Fenster schließen  |  Fenster drucken

POSTED 2006-03-28T19:23:21

A second occurred around 1200 AD when Viking ships could still pass many straights in Southern Greenland. Many sailing routes now ice covered were depicted or recorded in a variety of Norse documents from 1200 to 1400 AD. These were still depicted in 1666 on, “A map of the regions and countries round the North Pole by John Seller Hydrographer to the King.”

The world has warmed since 1680 but not because of CO2 and the warming is well within natural variability. Temperatures for Armagh from 1796 illustrate the pattern and also refute the hockey stick claim of 20th century warming.

Extend the record back to 1880 and a very different picture appears.

Notice the increase from 1880 to 1940 when temperatures were higher than today. Consensus in the 1970s was we were heading for catastrophic cooling because of the trend from 1940. Polar bears survived the warming from 1880 but they also survived earlier more dramatic warming, as did the circumpolar aboriginal people.

Comments about sea level rising, as arctic sea ice melts are illogical: the ice is already in the water. Besides half the ice melts every single summer with no change. It changes from 16 million square kilometers in winter to less than 6 million sq. km in summer.

Selectivity also applies to the comment that we have had the lowest August ice coverage on record. Not the lowest on record, just the lowest for August. Ice had already started to form in September so it won’t be the lowest year on record. Look at the graph and you see lower coverage in several years.

Take part of the temperature curve and the location out of context and you can convince unknowing people of anything.

Mark Twain never said everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it. It’s one of many false attributions. Rather, Twain would understand the paraphrase that everybody talks about the weather but few know little about it because he wrote that “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.”

The campaign to inflict a political agenda using the scare tactics of impending doom failed with Kyoto. It’s also failing as the accumulation of scientific evidence that CO2 from human sources is not the cause of climate change. More the ‘ice is melting’ stories will appear as proponents of global warming due to anthropogenic see points of political no return approaching.

If the threat of sea level rise is too detached an appeal to emotion there are other usually more effective approaches. In The Cooling, Ponte wrote, It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance: the survival of ourselves, our children, our species. Change the word “cooling” in the first sentence to warming and exactly the same appeals are made today. We all care about our children, but using that care to carry a point suggests those who won’t listen don’t care. If the children are not threatened then what about animals, especially those with high anthropogenic qualities or with strong public relations appeal. Dolphins and Pandas are good examples. Grizzlies and Polar Bears are less appealing but have high public recognition – they are almost symbolic.

Melting arctic sea ice threatening Polar bears thus becomes heavy emotional ammunition. But what are the realities? A leading Canadian authority on polar bears, Mitch Taylor, as reported in the Scotsman (Feb 7, 2005) says: "We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented, and in places where we’re seeing a decrease in the population it’s from hunting, not from climate change." “Mr. Taylor estimates that during the past decade, the Canadian polar bear population has increased by 25 per cent - from 12,000 to 15,000 bears.” Reports of Polar Bears with less body weight and apparently emaciated are reportedly due to this overpopulation relative to the food supply. My own research shows animal populations fluctuating dramatically resulting in a ‘boom or bust’ cycle of life for the aboriginal people of northern North America.

Similar elevations of hysteria and focus on out of context threats of doom occurred to swing public opinion after the G8 communiqué said energy policies would react as the scientific evidence justifies and before the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is delivered. Prime Minister Blair further fueled the reaction by saying Kyoto and similar plans won’t work. From 28 November to December 9, Canada hosted the first meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in Montréal in conjunction with the eleventh session of the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention. They effectively ignored the growing evidence that CO2 and especially the human portion has nothing to do with climate change. Yury Izrael, Director, Global Climate and Ecology Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences and IPCC Vice President said there is no evidence of a human signal. Hopefully, this voice of reason and evidence will overcome hysteria because IPCC has started work on the next report due in 2007. Their most recent document included the totally discredited ‘hockey stick’ as evidence of the human signal. This was an egregious misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the data, so that if the authors knew or didn’t know they have culpability.

To conclude, I urge you to consider the previous points in this letter when considering environmental policy. Sound, sensible, well-founded policies are not made when most people don’t understand the science. Furthermore, the work of scientists is exacerbated when their data is taken out of context, manipulated or presented in highly charged emotional ways.

Climate change and subsequent policy are probably the most affected examples. The final major context policymakers need to know is that climate changes significantly and naturally all the time. The current philosophical view of the world is Hutton’s uniformitarianism, and it underlies all scientific and other teaching. This means we learn and believe that change is gradual over long periods of time. As a result when a sudden or dramatic change occurs extremists, or people with agendas can say that is “not natural,” therefore it must be something humans are doing.

Best Regards,

Dr. Tim Ball
aus der Diskussion: Globale Erwärmung durch Treibhauseffekt - nur ein Mythos der Linken?
Autor (Datum des Eintrages): spicault  (27.06.06 23:32:43)
Beitrag: 8 von 46,962 (ID:22307511)
Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr © wallstreet:online