Por Eduardo Ferreyra
President of FAECAccording to the IPCC, Earth's temperatures are increasing in a dangerous way as never before in this millenium claiming that the increase since 1880 has been 1,5º C, and that it will reach 5,8º C by the year 2100.
Is it true? Or just ghosts for scaring children?
The prospect that the prophesized increase in temperatures may become real is truly scaring. But this prophecy has the same validity as getting to know the future through the Tarot cards, reading the coffee remains, or chicken guts because the scientific base on which this prophecy stands simply does not exist. Personnally, when it comes to future climate, I rather bet my chips on Tarot cards than in the IPCC's general circulation models.
This hypothesis of the catastrophic global warming has been scientifically refuted so many times that we have lost the count. However, the IPCC and its cohorts charge again and again, unaffected. Nothing deters them, not even the constant exposure of their bias, flaws and pseudo scientific frauds. As the last blunder suffered by the IPCC through the debunkiing of its cherised Mann et al., study, the now infamous 1988 "Hockey Stick", the "scientific" base on which this body of serious political scientists rest its claim that the the 20th Century was the warmest in the present Millinium". Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick exposed the flawed methodology used by Mann and his colleagues, demonstrating that the study borders with the deliberated scientific fraud.
Figure 1: Mann`s graph, blessed by the IPCC has the proof of the uncontrolled temperature increase in the last 100 years, and undisputed evidence that the temperature increase will be catastrophic. Note that the yellow area indicates de "error margin" in the temperature reconstruction made by Mann et al. With an error margin of such magnitude, Mann`s team could have demonstrated anything they wanted.
Mann et al., graph, as corrected by McIntyre and McKitrick, clearly shows that the 20th Century is far, very far from being the warmest in the Millenium:
Figure 2: Mann et al. graph, as corrected according the new data reviewed by McIntyre and McKitrick in August 2003. The yellow area with a red border corresponds to the Mann et al. paper, while the light blue area with a dark blue border is the new version with the real proxy data. It was porved that between the years 850 and 1400, and between 1450 and 1500, global temperature was higher than in the 20th Century - in as much as 2º C.
But, for the 20th Century to have been the warmest in the millenium, there must have been tremendously high temperaturas recorded in most parts of the world - for a simple mathematical reason: the average issue. There is something that does not fit in the theory. Weather stations around the world can be divided in four main categories:
- Those showing no trend at all,
- Those showing a cooling trend, either slight or steep.
- Those showing a slight warming trend within what it is considered a natural variation, and
- Those showing a great temperature increase that finally provide the basis for claiming that the Earth is warming dangerously.
Adding up categories 1 + 2 + 3 gives an overwhelming majority in surface weather stations, spread along the firm land of the planet because in the oceans there are no weather stations, and the few ships cruising them measuring water temperatures can be dismissed. This lead us to realize that almost 75% of the Earth does not have temperature records.
Records: Where Are They?
The IPCC always uses the same temperature graph for claiming that the warming is catastrophic based, for their misfortune, in the flawed paper by Mann et al., and whose graph is the following. Remember it, becasue you are watching one of the greatest frauds in modern history.
Figure 2: Graph by the IPCC, based in the Hockey Stick by Mann et al.
There is another important matter for proving the lack of serious science within the IPCC: the United States has the most advanced, organized, updated and perfect weather station network in the world. It has highly trained, specialized, and efficient personnel. The result of their work can be appreciated in the following temperature trend graph in that country:
Figure 3: United States Temperatures, according to GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies, NASA)
The following is the same NOAA graph and its trend since 1895 until 1996, where it can be seen that the warming up to date has been 0.1º C, what can be considered a temperature variation absolutely normal, with no reason for alarm.
As it can be clearly seen, the warming trend in the USA - a very big portion of the planet, that has the best temperature records in the world, is merely 0,1º C since 1895. But measuring from 1880, the trend is 0.3º C for those 123 years. 1880 is precisely one of the coldest in the 19th Century, an ideal starting point for any suggestive global warming trend. As it has been demonstrated in this same website, if the starting point of the trend scale were in the year 1781 or around the middle of the 18th Century, the trend for more than 230 years would be a mere 0.6º C, or its equivalent of 0,3º C per century.
Proofs on the Table
It is important the number of weather stations that show cooling or no visible change in tempera-tures of many regions. We will show following a series of temperature charts plotted from records found in the GISS, and their trends in thumbnail size. You can click on any graph to get a full screen enlargement for a better analysis. It is a random sampling of different regions of the Earth, trying to give a representative image of global temperatures.
If any reader has the data and figures of other stations showing a strong warming, we beg him to send us that data by email, either as an Excell file (.xlm), Works, or simply a text file. We'll plot those temperatures and will post them here, at the end of the article, in an attachment named “Reader's contribution”, giving the proper credit to the contributor. For this, please click here and let your mail program do the rest of the job.
The IPCC should give the data of stations with very high temperatures that can over compensate for the great number of weather stations that show no change or even cooling. Once it has done it given those records and stations really exist, then we could see that those records and stations suffer from the well known "urban heat island effect ", the accumulation and temperature buildup of almost 6º C - that occur in great urban centers. Although the IPCC and its friends refuse to consider this effect as significant, (acknowledge the importance of this effect would render its theory useless, and would be like shooting one's foot), even the boys in primary school know that the open country is always much cooler than the city, and that in big cities it is hard to sleep on hot summer nights, while their cousins in the ranch are having a ball.
Listing (Provisional) of Analyzed Stations and Their Trends:
(The number between bracketts corresponds to its place in the world map)
- (4) Adelaide, Australia (1857-1998): 1,0º C
- (5) Amundsen Base, Antarctica (1951-2000): 1º C
- (6) Bikaner, India (1857-1999): + 0,9º C
- (7) Brisbane, Australia (1950-2001): 0,2º C
- (2) Calipuerto, Colombia (1960-2003): 0,7º C
- (8) Chosi, Japan (1897-1995): + 0,7º C
- (9) Coldbay, Alaska (1942-1999): + 0,9º C -- (Sin embargo: desde 1979: 0,6º C)
- (10) Concord, N.H., EEUU; (1871-2002): 0,15º C
- (11) Danmarkshavn, Greenland (1951-2002): + 0,25º C
- (12) Darbhanga, India (1876-1995): 0,25º C
- (3) Debrecen, Hungary (18953-2000): 0.2º C
- (13) Eastman, Ga, EEUU (1903-2000): 1º C
- (14) Franz Joseph Land, Arctic rim (1958-1999): + 1º C
- (15) Hama, Syria (1952-1999): 1.3º C
- (16) Horta, Azores Islands (1902-1993): 0,2º C
- (17) Reyjkyavik, Iceland (1901-2002): 0,3º C
- (1) Johannesburgo, South Africa (1949-2001): 0,1º C
- (18) Juan Fernández, Pacific Ocean, Chile (1901-2002): 0,25º C
- (19) Antananarivo, Madagascar (1889-2000): 0,7º C
- (20) Marruecos, North Africa (1924-2000): 0,25º C
- (26) Luga, Malta (1853-2002): + 0,1º C
- (21) Nanning, China (1922-2002): 0,2º C
- (22) Newkirk, Ga, EEUU (1930-1993): 1,3º C
- (23) Ostrov-Vize, Russia (1951-2000): 0,8º C
- (27) Punta Arenas, Chile (1888-2001): 0,6º C
- (24) Santa Rosa, La Pampa, Argentina (1941-2000): 0,0º C
- (28) Trelew, Patagonia (1901-2001): + 0,7º C
- (29) Willows, California (1878-2000): 0,7º C
- (25) Valentia, Ireland (1870-2001): + 0,2º C
- (30) Yukon, Canada (1942-2002): +1,0º C
- (31) Base Vostok, Antarctica (1958-1999): 0,5º C
- (32) Salehard, Siberia, (1883-2003) +0,9º C
- (33) Boromo, Burkina Faso, Africa, (1951-2001) +0,4º C
- (34) Willis, Islas Salomon, South Pacific, (1939-2002) 0,0º C
- (35) Dikson, North coast, Russia,, (1917-1995) +0,2º C
- (36) Kirensk, Siberia, Russia, (1892-2002) 0,5º C
- (37) Tura, Russia,, (1927-2000) +0,8º C
This article continues in a listing of 385 records from weather stations and their respective temperature charts and trends in the page: "Ghost Temperatures 2".
Stations showing long range temperature increase
(within a natural variation range):
However, Cold Bay, Alaska, that shows a moderate warming since 1942 until 1979, shows a steady cooling since then: 0,6º C for only 23 years!
Stations Showing Little
or No Temperature Increase:
Stations Showing a
Strong Temperature Decrease:
The conclusion is we could not find enough weather stations records with temperatures so high as to overcompesate the great number of records showing strong colling or no trend at all. Such records with such high temperatures are real "ghosts" - everybody talks about them, but no one has ever seen them..
The IPCC climatic models did not predicted strong coolings, as the CO2 linear increasing trend made the models predict a sustained and linear increase in temperature.
The stubborn refusal of the Earth's climate to cooperate with those expensive models, and temperatures measured and observed in real life, made the "modellers" introduce changes in their toys so they could "predict" sporadic coolings and, in that manner, keep alive the illusion that there is some science behind their models - although their "science" is unable to explain why none of the previous predictions have never even got close of real world observations.
According to the new "greenhouse paradigm", the "warming" will provoke terrible ice polar cold spells, as the ones that punished Europe and the northeast of North America during the 2003-2004 winter, breaking records 100 years old. This paradigm is, in few words, like boiling water in our kettle in order to get ice cubes for our Scotch or, if you want an ice cold beer... put it in your oven!
However, and in spite of how absurd this sounds to the people's common sense, the tricky adjustements in newer models predict there will be an increase of cold temperatures caused by the warming. There are no too much explanations (sufficiently supported by basic science) that has been given by the "climate warmers" in order to justify this absurdity. Only an appeal to their "scientific credentials" (we are the consensus... this is out of discussion... )(?) and a brutal discrediting campaign against "skeptics" of the catastrophic climate change, accusing them of being in the payroll of oil companies or industrial corporations.
Oddly enough, the oil company ENRON, until its fraudulent bankrupcy, was financing handsomely the Pew Center of Climate Change, one of the strongest and most vocal organizations lobbying for the deceased Kyoto Protocol. The Pew Center was also being financed by the Sun Petroleum Co., belonging to the McArthur family, owner of the Pew Charitable Trust. Seeing this, the Oil Connection does not seem to have too much sense, as they finance with all generosity both sides of the debate.
Moreover, it is no novelty that Maurice Strong, former secretary of the Earth Summit Río 92 has huge interests in oil companies, and that Atlantic Richfield owned by Robert Anderson, die hard environmentalist and Kyoto proponent, both finance misinforming campaigns about "global warming".
And last, that lack of information about the precise way in which they build the averages for globalize temperatures, and which are the stations they use and which they leave out, is an issue pending verification - and some explaining by the IPCC.
¿What About Common Sense?
Something that remains out of the ongoing debate "warming by CO2 levels increase" is common sense; those simple questions whose answers, once known, everybody say "Why didn't I think of that before?". Those questions have the nasty habit of destroying beautiful theories and puncture hot air baloons. Simple reasonings that demand simple answers - but concrete ones. Let us see:
GHG (GreenHouse Gases) theory claims that CO2 holds atmospheric heat and prevents it from escaping to outerspace. However, it does not quantify this directly, ie: "CO2 capacity for holding heat is equivalent to 30% of the total heat retention capacity of the atmosphere." No. They have to do it in a more complicated manner, so lay people cannot understand it immediately. They do it attributing to CO2 an alleged "radiative forcing" equivalent now to an increase of 1,46 w/m2 compared with CO2 concentrations that existed around 1750, that is, 280 ppm against present 372,33 ppm. Actually, those figures mean nothing to common people, that see things in a more simpler way.
If we accept “global warmer's” thesis, then CO2 holds and stores heat making Earth's temperature rise. That's fine, but, why some years global temperature go up and other years go down; other years remain stable, then go down up and down again, sometimes to record levels? If we take a look at Reykjavik, Iceland (see temperature graphs clicking here ).
In 1970 average temperature in Reykjavik was 3,95º C, and rose in 1971 to 4,65º C and 5,2º C in 1972. That increase was caused by CO2 increase between 1970 and 1972? Although that's not the case, we are going to accept it – for the time being. But then the temperature decrease in 1973 to 4.4º C and ulterior sustained temperature decrease until 2.95º C in 1979, was caused then by a decrease in CO2 levels, or was there another reason? As the IPCC never gets tired of claiming that global temperature is artificially provoked by man's activities, and that Sun's influence on climate is negligible, then the IPCC and its followers consider there are not natural causes for climatic change on Earth.
It follows then that, according to GHG theory, the main and almost unique greenhouse gas forcing climate change and temperature increase is CO2. So inside the general circulation models (GCM) that claim to simulate the atmosphere and the climate, there is no explanation for Iceland temperature decrease between 1972 and 1979. In the global warming script this possibility is absent. Temperatures must increase in a sustained way following the linear (alleged) increase in CO2. The discernible human influence on the climate change clearly expresses this belief. Accepting temperatures can go down naturally is to acknowledge CO2 has not the capacity for retaining heat as it is claimed.Could we say at this point that CO2 increase is not lineal, and nor constant? As measurements have shown, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been steadily decreasing since the 1970s.
Recent trends in CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations
Let's start with emissions of carbon dioxide, and resultant atmospheric concentrations. Table 1 lists human emissions of carbon dioxide and resultant atmospheric concentration changes for the years 1960 to 2000 (Worldwatch, 2000). Table 1 also shows the decade-to-decade change in emissions, percentage change in emissions, and the resultant change in atmospheric concentrations. The decadal percentage changes in CO2 emissions are shown in Figure 1.
Table 1. CO2 Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations, from 1960 to 2000.
1960 2,535 316.7 57 7? 2.8 1970 3,997 325.5 58 9 2.8 1980 5,155 338.5 29 13 4.0 1990 5,931 354.0 15 15 4.6 2000 6,299 369.4 06 15 4.3
What can we tell from Table 1 and Figure 1? Well, first notice how the percentage change in emissions of carbon dioxide have almost completely plateaued. From 1950 to 1960, CO2 emissions increased by 57%. From 1960 to 1970, emissions increased by 58%. This is the characteristic of exponential growth...emissions increasing by a fixed percentage every decade. However, from 1970 to 1980, emissions increased by 29%. From 1980 to 1990, the increase was only 15%. And from 1990 to 2000, emissions only increased by 6%. And in fact, in 1998, 1999, and 2000, human emissions of CO2 actually declined. The implications of this plateauing in emissions of CO2 are huge.
If CO2 emissions have reached their peak, it means that CO2 concentrations can be expected to go up by a smaller and smaller percentage each decade. For example, from 1980 to 1990, CO2 concentrations went up by 4.6%, but from 1990 to 2000, concentrations only increased by 4.3%. Future decades will have even smaller percentage increases, if emissions have truly plateaued.
Of course, this theory of CO2 increase warming the Earth makes no sense for anyone having more than three neurons in working order. And the whole matter becomes more suspicious when they are always “forgetting” to mention the respective “heat retention” capabilities of each greenhouse gas, while comparing the “potential” of other gases with CO2 potential, saying, CFCs are 50 times more potent than CO2, or methane is 20 times more powerful for retaining heat than CO2 – but fail to mention that their negligible quantities makes these gases meaningless as “greenhouse gases”. These people claim that the one that only counts is CO2, so “we must stop CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.” They take good care of not comparing – ever – these gases capabilities with those of water vapor, because if they did it, it would mean the GHG theory goes to the garbage can.
These are not IPCC figures, of course, because they would never give the public the real figures. But from 100% heat retention capability of the atmosphere, 95% corresponds to water vapor, 3.5% goes to CO2, and the remaining 1.5% goes to all those gases as Argon, methane, CFCs, nitrous oxides, etc.
Just a passing thought: What about Nitrogen and oxygen heat retention capability? They are gases too… and the most abundant for that matter.
Analyzing all these amounts, we wonder how doubling CO2 concentrations, with its mere 3.5% heat retention capability, can make temperature rise in such a sustained manner until 5.8º C more than today by the year 21000 .
Common sense, the more scarce sense in humans these days, warns us that if Earth's “natural greenhouse effect” is equivalent to 35º C, 3.5% of that effect attributed to CO2 equals 1.225º C. Thus, a CO2 doubling would bring an increase of 2.45º C, something that has never happened since the Medieval Warm Period, (or Climatic Optimum) between the years of 800 and 1300 AD, that saw a temperature 2º C higher than now, without any CO2 doubling that could be blamed for it. And then a violent decrease in temperature during the Little Ice Age between 1400 and 1716 – again without any intervention by CO2 increases or decreases. What is the mystery?
There is no mystery. Simply CO2 has not the capacity for holding and storing heat that has been given to it by the “global warmers”, and has not a “cause/effect” relationship with temperature increase, but an “effect/cause” relationship: Earth temperatures have risen before CO2 increases, as studies have proven that CO2 increases came about 400-800 years after temperatures increased.
(Reference: Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination Eric Monnin, Andreas Indermühle, André Dällenbach, Jacqueline Flückiger, Bernhard Stauffer, Thomas F. Stocker, Dominique Raynaud, and Jean-Marc Barnola, Science, Vol 291, Issue 5501, 112-114 , 5 January 2001 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5501/112/DC1)
In this same website it was published an article about studies made by Sherwood Idso (click here) during the 80s, showing that a doubling of CO2 from 330 to 660 ppm could only cause a temperature increase of a mere 0.25º C to 0.4º C – study that has not been refuted, rebated, or even discussed. It has remained carefully ignored by the mainstream media and the IPCC.
Of course, there are hundreds of questions that our common sense makes us to wonder about hundreds of things that do not “close” in the “catastrophic” global warming theory, but are not longer needed when we can see the number of weather stations all over the world showing no warming trend – or a cooling one – as the stations shown above.
Although modelers are working full steam ahead for making new models that could show that “global warming” will cause “global cooling”, common sense refuse to accept all these continued deluge of nonsense. Have they lost all sense of ridiculousness?
This article was the result of an exchange of ideas between Eduardo Ferreyra, and John Daly, Australian climatologist deceased on January 29th, 2004 creator of the famous website Still Waiting for Greenhouse, one of the most famous internet sites devoted to exposing the global warming hoax, called by John Daly “the greenhouse industry”. A visit to his website will provide the reader with a huge amount of valuable information on climatic issues.
May this article serve as a last tribute ot John Daly's memory, named by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt as the “Sherlock Holmes of climatology”. He was one of the biggest iconoclasts and “dragon slayer” in climate sciences that we had the chance of knowing and enjoy his friendship. It was John who first began exposing the Hockey Stick fraudulent paper by Mann et al., effort that finished with the exposé made by Prof. McKitrick and McIntyre of the faulty methodology used by this paper that became the cornerstone for the IPCC theory that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years.
Finally, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have posted in their website an update about the process of resolving issues raised by their assertions of errors in the Mann et al 1998 paper of Hockey Stick fame:
UPDATE: July 1 2004: The Corrigendum in Nature today (July 1, 2004) by Professors Mann, Bradley and Hughes is a clear admission that the disclosure of data and methods behind MBH98 was materially inaccurate. The text acknowledges extensive errors in the description of the data set. Even more important is the new online Supplementary Information (SI) site, which concedes for the first time that key steps in the computations behind MBH98 were left out of (and indeed conflict with) the description of methods in the original paper.
Read all about it in: Corrigenda, Anyone?.
Presidente of FAEC
Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology
See the weather in Argentina
Back to Climate Change Page Back to English Version
You are visitor No.:
since January, 2002
FastCounter by bCentral
See here many interesting
statistics about this site
Which countries see us?
Who are our visitors?