Climategate……?

12 Nov

‘I am a climate change sceptic’.  There, I put my head above the parapet and said it.  To be precise, I am a ‘man-made’ climate change sceptic.  I do not deny that the global average temperature has risen in recent years, although not consistently and at a rate of less than 1/3rd than the current IPCC predictions would have us believe.

Global Warming has become its own little industry over the past 25 years and supports bureaucrats, research grants and a whole plethora of Government sponsored alternatives offering generous tax breaks for the utility companies.  Up to ¼ of your gas and electricity costs comprise tax incentives.  If you see climate change conferences, attended by tens of thousands of delegates you get some perspective of just how big it has become.

I’m not the first to distance myself from the official line and some of the most respected contributors to IPCC reports, unhappy at the way their contributions were being presented, asked to be removed from the reports list of authors but this was denied to them, making their viewpoints which are completely at odds with the report appear unanimous……

In the 2007 report the global average temperature increase, based on the previous 15 years data observed an increase of 0.2˚C per year.  It extrapolated over the next 20 years a continuation of 0.2˚C based on computer modelling.  But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05˚C per decade – below almost all computer predictions.  IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures; and not taken enough notice of natural variability……

Natural Variability……

Climate change modelling is not unlike weather forecasting.  Although improvements are being made all the time, the shear quantity of variables makes it very difficult to draw accurate conclusions.  For example:  The oceans cover 1/3rd of the World’s surface.  It would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to give an accurate figure of how much heat the oceans absorbed and radiated in one year.  It is known that the process takes in the order of thousands of years to reach stability; even if external factors remained constant.  And that is just one part of calculating climate change.

Examine the graph below which shows approximately 100 years of climate data.

Past 100 years

One of the first things to note is the average drop in temperature before 1935; a period at which the industrial revolution was at its peak and during which fossil fuels would have been in high demand.

After the peak around 1940 the average appears to level off again until the late 1970s.  It continues to rise for 20 years and then flattens off.  This is reflected in the IPCC data where they admit that the global average temperature has in fact been stable for approximately 15 years, contrary to predictions……

Anomalies and Exceptions……

There have been warmer and colder than average temperature variations across the planet throughout recorded history.  During the ‘Medieval Warm Period’, which lasted from approximately 950 to 1250AD, vineyards were established as far north as York in the UK.  Shortly afterwards ‘The Little Ice-Age’ happened when the Thames in London froze over for extended periods of time and fares were held on it.

Sun Spot activity is well known for its effects on Earth.  It has an 11 year cycle and has proved to be an accurate predictor of temperature.  Another lesser known event is Geomagnetic Reversal (the reversal of the Earth’s magnetic poles).  These happen approximately every 450,000 years and are estimated to take between 1,000 and 10,000 years.  During a Geomagnetic event the protection from the Solar Winds can drop as low a 5%.  One assumes this must have a significant effect on climate……

180px-Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svgCarbon Dioxide, we all assume, is the demon gas and single-handedly responsible for climate change.  Okay, lets run with it.  Carbon Dioxide accounts for 0.039% of the Earth’s atmosphere, of which only 1/3rd is derived from unnatural sources.  The rest comes from normal like plant photosynthesis, the processes of plant decomposition and oceanic acidification.  When the many thousands of processes taking place, it would be hard for any scientist to deduce an increase in global temperatures is caused purely by the 0.013% man made CO2.

As far as any attempt made by mankind to control their contribution to CO2 is concerned, it is a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.  Even if our contribution of greenhouse gasses was stopped immediately there is little chance of it making any difference to the outcome.  Once again we have given our anthropocentric view of the universe the credibility that the universe does not afford us.  Qué sera sera……

DT_Triangle_Banner

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: