(Here is an excerpt of part of a talk I gave in San Francisco (15 Nov. ‘05) on the occasion of Crichton’s State of Fear novel being issued as a paperback)

See full size image here

Michael Crichton has been one of my heroes.  He attained hero status with me because of his Caltech Michelin Lecture of January 2003 titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming”, his State of Fear novel, and his many recent lectures, TV interviews, etc.  His writings and discussions on global warming and other topics illustrated so well why we should be so skeptical of what we read in the papers and what we hear from government officials about science, and particularly global warming.

Never have I read and heard more penetrating and insightful analyses as to where we stand today with regard to the dangers of politics in science and of the attempted justification of reality on global warming from scientific consensus.  Here is a man who touched a sensitive nerve in my psyche.  A psyche that has been seething with disgust for 20 years at what was going on within the so called ‘science’ of nuclear winter and global warming.  Here was somebody who saw through all the media-hype, the opportunism, the phoniness, the lies, the twisting and misrepresentation of data, the propagandizing to the uninformed, etc, etc.  I had found a kindred spirit.

Current Comment (10 Nov ‘08) – I feel a great loss at Michael Crichton’s passing.  He showed great courage at standing up for truth and science against severe criticism from the establishment.  His example gives inspiration to the rest of us.

Download PDF here.

Al Gore gathered $300 million to share the “truth” of man-induced climate change.  He now warns of irreversible damage to the earth if dramatic action isn’t taken before 2020.  These echo the overwrought Y2K panacea which cost billions, but vanished overnight.  NASA satellite temperature data confirms that atmospheric temperatures have dropped to the lowest values since 1979 when NASA started collecting data.  While man-made models guarantee catastrophic global warming due to elevated CO2; recent satellite data show significant and rapid atmospheric cooling. NASA data also shows recent ocean cooling attributed to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Some scientists observe that atmospheric cooling correlates best with decreased solar activity and subsequent cooling of ocean temperatures. They suggest the sun heats the earth, heat is stored and released by the oceans, which moderate weather and atmospheric temperatures. An innocuous gas, which serves as a plant nutrient and occurs in trace amounts (0.04 weight %) so far has an immeasurable effect on anything but rhetoric of progressive politicians and radical environmentalists.

Main stream media report little at odds with the theory.  Millions of research dollars hinge on tacit acceptance of the theory.  Skeptics with the temerity to question the theory may expect ad hominem attacks.  But recent years have seen a sharp increase in the release of scientific facts and testimonies questioning the theory of man-induced climate change.  It is at last clear that there is no ‘consensus’ of scientists on climate change.

Fortunately, the internet has transformed and accelerated information sharing.  Inquiring minds have a variety of sources that present new information, none of which documents warming effects due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  Many web sites and blogs are interlinked. [i.e. icecap.us, heartland.org, climatescienceinternationl.org ].  The explosion of interest in the topic has spawned numerous seminars and books, many attacking the theory.  For a theory to be scientific, it must be testable and falsifiable.  The theory of global warming is being tested and data proves it is coming up short. Worldwide, thousands of scientists testify to its falsehood, both in theory and practice.  [See Rich Trzupek’s slide presentation at Heartland.org]

Invitation:  While the theory of man-induced global climate change may be a casualty here, the greater casualty is Science itself.  The scientific community and media have taken the world for a costly ride.  The environmental community may have said ‘the sky is falling’ once too often.  Trust, once lost, can take time to restore.  I invite members of LM-AWMA to provide necessary leadership by abandoning prejudice, embracing the truth and speaking out.

Contributor: William K. Graham, P.E., Past Chair LM-AWMA

See much more in the IMAWMA newsletter 3rd quarter newsletter here.

For years, David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists. His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. Here he reveals why - and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change. “When I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn’t believe what we were being told about global warming I had no idea what the consequences would be. I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions. According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that? The sad fact is that since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming I’ve not been allowed to make a TV programme. 

At the beginning of this year there was a BBC show with four experts saying: “This is going to be the end of all the ice in the Arctic,” and hypothesising that it was going to be the hottest summer ever. Was it hell! It was very cold and very wet and now we’ve seen evidence that the glaciers in Alaska have started growing rapidly - and they’ve not grown for a long time.

I’ve seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. This makes me think the global warmers are telling lies - carbon dioxide is not the driver.

The idiot fringe have accused me of being like a Holocaust denier, which is ludicrous. Climate change is all about cycles, it’s a natural thing and has always happened. When the Romans lived in Britain they were growing very good red grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland. It was evidently a lot warmer. If you were sitting next to me 10,000 years ago we’d be under ice. So thank God for global warming for ending that ice age; we wouldn’t be here otherwise. People such as former American Vice-President Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming - which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if you’ve got no proof. And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science. 

The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I’m still an environmentalist, I’m still a Green and I’m still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming “problem” that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world. Read more here.

Marc Morano has alerted us to an interesting contradiction with respect to how landscape affects the climate system which he headlines “Subject: Which is it? Trees Cool Or Heat the Planet? Studies Give Contradictory Results “. His comment is illustrated by the two studies:

1. Northern Forests May Increase Temperatures by 10 Degrees by 2100, New Study Says; Deforestation Could Cool the Planet [April 9 2007]

This article includes the text

“Forests on certain parts of the planet may actually warm the Earth, according to researchers from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in a study released today. According to the study, forests in mid- to high-latitude locations - such as boreal forests of Canada, Scandinavia and Siberia - may actually create a net warming. The study concludes that by the year 2100, these mid- and high- latitude forests may make some places up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than would have occurred if the forests did not exist. The research, led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory atmospheric scientist Govindasamy Bala, appears in the April 9-13 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”

2. Chemical released by trees can help cool planet, scientists find : Scientists discover cloud-thickening chemicals in trees that could offer a new weapon in the fight against global warming [October 31 2008]

The text in this article states “Trees could be more important to the Earth’s climate than previously thought, according to a new study that reveals forests help to block out the sun. Scientists in the UK and Germany have discovered that trees release a chemical that thickens clouds above them, which reflects more sunlight and so cools the Earth. The research suggests that chopping down forests could accelerate global warming more than was thought, and that protecting existing trees could be one of the best ways to tackle the problem. Dominick Spracklen, of the Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science at Leeds University, said: ‘We think this could have quite a significant effect. You can think of forests as climate air conditioners.’

Spracklen said the team’s computer models showed that the pine particles doubled the thickness of clouds some 1,000m above the forests, and would reflect an extra 5% sunlight back into space. He said: ‘It might not sound a lot, but that is quite a strong cooling effect. The climate is such a finely balanced system that we think this effect is large enough to reduce temperatures over quite large areas. It gives us another reason to preserve forests.’ The research, which will be published in a special edition of the Royal Society journal Philosophical Transactions A, is the first to quantify the cooling effect of the released chemicals. The scientists say the findings “must be included in climate models in order to make realistic predictions”. What these two studies actually tell us is that

Humans can alter the Earth’s climate system in very signficant ways by changing the landscape. This important scientific conclusion has been essentially ignored in the IPCC and CCSP assessments. An overview of this issue was reported on, for example, in Pielke Sr., R.A., 2005: Land use and climate change. Science, 310, 1625-1626. See full post here.

Climate Change: It’s been a bad year for global warming alarmists. Record cold periods and snowfalls are occurring around the globe. The hell that the radicals have promised is freezing over.Read More: Global Warming As the British House of Commons debated a climate-change bill that pledged the United Kingdom to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050, London was hit by its first October snow since 1922. Apparently Mother Nature wasn’t paying attention. The British people, however, are paying attention - to reality. A poll found that 60% of them doubt the claims that global warming is both man-made and urgent. Elsewhere, the Swiss lowlands last month received the most snow for any October since records began. Zurich got 20 centimeters, breaking the record of 14 centimeters set in 1939.

Ocala, Fla., experienced its second-lowest October temperature since 1850. October temperatures fell to record lows in Oregon as well. On Oct. 10, Boise, Idaho, got the earliest snow in its history - 1.7 inches. That beat the old record by seven-tenths of an inch and one day on the calendar. In the Southern Hemisphere, where winter was winding down, Durban, South Africa, had its coldest September night in history in the middle of the month. Some regions of the country had unusual late-winter snows. A month earlier, New Zealand officials reported that Mount Ruapehu had its largest snow base ever.

At the top of the world, the International Arctic Research Center reported last month, there was 29% more Arctic sea ice this year than last. None of this matters, of course, to the warming zealots. It doesn’t matter if it’s too dry or too wet, too hot or too cold. All of it, they say, is caused by global warming. We believe, however, as do many reputable scientists, that the warming and cooling of the Earth is a natural phenomenon dictated by forces beyond our control, from ocean currents to solar activity.  The latest warming trend, which appears to have ended in 1998, is the result of the end of the Little Ice Age, which extended from roughly the 16th century to the 19th. During that period, Muir Glacier in Alaska filled Glacier Bay. In fact, when the first Russian explorers arrived in Alaska in the 1740s, there was no Glacier Bay — just a wall of ice where the entrance would be. As the Earth warmed, long before SUVs roamed the globe, Alaska’s glaciers also warmed and began to recede, starting in the 1800s. All that may be changing. During the winter and summer of 2007-2008, unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually cold temperatures in June, July and August.  “In June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound,” says U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. “On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July.” It was the worst summer he’d seen in two decades.  As the Anchorage Daily News reports, “Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind if snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.” It’s been “a long time on most glaciers,” Molnia says, “where they’ve actually had positive mass balance.” In other words, more snow is falling in the winter than melts in the summer, making the glaciers thicker in the middle.  Glaciers can appear to be shrinking even as they are growing. Photos taken from ships can record receding edges even as mass is building inland. When they get thick enough, the weight forces the glacier to advance. 

The U.S. may owe its ascension to a global power on the global warming that began with the end of the Little Ice Age, which almost doomed the American Revolution. George Washington’s famous winter at Valley Forge was part of that natural phenomenon. As the climate warmed from 1800 to 1900, the U.S. tripled in size, spreading westward to straddle a continent. The population of the windy and very cold trading post known as Chicago grew from 4,000 in 1800 to 1.5 million by 1900, sitting on a great lake carved by glaciers long since receded. Due to a decline in solar activity and other factors, the Earth is cooling and has been since 1998. And a peer-reviewed study published in April by Nature predicts the world will continue cooling at least through 2015.  Now, if only we could get the warming alarmists to face facts and cool it as well.

The torrential rains of a single typhoon can bury tons of carbon in the ocean, two new studies suggest. It’s Nature’s way of healing itself. The findings help determine how much carbon that big storms have historically taken from the atmosphere and buried for thousands of years beneath the sea.

Se larger image here

More carbon could be buried by these storms if global warming increases their intensity and frequency, as some scientists have predicted. Scientists have been looking at ways to store carbon to lower the levels of carbon dioxide building up in Earth’s atmosphere.

Scientists have long suspected that hurricanes and typhoons (along with cyclones and tropical depressions, these are all versions of storm systems called tropical cyclones) can cleanse the environment of a lot of carbon, because their rains sweep soil and plant material into rivers and then out to sea. This effect is particularly significant for mountainous islands prone to frequent hits from tropical cyclones.

Two different groups of researchers took samples of the sediment in rushing river waters on Taiwan during Typhoon Mindulle, which hit the island in July 2004. One group, whose findings are detailed in the Oct. 19 issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, took sediment samples from the LiWu River, while the other group, whose work is detailed in the June 2008 issue of the journal Geology, sampled the Chosui River.

The amount of carbon contained in that sediment is about 95 percent as much as the river transports during normal rains over the entire year. That works out to more than 400 tons of carbon washing away during the storm for each square mile of the watershed, the researchers reported. Their work was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation. The carbon in the soil and plants came from carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When the storm washes the sediment out to sea, it can sink down to the deep ocean, where it will eventually compact and form rocks that can store that carbon for millions of years.

If typhoons and hurricanes do become more intense or frequent, as some models have indicated, the burial of carbon in the ocean from storm runoff could counteract some part of the warming, by locking the carbon away in the deep ocean, the researchers of the Nature Geoscience study said. Read more here.

Icecap Note: See how hurricane frequency and major hurricanes change on a cyclical basis tied to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

See larger image here

Mother Jones: You’ve said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change didn’t quite get it.

Roger A. Pielke Sr.: I think the IPCC was basically a very narrowly focused document. In fact it was basically written mostly by atmospheric scientists. And they’re focusing on a very narrow issue where the atmospheric increase of CO2 feeds down to affect the climate that has all these effects on resources, and I think that is so narrowly confined as to be of little use to policymakers in terms of what’s really going to happen.

MJ: Can you give me an example of some of the things you thought they left out?

RAP: Okay, I’ll give you the example of Asia. If you go back 200 years ago, China and India had lots of natural forests. As the population grew, large areas of China and India had been converted to cropland and urban areas. So what happens is instead of having this source of transpiration of water from the forests, you’ve converted it to areas that have less transpiration of water. And this has been shown with general circulation models. The same kind of models that have been used by the IPCC. It says that if you change how much energy goes into heating in the atmosphere versus water vapor coming in from transpiration, it affects thunderstorm clouds over the region, which affects the monsoon circulation, which affects the weather patterns, the rainfall over Asia, and since that affects what happens over the North Pacific and downstream, it affects the global climate system. Amazon deforestation is the same thing. And in the US, we’ve taken areas in the eastern two-thirds of the US, and we’ve had huge conversion of landscape. We’ve taken away the forest that was in the east. We’ve done model studies there and shown that this has an enormous affect on temperature, on precipitation. Wherever you do a landscape change, it changes the fluxes of energy and moisture into the atmosphere. That changes cloud patterns, changes rainfall patterns, and so forth, and so it affects weather locally, regionally, and then through the global circulation.

MJ: So it’s not that you are a “global warming skeptic”; it’s that you think that global warming has been hyped at the expense of other problems.

RAP: That’s exactly right. I would also add that climate change is much more than global warming. We have altered the climate significantly, say by land-use change, without changing the global average surface temperature, yet it has big impacts. So I definitely think that we humans have altered the climate system. I think we have a strong component that has been warming-for some reason, it has stopped. And I don’t understand the reasons why.

MJ: I remember hearing that last year was the warmest year on record, and a few years before that was the warmest year on record. I hadn’t heard that global warming has stopped.

RAP: Josh Willis is one of the people I’ve worked with in the past, and he has a paper that came out recently that showed that at least since mid-2004, the upper oceans have not warmed. The trouble with the surface temperature that you hear about in the news is that it has all kinds of biases in it. It’s got a warm bias because of the land-use change that occurs, when they measure these sites, the actual locations have…they’re right next to buildings, right next to air conditioners. That data is, I think, extremely poor. The media has picked up on that particular metric, which is not the proper metric. If you look at the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, the troposphere hasn’t warmed up for about 10 years. So the data is conflicting with what the popular perception is. And I think that’s the real risk. If that would continue, if these metrics, Arctic ice melting, all these things, don’t behave the way people have claimed, then as you’ve said before, there’s a risk that some really good things could be lost, that we should do anyway.

Read more here.

Abstract:  Tree rings provide a primary data source for reconstructing past climates, particularly over the past 1,000 years. However, divergence has been observed in twentieth century reconstructions. Divergence occurs when trees show a positive response to warming in the calibration period but a lesser or even negative response in recent decades. The mathematical implications of divergence for reconstructing climate are explored in this study. Divergence results either because of some unique environmental factor in recent decades, because trees reach an asymptotic maximum growth rate at some temperature, or because higher temperatures reduce tree growth. If trees show a nonlinear growth response, the result is to potentially truncate any historical temperatures higher than those in the calibration period, as well as to reduce the mean and range of reconstructed values compared to actual. This produces the divergence effect. This creates a cold bias in the reconstructed record and makes it impossible to make any statements about how warm recent decades are compared to historical periods. Some suggestions are made to overcome these problems.

Studies have documented divergence across much of the upper northern hemisphere (but not at all sites), though dendroclimatic studies are rare in warmer
climates (see Feeley et al. 2007) so this geographic restriction does not mean it is restricted to the far north. Reduced tree growth in response to warmer temperature was found in Alaska after ∼1950 by Lloyd and Fastie (2002), by Wilson and Luckman (2003) in Canada, and in Siberia since 1970 (Jacoby et al. 2000), among other places. In a recent circumpolar satellite survey covering 1982 to 2003 (Bunn andGoetz 2006), it was found that tundra areas showed increased photosynthetic activity, but forested areas showing a change evinced decreased photosynthesis and this effect was greater where tree density was higher. This effect probably reflects moisture limitations at higher temperatures. In some places trees appear inherently insensitive to temperature (e.g. Berg et al. 2007).

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the nonlinear response of trees to temperature explains the divergence problem, including cases where divergence was not found. The analysis here also shows why non-tree ring proxies often show the Medieval Warm Period but tree ring-based reconstructions more often do not.While Fritts (1976) notes the parabolic tree growth response to temperature, recent discussions of the divergence problem have not focused on this mechanism and climate reconstructions continue to be done using a linear response model. When the divergence problem clearly indicates that the linearity assumption is questionable, it is not good practice to carry on as if linearity is an established fact. Read full analysis here.