable and presented by the
2,500
consensual “Kyoto Scientists” as confirmation of impending doom;
3. An orgy of applying statistical methods and distributions to the
chicken intestines
of computer simulations: taking averages and three sigma values and
Gaussian
distributions galore of … nonsensical computer exercises devoid and
disjoined
from any empirical measurements and checks – does not improve knowledge.
Indeed, where checks are possible they contradict the simulations and key
predictions.
Most of the data and evidence presented below are taken from the very IPCC
2007 report
and its predecessors. The other major sources are quoted and
scientifically impeccable –
although not always the summary of the evidence therein, a prime example
the 2007
IPCC document.
The CO2 “Explosion” a la IPCC
Evidence Number 1 of the 2007 IPCC Report is Figure 1:
Figure 1: CO2 “Explosion” a la IPCC
As CO2 goes up dramatically the past 100 to 200 years, temperatures have
gone up too.
Conclusion by IPCC consensus: CO2 causes temperature increases and, if not
stopped,
the world will come to a disastrous end. As presented by the IPCC the
central issue
obviously is the increase in CO2 and the havoc that will cause to climate
change.
First of all, there are some questions regarding the accuracy of the IPCC
“claimed”
record of atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years and the possible
insignificance of
human emissions. A good summary of both, the relatively minor contribution
human CO2
emissions make to atmospheric levels (Figure A) as well as serious
questions whether the CO2 series as cited by the IPCC are accurate at all
(Figure B) are presented by Beck.
[Ernst-Georg Beck, “180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical
Methods”, Energy &
Environment, Vol. 18, Number 2, 2007]
Figure A: The relative contributions to atmospheric CO2 levels:
the Human CO2 Tail wagging Nature’s Elephant? (Beck)
Eliminating ALL industrial CO2 emissions (including cars) to ZERO would
reduce these
levels by a mere 0.6%, well within the noise and measurement accuracy
levels of these
parameters. A case of the Human tail wagging nature’s elephant.
Which raises also the question of the “shape” and direction of the tail:
that these CO2
data claims shown in Figure 1 may be highly dubious, based on 180 years of
various
measurements, most of which have been discarded as they do not agree with
the
“approved” story book.
Figure B: 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods
(Beck)
The authors of various CO2 measurements and data series reviewed by Beck
are shown in
Figure C:
Figure C: 90,000 Atmospheric CO2 Measurements (1812 – 1960)
ignored by the IPCC?
Rather devastating and to be checked out. Some say that these measurements
are not as
pristine as those of the single series Mauna Loa series – but these
objections are
mysteriously not applied to surface temperature measurements.
Now, why would the IPCC raise and highlight the CO2 series as “Exhibit 1”
in the
Summary for Policy Makers, rather than temperatures as was done in the
2001 Summary?
We will come to that later, but clearly the implication to “Policy Makers”
conveyed by
the IPCC is that CO2 is exploding and the Earth’s temperatures will soon
follow, lest we
take drastic actions.
However, “buried” in the Main Report and released three months AFTER the
Summary
for Policy Makers, we find on page 444 (!) a data record of over 700,000
years showing
CO2, temperature and other greenhouse gas changes (Figure 2):
Figure 2: CO2, CH4, N2O and Temperature Changes over 700,000 Years
(IPCC 2007 – page 444)
[dimagb: figure 3 is empty]
Ah, these series are all moving up and down – in unison – more or less.
Difficult to
discern what comes first and what comes next. However, a more detailed
look at the
earlier 400,000 year record shows the following (Figure 4):
Figure 4: Temperature and CO2 Changes over 400,000 Years
Vostok Ice Core Data
And lo and behold, the temperature changes are leading the CO2 changes,
something that
can be “seen” even without running any statistical analysis. With thorough
statistical
analysis one and all conclude that temperatures indeed lead CO2 changes,
consistently
for 420,000 years by anywhere from 200 years to 1,000 years. And look at
the drastic
increases indeed – the recent record pales by comparison: temperature
changes of up to
12 0C within but a few years and CO2 changes a few hundred years later of
equally
dramatic variations.
Given the data and their cyclicity this seems the only possible causal
explanation: no
natural phenomena are known that would have CO2 and other greenhouse gases
vary
dramatically and cyclically to then cause temperature changes of equal
magnitude. But
the reverse, of course, has a myriad of possible explanations, some
already known, some
still suspected or being analyzed. All this confirmed by the very IPCC in
the Main Report
2007. To quote from page 444:
“The ice core record indicates that greenhouse gases co-varied with
antarctic temperature
over glacial-interglacial cycles, suggesting a close link between natural
atmospheric
greenhouse gas variations and temperature (Box 6.2). Variations in CO2
over the last
420 kyr broadly followed antarctic temperature, typically by several
centuries to a
millennium [emphasis added] (Mudelsee, 2001). The sequence of climatic
forcings and
responses during deglaciations (transitions from full glacial conditions
to warm
interglacials) are well documented. High-resolution ice core records of
temperature
proxies and CO2 during deglaciation indicates that antarctic temperature
starts to rise
several hundred years before CO2 [emphasis added] (Monnin et al., 2001;
Caillon et
al., 2003).”
Remarkable! Of course, no hint of such contrarian findings can be found in
the
“Summary for Policy Makers”: why confuse these poor minds with 700,000
years of
facts? Also, whereas Figure 3 did make it into the Technical Summary
(p.24), as if by
magic the crucial fact that temperatures lead greenhouse gas changes
somehow was
never “summarized”. Rather the 700,000 year data record is cited as if to
confirm all the
bad 20th century happenings.
What evidence does/can the IPCC provide that such demonstrated cause and
effect
relationship has changed all of a sudden these past 150 years? The burden
of proof is on
the IPCC – but is met with deafening silence. This may also explain the
non-correlation
of CO2 changes and temperature changes in the 20th century, another issue
the IPCC
sidesteps (Figure 5):
Figure 5: Non-Correlation of Temperatures and CO2 in the 20th Century
Whereas CO2 increased steadily throughout the 20th century, temperatures
did not: in fact
there was a significant cooling of temperatures between 1940 and the mid
1970’s,
leading some of today’s Kyoto consensus scientists to worry about the
horrible
consequences of a Global Winter.
Which raises the broader question: how well do all these costly simulation
models do in
explaining the recent decades, much less the future to come?
As chance would have it, the answer was provided in the most thorough
assessment of
global temperatures in one of the most expensive efforts to-date, the U.S.
Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP) Report of April 2006. [U.S. Climate Change Science
Program, “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere – Steps for
understanding and reconciling Differences”, April 2006.] There two most important
Figures are
shown, one summarizing the “back-casts” of the temperatures of the lower
troposphere –
the “thing” that is supposed to warm – using the most advanced climate
models for the
1958-1999 period and one showing the actual measurements with radiosondes
of
precisely these areas for the same period:
Figure 6: Climate Model Simulations
Zonal Mean Atmospheric Temperature Changes
1958-1999
versus the actual measurements:
Figure 7: Radiosonde Data of Zonal Mean Temperature Changes
from Equator to Polar Regions, 1958 – 1999
It is quite evident, even without any statistical analysis, that the
climate models fail
miserably in explaining for the past decades what actually happened where,
after all, the
actual data which the climate models are supposed to simulate are known.
This becomes
even more obvious when looking at the tropical zone, the area which often
is projected to
suffer the most dire consequences of Global Warming. The Climate Model
simulation
results are plotted with the actual temperature measurements for a range
of altitudes
(Figure 8):
Figure 8: Observations vs. Climate Model Simulations of Tropical Zones
(Douglas, Knox, Pearson, Singer GRL-2006)
The disparity could not be more embarrassing: while the climate models
show a
significant rise, the actual measurements show even and falling
temperatures for the
period.
Conclusion: the “fingerprints” show that the climate models are faulty and
fail to explain
climate drivers as assumed in the models – principally greenhouse gases
such as CO2 -
and thereby prove that variations in CO2 fail to explain climate change
and climate
drivers. Rather than the “proclaimed consensus” that CO2 and by
implication mankind
are responsible for Climate Change, the evidence shows that the climate
change models
fail in explaining climate reality – a far cry from “proof” of human
causation.
So, if not CO2, what is the temperature record and what causes climate to
change? What
are the prospects for further change?
The Temperature Record.
According to the IPCC this is the temperature record and outlook (Figure
9):
Figure 9: IPCC Reconstruction and Projection of Temperatures
1900 through 2300 – Summary for Policy Makers
But then again the “simulations” shown in this authoritative projection,
meant to scare
one and all into drastic CO2 cuts, do not “reconstruct” the 20th century
temperature
record, shown in broad outline earlier in the Summary. How could they,
given that their
main driver for climate change was a steadily increasing CO2 , but
temperatures actually
fell between 1940 and the mid 70’s.
But worse - for the IPCC and better for the skeptics - is to come. Whereas
the simulations
show a steady advance of Global Temperatures under different policy
scenarios – with a
flattening if we were to limit CO2 outputs globally to 2000 levels (Figure
9) - the actual
temperature data seem to move already at the “steady” scenario (Figure
10):
Figure 10: Global Mean Warming: Model Predictions(2000-2025) vs. Observed
Values (1985-2005) Technical Report p. 69
Now why would the scientific approach be to show simulations as prime
example in the
Summary for policy makers without data points, but in the Technical Report
the actual
data and projections as shown in Figure 10. Why? Quite simple: the
“observed” data
plotted for 1985 through 2005 indicate the orange line as “best predictor”
for what is to
follow in the 21st century, quite embarrassing. Which raises a host of
other issues:
First of all, why have global temperatures ceased to rise for the past ten
years, ever since
1998? The record of global temperatures of the troposphere as measured by
satellites is
shown in Figure 11:
Figure 11: Global Lower Troposphere Temperatures (Satellites)
The maximum temperatures reached in 1998 were 0.80C above the average,
temperatures since then at most 0.40C above.
Before discussing the possible components of climate change, what is it
now with
temperatures: are they rising, falling or steady? The answer is an
unequivocal YES
(Figure 12):
Figure 12: Temperature Trends from Greenland Ice Core Data:
Rising (16,000 years), Steady (10,000 years), Sinking (since 2,000 years),
Steady (past 1,000
years) and Rising (past 150 years)
Temperature increases like the past 150 years are nothing unusual. E.g. a
nearly identical
rise can be seen in data of some 26,000 years ago (Figure 13):
Figure 13: Temperature increases some 26,000 years ago, estimated form
Ocean
sediments off New Zealand.
If not greenhouse gases, what causes temperature/climate change? Well,
whatever it is,
the actual mechanism must relate to the Sun and the various cycles between
the Sun,
Earth and their movement through the Milky Way.
Whereas CO2 correlates poorly with temperature changes in the 20th century,
here various
parameters of Solar activity and temperatures (Figure 14):
Figure 14: Are Solar Cycles, Cosmic Rays and Changes in Irradiance the
Drivers of
Temperatures and Climate Change?
As can be seen from these different plots of temperatures vs. Solar cycles,
cosmic ray
activity and changes in irradiance, they all “track” temperature changes
rather nicely –
including the significant fall in global temperatures from 1940 through
the mid 1970’s.
So the driving force(s) may well be buried there, since by any stretch of
the imagination
it is unlikely that human activities and events in and around the Earth
influence the
activities of the Sun.
We now know that the Solar spots and their cycles are determined by a 22
year cycle in
the switch of the Solar polar fields: from North Pole to South Pole (eleventh
year) and
from South Pole back to the North Pole (22nd year).
Beyond that, additional cyclicities seem to occur: an ~87 year cycle (~four
times 22), a
~210 year cycle (~ ten times 22 year Solar polarity cycle), a ~1470 year
cycle (~ seven
(eight?) times ~210 year cycle).
Beyond that, of course, we know about the ~20,000 and ~40,000 year
Milankovitch
cycles resulting from the peculiarities of the Earth/Sun movements through
the Milky
Way, wherein the North and South regions of Earth “switch” the long
summers/short
winter cycles and the North pole points to Vega instead of Polaris. Beyond
that the
Antarctic ice core data indicate clearly a 100,000 year climate cycle for
the last one
million years – the cycles shown so distinctly in Figures 3 and 4 above.
A “scientific” approach to climate change and temperature predictions
would be to take
all these different cycles and see how much remains to be explained in the
past 150
years beyond these cyclical movements: if a significant deviation from
these “natural”
movements can be found, maybe something needs to be explained after all.
Well, bad
news again for Climate disaster adherents: recent work by Ernest c. Njau
establishes a
close to zero “remainder”. To quote: “This establishment implies that,
contrary to
previous expectations and opinions, anthropogenic activities hardly
generate significant
net alterations in global temperature or solar energy patterns. However,
these
anthropogenic activities can significantly alter other parameters of the
surface–
atmosphere system….” and “…As detailed in Refs. [15–21, 26, 28, 29], the
global
temperature variation patterns since 1700 AD (including the much-reported
post-1970
global warming trend) consist of a series of sinusoidal
amplitude-modulation envelopes
and beats-containing amplitude-modulation envelopes. All these envelopes (together
with
their phase-reversal sequences whose theory is given in Ref. [21]) are
significantly
related to the _800 years solar cycle, the 90–120 years solar (or sunspot)
cycle and the
180–250 years solar cycle in the manner explained in Refs. [19, 21, 28].
The post-1970
global warming trend, for example, coincides with the last rising phase of
a large
(temperature) sinusoidal envelope related to the 90–120 years solar cycle,
and that this
particular envelope is itself mounted or carried on the ongoing rising
phase of another
larger (temperature) sinusoidal envelope related to the 180–250 years
solar cycle [15–21, 26, 28]….”.
[Njau, Ernest C., 2007. Formulations of human-induced variations in
global temperature. Renewable Energy Vol. 32,
No 13, pp. 2211-2222, October 2007]
Over 1,300 years we find the following pattern – still being refined and
improved as to
data quality and resolution (Figure 15):
Figure 15: 1,300 Years of Solar Activity, Temperatures, Climate Change
Based on all this and related expertise, members of the Russian Academy of
Sciences in
St. Petersburg have predicted the likely outbreak of a Little Ice Age just
as in the Middle
Ages several hundred years ago (Figure 16):
Figure 16: A Small Little Ice Age in ten to 15 Years?
(Klyashtorin und Lyubushin, 2003 – Energy and Environment 14, 773-783)
Given the earlier (hidden) findings of the IPCC (Figure 10 above), wherein
the
“extrapolation” of the data fit curve (black line) based on the last
decade indicate a
slowing down of Global Temperatures toward the “orange line” projection (the
one with
“Year 2000” constant global CO2 levels), but without any drastic cuts in
human CO2
output to the atmosphere: good news indeed, as the Russian projections, Njau’s work and
the very IPCC data-fits and simulated projections for once seem to agree,
except of
course, for the need to cut CO2 emissions, which by the very evidence of
the IPCC 2007
report itself has been shown to be caused by temperature changes, rather
than the other
way around. Good news indeed, but one would not know it reading but the
“Summary for
Policy Makers” (i.e. the sources of further funding).
Three more themes will be addressed: is Global Warming intrinsically “bad”
or “good”
should it continue ; what is the link between Solar variations and
temperature variations
on Earth; and whence the “Precautionary Principle”.
Is Global Warming intrinsically “Good” or “Bad”?
In the 1970’s the National Museum of Natural History in Washington D.C. –
the museum
accused of late to submit to “political pressure” in not unequivocally
predicting
impending Global Doom due to Global Warming – dedicated three rooms to
Climate
Change and the horrible consequences of … a Global Ice Age. This exhibit
was on
display well into the 21st century until a few years ago. Bottom line: an
Ice Age would be
horrible, have drastic negative economic and ecological consequences, lead
to wholesale
extinction of species, hunger, pestilence, possibly the end of mankind as
we know it.
Well, the panels have been changed to Global Warming as of late, but the
cries of the
Climate Cassandras remains the same: wholesale extinction of species,
drastic negative
economic consequences, hunger and pestilence, possibly the end of mankind
as we know
it. All you have to do is “push a button” and you will know precisely what
the world will
look like 50 years from now: doom, gloom, disasters.
Well, the only negative effect of further Global Warming that on the face
of it at least
looks logical is the melting of the ice on Greenland and the Antarctic (not
the Arctic of
course, difficult as that is to explain even to habitual drinkers of “on
the rocks” libations,
where glasses fail to overflow despite the melting of the ice.
Well, the ice has been melting seriously now for about 16,000 years and
will continue to
do so even with Little Ice Ages in between (Figure 17):
Figure 17: The Formation and Melting of the Earth’s Ice:
120,000 Years and 32,000 Years (IPCC 2007)
We are where we were 120,000 years ago. Not only that: the major melting
of ice is
behind us and occurred between 16,000 and 7,000 years ago, with a series
of truly
catastrophic events such as the flooding of the Black Sea some 7,500 years
ago spreading
all the residents into the four corners of the known world, the horrendous
floods, possibly
periodic, of the Scablands in Washington State and the Rocky Mountain area
and untold
disasters yet to be documented. But the curve has flattened out, most of
the ice is gone,
some remains and when all is gone sea levels indeed will rise another few
tens of meters
over thousands of years and be where they were before ice ages. We have
survived –
thanks amongst others to Gilgamesh /Noah - and will adapt also to whatever
further
changes nature will bring. But the melting of ice is not something we can
stop: nowhere
is that proposed, not even by the IPCC. The ice will melt, lest another
ice age cometh –
neither one of which we can stop, or bring about.
Yet even if the current warm climate were to persist, it is doubtful that
we would reach an
“ice free” Northern Hemisphere of two+ million years ago, when all this
cooling started
for serious, or even an ice free Antarctic of five+ million years ago: we
would have
returned to what in biblical times is described as “Paradise” – where one
and all could
cavort around naked quite comfortably.
The question is whether, in principle, less ice or more ice is good for
mankind and nature.
And the resounding evidence is: less ice. Here but two examples:
Figure 18: Europe during the Climate Optimum of the Holocene (6 to 9,000
years
ago) and the Ice Age (21,000 years ago) (Ulrich Berner, Klimafakten, 2001)
In Figure 18 Europe is shown based NOT computer simulations, but on
extensive
archeological and climatological records:
(a) “Option A” during the Holocene Climate Optimum (now being rechristened
by
some), where temperatures were 20C to 30C warmer than today and with
higher
humidity. At that time conditions for intensive agriculture extended
practically
throughout a glacier free Europe, with the “green zone” of most bioactive
areas
covering most of Western and Central Europe, as well as “Little Asia”; and
(b) “Option B” during the last Ice Age of 21,000 years ago, where glaciers
covered
all of Northern Europe, including all of the United Kingdom, the Benelux
States,
most of Germany and Central Europe, all of the Alps – today the richest
economic
zone of Europe if not the world - and some of the Apennines and the
Pyrenees: a
true environmental, biological, economic and societal disaster, obvious on
“optical inspection” without the need of “sophisticated” computer models
known
as climate models today.
We also have, thanks to NCDC-NOAA, a fairly accurate depiction of
conditions during
the Holocene optimum of the North Polar regions (Figure 19):
Figure 19: Temperature (6,000 years) and forest line (8,000 years) ago
(Summer)
Comparisons to Present in the Northern Region (NCDC-NOAA)
As is clearly evident from these data (not simulations) the biosphere
extended
substantially further North, Greenland could be circumnavigated, just as
one suspects
also during the time of the Medieval Climate Optimum at the time of the
Viking
expeditions and Medieval maps showing the full contours of Greenland, with
the
exception of one single point around Northeastern Labrador (-10C). The
polar bears
survived this climate optimum quite well, it seems. They will also survive
the current
warming.
Yes, some coastal zones will have to be abandoned: “we” have done that now
for over
16,000 years and will continue to do so. Many a harbor city of antiquity
now is flooded
by the sea. But we also gain immensely due to the dramatic expansion of
“living space”
throughout the Northern Hemisphere and, at some future time, maybe even in
the
Antarctic. Two relevant empirical observations thereto:
Will Global Warming increase or decrease rainfall/humidity?
Horror stories are generated in computer models and let loose on the
innocent readers:
Europe is going to become a desert, the same is predicted by some for the
United States,
a “global dustbowl” is “predicted”. Again, the measured data and the
archeological and
climatological records indicate exactly the opposite. It is also
counterintuitive: higher
atmospheric temperatures mean higher atmospheric humidity, hence higher
rainfalls
somewhere – certainly not less. Which goes to explain why the Sahara was
covered with
grazing lands and habitation during the Holocene (revealed first by
satellite images in the
1970’s). Many other examples can be cited. Here the actual measurements
over oceans
for the past decades (Figure 20):
Figure 20: Global Mean Humidity (1988-2005) and Temperature Increases
(troposphere, oceans) (IPCC 2007)
This is also evident, to the layman at least, when comparing humidity vs.
dryness
between Tropical (warm) and Antarctic (cold) areas: the former are quite
humid, the
latter the driest places on Earth, with close to zero humidity. For the
same reason one
needs to “humidify” lips in Winter and while on excursions on glaciers.
Will Global Warming Increase or Decrease the Severity of Weather
Fluctuations?
Again and again horror scenarios are painted by the Global Warming
adherents as to the
coming hurricane and tornado avalanche and much more drastic weather/climatic
variations. Well, aside from the known US record of tornados and
hurricanes which
shows a clear “peak” in the 1930’s and a reduction and flattening since
then, a much
more detailed record for the past 50,000 years or so by now also indicates
that warmer
climes are more “stable” climes, whereas cold (ice age) periods cause much
more violent
year to year weather and climate fluctuations (Figure 21)
Figure 21: Temperature Variations of the Past 50,000 Years
(GISP2 – Greenland Ice Cores) (Robert Carter)
These are exciting and relevant measurements indeed, from Greenland Ice
Cores and they
belie the general alarmist notion that warm climes lead to more violent
weather events
overall. This abatement of weather/temperature changes in warmer periods
is intuitively
explained by the simple fact, that with a general rise of global
temperatures the polar
regions will warm much more than the tropics – as evidenced also by the
much shorter
measurements mentioned earlier when comparing simulated to actual
Tropospheric data
for the most recent past.
Will Global Warming Decrease or Increase Global Food Production/Wellbeing?
The “greening” of Earth with higher temperatures has another, most
positive effect [5]: food
production – both yield and area – will expand substantially with
increased warming.
This is evident from NASA / NOAA Landsat images but, more importantly,
also
confirmed by extensive econometric studies in the 1970’s for Goddard Space
Flight
Center, when Global Warming was not an issue (indeed Global Winter was,
based on the
previous 35 years of sinking temperatures). [6] At that time crop areas and
yields were
compared county by county and over the complete available agricultural
data record in
North America – and for that matter also Russia and its allied Union
members.
[5] Wittwer, S.H.: Food, Climate and Carbon Dioxide: The Global Environment
and World Food Production, 1992,
Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Lewis Publishers; Wittwer, S.H.: Flower Power:
Rising Carbon Dioxide is great for Your
Plants, 1995 Policy Review (Fall) 4-9 and Keeling, C.D., J.F.S. Chin, and T.P. Whorf, Increased Activity in Northern
Vegetation Inferred from Atmospheric CO2 Measurements, Nature 1996,
382:146-49
[6] Heiss, K. P.: “Econometric Models of Agricultural Supply: The Effects of
Price and Weather on Wheat
Production”, ECON Report to Goddard Space Flight Center, September 1977; Heiss, K.P., D.F. Bradford,
H.H. Kelejian: “The Value of Information for Crop Forecasting in a Market
System with International
Trade: Theory and Empirical Results” ECON Inc., Princeton NJ, 1975; K.P.
Heiss: “Economic Benefits of
Improved Information on Worldwide Crop Production”, Report for NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center,
NAS-5-23412, 1977; K.P. Heiss: “An Integrated Model of the Value of
Worldwide Wheat Supply
Information in Production and Distribution”, Council of Economic Advisers,
April 1977; K.P. Heiss, F.
Sand, J. Bodechtel, D. Farley, J. Henkel “Economic Assessment of a
European Remote Sensing Satellite
System for Agriculture Applications”, ECON Report for the European Space
Agency, August 1980
The
results are shown in Figure 22:
Figure 22: Increased Crop Yields from Higher Temperatures, Humidity and
CO2
Econometric Studies for Goddard Space Flight Center 1970’s
The increase in worldwide food (grain) production by 30% to possibly as
much as 50% is
due to two factors: one, increased yield (see Figure 22) and two,
increased areas opened
for cultivation throughout Northern America and Russia/Siberia. The
detailed
quantitative results are shown in the footnote. [6] The basic results of
substantially higher
global productivity with higher global temperatures have also been
confirmed before [7] and
since then in other empirical studies. [8]
[6] WINTERWHEAT:
Yield = 1.0537 – 0,02357 Area + 0,4632 Trend + 0,0194 W1 – 0,08036W12 +
0,02482W2 – 0,04454W22
– 0,01246W3 + 0,01188W32
with values for weather (rainfall, temperatures): W1 for December, January
and February; W2 for March,
April, May and W3 for June, July, August. The regression coefficient is
0.9095; the standard deviation
0.1308; Rho 0.6308 and the t-value (Rho) 3.62; statistically significant
and stable results. The t-values for
the weather variables are 0.56 (W1), 0.45 (W12), 3.0 (W2), 2.1 (W22), 0.83
(W3) und 0.43 (W32) – the
values for March, April and May are particularly significant.
SPRINGWHEAT:
Yield = -0.17056 + 0.00033 Area + 0.05429 Trend + 0.6100W1 – 0.17331W12
where W1 represent weather (rainfall, temperatures) in June, July and
August. The regression coefficient is
still 0.7994, the standard deviation is 0.1896, Durbin Watson 2.0. The
t-values for W1 and W12 are 1.61
and 1.46 , well within econometric acceptable values for economic
production processes.
[7] Thompson, L.M.: “Weather and Technology in the Production of Wheat in
the U.S.”, Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, 24, 1969, pp. 220-224;
[8] Prentice, C., W. Cramer, S. Harrington, R. Leemans, R. Monserud and A.
Solomon: “A Global Biome
Model Based on Plant Physiology and Dominance, Soil Properties and
Climate” 1992, Journal of
Biogeography 19: 117-34 and
Woodward, I., T. Smith and W. Emanuel: “A Global Land Primary Productivity
and Phytobiogeography
Model”, 1995, Global Biogeochemical Cycles 9: 471- 490
Figure 23:Wheat Prices and Solar Activity in Lower Saxony
1750 – 1850 (Ulrich Berner, Klimafakten, 2001)
The positive relationship between temperatures and grain production has
been known for
some time, dating back at least to the time on Leibnitz. Figure 23 shows
the historical
relationship between wheat prices and temperatures (Solar activity) for
local grain
(wheat) markets in Lower Saxony:
This again has been confirmed in econometric studies of the 1970’s and
since [9:
9 Heiss, K. P., “Econometric Models of Agricultural Supply: The Effects of
Price and Weather on Wheat
Production”, ECON Report to Goddard Space Flight Center, September 1977]. This point
is presented in such detail and with references to quantitative, empirical
results and
evidence, to disprove the canard being advanced that the effects of global
warming, were
it to persist, would have catastrophic consequences: the evidence therefor
is lacking. On
the contrary: even the IPCC 2001 Technical Report comes to the same
positive
conclusion as to the effects of CO2, but who would ever now from reading
the
“Summary” (pp. 198ff. of 2001 IPCC Main Report).
Over historical times – the past 5,000 years or so – the cycles between
warm and cold
periods and the coincidence of “good” periods with “warm” periods are
quite remarkable
(Figure 24):
Figure 24: Warm Periods – Good Periods?
Following the 11, 22, 87, 210, and 1470 year Solar Cycles through History
What Causes Paleoclimate Changes?
Which leaves one last, “small” problem: what “causes” the vast temperature
changes
throughout Earth’s climate history? The “temperature” variations of the
Sun Spot cycle
alone, by themselves, clearly are insufficient to explain the vast
temperature changes on
Earth: sometimes horrendous “Ice Boxes” persisting for millions of years,
preceded and
followed by eons of calm, high temperature climes, with CO2 levels
“astronomically”
higher e.g. 500-600 million years ago - the Middle Age of Climate – than
today. In
Figure 25 key climate change data for the past 400 and 70 million years
are shown:
Figure 25: Continental Glaciation, Atmospheric CO2 and Climate Change
Past 400 Million Years and 70 Million Years (IPCC 2007)
There is unanimity among all paleoclimate scientists that CO2 levels 5 to
600 million
years ago were dramatically higher than today, ten to twentyfold higher.
Temperatures
were also higher, although not by that factor when compared to today’s
relatively low
values. According to the IPCC depiction there existed two extensive “Ice
Boxes” during
this time: one about 300 million years ago, another one “today” – the past
35, five and
two million years. Other paleoclimate scientists believe there were also
periods of smaller
(little) ice ages in between, e.g. 140 million years ago.
Moving to the “Second Ice Box” shown in Figure 23, the one we are in now,
we see that
contiguous ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere formed only about three
million years
ago, in the Southern Hemisphere (the Antarctic) ten or more million years
ago (East
Antarctic). The temperature record by now can be established with
surprising accuracy
based on 10Be measurements, principally from ocean cores near and around
New
Zealand, where the worlds ocean climate forms between the Antarctic waters
and the
Pacific Ocean.
The questions are many. E.g. what triggers the dramatic descent into cold
periods? Given
the available paleoclimate record and the Vostok Ice Core data of 400,000
and now
700,000 years – we now know that CO2 is not the cause of temperature
changes. Rather,
the temperature changes cause the CO2 changes. We also know that
temperature changes
track closely Solar cycles. The relation was established in great detail
by Friis-Christensen and Knud Larsen, published in 1991. But the change in Solar
energy emitted
from the Sun in no way can explain the temperature changes on Earth.
It is here that Henrik Svensmark had a seminal “insight” twelve years ago,
in 1995: could
it be that cosmic rays caused cloud formation and changes in cloud
formation give rise to
the large swings in global temperatures? With more clouds more sunlight
would be
reflected back into Space – hence cooling, with fewer clouds, less
reflection and therefore
warming of the atmosphere (see Figure 26):
Figure 26: Henrik Svensmark’s New Paradigm on Climate Change
By studiously collecting and aggregating cloud cover data and impacts of
cosmic rays on
Earth’s atmosphere Svensmark established a strong, positive correlation
between these.
These data, first published in 1997 were updated by Svensmark and Marsh in
2003
(Figure 27):
Figure 27: Temperature Variability and (inverse) Cosmic Rays Impact 1950 –
2000
(Marsh, Svensmark 2003)
The match could not have been better. Svensmark and colleagues then
proceeded to also
provide physical proof of the generation mechanism between cosmic rays and
cloud
formation in the SKY experiment. The experiment was delayed, but in the
end successful
and – with further delays “by the establishment” - published in October
2006. Since the
others have duplicated and confirmed these results. Just out is a good
summary of these
issues by Svensmark and Calder, The Chilling Stars. [10: Henrik Svensmark und Nigel Carter, The Chilling Stars – A new Theory of
Climate Change, IKON
Books (UK) und TOTEM Books (USA), 2007.]
The same theory also helps to explain the dichotomy between global
temperature changes
worldwide vs. peculiar “reverse” trends in the Antarctic: when global
temperatures warm,
the Antarctic often tends to cool. The reason for this: whereas clouds
over oceans and
land are much whiter (reflecting) than those surfaces – hence reflect more
solar energy,
the reverse is the case in the Antarctic: the ice there is whiter, more
reflective than the
clouds, hence with more clouds actually a warming tendency in those areas.
By now Solar activity cycles have been reconstructed with reasonable
accuracy and detail
for the past 1,300 years (see Figure 15 above), but some have set their
eyes even further
back: Shaviv and Veizer extended the cosmic rays and climate change
connection all the
way back for the 4 billion plus years of Earth’s climate history.
According to their theory,
the often dramatic changes in climate can be explained by the movement of
the Solar
system through the Milky Way. When we move through heavy gravitational
zones, with
larger star formation and subsequent supernova events, things tend to cool
remarkably on
Earth and vice versa, when we move through zones of tranquility between
the major arms
of our galaxy things quite down and are in a stable steady, warm state
(Figure 28):
Figure 28: Are the major Climate Changes observed in the Paleoclimate
caused by
the Movement of the Solar System through Gravitational Arms of our Milky
Way?
(Shaviv and Veizer)
These new possibilities are breathtaking, akin to a universal Cosmologic
Theory of
Climate Change of yet incalculable implications. Most important, an
empirical, credible
“causality” would have been established.
The record so far is encouraging: 2,400 to 2,200 million years ago and
then again 750 to
580 million years ago all of Earth was a snowball, completely covered by
ice floats and
sheets. It was precisely at those times that the Solar system moved
through particularly
strong gravitational fields and star formation regions, with concurrent
strong cosmic ray
fluxes. The same occurred again about 300 million years ago, with drastic
cooling,
impact of asteroids (from nearby supernova explosions?) and mass
extinctions of marine
and land based organisms on an unprecedented scale: between 70% and 90% of
all living
organisms died out. It was also the time of the rise of mammals and other
warm blooded
creatures, since they had a better chance of making it through the cold
period, given their
use of oxidation processes to provide requisite sources of bodily energy.
Our current state of knowledge as to our Milky Way, its various arms and
the location of
our Solar system are shown in Figure 29:
Figure 29: Our Current Knowledge as to the Structure of the Milky Way –
enabled
in large part by observations in the infra-red part of the spectrum. The
“star”
indicates the approximate location of our Solar system.
In further work Svensmark established a strong relation between 13C
(biological
activities) and 18O in ocean sediments (temperature proxies). Svensmark
was able to trace
this relationship back 3,600 million years with cycles of strong Solar and
cosmic ray
activity with concurrent cold times and extensive periods of low cosmic
radiation and
Solar activities with warm periods, in total 13 periods of about 400
million years each –
with a correlation of 92%. Not bad.
Other interesting research topics arise: Shaviv’s theory would indicate a
cold period
about 140 million years ago which to-date was assumed to be a warm period
(see Figure
25 above). Since then geologic finds indicate indeed the possibility of an
Ice period at
that time: Neville Alley and Larry Frakes, University of Adelaide found
evidence of
glaciation near the Flinders Range in Western Australia dating to that
period, probably
the first time in climate theory that a climate prediction led to the
discovery of such
evidence in the climatic record.
And more: the Solar system moves in a “Dolphin” like movement up and down
the Milky
Way disk as it moves around the core, crossing the main disk every 34
million years or
so. Some cyclicity of this length is evident in the geologic record as
well.
Last but not least, at the “dawn” of mankind: some 2.8 million years ago a
close and very
strong supernova event seems to have happen, just as we were moving
through the
Pleiades constellation arm, maybe as close as a few 100 light years, our
very back yard.
It is this event which may have triggered our descent into the current
“Ice Box” of 2.75
million years of extreme cold, even with the periodic ups and downs we
discussed above.
Evidence documenting this event has been found in ocean sediments – 60Fe
isotopes
discovered and measured by Günter Korschinek and his team (Garching,
Germany).
Korschinek’s conclusion: it may have been this event that triggered the
selective survival
and adaptation mechanisms leading to hominid and then human species of
today. Other
exciting vistas have been opened herewith, with many new findings coming
in nearly
every month.
And the IPCC 2007? All the results over the past decade by Svensmark,
Veizer, Shaviv,
Marsh and many others do not even appear in the footnotes or references of
its vast
compendium: politically incorrect?
Which brings us to the last refuge of climate alarmists:
The “Precautionary Principle” – against what and what for?
The importation of the “Vorsorgeprinzip” of German sociopolitical
doctrines of the
1920’s into the English literature, similar to the other currently de
rigueur attribute
“sustainable”, seem to have sliced the links between rational arguments
based on
evidence and proposed policies: whatever the evidence, precaution dictates
that we
mutilate ourselves economically and socially through drastic CO2 and other
greenhouse
gas reductions so as to assure a good, benign future climate and world.
Well, since
-
we do not know whether the world will continue to warm,
-
global temperatures these past ten years (since 1998) have not increased
(Figure
11) and
-
the very IPCC projections buried in the Main Report indicate an
approximation of
the plotted temperature measurements to the flat, orange “zero CO2
increase”
scenario without any such restrictions (Figures 6 and 7);
-
the preponderance of evidence indicates that temperatures are causing
CO2 and
other greenhouse gas changes rather than the reverse (at least for a
complete
record of 700,000 years by now; Figures 3 and 4);
-
global warming in fact leads us back to a better, more benign future
such as we
experienced over long periods in the past (Figures 18 and 19 among others);
-
Climate Change is caused by Solar activities and the movement of our
Solar
system through the Milky Way, with sometimes vast variations in cosmic ray
impacts on Earth, over which we have no influence whatever (Figures 24
through
26);
-
A Little Ice Age with known negative effects on the environment,
biodiversity
and economic wellbeing may be around the corner (Figure 16); and
-
We cannot stop the melting of the ice, whatever we chose to do (Figure
17)
what is it then that we should be “precautionary” about and what mechanism
/measures should/can be implemented with any chance of success?
E.g., if the proposed measures of the IPCC were “effective”, they might
lead to a serious
aggravation of the next Little Ice Age, should the preponderance of the
cyclical analyses
of Climate Change be correct, including the very graphs buried by the IPCC
in the Main
Report.
Thanks, but no thanks.
© DIMaGB, HTML document
27.05.2007
nach oben
Die Seiten:
:: A.v. Alvensleben: Kohlendioxid und Klima
:: Alfons Baier, Aspekte zur "Klimakatastrophe"
:: Umweltphysik: Fakten von E.G. Beck
:: Prof. Dr. Gerhard Gerlich Aufsätze
:: Kommentar zum Artikel „Der große Schwindel“
:: IWOE, Klimakatastrophen-Märchen und
Landschaftsgestaltung
:: Klima + Politik = Nepp + Abzocke,
Klima-Betrug
:: Klima Zahlen und Fakten, 2007 + 2008
:: Aufsätze von Prof. Horst Malberg
:: Die Klimakatastrophe im Wandel der Zeit
:: Neues vom Öko-Narrenhaus
:: Dr. Thüne: Ökodiktatur, Treibhauseffekt
:: Irrtümer in der Klimatologie, CO2,
Treibhauseffekt
:: Windkraftanlagen - sündhaft teuer und
nutzlos
