Global Warming, Rising Sea Levels and Climate Change.
A few hours with Google on the Internet will throw up multitudes of scientific web-sites run by Universities and Research Institutions world-wide. Papers by eminent scientists abound but the News media only report the lunatic fringe.
This is my contribution, I have taken just one chart that typifies the true measured situation, there are many others by observers elsewhere in the world with slightly different results but substantially this chart can be used to represent the world. The chart is pure scientific data; there is no computer simulation behind it, no fancy theories, just people with thermometers and notebooks.
The chart has one weakness in that the majority of the people making the measurements do so from within major population centres so that the figures include an element of temperature rise due to heat island effects. This is where heavily built-up areas show a marked increase over non-developed land. The heat island effect has been going on now for the last hundred years or more, such that close inspection of met-office weather forecasts will now show they include an extra 2 oC for London as an example.
This is the chart that is most often referred to as proof of Global Warming. I do not dispute that the chart shows an overall rise (visually ignoring the ripple) but I have serious difficulties with the CO2 emissions angle. The consumption of fossil fuels has been increasing steadily for the whole of the period covered by the chart and if we are to believe the CO2 (Greenhouse) theory then global warming should be tracking it exactly and temperature should be accelerating upwards. What we actually see is two periods of much the same steady rise, separated by a period of no rise at all. From 1910 to 1940 there was a total 0.4 oC i.e. 0.013 oC per year then roughly the same between 1970 and 2000. Between 1940 and 1970 there was no change! There was also no change back from 1910 to 1850 where this chart starts. This first period of no change finds the industrial revolution well under way, coal was king and everything was so inefficient most of it was wasted. Throughout this period the number of pits grew steadily and all the coal mined was burned but with no affect on global temperature! Between 1940 and 1980 the same thing happened, vast consumption of fossil fuels, massive pollution but no rise in temperature!
What then was different for the periods of 1910 to 1940 and 1970 and 2000? Until an answer is found the theory that CO2 emissions are responsible for the periods of rise simply doesn’t work because CO2 was also rising when temperature was clearly not.
Now if we take the whole chart between 1850 and 2000, then there was an overall 0.8 oC total rise spread across 150 years i.e. 0.0053 oC per year or 190 years per 1oC.
Now assume this goes on forever, a ridiculous notion if CO2 is the issue because fossil fuels are set to run out fairly soon in planetary terms. Ignoring this, are we going to drown from rising sea levels? The answer is no. Ice at the North Pole floats, there is no land mass there and submarines have been going under it for years. Ice floats because it is less dense than water the bit above the waterline is the excess volume which on thawing simply ceases to exist. The whole of the north polar ice cap can therefore melt without sea level rising at all.
The Antarctic ice cap is another matter, 90% of the world’s ice is there and if that all melted there would be dire consequences. The temperature there however is typically minus 37 oC and clearly would not even start to melt until global warming reached at least this figure. A very simple sum, 37 multiplied by 190 i.e. 7,000 years!
On the basis of this evidence, there is absolutely no justification in our spending any significant portion of our national income trying to avert a catastrophe that exists only as a possibility nearly 8000 years in the future (It will take 100s of years to melt the ice even when the starting temperature is reached). Just as our life styles changed drastically over the last few centuries the idea that things will now stay as they are for thousands of years is ludicrous.
When you study enough weather records going back far enough the only sensible conclusion that can be made is that it is seriously random at these latitudes. We can find periods in history far hotter than now, or far wetter or far drier or far colder. The variation in our weather is so wide that one degree in 190 years is going to be utterly invisible except with very good scientific record keeping, even in my lifetime I have seen water pipes freeze deep underground and I’ve seen the tarmac melting and running into the roadside gutters.
As to rising sea level, please set aside the theories and the computer models, go to your childhood beaches and actually look! Some soft cliffs have eroded, other sandy beaches have built up but the rocky ones are right where they used to be. (I looked) Have the old lighthouses been inundated? Have the old saltings been reclaimed by the sea. It’s just a matter of measurement. The Thames barrier is not there to deal with rising sea level it stops storm surges and freak tides etc. We can’t do without it now because much of the land that used to flood frequently has now been built on! The wharfs of old docks and harbours can still be seen dating back to the days of sail let alone steam and they are the right height above sea level to use today. Don’t take the media’s word for it, or mine, go and look!
Try this it’s a straight lift from a history web-site
The earliest recorded flood on the River Thames was in AD 9. Some 29 years later another flood extended over 4 counties when it is said that 10,000 people were drowned. Since then a number of floods have occurred many of which have been recorded. In 1774, which was the greatest flood for a century, HenleyBridge was washed away. At Mapledurham, it is estimated that the flood level in 1774 was at least 600mm (2 feet) above the level recorded in 1894. There were also significant floods in 1848, 1852 and 1875.
Referring back to the chart above, there is a very clear cyclic ripple with a period a little over ten years. Another chart very easily accessed on the Internet and equally high in integrity is the past record of sunspot activity. Now when I say high in integrity I mean it is based on simple observation and record keeping. The figures I will not use are those coming from computer simulations and forecasts. These figures are simply the numbers of observed sunspots. It is well known that the sun’s radiation increases with the number of sunspots but I don’t know which drives which
In summary then, if we now take out the sunspot ripple we are left with a chart of four parts; two show global warming and two do not. All periods are significantly long, thirty years or so. The continuous and growing consumption of fossil fuels has never faltered in all of this time so this is not the root cause of global warming. Something was going on between 1910 and 1940 then again between 1970 and 2000 that was not happening before 1910 or between 1940 and 1970, whatever it was or is, it is the true cause of global warming. All the expenditure reducing carbon emissions that distracts us from addressing the real cause is the real threat to the planet, not in our lifetimes I hasten to add nor in our great-great-grand children’s unless of course by not identifying the true cause we do something to make it far worse.
Having now constructed the green chart of true global warming by subtracting the solar highs it suggests that the 1910 milestone should be shifted slightly to say 1914 and the 1970 one to 1973 the 1940 date however still looks good. Having refined the milestone dates to such a degree surely now we can find the true cause rather that blaming it all on carbon. Also we don’t know if another plateau is coming or not, if it does come then the 200 years per degree Celsius is reasonable, if it does not then we may have to revise the figure upwards. If we can find the cause of the plateau and it is something we did then we can properly tackle global warming. Simply frightening everybody with ever more exaggerated predictions is not helpful.
If the heat island effect turns out to be significant then there is possibly no global warming at all and the period 1940 to 1980 actually had global cooling. Personally I think all this concentration on extremes is wrong and in all likelihood we are just witnessing chaotic fluctuations about a mean with absolutely no cause for concern. The predictions the media insist on publicising are all based on computer simulations of worst case scenarios regarded by the majority of scientists as seriously flawed if for no other reason the rises they have predicted, never happened.
Using the media hysteria as a cover to raise taxes is just the last straw, the cynical action of a morally bankrupt government.
G Woollvin BSc MIEE MIET