By Zbigniew Jaworowski
Zbigniew Jaworowski submitted comments to CCSP-USP report - ‘Report totally ignores studies which disagree with the man-made warming hypothesis’
A striking feature of the Report is a unilateral presentation of information, with an almost exclusive concentration on greenhouse gases, and particularly on the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, as the dominant cause of the Modern Warm Period. The Report totally ignores studies which disagree with the man-made warming hypothesis.
An example of this neglect, one from among many, is a lack of information on cosmo-climatologic research. Recent studies demonstrate a powerful influence on climate of fluctuations of the muon fraction of cosmic rays, caused by variations of Sun’s activity. In the lower troposphere muons create condensation nuclei for water particles, indispensable for cloud formation. Cloudiness, which is directly related to the flux of muons, determines temperature at the surface of the Earth and in the lower troposphere. Short-term fluctuations of muon flux change the cloudiness by 3 – 4% (Svensmark and Calder, 2008). In the Report this is not discussed at all. But the relationship between climate and cosmic ray fluctuation, on the time scales from decades to centuries to millennia, is much stronger than between climate and human emissions of CO2. (Svensmark, 2007; Svensmark and Calder, 2008). Only a 2% increase in cloudiness is sufficient to cancel any climatic effect of man-made emissions of CO2 (Veizer, 2005). The activity of Sun, which was stronger during the last 60 years than for the past 1100 years (Usoskin and al., 2004; Usoskin et al., 2003), is a much more plausible cause of the Modern Warm Period than human emission of CO2. Extremely strong correlation between temperature (estimated from delta 18O in stalagmites) and radioactive carbon-14 (produced by cosmic rays in the atmosphere) indicate that the influence of Sun (modulating the cosmic ray flux) on the Earth’s temperature was about 280 times stronger than the influence of atmospheric CO2 (Mangini et al., 2005). These fundamental studies are ignored in the CCSP-USP Report, making its claim that CO2 man-made emissions are the main cause of the Modern Warming Period unsupportable.
The foundations of the CCSP-USP Report, its “fingerprints” and “human influences”, are based on ice core studies of CO2. However, ice cores are a wrong matrix for reconstruction of chemical composition of the ancient atmosphere. No effort dedicated to improving analytical techniques can change the imperative pattern of polar ice as a non-closed system matrix. Because of this pattern of ice the CO2 ice core data will always be artifacts caused by processes in the ice sheets and in the ice cores, with CO2 concentration values about 30% to 50% lower than in the original atmosphere. The low CO2 ice-core concentrations during the past interglacials, when the global temperature was warmer than now, suggest that either atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate, or that proxy ice core reconstructions of the chemical composition of the ancient atmosphere are false - both propositions are probably true.
The scenarios in the CCSP-USP draft Report are based on unreliable ice core data and on incorrect presentation of the past climatic changes. They should not be used for global economic planning. Under Information Quality Act’s terms this document is not permissibly disseminated so long as it continues to reproduce these false scenarios with the apparent imprimatur of the federal government. The requested change is: (1) to drop all the references to “human influences” and “fingerprints” as they cannot be credibly validated and are in fact empty notions; (2) to present the veritable fluctuation of climatic cold and warm phases over the past millennium; (3) to review the recent cosmo-climatologic studies, and to reflect them in the conclusions and recommendations of the Report. Without such corrections, the statements in this document fail to meet the authors’ claim of representing “the best available information” (p. 14), and “the best available evidence” (p. 15), and otherwise violate applicable objectivity requirements. Read full comments here.
By Jim Ott, JS Online
Predictably, the climate scientists on the Journal Sentinel Editorial Board endorsed the recommendations of Gov. Jim Doyle’s Global Warming Task Force ("Making it happen,” July 29). But the Editorial Board -and the task force - left out important facts you should know:
The task force was charged by the governor at the outset to assume that human use of fossil fuels is a major contributor to global warming. The fact that a significant number of climate scientists do not share this view or have serious reservations was ignored. The Editorial Board forgot to mention that there have been many dramatic natural climate variations in the past that are not fully understood, such as the “Little Ice Age” that affected Europe for several centuries.
Has the Journal Sentinel determined that natural causes of climate change are no longer relevant? Where is the science to back this up? The editorial mentioned the “recommendations” of the task force regarding nuclear energy. In fact, the task force states on page 49 that, “This recommendation is not a recommendation by the Task Force that a new nuclear power plant be built.” The easiest way to reduce greenhouse gases - increased use of nuclear energy - is clearly not a priority of the task force.
And, like the task force, the Journal Sentinel fails to make any mention of the potential cost to you or to our state’s economy if the “recommendations” are enacted into law. Isn’t this important information? Would you be willing to pay $6 a gallon for gas to fight global warming? How does a 40% increase in the cost of electricity sound? The price of virtually everything would rise. Last year, Wisconsin’s economy grew by a paltry 1%. What will raising prices, taxes and the cost of doing business do to Wisconsin’s economy?
Finally, any effort by an individual state to address global warming is pointless. Even if Wisconsin’s greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced to zero, there would be no measurable impact on global atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases and therefore no measurable effect on global temperatures. So a cost/benefit analysis of the task force’s recommendations reveals major increases in prices and taxes for consumers, massive growth in state government rules and regulations and no impact or benefit to Earth’s climate. Regardless of how you feel about “global climate change”, the task force’s recommendations are a recipe for disaster.
Jim Ott, formerly a meteorologist with WTMJ-TV (Channel 4), represents Wisconsin’s 23rd Assembly district.
By Sen. James Inhofe
Fellow Oklahoma native T. Boone Pickens is back in the news and hitting the airwaves with an energy idea that I believe is pure common sense. Pickens believes, like I do, that as Americans continue to suffer from high gas prices, we need to take advantage of our abundant, domestic supply of natural gas for use as a transportation fuel. The promise of natural gas as a mainstream transportation fuel is achievable today—not 15 or 20 years from now. From Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) powered cars, to semi-trucks running on liquefied natural gas (LNG), no other commercially viable fuel burns cleaner.
America has massive reserves of natural gas. The latest report (Sept. 2007) from the Potential Gas Committee at the Colorado School of Mines identifies 82 years of natural gas supply at current rates of production. Canada’s reserves hold an additional 40 years’ supply. Raymond James Equity Research recently reported that they hold a “bearish outlook for U.S. natural gas prices.” After examining the future supply of domestic production, they released a May 19, 2008, energy report which concluded, “...we continue to see unprecedented growth in U.S. gas production that will eventually overwhelm the U.S. gas markets.”
In 2007, 130,000 Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs) were operating on America’s roads consuming just 0.052 percent. NGV America states that, “even if that number were to increase 100-fold in the next ten years to 11,000,000, or roughly 5 percent of the entire vehicle market (a formidable goal), the impact on natural gas supplies and the natural gas delivery infrastructure would be small—equating about 4 percent of total U.S. natural gas consumption.”
The good news about natural gas as a transportation fuel, in addition to being abundant and clean, is that it is inexpensive. In April, the Department of Energy reported that the average nationwide price of a gallon of gas equivalent to CNG was just $2.04 per gallon. In some regions of the country prices are even lower -in Rocky Mountain States CNG costs average just $1.26 per gallon. In fact, many state and local governments, businesses, and consumers have been able to cut their fuel bills by more than half when utilizing natural gas as a transportation fuel. In my hometown of Tulsa, OK, for example, a person can currently refuel their CNG powered cars for just 91 cents per gallon. With gasoline prices currently hovering over $4, those are significant savings for consumers.
To help make CNG a reality, I have introduced the Drive America on Natural Gas Act, legislation that encourages the use of natural gas as a transportation fuel and sends a signal to auto manufacturers to produce and sell these vehicles domestically. Today’s regulatory burdens are daunting for those in the business of converting vehicles to run on CNG or LNG, so my bill streamlines burdensome EPA emissions certifications required for the conversion of vehicles to natural gas. The bill also establishes a natural gas research, development, and demonstration program to assist manufacturers in emissions certification, examine and improve the current nationally recognized safety codes and standards, and advance the reliability and efficiency of natural gas fueling station infrastructure.
Read more here.