CO2 Good

[Jedidiah]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

John, this is coming pretty close to dissing Alaska. Better do some editing here. I will let our Canadian friends speak for themselves.

[John Reece]

Continued from post #30 above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's publicly available online book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [footnote documentation omitted]:

The polar bear did not exist until the Pleistocene Ice Age froze the Arctic and created the conditions for adaptation to a world of ice. Polar bears are not really a distinct species; they are a variety of the European brown bear, known as the grizzly bear in North America. They are so closely related genetically that brown bears and polar bears can mate successfully and produce fertile offspring. The white variety of the brown bear evolved as the ice advanced, the white color providing a good camouflage in the snow. Once bears could walk out to sea on the ice floes, it became feasible to hunt seals. It is possible that if the world warmed substantially over the next hundreds of years that the white variety of the brown bear would become reduced in numbers or even die out. This would simply be the reverse of what happened when the world became colder. Some varieties of life that exist today are only here because the world turned colder a few million years ago, following a warmer period that lasted for over 200 million years. If the climate were to return to a Greenhouse Age those varieties might not survive. Many more species would benefit from a warmer world, the human species among them.

The polar bear did not evolve as a separate variety of brown bear until about 150,000 years ago, during the glaciation previous to the most recent one. This is a very recent adaptation to an extreme climatic condition that caused much of the Arctic Ocean to freeze over for most of the past 2.5 million years. The polar bear did manage to survive through the interglacial period that preceded the one we are in now even though the earth’s average temperature was higher during that interglacial than it is today. So as long as the temperature does not rise more than about 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above the present level, polar bears will likely survive. But that is a prediction, not a fact.

To listen to climate activists and the media, you would think the polar bear population is already in a steep decline. A little investigation reveals there are actually more polar bears today than there were just 30 years ago. Most subpopulations are either stable or growing. And the main cause of polar bear deaths today is legally sanctioned trophy hunting, not climate change. Of an estimated population of 20,000 to 25,000 bears, more than 700 are shot every year by trophy hunters and native Inuit. One hundred and nine are killed in the Baffin Bay region of Canada alone. And yet activist groups like the World Wildlife Fund use the polar bear as a poster child for global warming, incorrectly alleging that they are being wiped out by climate change.

The population of polar bears was estimated at 6000 in 1960. In 1973 an International Agreement between Canada, the United States, Norway, Russia, and Greenland ended unrestricted hunting and introduced quotas. Since then only native people have been allowed to hunt polar bears, although in Canada the native Inuit often act as guides for non-native hunters. As a result of this restriction on hunting, the population has rebounded to its present level of 20,000 to 25,000. The International Union for the Conservation of Natural Resources Polar Bear Specialist Group reports that of 18 subpopulations of bears, two are increasing, five are stable, five are declining, while for six subpopulations, mainly those in Russia, there is insufficient data. There is no reliable evidence that any bear populations are declining due to climate change and all such claims rely on speculation; they are predictions based on conjecture rather than actual scientific studies.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's publicly available online book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [footnote documentation omitted]:

At the other end of the world in Antarctica, numerous species of penguins have evolved over the past 20 million years so that they can live in ice-bound environments. There are also many species of penguins that live in places where there is no ice, such as in Australia, South Africa, Tierra del Fuego, and the Galapagos Islands. It took 20 million years for the Antarctic ice sheet to grow to the extent it has been for the past 2.5 million years, during the Pleistocene Age. Antarctica differs significantly from the Arctic in that most of the ice is on land and at higher elevation. It is very unlikely Antarctica will become ice-free in the near future. It took millions of years for the present ice sheet to develop. In all likelihood the penguins will be able to breathe easily for thousands, possibly millions of years.

Coming closer to the present day, there is good historical evidence that it was warmer than it is today during the days of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago and during the Medieval Warming Period 1,000 years ago. We know that during the Medieval Warming Period, the Norse (Vikings) colonized Iceland, Greenland, and Newfoundland. The settlements in Newfoundland and Greenland were then abandoned during the Little Ice Age that lasted from about 1500 to the early 1800s. The Thames River in England froze over regularly during the cold winters of the Little Ice Age. The Thames last froze over in 1814. Since then the climate has been in a gradual warming trend. Given that there were very low levels of CO2 emissions from human activity in those times, it is not possible that humans caused the Medieval Warming Period or the Little Ice Age. Natural factors had to be instrumental in those changes in climate.

To be continued...

[stfoskey15]

Humans generally prefer warmer climates to colder ones. When I mention that the global climate was much warmer before this present Ice Age, people often say something like, “But humans were not even around five million years ago, certainly not 50 or 500 million years ago. We have not evolved in a warmer world and will not be able to cope with global warming.” The fact is we did evolve in a “warmer world.” The human species originated in the tropical regions of Africa, where it was warm even during past glaciations nearer the poles. Humans are a tropical species that has adapted to colder climates as a result of harnessing fire, making clothing, and building shelters. Before these advances occurred, humans could not live outside the tropics. It may come as a surprise to most that a naked human in the outdoors with no fire will die of hypothermia if the temperature goes below 21 degrees Celsius (70 degrees Fahrenheit). Yet as long as we have food, water, and shade we can survive in the hottest climates on earth without fire, clothing, or shelter. The Australian Aborigines survived in temperatures of over 45 degrees Celsius (113 degrees Fahrenheit) without air conditioning for 50,000 years.

But now that we have clothes as shelter, does it really matter all that much?

So clearly, on the basis of temperature alone, it would be fine for humans if the entire earth were tropical and subtropical as it was for millions of years during the Greenhouse Ages. It would also be fine for the vast majority of species in the world today, most of which live in tropical and subtropical regions. But this would not be the case for some other species that have evolved specifically to be able to survive in cold climates.[/indent]

But I like cooler weather and snow. As does a significant minority of the population (maybe 10-20% or so). Mild warming might be fine, but I'd absolutely hate it if it were all subtropical and tropical from pole to pole. Plus, I'd hate the northerly spread of tropical diseases.

[John Reece]

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's publicly available online book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [footnote documentation omitted]:

Speaking of natural factors, it is clear the climate changes over the past billions of years were not caused by our activities. So how credible is it to claim we have just recently become the main cause of climate change? It’s not as if the natural factors that have been causing the climate to change over the millennia have suddenly disappeared and now we are the only significant agent of change. Clearly the natural factors are still at work, even if our population explosion and increasing CO2 emissions now play a role in climate change. So the real question is, are human impacts overwhelming the natural factors or are they only a minor player in the big picture? We do not know the definitive answer to that question.

Let’s go back to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, which stated: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas concentrations”[my emphasis]. The first word, most, in common usage means more than 50 percent and less than 100 percent, i.e., more than half but not all. That’s a pretty big spread, so clearly IPCC members don’t have a very precise estimate of how much of the warming they think we are causing. If they are that uncertain, how do they know it’s not 25 percent, or 5 percent? They restrict the human influence to “since the mid-20th century,” implying humans were not responsible for climate change until about 60 years ago. So the logical question is, What was responsible for the significant climate changes before 60 years ago, the warming between 1910 and 1940, for example? The most problematic term in their statement is “very likely,” which certainly provides no indication of scientific proof. The IPCC claims that “very likely” means “greater than 90 percent probability.” But the figure 90 is not the result of any calculation or statistical analysis. The footnote entry for the term “very likely” explains, “in this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, [my emphasis] of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%.” One expects “judgments” from judges and opinionated journalists. Scientists are expected to provide calculations and observable evidence. I’m not convinced by this loose use of words and numbers.

To be continued...

[Jedidiah]

[QUOTE=stfoskey15;76140But I like cooler weather and snow. As does a significant minority of the population (maybe 10-20% or so). Mild warming might be fine, but I'd absolutely hate it if it were all subtropical and tropical from pole to pole. Plus, I'd hate the northerly spread of tropical diseases.[/QUOTE]

I like cooler weather myself, but that results from 45 years adapting to Alaskan weather. When I lived in a warm climate, I liked it just fine. Adapting took time and I did not always like it. It would not be hard to re-adapt to warmer weather.

[John Reece]

Continued from post #35 above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's publicly available online book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [footnote documentation omitted]:

According to the official records of surface temperatures, 1998 was the warmest year in the past 150 years. Since then the average global temperature remained relatively flat down, completely contrary to the predictions of the IPCC, and in spite of steadily growing CO2 emissions from countries around the world.

This drop in temperature is now attributed to natural factors, something that was downplayed in previous predictions. Mojib Latif, a prominent German meteorologist and oceanographer, explains it this way, “So I really believe in Global Warming. Okay. However, you know, we have to accept that there are these natural fluctuations, and therefore, the temperature may not show additional warming temporarily.” The question is, How long is temporarily? At this writing the global temperature has not increased during the past 16 years. The assertion that it will resume warming at some time in the future is a prediction, not a fact. And even if warming does resume, it is possible that this may be due to natural factors. It is not logical to believe that natural factors are only responsible for cooling and not for warming.

The situation is complicated further by the revelations of “Climategate” in November 2009, which clearly showed that many of the most influential climate scientists associated with the IPCC have been manipulating data, withholding data, and conspiring to discredit other scientists who do not share their certainty that we are the main cause of global warming. It has also been well documented that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science, which is responsible for one of the primary temperature records, has dropped a large number of weather stations, mainly in colder regions, thus likely making it seem warming is occurring even though this may not be the case. The situation is in such a state of flux that it may be several years before an objective process is in place to sort out what is believable and what is not.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's publicly available online book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [footnote documentation omitted]:

Leading up to the 15th Conference of the Parties in the Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen in December 2009, the IPCC, the European Union, and many other participants warned we must keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or we will face climate catastrophe. Yet the global temperature has been 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it is today through most of the past 500 million years. It seems clear that the real “climate catastrophes” are the major glaciations that occurred during the Ice Ages, not the warm Greenhouse Ages when life flourished from pole to pole.

[See source document to viewFigure 2. Global temperature trends 1860–2008 according to Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit in the U.K.]

The graph on this page, Figure 2, is a record of global temperatures from 1850 to 2008, as prepared by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. It was authored by Phil Jones, who was at the centre of the “Climategate” scandal. As previously mentioned, the emails he and his colleagues exchanged indicated they withheld data, manipulated data, and attempted to discredit other scientists who held contrary views. Jones was suspended from his post in November 2009, pending an inquiry into the scandal. Therefore the data this graph is based on are not necessarily credible; they need to be rigorously re-examined. But the graph does provide a useful tool for examining a couple of points about recent temperature trends.

The graph indicates global temperature has risen by about 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 150 years. But about half of this warming occurred from 1910 to 1940, before the huge increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel that began after the Second World War. What caused this increase? We simply don’t know. Then there was a period of cooling from 1940 to 1980, just as CO2 emissions started to increase dramatically. In the mid-1970s, mainstream magazines and newspapers, including Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times, published articles on the possibility of a coming cold period, perhaps another Ice Age. These articles were based on interviews with scientists at the National Academy of Sciences and NASA, among others. Prominent supporters of the global cooling theory included present-day global warming supporters such as John Holdren, the Obama administration’s science czar and the late Stephen Schneider, a former leading member of the IPCC.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's publicly available online book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [graphs and footnote documentation omitted]:

In 1980, global temperatures began a 20-year rise, according to the now questionable records used by the IPCC for its predictions of climate disaster. This is the only period in the 3.5 billion years of life on earth in which the IPCC attributes climate change to human activity. Since 1998 there has been no further increase in global temperature, even according to the IPCC sources. How does one 20-year period of rising temperatures out of the past 150 years prove we are the main cause of global warming?

The alarmists declare that the present warming trend is “unprecedented” because it is happening on a scale of centuries whereas past warming trends have been much slower, giving species time to adapt. This is shown to be false even during the past century. The IPCC does not contend that humans caused the warming from 1910 to 1940; therefore it must have been a natural warming trend. But the warming from 1910 to 1940 was just as large (0.4 degrees Celsius or 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit) and just as rapid over time as the supposed human-caused warming from 1975 to 2000. How can scientists who claim to be on the cutting edge of human knowledge miss this point?

It is a testament to the fickleness of trends in science, public policy, and media communications that such certainty about human-caused climate change came about. That era finally seems to have ended now that more attention is being paid to the proposition that we really don’t have all the answers. One hopes this will usher in a more sensible conversation about climate change and a more balanced approach to climate change policy.

In early 2013 there were three independent announcements by leading believers in human-caused catastrophic climate change that confirmed the standstill in global temperature. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and senior science advisor to Al Gore, stated “The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade.” In January 2013 The UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia released the data for December in their Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4 global temperature datasets. The data clearly shows that there has been no increase in global temperature for 16 years, since 1997. In an interview with The Australian in February 2013, Rajenda Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, acknowledged the reality of the post-1997 standstill in global average temperatures.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's publicly available online book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [graphs and footnote documentation omitted]:

Carbon Dioxide

The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-power plants are factories of death. ―James Hansen, director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, science advisor to former vice president Al Gore

The entire global warming hypothesis rests on one belief—human emissions of CO2 are causing rapid global warming that will result in a “catastrophe” if we don’t cut emissions drastically, beginning now. Let’s look at the history, chemistry, and biology of this much-maligned molecule.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon are probably the most talked about substances in the world today. We hear the term “carbon footprint” every day and fossil fuels are now routinely described as “carbon-based energy.” True believers speak of CO2 as if it is the greatest threat we have ever faced. Perhaps our CO2 emissions will have some negative effects. But in my view CO2 is one of the most positive chemicals in our world. How can I justify this statement given that the US Environmental Protection Agency has declared CO2 and other greenhouse gases are “pollutants” that are dangerous to human health and the environment?

What about the undisputed fact that CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth? Every green plant needs CO2 in order to produce sugars that are the primary energy source for every plant and animal. To be fair, water is also essential to living things, as are nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, and many other minor elements. But CO2 is the most important food, as all life on earth is carbon-based, and the carbon comes from CO2 in the atmosphere. Without CO2 life on this planet would not exist. How important is that?

When President Obama appointed Lisa Jackson as head of the EPA, she promised to “ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” During the EPA’s deliberations on the “endangerment” ruling for CO2, one of its top economic policy experts, Alan Carlin, a 35-year veteran of the agency, presented a 98-page analysis concluding that the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best and that the agency should re-examine its findings. His analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research about climate change that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. “We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA,” the report read.

In response to the report Carlin’s boss, Al McGartland, emailed him, forbidding him from engaging in “any direct communication” with anyone outside his office about his analysis. In a follow-up email, McGartland wrote, “With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc., at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.” These emails were leaked. So much for transparency, and so much for science.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's publicly available online book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [graphs and footnote documentation omitted]:

There is an interesting parallel here with the issue of chlorine, a chemical described by Greenpeace as the “devil’s element.” There are some chlorine-based chemicals that are very toxic and should be tightly con- trolled and even banned in certain contexts. But as discussed earlier, chlorine is the most important element for public health and medicine, just as carbon is the most important element for life. And yet Greenpeace and its allies give the impression these two building blocks of nature are essentially evil. It is time to bring some balance into this discussion.

Al Gore is fond of reminding us that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there has been for the past 400,000 years. He may be correct, although some scientists dispute this. But 400,000 years is a blink of an eye in geological history. It is also true to state that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have rarely been as low as they are today over the entire 3.5 billion years of life on earth, and particularly during the past 500 million years since modern life forms evolved. Figure 4 (previous page) shows the historic levels of CO2 as well as the global temperature, going back 600 million years [text missing from online source]

Note the graph shows CO2 was at least 3000 ppm, and likely around 7000 ppm, at the time of the Cambrian Period, a Greenhouse Age when modern life forms first evolved. This is nearly 20 times the CO2 concentration today. The Ice Age that peaked 450 million years ago occurred when CO2 was about 4000 ppm, more than 10 times its present level. If both warm and cold climates can develop when there is far more CO2 in the atmosphere than today, how can we be certain that CO2 is determining the climate now?

The graph does show a limited correlation between temperature and CO2 during the late Carboniferous, and a very weak correlation from then until today. It is true that the most recent Ice Age corresponds with a relatively low CO2 level in the atmosphere. None of this is intended to make the argument that CO2 does not influence climate. I am no denier. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it plays a role in warming the earth. The real questions are: How much of a role? and If warming is caused by our CO2 emissions, does this really harm people and the planet?

To be continued...

[Jedidiah]

Keep up the good work.

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's publicly available online book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [graphs and footnote documentation omitted]:

Coming closer to the present, one of the best sets of data comes from ice cores at the Russian Vostok station in Antarctica. These cores give us a picture of both temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels going back 420,000 years. Al Gore uses this information in his film An Inconvenient Truth to assert that it provides evidence that increased CO2 causes an increase in temperature. Closer examination of the data shows that it is the other way around. Through most of this period it is temperature that leads CO2 as shown for the period 150,000 to 100,000 years ago in Figure 5. When temperature goes up, CO2 follows and when temperature goes down, CO2 follows it down.

This does not prove that increases in temperature cause increases in CO2, it may be that some other common factor is behind both trends. But it most certainly does not indicate rising CO2 levels cause increases in temperature. It may be that CO2 causes a tendency for higher temperatures but that this is masked by other, more influential factors such as water vapor, the earth’s orbit and wobbles, etc.

The April 2008 edition of Discover magazine contains a full-page article about plants, written by Jocelyn Rice, titled, “Leaves at Work.” The article begins with this passage, “In the era of global warming, leaves may display an unexpected dark side. As CO2 concentrations rise, plants can become full. As a result, their stomata — the tiny holes that collect the CO2...will squeeze shut. When the stomata close, plants not only take less CO2 from the air but also draw less water from the ground, resulting in a run of water into rivers. The stomata effect [my emphasis] has been responsible for the 3 percent increase in river runoff seen over the past century.” At this point my BS meter came on. There is no possibility anyone has a data set that could determine a 3 percent increase in global river runoff in the past 100 years. The U.K.’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research was given as the source of this information. A thorough review of the Hadley Centre website turned up nothing on the subject.

The story goes on to predict that, given present trends in CO2 emissions, “runoff" within the next 100 years could increase by as much as 24 percent above pre-industrial levels... in regions already hit hard by flooding, the stomata effect could make matters much worse.” The Great Flood will return and inundate the earth due to trillions of tiny stomata shutting their doors in the face of too much CO2!

I also knew immediately that the entire article was bogus because I am familiar with the fact that greenhouse growers purposely divert the CO2-rich exhaust gases from their wood or gas heaters into their greenhouses in order to greatly increase the CO2 level for the plants they are growing. I searched the Internet using the phrase “optimum CO2 level for plant growth.” All I needed were the first few results to see plants grow best at a CO2 concentration of around 1500 ppm, which boosts plant yield by 25 to 65 percent. The present CO level in the global atmosphere is about 390 ppm. In other words, the trees and other plants that grow around the world would benefit from a level of CO2 about four times higher than it is today.

There is solid evidence that trees are already showing increased growth rates due to rising CO levels. Greenhouse growers are able to obtain growth rates that are 40 to 50 percent higher than the rates plants grow under in today’s atmospheric conditions. This makes sense when you consider that CO2 levels were generally much higher during the time when plant life was evolving than they are today. The fact is, at today’s historically low CO2 concentrations, all the plants on earth are CO2-deprived. Those plants are starving out there!

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's publicly available online book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [graphs and footnote documentation omitted]:

Yet believers in catastrophic climate change will not abide by this clear evidence. In May 2010 Science magazine published an article titled, “Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis.” The article implied that increased CO levels in the atmos
phere might inhibit the uptake of nitrogen. The popular press interpreted this as evidence that increased CO2 might not result in increased growth rates, as has been conclusively demonstrated in hundreds of lab and field experiments. This is why greenhouse growers purposely inject CO into their greenhouses. Typically, the Vancouver Sun ran with the headline, “Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels May Hinder Crop Growth: Greenhouse Gas Is Not Beneficial to Plants, As Once Thought.” The Science article was clever enough not to suggest that CO2 would “hinder” plant growth, or even to question the proven fact that CO2 increases plant growth. But by raising a side issue of nitrogen uptake it encouraged the media to make sensationalist claims, apparently debunking the fact that doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling CO2 results in increased growth, regardless of some point about nitrogen.

It may turn out to be a very good thing that humans discovered fossil fuels and started burning them for energy. By the beginning of the Industrial Revolution CO2 levels had gradually diminished to about 280 ppm. If this trend, which had been in effect for many millions of years, had continued at the same rate it would have eventually threatened plant life at a global level. At a level of 150 ppm, plants stop growing altogether. If humans had not appeared on the scene, it is possible that the declining trend in CO2 levels that began 150 million years ago would have continued. If it had continued at the same rate, about 115 ppm per million years, it would have been a little over one million years until plants stopped growing and died. And that would be the end of that!

This is perhaps my most heretical thought: that our CO2 emissions may be largely beneficial, possibly making the coldest places on earth more habitable and definitely increasing yields of food crops, energy crops, and forests around the entire world. Earlier I referred to my meeting with James Lovelock, the father of the Gaia Hypothesis and one of the world’s leading atmospheric scientists. I found it strange he was so pessimistic about the future, and cast our species as a kind of rogue element in the scheme of life.

Whereas the Gaia Hypothesis proposes that all life on earth acts in concert to control the chemistry of the atmosphere in order to make it more suitable for life, Lovelock believes human-caused CO2 emissions are the enemy of Gaia. But surely humans are as much a part of Gaia as any other species, past or present? How could we know we are the enemy of Gaia rather than an agent of Gaia, as one would expect if “all life is acting in concert”? In other words, is it not plausible that Gaia is using us to pump some of the trillions of tons of carbon, which have been locked in the earth’s crust over the past billions of years, back into the atmosphere? Perhaps Gaia would like to avoid another major glaciation, and more importantly avoid the end of nearly all life on earth due to a lack of CO2. One thing I know for sure is we should be a lot more worried the climate will cool by 2 or 3 degrees Celsius than we should be about it warming by 2 or 3 degrees Celsius. Cooling would definitely threaten our food supply; warming would almost certainly enhance it.

I’m not saying I buy into the entire Gaia Hypothesis hook, line, and sinker. I find some aspects of it very compelling, but it might be a bit of a stretch to believe all life is acting in harmony, like on the planet Pandora in the movie Avatar. But that’s not my point. What bothers me is the tendency to see all human behavior as negative. Lovelock and his followers seem to need a narrative that supports the idea of original sin, that we have been thrown out of the Garden of Eden, or is it the Garden of Gaia?

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's publicly available online book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [graphs and footnote documentation omitted]:

The Hockey Stick

No discussion of climate change would be complete without mention of the infamous hockey stick graph of global temperature. The graph, said to depict Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,000 years, was created by Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and his colleagues. It shows a very even temperature until the modern age when there is a steep rise. The surprise for many scientists was that the graph implied the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did not exist and that the only significant change in temperature during the past 1000 years was a precipitous rise during the past century. The graph was very controversial in climate science circles. Despite the sharp debate, it was showcased in the 2001 and 2004 reports of the IPCC.

Two Canadians, Steve McIntyre, a retired mining engineer, and Ross McKitrick, an economist, became concerned that the data used to create the hockey stick graph were not objective and the statistical analysis used was not legitimate. They asked Mann and others to provide them with the original data and the statistical methods used to arrive at the hockey stick graph. Mann and his colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia refused repeated requests to supply the data. The effort to obtain the data went on for 10 years as the researchers even refused requests under Freedom of Information Act rules. It was not until the release of thousands of emails from the CRU that it became clear information was being withheld illegally and there was a conspiracy of sorts to manipulate the data and discredit opposing opinions.

In 2003 McIntyre and McKitrick published a critique of the hockey stick graph in Energy & Environment in which they contended that Mann’s paper contained, “collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects.” As a result of this and other critiques the IPCC did not use the hockey stick graph again in its 2007 report. The continuing debate over this graph highlights the absence of a consensus on the temperature record, never mind whether or not humans are responsible for climate change.

To be continued...