Responses to Monckton of Brenchley_10!1!10

8/14/2019 Responses to Monckton of Brenchley_10!1!10

1/34

1

Responses to Monckton of Brenchleys articleA Non-Problem Spun into a Global Crisis

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/NonProblem_Spun_Into_Global_Crisis.pdf

by Dr Andrew GliksonEarth and paleo-climate scientist

Institute of Climate ChangeAustralian National University

Following the distribution of a piece titled Climate QaA by Andrew Glikson, Earthand paleoclimate scientist, communicated on behalf of a member of theAustralian Parliament, December, 2009, a response was published by Moncktonof Brenchley (MB), titled A non-problem spun-up into a global crisis

(http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/NonProblem_Spun_Into_Global_Crisis.pdf). In a different context MB also proposed a meetingwith the Australian Prime Minister to brief him on the climate(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/03/climate-change-proposed-personal-briefing/).

MBs response includes (A) technical points, and (B) critical comments regardingthe scientific integrity and honesty of climate scientists, science researchorganizations and of the IPCC.

Given MBs hundreds of points, my responses below are restricted to essentialscientific/technical points. In so far as the principal observations of climate

science are correct, which I suggest is beyond reasonable doubt, as based ondirect observations around the world as well as on physics and chemistry, thisinherently vindicates the position climate scientists have taken with regard to thenature and dangerous consequences of current global warming.

The hacked CRU E-mail issue, which diverted attention from the increasinglyserious climate change developments around the globe, is resolved in the PewCentre for Global Climate Research document: http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-07-09.pdf

I cite Professor Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute ofClimate Impacts and climate advisor of the German Government:

Were simply talking about the very life support system of this planet. A recentcomprehensive study confirms this in showing that we are going beyond thelimits of the Earth. Yet, we are still chugging along like we have no need to solvethese issues any time in the near future. We are not even near the reductionsthat are necessary. (http://ecoworldly.com/2009/10/02/is-the-us-climate-illiterate/).

Dr Andrew GliksonEarth and paleoclimate scientistAustralian National University

10 January, 2010


2/34

2

Gliksons Climate QaA,MBs comments,Gliksons (AG) responses to MBs comments

1.Are human activities contributing to climate change? Howdo we know the atmosphere build up of greenhouse gasesis due to human activity?

Glikson QaA-1a: Since the industrial revolution in the mid-18th century,combustion of fossil fuel resulted in the emission of more than 320billion tons of carbon in the form of CO2. This is more than half the pre-industrial carbon content of the atmosphere of 590 billion tons. About200 billion tons stayed in the atmosphere, raising CO2 concentrationfrom 280 parts per million (ppm) to the current level of 388 ppm.

MB: So CO2 occupies one part in ten thousand more of the atmosphere than it did 250 yearsago. If we do not reduce our emissions, it will occupy one part in 2000 more in another 100years. The warming effect of each additional molecule of CO2 is less than that of itspredecessor. The CO2 that is already in the atmosphere is causing very nearly all of thewarming that CO2 can cause.

AG Response to MB 1a

Despite attempts to argue to the contrary, global warming since the 18 th centuryhas reached levels above any measured or studied through proxies for theHolocene (since 11 kyr) (compare Figure 1a with Figure 9), whereby the lastdecade includes the 3 warmest years on record.

CO2 constitutes the second-most important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas afterwater vapour. The CO2 in the atmosphere has not absorbed "very nearly all ofthe warming that CO2 can cause". A further increase in CO2 comparable to thatso far caused by anthropogenic activity since the industrial revolution, that is,about 100 ppm, can further raise global temperature, as indicated by climatesensitivityestimates (the relation of CO2 with mean global temperatures, definedat 3+/-1.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2) (Charney, 1979, Hansen et al., 2007,2008) (see Figure 1) This translates into 3C to 4C rise in the polar regions,leading to the directly observed extensive melting of the Arctic Sea ice, Greenlandice sheet, West Antarctic ice sheet (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo694.html).

Recent satellite data indicates ice loss in East Antarctica glaciers (Nathan Bindoff,Professor of Physical Oceanography, Antarctic Climate Ecosystems CooperativeResearch Centre, Hobart: The data shows that East Antarctica has beenshedding about 57 billion tonnes of ice mass each year since 2006. And most ofthis loss has occurred in the coastal fringes. http://www.abc. net.au/pm/content/2009/s2751232.htm).

MBs comment, which refers to the low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere(few hundred parts per million, as compared to the major atmosphericcomponents: Nitrogen ~78%; Oxygen ~21%), ignores the fact that CO2 andwater vapour constitute the most important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gases inthe atmosphere, with radiative effects which far exceeds their absoluteconcentrations (see Figures 1 and 2). The greenhouse effect of water vapour areimportant in the tropics but are minor over the deserts and polar regionswhich


3/34

3

warm the fastest. Further, water vapour have an atmospheric residence time ofonly 9 days (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~ramirez/ce_old/classes/ce422

_ramirez/CE422_Web/WaterVapor/water_vapor_CE322.htm), by contrast to thewell-mixed CO2 with residence time of centuries to millennia (Eby et al., 2008).

From the relations between CO2 and mean global temperature, defined as

climate sensitivity (Charney, 1979; Hansen et al., 2007, 2008), doubling of CO2levels in the atmosphere leads to temperature increase of ~3+/-1.5oC. During the20th century on average a rise of 1 ppm CO2 can drive atmospheric heat energyby approximately 0.015 Watt/m2. The relations between CO2 and temperaturesare portrayed in Figure 1b.

Figure 1a. NASA/GiSS mean global land-sea temperature changes 1880-2008.


4/34

4

Figure 1B. Relations between CO2 emissions and temperature with timeaccording to several IPCC scenarios and according to a climate sensitivityof 3+/-1.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2 (IPCC AR4 2007 Fig. 5.1).

The rise in mean global temperature of 1.21.3 oC since the 18th century (0.8oCmeasured; 0.5oC masked by emitted sulphur aerosols) suggests a climatesensitivity consistent with Charneys CS index. The Charney climate sensitivityindex is consistent with best estimate for climate variations during the last 420million years, measured from paleoclimate proxies (mainly from stomata leafpores) in the range of 1.5 - 6.2oC, with best estimate of 2.8C (Royer et al.,2007).

Consistent with physical laws (Stefan-Bolzmann law), satellite and groundstations temperature measurements indicate an increase in CO2 in the order of~100 ppm can raise global temperature by more than 1 degrees Celsius,superposed by the effects of ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) variations, the11 years sunspot cycle and aerosol albedo effects (see Figure 10). This translates

into 3oC to 4C rise in the polar regions, leading to the directly observed extensivemelting of the ice sheets and polar-ward migration of climate zones.

Further note: Referring to MBs comment on the low concentration of CO2, as iscommonly the case with non-linear processes in nature, where output and inputare decoupled due to feedback processes, small changes in quantity can result inmajor consequences. Examples include threshold changes in temperature whichtrigger boiling or freezing of water, the effects of small critical changes in theconcentration of oxygen and CO2 on the human lungs, the body fever effects ofabove-threshold levels of microbial populations, the consequences of tinyconcentrations of toxins in the human blood, and threshold levels in radioactivemass that trigger a nuclear reaction.


5/34

5

Figure 2a.

IPCC-2007 figure SPM-1, indicating the rise of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane,Nitric oxide) during the Holocene, with insets for the last 250 years. Note thesharp rise since the 18th century.


6/34

6

Figure 2b.

IPCC 2007 AR4. Figure TS.5. 2005 Global mean radiative forcings of theatmosphere, including their 90% confidence intervals, for various greenhousegases, aerosols, effects of aerosol/clouds relations and the sun.

________________________________________________________________

Glikson QaA-1b: When the effects of the gas methane (CH4) are includedin the total greenhouse effect, the total rise of greenhouse gases isequivalent to 460 ppm CO2.

MB: Methane occupies just two-thirds of a part per million of the atmosphere, and its radiativeeffect is 23 times that of CO2, so its entire existing concentration has a warming effect

equivalent to that of just 14 ppmv of CO2, of which not more than 4 ppmv is attributable tohumankind so, in effect, we have added 108 + 4 = 112 ppmv CO2 to the pre-existing 278ppmv, making around 400 ppmv CO2 equivalent, not 460 ppmv.

AG response to MB 1b

Not so: The current concentration of methane is 1.7 parts per million.

MB's calculation of the effect of methane is in error. The rise in methane fromabout 700 ppb to 1700 ppb since 1850 has induced radiative forcing rise of0.48Watt/m2, i.e. about 0.3 of the effects of c.108 ppm CO2 of 1.6 Watt/m2 (Figure

2). Thus, the increase in methane since 1850 contributed further warming byabout a third of the CO2 effects. The rise in Nitric oxide from the 18th century byabout 50 ppb (0.16 Watt/m2), related to nitrate-rich fertilisers, and of


7/34

7

halocarbons (0.34 Watt/m2), have pushed atmospheric radiative forcing byanother 0.53 Watt/m2, consistent with the estimate of 460 ppm CO2-equivalentof the Copenhagen Synthesis Report.

Estimates of paleo-CO2 levels during Phanerozoic, based to a large extent onstomata pores of fossil leafs (Royer, 2004), combine the CO2 and the

decomposed methane component. A large body of paleoclimate evidenceindicates an upper stability level of the Antarctic ice sheet at approximately 500CO2 (Zachos et al., 2008), consistent with current melting of the west and eastAntarctica ice sheets.

_____________________________________________________________

Glikson QaA-1c: Consistent with the basic laws of physics and chemistry,experimental evidence and direct observations in nature, greenhousegases, including water vapour [H2O], carbon dioxide [CO2], methane[CH4], nitrous oxide [N2O], and ozone [O3] possess heat-trapping andheat-emitting capacity.

MB: The effect of all greenhouse gases except water vapour and carbon dioxide is so smallthat it may be left out of account without significant error.

AG response to MB 1c

This is not the case. As shown in the previous comment, the combined effects ofthe rise in methane, nitric oxides and halocarbons since the 18th century addradiative forcing of ~0.98 Watt/m2, i.e. an extra 61% of the radiative effect ofCO2. The total rise in greenhouse gas radiative forcing is thus 2.58 Watt/m2,which from paleoclimate-based observations of3/4C per W/m2 correlates with

just under 2oC.

The combined rise in atmospheric energy level of c.2.58 Watt/m2 is just underhalf the value of c.6.5 Watt/m2 of the last glacial termination (Hansen et al.,2007, 2008), and thus represents the strongest forcing since about 14,000 yearsago. Current changes around the globe in terms of the polar-ward migration ofclimate zones, melting in the cryosphere, sea level rise and extreme weatherevents are consistent with observed rise in atmospheric and oceanic energylevels.

_________________________________________________________

Glikson-1d: This characteristic arises from the translation of heat into kinetic

energy (internal vibration of gas molecules) and, conversely, of kinetic energy toheat. The concentration of greenhouse molecules in the atmosphere thus acts asa warm blanket without which the mean temperature of the Earth surface wouldhave been about 30oC lower than the present mean level of about 14oC.

MB. In fact, one must also allow for the reduction in the Earths albedo (its propensity to reflectsunlight harmlessly straight back to space) from 0.30 to 0.16 in the absence of clouds.Therefore the Earths surface today is not 30 C warmer but just 20 C warmer than it waswhen there was no atmosphere.


8/34

8

AG response to MB 1d

The Earth albedo response as related to land use since 1750 is estimated as -0.15Watt/m2 (IPCC-2007; Fig. SPM-2) (Figure 2b). MBs comment is not understoodas the Earths albedo depends on a number of factors, including the extent of theice sheets, of forests, deserts etc.

______________________________________________________

2. How reliable are predictions of future climate?

Glikson QaA-2: Rapid climate change is happening in the present time, asmanifested by polar ice melt, sea level rise, prolonged droughts inAustralia, China, Argentina and the US, extreme weather events and

acidification of the oceans.

MB: The climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years, ever since the planet first came intoexistence. The question is whether the changes in todays climate are beyond its naturalvariability. The answer, in each of the instances of rapid climate change mentioned by Dr.Glikson, is No. Polar ice melt: Ice has been accumulating in Greenland (at a rate of 2 inches ayear, averaged across the entire ice sheet) for 11 years (Johannessen et al., 2005). Antarctichas cooled throughout the period of the satellite record, though a single paper (Stieg et al.,2009) has unsuccessfully tried to argue otherwise, by inventing data that were not actuallymeasured. In fact, the extent of sea ice around Antarctica has grown steadily throughout thesatellite record, and reached a 30-year maximum in October 2007, just three weeks after the

Arctic sea-ice extent had reached a 30-year minimum. Overall, there has been virtually notrend in global sea-ice extent in 30 years.

AG response to MB 2a

Where MB states the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years, first: it is4.65 Ga since Earth was accreted; Second, that natural calamities occurred overtime (volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, methane eruptions) does meanhumans are justified in triggering calamities!

Regarding whether current climate change is natural or anthropogenic, referenceis made to melting in the cryosphere as follows:

Greenland and Antarctic ice melt: Rignot & Kanagartnam (2006) estimate that

Greenland is on balance losing mass (see Figure 3) and over the period of theirstudy the ice sheet mass deficit (the amount of ice lost to the sea) has doubled,increasing from 90 to 220 km3/year (an increase of0.23 to 0.57 mm/yearsea level equivalent).

Here is what the NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Centre; http://nsidc. org/quickfacts/icesheets.html) states: The mass of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheethas begun to decline. From 1979 to 2006, summer melt on the ice sheetincreased by30 percent, reaching a new record in 2007. At higher elevations,an increase in winter snow accumulation has partially offset the melt. However,the decline continues to outpace accumulation because warmer temperatureshave led to increased melt and faster glacier movement at the island's edges.


9/34

9

By contrast to MBs, the British Geological Survey reports (Authors Hamish D.Pritchard, Robert J. Arthern, David G. Vaughan & Laura A. Edwards. publicationNature, 23 September 2009, doi:10.1038/nature08471):

: The most comprehensive picture of the rapidly thinning glaciers along thecoastline of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has been created using

satellite lasers. The findings are an important step forward in the quest to makemore accurate predictions for future sea-level rise. The analysis of millions ofNASA satellite measurements from both of these vast ice sheets shows that themost profound ice loss is a result of glaciers speeding up where they flow into thesea. The authors conclude that this dynamic thinning of glaciers now reaches alllatitudes in Greenland, has intensified on key Antarctic coastlines, is penetratingfar into the ice sheets interior and is spreading as ice shelves thin by ocean-driven melt. Ice shelf collapse has triggered particularly strong thinning that hasendured for decades. The paper also compares the rates of change in elevationof both fast-flowing and slow-flowing ice. In Greenland, for example, 111 fast-moving glaciers were studied and 81 found to be thinning at rates twice that ofslow-flowing ice at the same altitude. They found that ice loss from many glaciers

in both Antarctica and Greenland is greater than the rate of snowfall furtherinland. In Antarctica some of the fastest thinning glaciers are in West Antarctica(Amundsen Sea Embayment) where Pine Island Glacier and neighbouring Smithand Thwaites Glacier are thinning by up to nine metres per year.

The SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) Report of November 2009states; Over the next century we expect ozone concentrations above the

Antarctic to recover, but if greenhouse gas concentrations increase at the presentrate then temperatures across the continent will increase by several degrees andthere will be about one third less sea ice.

Figure 3. IPCC-2007 AR4 Figure TS.14. Rates of observed recent surfaceelevation change for Greenland (left; 19892005) and Antarctica (right; 19922005). Red hues indicate a rising surface and blue hues a falling surface, which

typically indicate an increase or loss in ice mass at a site, although changes overtime in bedrock elevation and in near-surface density can be important. For


10/34

10

Greenland, the rapidly thinning outlet glaciers Jakobshavn (J), Kangerdlugssuaq(K), Helheim (H) and areas along the southeast coast (SE) are shown, togetherwith their estimated mass balance vs. time (with K and H combined, in Gt yr1,with negative values indicating loss of mass from the ice sheet to the ocean).For Antarctica, ice shelves estimated to be thickening or thinning by more than30 cm yr1 are shown by point-down purple triangles (thinning) and point-up red

triangles (thickening) plotted just seaward of the relevant ice shelves.________________________________________________________________

MB. Sea-level rise: Ever since satellites began measuring sea-level rise by altimetry against areference geoid in 1993, sea level has been rising at a mean rate of just 1 ft (0.3 m) percentury, very similar to the 8 inches/century observed by tide-gauges in the 20th century.Indeed, even the tiny increase from 8 to 12 inches (0.2 to 0.3 m) per century is probably anartefact of the change in measuring systems rather than a consequence of global warming.Prof. Niklas Moerner, who has written 530 papers in the scientific literature, many of them onsea-level rise, says he expects sea level to rise by just 4 inches (10 cm) this century. In the

past four years, sea level has not risen at all.


Sea levels:

The rise of sea level is well documented, including: (1) Rahmstorf et al. 2009,indicating for the period 1880-2008 an SL rise of about 20 cm and an SL rate risefrom about 0.7 to 3.7 mm/year (Oxford Beyond 4 degrees C, September,2009); (2) Church et al 2006, indicating a rise of about 40 mm between 1992-2001.

Morner et al.s 2004 suggestion as if sea level fell by 30 cm around the MaldiveIslands over the last 50 years has been refuted by Church et al. 2006, who state:

We find no evidence for the fall in sea level at the Maldives as postulated byMrner et al. (2004). Our best estimate of relative sea-level rise at Funafuti,Tuvalu is 21 mm yr1 over the period 1950 to 2001. The analysis clearlyindicates that sea-level in this region is rising

Likewise Nerem et al. 2006 state: We feel compelled to respond to the recentarticle by Mrner (2004) because he makes several major errors in his analysis,and as a result completely misinterprets the record of sea level change from theTOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) satellite altimeter mission. One major criticism we have

with the paper is that Mrner does not include a single reference to any altimeterstudy, all of which refute his claim that there is no apparent change in globalmean sea level (GMSL) [see Cazenave and Nerem, (2004) for a summary].

_________________________________________________________________

MB: Droughts in Australia, China, Argentina, and the US: The pattern of droughts has shownno overall increase worldwide. Droughts have always occurred in human history, wiping outcivilizations from South America and Africa to India and China. They are not new. Australia hasa desert climate and has long been affected by droughts. In the US, the worst drought in recenttimes was in the 1920s and 1930s in the Great Plains, which John Steinbecks novel TheGrapes of Wrath powerfully describes.


11/34

11


MB mistakes regional for global climate changes. It is well known that, inany particular global climate regime, high-amplitude regional and localvariations occur, yet an overall shift in the global state of the atmospheretakes place between climate states such as the glacial and interglacial

eras, with profound effects on all regions. The rapid rise in the energystate of the atmosphere toward 500 ppm CO2-e, i.e. the upper stability

limit of the Antarctic ice sheet (Zachos et al., 2008 and referencestherein) constitutes such a fundamental shift.

Droughts occurred through the Holocene in particular regions, for examplesuccessive failures of monsoons, evidenced by the collapse of river-basedcivilizations dependent on river flow (Indus, Euphrates, Nile, Yang-Tse). Asshown by Holocene paleo-temperature records, mean global temperature changeresponsible to these droughts were in some instances on the order of a fraction ofa degree (an excellent paleoclimate summary is given in the IPCC-2007 chapter

6: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1 _Print_Ch06.pdf Figures 6.10,6.4, 6.13, 6.3).

Mean global temperature rise during the 2nd part of the 20th century, an order ofmagnitude stronger than historic climate changes, result in a polar-ward shift inclimate zones and extensive droughts. The countries that make up two thirds ofthe world's agricultural output are experiencing drought conditions. Whether youwatch a video of the droughtin China, Australia, Africa, South America, or theUS, the scene will be the same: misery, ruined crop, and dying cattle.(http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12252) (Figure 4).

Temperature and rainfall maps by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology

demonstrate remarkable rise in temperature and decline in rainfall over theagricultural regions (SE and SW Australia) during the second half of the 20 thcentury, affecting Australias premier agricultural regions (Figure 5).

Climate sceptics often refer to the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as a corollaryof current climate change, however mean global temperature rises based onmulti-proxy studies indicate the peak of the MWP about 1400-1450 AD was about0.6oC lower than late 20th early 21st century temperatures (Figure 9).

Reference is also made to the 1600-1700 AD Little Ice Age, which correlatesclosely with a lull in sunspot activity (Solanki, 2002). Until the mid-20th centuryconcomitant rise in solar insolation and in greenhouse gases rendered their

separation on global temperature plots difficult. However, from the 1970s a cleardecoupling between insolation and greenhouse-induced radiative forcing ismanifest (Solanki, 2002, 2004; Laut, 2003; Damon and Laut, 2004).


12/34

12

Figure 4. Catastrophic declined in global food production:http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12252(a) 2006 $value of food production

(b) 2008 - 09 droughts


13/34

13

Figure 5. Australia temperature change rates in degrees C per 10 years for theperiods 1950-2008 and 1970-2008. http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/temp_maps.cgi Australia rainfall change rates in mm per 10 years for theperiods 1950-2008 and 1970-2008. http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi Displaying the acceleration in temperature rise insouthern Australia, rainfall in northwestern and mid-Western Australia, andworsening drought conditions in eastern and southwestern Australia from the1970s.________________________________________________________

MB: Extreme-weather events: The UNs climate panel explicitly gives warnings againstattributing extreme-weather events of any kind to anthropogenic global warming. Forinstance, the number of hurricanes making landfall in the US has not risen in 150 years. And itis settled science that a warmer planet would also be a calmer planet, weather-wise, because itis the absolute difference between extremes of temperature that causes storms, and warmerweather reduces this difference, consequently diminishing the power of storms. I am grateful to

Professor Richard Lindzen for explaining this.

AG response to MB 2d

Hurricane intensity: Webster et al. (2005) and the Copenhagen SynthesisReport, 2009 (figure 6), indicate a sharp rise in the frequency of Category 5hurricanes.

A recent paper regarding frequency of severe storms (Frequency of severe stormsand global warming by Aumann et al. 2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L19805)states: We use five years of data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS)to develop a correlation between the frequency of Deep Convective Clouds (DCC)

and the zonal mean tropical surface temperature. AIRS data show that the


14/34

14

frequency of DCC in the tropical oceans is very temperature sensitive, increasing45% per 1 K increase of the zonal mean surface temperature. The combination ofthe sensitivity of the DCC frequency to temperature indicates that the frequencyof DCC, and as a consequence the frequency of severe storms, increases at therate of 6%/decade with the current +0.13 K/decade rate of global warming. Thisresult is only qualitatively consistent with state-of-the-art climate models, where

the frequency of the most intense rain events increases with global warming.

Whereas in other parts of his comments MB tries to deny global warmingexists, in the last comment he suggests it may be beneficial.

However, Lindzens advice is gravely mistaken. A warmer planet will have smalleror no ice sheets to maintain the Holocene climate which allowed the developmentof agriculture in the first place! Global warming by about 2 3 degrees C,conditions similar to the mid-Pliocene, will lead to sea levels about 25 metershigher than at present. Only small burrowing mammals could survive on thecontinents during greenhouse climate states, beginning to grow from about themid-Eocene when temperatures were dropping.

Natural disasters: The frequency of economic losses due to natural disasters,as monitored by GeoRisks Research, Munich Reinsurance Company, is portrayedin Figure 6, showing a sharp rise since about 1987. The article states: Out of the245 natural disasters in 2009, 224 were weather related, accounting for 55million people out of the 58 million people affected, 7 000 out of 8 900 of thosekilled, and US$ 15 billion out of the US$ 19 billion in economic damages. TheBelgian World Health Organization-collaborating Centre for Research on theEpidemiology of Disasters (CRED) released these preliminary 2009 disasterfigures for the period from 1 January to November 2009. A joint press conferencewas held in Copenhagen by WMO, the United Nations International Strategy forDisaster Reduction and the United Nations Development Programme. Michel

Jarraud, Secretary-General of WMO, underlined the importance of early warningsystems and seasonal climate forecasts to manage risks and to better preparevulnerable populations to cope with more extreme events. (http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/index_en.html)


15/34

15

Figure 6. Rising insurance costs related to natural disasters between 1950 and2006: (http://www.draeger-stiftung.de/HG/internet/SD/pdf/charts_hoeppe.pdf)Values in $billion

_______________________________________________________________

MB. Acidification of the oceans (MB): This is the fall-back position of those who are desperateto maintain that CO2 is bad for us, now that it is clear that global warming at the extreme rate

predicted by the UNs climate panel is not occurring and is not going to occur. Professor IanPlimer of the University of Adelaide says that because the oceans rub up against trillions ofsquare miles of rock they will always be as they have always been alkaline. In theCambrian era, 550 million years ago, the alkalinity of the oceans was much as it is today, eventhough CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was 2o times todays level. It was in that era thatthe calcite corals originated: they could not have done so if the oceans had been acid.Likewise, the delicate aragonite corals evolved in the Jurassic era, 175 million years ago, whenCO2 concentration was again close to 20 times todays. Calcium ranks only seventh among thesubstances in the ocean that could in theory acidify it: however, it is present in such smallquantities that it cannot make a difference. Indeed, even if all of the CO2 we emit this centurywere to end up immediately in the oceans (in which case it would not cause any global

warming at all), the CO2 already in the oceans, where there is 70 times as much of it as thereis in the atmosphere, would increase by little more than 1%. The idea that so small an increasein concentration could possibly cause any measurable acidification is simply nonsense.

AG response to MB 2e

As with atmospheric CO2, MBs argument appeals to an intuitive idea as if smallchanges in pH in the oceans are not destructive to corals and to other calcifyingmarine organisms. The opposite is true, as conveyed by Malcolm McCulloch:

The oceans play a key role in global climate change, being responsible for takingup nearly one-half of the anthropogenic CO2 that has been released so far.However, unlike the atmosphere where CO2 causes warming through its strong


16/34

16

physical interaction with infrared radiation, in the oceans it is a highly reactivespecies causing a major perturbation to the chemistry of surface waters. This

perturbation arises from dissolution of CO2 in surface waters, resulting in anincrease in the concentration of carbonic acid, which in turn is leading to anoverall increase in acidity. Rapidly rising levels of atmospheric CO2 have thusresulted in a significant reduction in seawater pH or what has become known as

ocean acidification, presenting many challenges and problems. And Calcifyingorganisms are amongst the most sensitive ecosystems to the effects of increasingatmospheric CO2, with recent experimental studies now indicating a highsensitivity to the degree of carbonate over-saturation. Tropical reef waters areoversaturated ( >1), with values typically from 3 to 4, but a doubling of CO2will decrease carbonate levels by over 40 percent.

Likewise, according the Australian Marine Science Institute, Anthropogenic carbondioxide has been accumulating in the oceans, lowering both the concentration ofcarbonate ions and the pH index. Previous laboratory experiments have shownthat decreased carbonate ion concentrations cause many marine calcareousorganisms to show reduced calcification rates (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/

journal /v2/n4/full/ngeo460.html).

MBs reference to Cambrian and Jurassic marine conditions are irrelevant asdifferent organisms existed at that stage, adapted to climate conditions whichvaried from the present, including lower solar luminosity and high CO2 levels,which appear to have compensated each other. As shown in figure 7, closecorrespondence is observed between atmospheric CO2 levels, determined fromproxies, and early climate phases, where levels approximately below 500 ppmcorrespond to cool periods and ice ages.

Figure 7. CO2 and Oxygen paleo-levels correlated with greenhouse and glacialclimate states (after R. Berner and D. Royer)


17/34

17

Observations and interpretations of post 18th century climate change inherentlyhinge on (A) precise measurements from weather stations, balloons andsatellites; (B) the in-depth studies of ice cores and Pleistocene to Holocenesediments, which document the detailed history of the last 740,000 years; (C)interpretations and projections of the evidence in view of the physics andchemistry of the atmosphere and the relevant forcings, which apart from

greenhouse gases include aerosols (dust, volcanic ash and sulphur), solarradiation, cosmic rays, weathering sequestration and numerous other processes.Inherent in the resort to geological periods hundreds of millions of years old,while of great academic interests, are too many unknowns to allow clear insightinto atmospheric processes of the last 250 years, the major one being the humanemission of more than 320 billion tons of carbon (GtC), more than half theoriginal 540 GtC level of the atmosphere.

_________________________________________________________

Glikson QaA: The worlds major climate science research organizations(Hadley Met Office, NASA/GISS, Colorado NSIDC, Tyndall Climate Centre,

Potsdam Climate Impact Institute, CSIRO, BOM) and university-basedclimate scientists have projected the current trends since the 1980s,including pioneering authorities such as Professor James Hansen and hisgroup (NASA), Professor Wally Broecker (Columbia University),Professor Joachim Schellnhuber and Professor Stephan Rahmstorf(Potsdam), Dr Barrie Pittock, Dr Graeme Pearman and Dr Ian Enting(former CSIRO climate scientists).

MB: Many of these organizations are deeply implicated in the Climategate scandal. The emailsbetween them have demonstrated a systematic, self-serving, ruthless readiness to invent,fabricate, distort, alter, suppress, hide, conceal or even destroy scientific data for the sake ofreaching the answer they want. That is not how science is done. James Hansen is not aprofessor, and his forecast in 1988 of how fast global temperatures would rise is pioneeringonly in the sense that it has proven to be a ludicrous and fanciful exaggeration, a technique thatother scientists have copied with profitable alacrity. Many of the other scientists named by Dr.Glikson have a reputation for bending science to suit their political stance: and the sheernastiness of most of them can be gauged from reading the Climategate emails.In any event, science is not done by consensus, nor by reputation. The consensus argument,known as the argumentum ad populum or head-count fallacy, is one of the dozen ancient andby now well-worn logical fallacies first codified by Aristotle. The reputation fallacy is theargumentum ad verecundiam. Neither of these fallacious arguments is acceptable. All of thescientists mentioned by Dr. Glikson are funded by taxpayers, as is Dr. Glikson himself. All of

them, therefore, have a direct, financial vested interest in promoting and maintaining the globalwarming scare, which has panicked scientifically-illiterate politicians into throwing billions ofwasted dollars at the scientists to make their scare go away. It is not necessary to allege thateach of those named has fallen prey to the temptation to enrich himself at our expense bybanging the drum for global warming: it is necessary only to establish that motives of this kindexist and that, therefore, mere numbers or mere reputation are not enough to establish ascientific case. Aristotle was right.

AG response to MB 2f

As documented in (http://www.pewclimate.org/ docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-07-09.pdf), what is referred to as climate gate has nosubstance, reflecting no more than doubts raised regarding the paleoclimatesignificance of a pine tree proxy and objection by some scientists to the


18/34

18

publication in the scientific literature of papers which have no basis in thedatabase nor in theory. A conspiracy theory against the entire scientific world,including thousands of individuals and research institutions, does not negate thedirect observations and empirical evidence, consistent with the basic physics andchemistry of the atmosphere, which underlie climate change._______________________________________________________

Glikson QaA 2g: The atmospheric energy rise exerted by the well-mixedgreenhouse gases, mainly CO2 and methane, is consistent with the basiclaws of physics and chemistry and with calculations and observations in

nature and the laboratory.

MB: Unfortunately for Dr. Glikson, the direct warming effect of CO2 is only one-third of thewarming predicted by the UN [AG1]. Even this direct effect is problematic, in that it is simply notpossible to simulate the entire 20-mile vertical atmospheric column in the laboratory. At lowaltitudes, for instance, the principal absorption band of CO2 is already almost saturated,allowing very little opportunity for further warming [AG2]. At higher altitudes, the atmosphere is

not dense enough [AG3]. Methane, as we have already shown, is simply irrelevant, and wouldremain so even if we were to quintuple its atmospheric concentration [AG3].

However, the UN multiplies the direct warming effect of CO2 by 3 to allow for what are knownas temperature feedbacks changes in global temperature that occur purely becausetemperature has already changed. Not one of these feedbacks can be directly measured, andthe UN is unable to assign any level of scientific understanding to them, because ourunderstanding of them is negligible. Notwithstanding our very low understanding of temperaturefeedbacks, the UN has somehow decided on no credible evidence at all that it should beallowed to triple the direct warming effect of CO2 to take account of them. Yet it is clear fromnumerous studies that the UN has prodigiously exaggerated the biggest two positive feedbacks

that from water vapor and that from cloud albedo. Most climate-sensitivity studies thosewhich quantify the amount of warming to be expected from a given proportionate increase inCO2 concentration now find that the UN has exaggerated CO2s warming effect betweenthreefold and sixfold.

AG response to MB 2g

1 Given the oscillation of insolation at +/-0.1 Watt/m2 since the mid-20 thcentury, no significant forcing other than that by the heat-trapping effect bygreenhouse gases (CO2, methane, N2O, Halocarbons, ozone) has been identifiedwhich accounts for the rise in mean global temperatures since about 1970.

2 What is the basis for such saturation hypothesis? CO2 levels andcorresponding warming occurred at levels of 400 ppm and 500 ppm in the mid-Pliocene (2.8 Ma) and mid-Miocene (15 Ma), respectively, and a couple ofthousand ppm during parts of the Eocene (55 34 Ma) and late Cretaceous, asdocumented by detailed paleo-CO2 studies based on stomata (fossil leaf pores)and carbon and boron isotope data (Royer, Berner, Beerling and other, Figure 7).

3 MBs questioning of the reality of feedbacks indicates lack of familiarity withthe basic tenets of climate science. The entire behaviour of the atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere is governed by responses to external forcings, such asMilankovic cycles solar pulsations (40 60 Watt/m2) which trigger glacialterminations, or release of methane from sediments as documented at the

Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (55 million years ago), or the excavation


19/34

19

and combustion of more than 320 billion tons of fossil carbon separated from theatmosphere for hundreds of millions of years.

4 As shown in my response to comment 1b, methane is very relevant,accounting for 0.48 Watt/m2 rise in atmospheric energy level. The threat ofmethane release from Siberian and Canadian permafrost and from sediments,

constituting a major feedback to global warming, is one of the most seriouselements of continuing global warming (Figure 8), as in the following reference:

Thawing permafrost and the resulting microbial decomposition of previouslyfrozen organic carbon (C) is one of the most significant potential feedbacks fromterrestrial ecosystems to the atmosphere in a changing climate. In this article we

present an overview of the global permafrost C pool and of the processes thatmight transfer this C into the atmosphere, as well as the associated ecosystemchanges that occur with thawing. We show that accounting for C stored deep inthe permafrost more than doubles previous high-latitude inventory estimates,with this new estimate equivalent to twice the atmospheric C pool. The thawing of

permafrost with warming occurs both gradually and catastrophically, exposing

organic C to microbial decomposition. Other aspects of ecosystem dynamics canbe altered by climate change along with thawing permafrost, such as growingseason length, plant growth rates and species composition, and ecosystemenergy exchange. However, these processes do not appear to be able tocompensate for C release from thawing permafrost, making it likely that the neteffect of widespread permafrost thawing will be a positive feedback to a warmingclimate. (Schuur et al., 2008, BioScience, September 2008 / Vol. 58 No. 8).

Figure 8. Global methane deposits (Global Carbon Project/CSIRO).__________________________________________________________


20/34

20

Glikson QaA 2h: Measurements of solar radiation and cosmic rays ruleout these factors as drivers of climate change since the mid-20th

century.

MB: Once again, Dr. Glikson is not abreast of the latest research. Though the relatively smallchanges in solar irradiance between the maxima and minima of the solar activity cycle are inthemselves too small to make much difference, it has long been observed that weather onEarth changes markedly in parallel with these cycles. Professor Henrik Svensmark hasperformed detailed experiments and calculations, in collaboration with scientists from all aroundthe world, so as to demonstrate that it is changes in the magnetic activity of the Sun that alterthe quantity of cosmic rays entering our atmosphere and serving as nuclei for the formation ofcloud droplets. His theory is extremely unpopular with scientists making their fortunes from the globalwarming scare, because on both very long and very short timescales he has been able to demonstrate

the correlation between solar activity, cosmic-ray deflection and variations in cloud nucleation. The Suncannot safely be dismissed as the main driver of todays changes in the Earths climate. Scafetta andWest (2008), for instance, attribute two-thirds of the global warming of the past half century to the Sun.

AG response to MB 2h

The solar and cosmic ray flux (CRF) factor:

Since recently climate sceptics have focused on interpretation of climate changein terms of extraterrestrial forcing, this aspect is considered here in further detail.

Solar factor was responsible for atmospheric energy rise of up to about 0.2

Watt/m2 during the first half of the 20th century, but stabilized during the secondhalf. Since cosmic ray flux (CRF) activity is inversely related to solar magneticactivity, once insolation stabilized from about mid-20th century according to the11 years sun spot cycle (+/- less than 0.1 Watt/m2), in follows fluctuations inCRF activity would be reduced. Since the c.0.56oC rise in mean globaltemperature since the mid-20th century is accounted for by greenhouse gasemissions, what factor CRF may induce is inherently minor. Measurements of theCRF intensity for the last 50 years betrays little variation (Figure 11).

According to Damon and Laut (Eos,Vol. 85, No. 39, 28 September 2004) The lastdecade has seen a revival of various hypotheses claiming a strong correlationbetween solar activity and a number of terrestrial climate parameters. Links have

been made between cosmic rays and cloud cover, first total cloud cover and thenonly low clouds, and between solar cycle lengths and northern hemisphere landtemperatures. These hypotheses play an important role in the scientific debate aswell as in the public debate about the possibility or reality of a man-made globalclimate change. Analysis of a number of published graphs that have played amajor role in these debates and that have been claimed to support solarhypotheses [Laut, 2003; Damon and Peristykh, 1999, 2004] shows that theapparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained byincorrect handling of the physical data. The graphs are still widely referred to inthe literature, and their misleading character has not yet been generallyrecognized. Readers are cautioned against drawing any conclusions, based uponthese graphs, concerning the possible wisdom or futility of reducing the emissions

of man-made greenhouse gases.


21/34

21

Whereas a relationships is observed between the solar magnetic field, sun spotnumbers and the cosmic ray flux, apart from the 11 years cycle there is noevidence of a trend in cosmic ray intensity during the last ~60 years (Ram, Stolz& Tinsley EoS 90 (44) 2009, Figure 2).

Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and

colleagues challenged the cosmic ray hypothesis (Eos, 2004), claiming Shavivand Veizers paper (2003), which attributes most climate change on Earth tocosmic rays is incorrect, and based on questionable methodology. According toRahmstorf, Shaviv and Veizer's analyses-and especially their conclusions-arescientifically ill-founded. The data on cosmic rays and temperature so far in thepast are extremely uncertain. Their reconstruction of ancient cosmic rays is basedon only 50 meteorites, and most other experts interpret their significance in avery different way. The two curves presented in the article show an apparentstatistical correlation only because the authors adjusted the data, in one case by40 million years. They conclude Shaviv and Veizer have not shown that there isany correlation between cosmic rays and climate.

Further regarding cosmic rays, Laut, 2008, states:

The last decade has seen a revival of various hypotheses claiming a strongcorrelation between solar activity and a number of terrestrial climate parameters:Links between cosmic rays and cloud cover, first total cloud cover and then onlylow clouds, and between solar cycle lengths and Northern Hemisphere landtemperatures. These hypotheses play an important role in the scientific as well asin the public debate about the possibility or reality of a man-made global climatechange. I have analysed a number of published graphs which have played amajor role in these debates and which have been claimed to support solarhypotheses. My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed onthese graphs have been obtained by an incorrect handling of the physical data.

Since the graphs are still widely referred to in the literature and their misleadingcharacter has not yet been generally recognized, I have found it appropriate todeliver the present overview. Especially, I want to caution against drawing anyconclusions based upon these graphs concerning the possible wisdom or futility ofreducing the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases. My findings do not byany means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity andterrestrial climate. Such links have over the years been demonstrated by manyauthors. The sole objective of the present analysis is to draw attention to the factthat some of the widely publicized, apparent correlations do not properly refectthe underlying physical data. Laut, 2008,Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65 (2003) 801 812.

__________________________________________________________

3. Are temperatures rising?Glikson QaA: While decade-long climate trends manifest global warming,superposition by the El Nino La-Nina (ENSO) cycle and the 11 years-

long sunspot cycle results in a zigzag upward trend of globaltemperatures. As the globe warms and the energy levels of theatmosphere increase, short term climate variability is increasing.

MB: Here are the facts. It was around 7C warmer than the present throughout most of the past

600 million years, warmer by up to 6C during each of the last half dozen interglacial warmperiods over the past 850,000 years [AG1] (there was no ice on Greenland that far back),


22/34

22

warmer during 7500 of the last 11,400 years, warmer during the Holocene climate maximum7500 years ago, warmer during the Minoan warm period, warmer during the Roman warmperiod, and warmer during the Medieval warm period. [AG2]The present global warming began 300 years ago, at the end of the long period ofcomparative solar inactivity called the Little Ice Age. Then, in parallel with the recovery of solar

activity, temperatures worldwide began to climb. Solar activity peaked during the GrandMaximum of the last 70 years of the 20th century. For the past few years, however, solaractivity has been in decline. Therefore, there has been no statistically-significant increase inglobal temperatures in a decade and a half. [AG3]

Akasofu (2008) finds that temperatures have risen by around 0.5 C/century during each of thepast three centuries, in parallel with the warming over that period. During 280 of those 300years, our own contribution to the warming must have been infinitesimal and not detectable bymeasurement. During the 20 years 1975-1995, we might in theory have caused some warming

except that the rate of warming during those years was no greater than the rate of warmingfrom 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940, [AG4] two periods during which our influence on

temperature was negligible. So there is no, repeat no, anthropogenic effect on temperaturesthat is yet measurable. Since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001, there has been aglobal cooling trend that is rapid and statistically-significant. Dr. Glikson has only been able topretend that there was a rising trend over that period by taking as his endpoint the temperaturepeak caused by the prominent el Nino southern oscillation a natural event that occurred in2007.

AG response to MB 3

Look at Figure 9, portraying the mean global temperature proxy curves (IPCC-2007), showing most of the above is incorrect. Global warming since the 18th

century has exceeded historical and Holocene temperatures. The last 10 yearscontain the warmest years recorded since instrumental measurementscommenced (1998, 2002, 2007)

1 - Not so. Terrestrial climates oscillated between greenhouse states and glacialstates (see Figure 7).

2 The interglacial periods during the last 850,000 years were not 6 degrees Cwarmer than at present. They were about 5-6 degrees warmer that theintervening glacial periods.

3 - As summarized in the IPCC Chapter 6 (paleoclimate), CO2 and the rate of

temperature rise since the 18

th

century are the fastest observed during theHolocene.

4 Fast global warming by about 0.56oC since the mid-1970s, can not beaccounted for by solar forcing, which varied by +/-0.1 Watt/m2 in relation to the11 years sunspot cycle. Temperatures continued to rise from the last El-Ninopeak of 1998 by about 0.2oC, then declined by about 0.2-0.3oC in connection withthe La-Nina, presently rising again toward a new El-Nino.

5 The 1910-1940 warming represents combined result of solar factor (~0.2oC)and carbon emissions (Solanki, 2002). Regarding comparisons between theMedieval Warm Period and the present, see Figure 9.


23/34

23

Figure 9. Proxy and measurements based mean global temperature plot for thelast millennium (IPCC-2007)

Mean global temperature has risen since the 18th century by about 0.8oC, plusabout 0.5oC masked by the cooling effect of emitted sulphur aerosols. Followingsteep mean global warming by about 0.45oC from 1975 to 1997, a major El-Ninopeak in 1998 drove mean global temperature upward by another 0.2oC. Following

this peak temperature continued to rise by about 0.3oC from 1999 toward a peakin 2007, followed by a strong La-Nina phase which brought temperatures downby about 0.4oC. Currently temperatures are rising, heralding a new El-Nino phase(Figure 10).


24/34

24

Figure 10. The relations between decadal global mean temperature trend andthe ENSO cycle, showing the superposition of El Nino La Nina cycles on thelonger term trend. After Easterling and Wehrl (2008) and NOAA.

A 2009 assessment of global warming by the World Meteorological Organization(WMO) states: (http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/index_en.html):

The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since thebeginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sourcescompiled by WMO. The global combined sea-surface and land surface airtemperature for 2009 (JanuaryOctober) is currently estimated at 0.44C 0.11C above the 19611990 annual average of 14.00C. The current nominalranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages,

places it as the fifth-warmest year. The decade from 2000 to 2009 was warmerthan the decade from 1990 to 1999, which in turn was warmer than from 1980 to1989. More complete data for the remainder of 2009 will be analysed at thebeginning of 2010 to update the current assessment.


25/34

25

Figure 11.

A correlation between Cosmic Ray intensity and sunspot numbers (Gupta et al.2005. http://www.ast.leeds.ac.uk/~ jh/ICRC/PAPERS/SH34/ind-gupta-M-abs1-sh34-poster.pdf) (above) and mean global land-sea temperature anomalies(NASA/GISS) for the period 1950 2005 (below), showing that while the CRFoscillated with the sun spot numbers, mean global temperatures has been rising.

4. Why should a few degrees warming be a concern?

Glikson QaA: As distinct from changes in the weather, which can varysharply by tens of degrees over short periods, a medium to long termupward trend of mean global temperatures by several degrees Celsiusresults in progressive shift in climate zones from the tropics toward thepoles. This ensues in drying of the mid-latitudes, such as southeast and

southwest Australia, sea level rise (from about 1.1 mm/year early in the20th century to about 3.7 mm/year at present), ocean acidification (pH

reduced by about -0.1 points) and intensification of extreme weatherevents, including floods and fires.

MB: In fact, the Clausius-Clapeyron relation one of the few proven results in the slipperysubject of climatology mandates that, as the space occupied by the atmosphere warms, theatmosphere is capable of carrying near-exponentially more water vapor. This, in turn, shouldincrease cloud cover and rainfall generally, though the spatial distribution will not necessarilybe the same as it is today. As for ocean acidification, there has been no attempt at worldwidemeasurement of the acid-base balance (measured on a logarithmic scale of pH values): thefigure mentioned by Dr. Glikson is merely a computer models projection. Nor is there any

evidence for intensification of extreme-weather events there has simply not been enoughwarming, particularly over the past 15 years, to cause any such thing.


26/34

26


MB states: there has simply not been enough warming, particularly over the past15 years, hardly consistent with the evidence, as portrayed in Figure 11,showing warming by at least 0.2oC.

Precipitation: Whereas overall precipitation has increased, much of it occurs inassociation with cyclones over desert areas, whereas agricultural regions such asin southeast and southwest Australia are suffering droughts associated with thepolar-ward migration of the subtropical high pressure ridge and temperateclimate zones. As indicated in my earlier response 1a, the role of water vapour asa greenhouse gas, is as a feedback effect, not a primary driver. Water vapour areimportant in the tropics, less important over the dry deserts and even less overthe low-humidity polar regions, yet it is the latter which warm the fastest.

Ocean acidification: Observations hinge on direct measurements. As stated byCaldeira and Wickett, 2003 (NATURE|VOL 425 | 25 SEPTEMBER 2003

|www.nature.com/nature):

Most carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result of the burningof fossil fuels will eventually be absorbed by the ocean, with potentially adverseconsequences for marine biota. Here we quantify the changes in ocean pH thatmay result from this continued release of CO2 and compare these with pHchanges estimated from geological and historical records. We find that oceanicabsorption of CO2 from fossil fuels may result in larger pH changes over the nextseveral centuries than any inferred from the geological record of the past 300million years, with the possible exception of those resulting from rare, extremeevents such as bolide impacts or catastrophic methane hydrate degassing. Whencarbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean it lowers the pH, making the ocean more

acidic. Owing to a paucity of relevant observations, we have a limitedunderstanding of the effects of pH reduction on marine biota. Coral reefs,calcareous plankton and other organisms whose skeletons or shells containcalcium carbonate may be particularly affected. Most biota reside near thesurface, where the greatest pH change would be expected to occur, but deep-ocean biota may be more sensitive to pH changes.

._______________________________________________________

Glikson QaA: Human agriculture could only develop in river valleys fromabout 7000 years ago when the climate stabilized and a balance wasachieved between mountain glaciers and the monsoons, allowing near-

constant river flow and thereby irrigation. A rise in mean globaltemperature results in melting of mountain glaciers, such as in the

Himalaya, disrupting the great rivers of south and southeast Asia and thecultivation on which the lives of hundreds of millions of people depends.Modern civilization depends on extensive cultivation of marginal semi-arid lands and of low river valleys and delta, which are vulnerable totemperature rise and sea level rise, respectively.

MB: In fact, it is not Himalayan glacial meltwater that billions depend upon for their watersupply: it is Eurasian snow-melt, which, according to the Rutgers University Snow & Ice Lab,shows no trend throughout the past 40 years. I have also consulted Professor M.I. Bhat of theIndian Geological Survey, who confirms that the pattern of glacial melt in the Himalayas ismuch as it always was: generally nothing unusual in the 150-200 years for which the Indian


27/34

27

Government and its predecessor the British Raj maintained records. As usual, however, therehas been local geological deformation in some places, leading to rapid recession of a fewglaciers. Overall, though, Dr. Bhat finds that the health of the 9575 glaciers that debouch fromthe Himalayas into India are doing fine.


Not true. For example, look at Himalayan Glacier Melting Observed From Space(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070327113346.htm) whichstates, among other: The results show clear regression of the large glacierswhose terminal tongues reach the lowest levels (about 4000 m) with a thinning of8 to 10 m below 4400 m. Such loss is 4 to 7 m between 4400 and 5000 m,

passing to 2 m above 5000 m. The satellite image evaluation yields an averagemass balance of -0.7 to -0.85 m/year water equivalent for the 915 km2 ofglaciers surveyed, a total mass loss of 3.9 km3 of water in 5 years. In order tocheck these results and validate the procedure, the satellite-derived results werecompared with the mass balance for the small glacier Chhota Shigri (15 km2)

determined from the field measurements and surveys, performed between 2002and 2004 by the Great Ice research unit and its Indian partners. The massbalance determined from these field data and that calculated from satellite dataagree. For both evaluation methods, Chhota Shigri glacier appears to have lost anaverage of a little over 1 m of ice per year.

Or look at the Times of India 7 Dec 2009 where a front page news quoting"findings" of ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization) that Gangotri galcier hasreceded by 1.5 Kms in the last 30 years as seen in the remote sensing data(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india /Isro-images-show-Gangotri-glacier-receded-15km-in-30-yrs/articleshow/5302230.cms). The Guardian Weeklyfeatures the melting of the Thulagi glacier and the photos of the Rongbu Glaciernear Everest.

________________________________________________________

Glikson QaA: There is a delicate balance between the physical andchemical state of the atmosphere-ocean-land system and naturalhabitats. This controls the emergence, survival and demise of species,including humans.

MB: In fact, it is striking how many homoeostatic mechanisms seem to exist in the climate,maintaining it at a level capable of sustaining life from the Equator to the Poles. Many billions of

years ago, for instance, one-third of the atmosphere of the Earth was CO2: yet no runawaygreenhouse effect occurred. As noted above, in the Cambrian and Jurassic eras there was upto 20 times todays CO2 concentration, and no harm done. CO2 is a harmless trace gas: thesequite substantial alterations in its concentration have been insufficient to disturb the balance ofnature.


Jurassic CO2 levels were up to 2000 ppm (R. Berner, D. Royer) (see Figure 7),not the 20 times todays CO2 concentrations (which would mean 388 x 20 =7760 ppm CO2).

Where MB states and no harm was done (from high CO2 levels), he misses thepoint that comparisons with billions of years ago, or the Cambrian or the


28/34

28

Jurassic, are irrelevant, since mammals and humans are the product of evolutionin specific environmental conditions, and the emergence of larger mammals onlandtoward the late Eocene was intimately associated with global cooling relatedto development of the polar ice sheets. The high rate of melting of the latter (seecomment 2b above) threatens these conditions.

CO2 is a harmless trace gas. Medical doctors know well what happens when thelungs contain excess CO2!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. How reliable is the intergovernmental panel on climatechange (IPCC) and the information it provides?

Glikson QaA: The IPCC assessment reports prepared by the IPCC arebased on scientific contributions by many hundreds of the worlds mostexperienced and reputable scientists, employed by research institutionsand universities. These contributions are based on both original researchand on extensive reviews published in thousands of peer-reviewedpapers in the scientific literature. The peer review system, where expertsscrutinize scientific data and evidence, ensures accuracy of scientific

data and consistency of interpretations of the data with the basic laws ofphysics and chemistry. This contrasts with unreferenced claimsproliferating nowadays on the internet.

MB: And here we go again with the argumenta ad populum and ad verecundiam the head-count and reputation fallacies. Though peer review is the best system we have for evaluatingthe reliability of a scientific claim, in the present age editors and reviewers at scientific journalshave the same financial vested interest in promoting the global warming scare as the

scientists who write the papers they review and publish, and in suppressing or even ridiculingthe views of their opponents. You will notice that many of the assertions I have made here,along with many of the documents at www.scienceand publicpolicy.org, are in fact referenced i.e., we say which papers in the scientific literature we are relying upon. Now that the scientific

journals are almost as bad as the mainstream media at allowing serious but counter-consensual science to be fairly presented, the internet is in some respects a natural outlet forscientists exasperated at the unfairness of their mistreatment by the established outlets forscientific publication. One has only to read the Climategate emails to realize that many of thescientists cited with approval by Dr. Glikson are part of the small, nasty, determined conspiracythat has as the emails bear witness, bullied, menaced, threatened and interfered with journaleditors and reviewers, and even tampered with the process of the UNs climate panel itself.


As in my comment 2f, a conspiracy theory against the entire scientific world,including thousands of individuals and research institutions, does not constitute avalid argument and does not negate the direct empirical evidence of climatechange.

Glikson QaA: The comprehensive IPCC reports constitute the mostadvanced, multiply verified, compilations of climate science available. Ifany criticism can be aimed at the IPCC reviews, it is that in some

respects they underestimated the magnitude and pace of ice melt and


29/34

29

sea level rise observed since 2005, which are at the upper end or exceedthe more serious IPCC projections.

MB: In 1990, the First Assessment Reportof the UNs climate panel, the IPCC, was published.That report produced wildly-exaggerated projections of future temperature increase, based on

the inaccurate and artfully-manipulated graphs of James Hansen, whom we mentioned earlier.How do we know the projections were exaggerated? Because almost two decades havepassed since then, and the rate of temperature increase that we have actually measured isvery considerably below the rate projected in that first report. It may be that this embarrassingfailure of prediction is the main reason why the UNs first and second quinquennial assessmentreports are not available online. In 1995, the scientists final draft of the Second AssessmentReportof the UNs climate panel stated plainly, on five separate occasions, that no humaneffect on global temperatures was discernible, and that it could not be predicted when any sucheffect might become discernible. The UNs bureaucracy found this conclusion unacceptable,because among other things it would have put them all out of work, for the climate panelwould have been closed down. So the bureaucrats invited a single scientist one of those

active as a Climategate emailer to rewrite the draft. All five of the passages I have mentionedwere deleted; hundreds of consequential amendments were made; and the new draft containeda statement that a human influence on the climate was now discernible. This was the completeopposite of what the scientists had said. Yet this version written by one man was theversion that was published, and his conclusion, directly contrary to that of the scientists whohad signed off the previous final version of the 1995 report, has been the official line ever since.So, whenever anyone tells you the IPCCs chief conclusion that humans are affecting theclimate appreciably is the view of a consensus, remember that the consensus consistedoriginally of just one man. In the 2001 Third Assessment Report, the headline graph reproduced six times, large, and in full color, the only graph to be so favored purportedartificially to abolish the medieval warm period, on the basis of what was subsequently exposed

in the peer-reviewed literature as a series of statistical abuses and downright frauds. Onceagain, the UNs report did not represent the consensus. For, in the past 25 years, more than770 scientists from more than 450 institutions in more than 40 countries have contributed topapers providing evidence by a variety of methods that the medieval warm period was real,was global, and was warmer than the present. That is the consensus, but the UNs reportdecided on the basis of bogus evidence to override it, while still claiming to representconsensus. In the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the headline graph reproduced threetimes, large, and in full color, the only graph to be so favored purported artificially todemonstrate that the rate at which the world has been warming has been accelerating over thepast 150 years, with the fastest rate being observed over the past 25 years. This graph, too, isbogus, since it relies upon a known and serious statistical abuse called the endpoint fallacy:

the artful choice of startpoints or endpoints for a multiplicity of linear-regression trends on thesame stochastic dataset, which allows the dishonest scientist to demonstrate any desiredchange in the direction in which the data appear to be tending, or in the rate of change. Thetruth is that the warming rate of the 23 years 1975-1998, even though it culminated at the peakof a Great El Nino, an oceanic release of massive amounts of heat-energy to the atmospherethat occurs less than once a century, was no greater than the warming rate observed from1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940, so that there is known to be no anthropogenic signal atall in the global temperature data. That is the truth, but the UN decided to use a cheapstatistical fraud to pretend otherwise.

The 2009 update on climate science by the UN Environment Program, one of the two co-founders of the UNs climate panel, made a clumsy and dishonest attempt to revive the long-dead graph purporting to abolish the medieval warm period. To do so, however, the UN lifted


30/34

30

the graph from the pages of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that any idiot can edit but onlya cretin would credit. Wikipedia is the most unreliable data source in the world, particularly onglobal warming, where its editors allow only one point of view far more extreme even thanthe UNs climate panel to prevail. It is most certainly not a scientific or peer-reviewed source:yet that is the source to which the UN turned to get its science from. Within days, thanks to the

Internet (for no science journal or mainstream news medium would lift a finger), the UN washumiliated into being forced to alter the published document online, removing the bogus graph.For these and many, many other reasons, the documents of the UNs climate panel are notacceptable as the basis for any scientific conclusion whatsoever, except the conclusion that theentire process is prone to dishonesty. You will notice, of course, that all of the dishonesties Ihave outlined in successive UN reports have pointed in one direction and in one direction only

towards creating a climatic problem where there is none, and then exaggerating it beyond allreason.

Dr. Glikson says that the IPCCs reports, including the most recent full report in 2007,underestimated the future rate of ice-melt and of sea-level rise. Let us consider each in turn.

Ice-melt: In the summer of 2007 some 27% of the sea ice that normally covers the ArcticOcean at the annual sea-ice minimum in mid-September was not there. No one had predictedthis sudden loss of ice. However, three weeks later, in early October 2007, the Antarctic sea-ice reached an equally-unpredicted maximum. Therefore, whatever caused the very temporaryloss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it was not global warming, or the Antarctic sea ice (whichhas actually been growing steadily for 30 years would not have reached a 30-year maximum

just after the moment when the Arctic sea ice reached a 30-year minimum. Indeed, a paper byNASA scientists the following year said that unusually warm winds and currents from thetropics had caused the sudden ice-melt: it had very little to do with global warming.

And what has happened since 2007? By 2008, half of the missing ice had returned at thesummer minimum, and by 2009 very nearly all of it was back.

This year the British Antarctic Survey produced a paper saying that so much grounded ice hadmelted in West Antarctica over the previous four or five years that sea-level rise was inevitable.

At the Copenhagen climate conference, which was taking place as we wrote this document, AlGore (after Wikipedia, the second-most-untrustworthy source of information about the climate)was publishing a report about the loss of ice in the Arctic and worldwide, with the enthusiasticbacking of some of Europes silliest ministers and some of the United States most dishonestscientists.

What, then, is the truth? It is this. Though the British Antarctic Survey found that there hadbeen a massive loss of Antarctic ground ice in the past four years, and though a Danishscientist at Al Gores ludicrous presentation said that there had been gigatons of acceleratingice-melt in Greenland (the only source of land-based ice in the Arctic) over the past two orthree years, sea level worldwide has not risen for four years.

My question if I had been allowed to ask it would have been this. If all that ice had reallyand truly melted, where did the water go? Is this a stupid question? No. The UNs claim is thatif significant amounts of land-based or grounded ice in Greenland and Antarctica were to meltthen sea level would have to rise. But it has not risen.

Could the water have evaporated into the atmosphere, causing an increase in what is calledcolumn absolute humidity? Well, this quantity effectively, the concentration of water vapour in


31/34

31

the atmosphere is notoriously difficult to measure, because, although the UNs computermodels treat water vapour as though it were a well-mixed greenhouse gas, occurring at thesame concentration throughout the atmosphere, water vapour does not behave in this way atall. Getting a reliable measure of column absolute humidity, averaged worldwide, is still beyondour capacity and, indeed, this is one of the numerous reasons why the output of the computer

models on which the UNs case for alarm entirely relies is well unreliable.

However, we can establish by theoretical means, more or less exactly, how much and in whatdirection the absolute column humidity has changed. And, as it happens, we do not have to doa careful calculation, because there is a well-established relationship between atmospherictemperature and absolute column humidity. By the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, which wementioned earlier, as the space occupied by the atmosphere warms, it can carry near-exponentially more water vapour. However, during the four years since 2005, when poor richGore made his now-discredited sci-fi comedy horror movie about the climate, globaltemperatures have fallen very rapidly. You will not have seen this fact reported in most of themainstream news media, but it is nonetheless true.

Therefore, today there is very likely to be less water vapour in the atmosphere than there wasfour years ago. So the supposedly-melted ice cannot have evaporated into the atmosphere.Of course, the vast bulk of the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets have been accumulating ice

contrary to reports that say otherwise for many years. For instance, Johannessen et al.(2005), as we mentioned earlier, record that during each of the 11 years 1993-2003 the meanthickness of the entire Greenland ice sheet grew by 0.05m (2 inches)per year. Could thesupposedly melted ice have ended up back on the top of the ice sheets in Greenland and

Antarctica. The scientists at the Al Gore meeting in Copenhagen said No. They said thatGreenland and even Antarctica were losing ice mass. So we are still left with the mystery ofwhere all that ice went. There remains one more possibility. The rapid atmospheric cooling ofthe past four years may perhaps have caused thermosteric contraction of the oceans, aprocess by which as water cools it occupies less volume, and vice versa. This thermostericcontraction may have compensated for the extra ice-melt, so that as soon as warming resumesthe sea level will begin to rise rapidly. Dont hold your breath. The 3300 ARGObathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the worlds oceans do show a little net coolingduring the six years of their operation, but the cooling is not enough to cause much in the wayof thermosteric contraction. And, of course, everyone at the Copenhagen conference has beendoing his or her best not to mention the rapid cooling of the atmosphere andthe cooling of theoceans over recent years.

There is nowhere else for all those billions of tons of ice to go. Provisionally, I conclude that theloss of ice from Greenland and the Antarctic that the scientists are pretending to have observedis fictional. The ice is where it has long been, and yet another scare is shown to be false.Therefore, there is no basis whatsoever for Dr. Gliksons assertion either that ice loss hasaccelerated beyond what was predicted or that sea level is rising faster than predicted. It is notrising at all.

AG response to MB 5

Regarding where the melting ice from the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheetgo: (1) sea levels continued to rise at an accelerated rate up to 3.6 mm/year; (2)with rising temperature there is an increase snow fall over parts of Greenland and

Antarctica. MB has not performed any quantitative calculations to the contrary.


32/34

32

Regarding ocean cooling I cite the statement by Dr Josh Willis of the ARGOoceanographic project: (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/ocean-cooling-and-global-warming/):

It is a well-established fact that human activities are heating up the planet andthat global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come. Climatechange skeptics often highlight certain scientific results as a means of confusingthis issue, and that appears to be the case with Mr. Gunters description of ourrecent results based on data from Argo buoys. Indeed, Argo data show nowarming in the upper ocean over the past four years, but this does not contradictthe climate models. In fact, many climate models simulate four to five year

periods with no warming in the upper ocean from time to time. The same is truefor the warming trend observed by NASA satellites; it too is in good agreementwith climate model simulations. But more important than agreement withcomputer models is the fact that four years with no warming in the upper oceandoes not erase the 50 years of warming weve seen since ocean temperature

measurements became widespread. It is important to remember that climatescience is not a public debate carried out on the opinion pages of newspapers.What we know about global warming comes from thousands of scientists pouringover countless data sets, conducting experiments to figure out how the climateworks and scrutinizing every aspect of each others work. He added: It is easyto pick on computer climate models for not simulating certain things or point outthe odd measurement that isnt well understood. Despite this, models and data ofall different types tell the same story about the past century: the oceans arewarming, sea levels are rising, the temperature of the atmosphere is increasingand carbon dioxide levels continue to go up. Given that, you dont need a fancycomputer model or an Argo buoy to tell you that the future will be warmer. Thereal debate is not over whether global warming exists, but how we as a society

will address it. The climate system is already committed to a certain amount ofwarming from carbon dioxide emissions of the past, but the worst effects ofglobal warming can still be avoided. It only requires the will to look toward thefuture and to curb our addiction to fossil fuels. Thats not alarmist, its justcommon sense.

__________________________________________________________

6. Does an increase in carbon dioxide make any difference?

Glikson: Carbon dioxide levels are already at 388 ppm and, combinedwith the effects of methane, are equivalent to 460 ppm CO2. This level isdangerously close to the upper stability limit of about 500 ppm of theAntarctic ice sheet, signifying a shift in the state of the atmosphere fromglacial-interglacial conditions to greenhouse conditions, with seriousconsequences evidenced by current trends in the climate system. An

increase in ice melt rates of the west Antarctica ice sheet and to asomewhat lesser extent the east Antarctica ice sheet is reported by the

British Antarctic Survey and the Scientific Committee for AntarcticResearch, International Council for Science.


33/34

33

MB: As we have already demonstrated, methane is a bit-part player because there is so verylittle of it in the atmosphere. Make it 388 ppmv for CO2 and 12 ppmv for methane: total 400ppmv. At todays rates of emission, around 2 ppmv CO2/year, that gives us half a centurybefore we reach Dr. Gliksons ceiling of 500 ppmv, which is in any event entirely arbitrary. Forvery nearly all of the past 600 million years, CO2 concentration has been well over 1000 ppmv

twice Dr. Gliksons danger level. We have already dealt with the British Antarctic Surveysimplausible finding as to the imagined and probably imaginary loss of ice from the West

Antarctic ice sheet. There is certainly no basis in science for the proposition that after 15 yearswithout statistically-significant global warming the planet is now approaching a dangeroustipping-point, as Dr. Glikson is here implying. In fact, it was proven by Edward Lorenz in 1963that we can never predict the onset, timing, duration, extent, or magnitude of any phase-transition or bifurcation in the evolution of the mathematically-chaotic climate object.

We conclude that Dr. Gliksons note is inaccurate, misleading, and relentless prejudiced in onedirection only inventing a problem where there is none, and then magnifying it. That is notscience: it is politics.

AG final response

In his most recent report, Professor Will Steffen, Climate Change advisor of the

Australian Government, stated (http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/climate-change-faster-change-and-more-serious-risks-final.pdf):

1. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident fromobservations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, wide-spread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

2. At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous longterm changesin climate have been observed. These include changes in Arctic temperaturesand ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, windpatterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavyprecipitation, heatwaves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.

3. Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of thelast half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. The last timepolar regions were significantly warmer than at present for an extendedperiod (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6m of sealevel rise.

4. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid20th century is very likely1 due to the observed increase in anthropogenicgreenhouse gas concentrations. Discernible human influences now extendto other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-averagetemperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.

5. Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would causefurther warming and induce many changes in the global climate system duringthe 21st century that would very likelybe larger than those observed duringthe 20th century.


34/34

I refer to the statement by Professor Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of thePotsdam Institute of Climate Impacts and climate advisor of the GermanGovernment:

Were simply talking about the very life support system of this planet. A recentcomprehensive study confirms this in showing that we are going beyond thelimits of the Earth. Yet, we are still chugging along like we have no need to solvethese issues any time in the near future. We are not even near the reductionsthat are necessary. (http://ecoworldly.com/2009/10/02/is-the-us-climate-illiterate/).

Dr Andrew GliksonEarth and paleoclimate scientistAustralian National University

10 January, 2009

Documents

Responses to Monckton of Brenchley_10!1!10