Unstoppable Global Warming

The Facts Behind the 1,500-year Climate Cycle
Authors' Blog by Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery

Friday, October 27, 2006

A journalist asked what made me write Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years

Recently a journalist asked me what made me write Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. The answer didn't come easily. I thought global warming was being overhyped, and I had written an article for the Hudson Institute magazine, American Outlook, on the happy circumstances of the Medieval Warming. That article was picked up in the August, 1999, Reader's Digest under the title, "What's Wrong With Global Warming?" After that, I kept an eye on the research through our subscription to Science. Then in 2003, my boss at Hudson thought the world might need another book on global warming. We discussed it, and he asked me to write it. I recruited Dr. Fred Singer, whom I had met as a result of the Reader's Digest article, and whose weekly newsletter I had been reading. He was the expert, I was the layman. That's how it all started.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Michael Medved Show

I was on the Michael Medved Show yesterday to discuss my new book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years. What a nice guy! Thanks to Michael for calling the book witty. It's heartening to know that his audience has the common sense to recognize the reality of the 1,500 year climate cycle.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

National Academy Flunks As Global Warming Referee

The National Academy of Sciences is flunking as the referee in the global warming debate.

The Academy was supposed to referee an acrimonious debate in Congress and the science community over the infamous “hockey stick” global warming studies. Those two studies, published in 1998 and 1999, were led by Michael Mann, now at the University of Virginia. They appear to find dramatic 20th century warming, after 900 years of supposedly stable world temperatures. The study is controversial because it appeared to wipe out the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, two of the most widely documented climate events in history.

Nevertheless, it was widely published by the Clinton Administration and the UN climate change panel as “proof” of man-made global warming. And now, the National Academy has announced that it is “plausible” that today’s temperatures are the warmest in 1100 years, as Mann claimed.

Really?

Britain today has come out of the Little Ice Age which extended from 1400 to 1850, but it is essentially still too cold to grow wine grapes successfully. In 1068 AD, 938 years before today, Britain’s tax officials reported in the Domesday Book that nearly 50 British vineyards were growing wine grapes. Nor are German wine grapes grown as high on the hillsides today as they were in the Medieval period. Wine grape vines are one of humanity’s most accurate and sensitive indications of temperature in the pre-thermometer era.

More important, the Romans also reported growing wine grapes in Britain when they occupied that country in the 1st century. Thus we know that both the 1st and 11th centuries were warmer than today. Mann was wrong about the 21st century having “unprecedented warming.”

The bigger scientific sin of both Mann and the National Academy is trying to hide the natural, moderate 1500-year climate cycle.

The top science journals since 1984 have widely reported on the 1500-year cycle, which was first discovered in the long Greenland and Antarctic ice cores in the 1980s. Since then, the 1500-year cycle has also been found in the seabed sediments of five oceans, in glacier advances and retreats worldwide, in ancient tree rings, and in historic documents from both Europe and Asia. It goes back at least a million years.

The 1500-year climate cycle has no correlation with CO2 in the atmosphere. It has
had a strong correlation with the length of the sunspot cycles on the sun.

CO2 may be adding to the Modern Warming, but its impact is apparently not large. Remember that our warming started 90 years before human CO2 emissions began to surge about 1940. When human CO2 emissions did surge after 1940, global temperatures went down for 35 years! The Greenhouse Theory says the Polar Regions will warm first, but they aren’t doing it. The Antarctic has been cooling since the 1960s, except for the tiny Antarctic Peninsula. The Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today.
Is the National Academy of Science fearful that if the public understood the natural climate cycle, the science community would lose the billions of dollars the government now spends on the CO2 climate scare?

The National Academy has a massive conflict of interest that is truly disturbing.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Will Sea Levels Rise 20 Feet As Gore Predicts

Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” says human-emitted CO2 will boost the earth’s temperatures enough to melt the Antarctic ice cap—and suddenly raise sea levels by 20 feet.

Phooey.

First of all, let’s understand just how cold the Antarctic is. Winter temperatures on its high, cold interior plateau range from 40 to 95 degrees F below zero! In the summer (December) it “warms,” with temperatures dipping only to 49 degrees F below zero—and sometimes rising within 25 degrees F of the melting point (32 degrees F). But even then, the ice reflects virtually all of the sun’s rays back out into space.

However, the world’s warming in the past 150 years has produced a change in Antarctica. The huge East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains nearly 90 percent of the world’s ice, has been thickening. European satellites measured the ice sheet’s thickness 347 million times between 1992 and 2003, and found it is gaining about 45 billion tons of water per year because the planet has warmed enough for snow to fall at the coldest place on earth.

The study, “Snowfall-driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-level Rise.” was led by Curt Davis of the University of Missouri, and reported in Science on June 24, 2005.

Thickening ice in the Antarctic, in fact, is just about offsetting the meltwater being released from the edges of the Greenland ice sheet—which has also been thickening in its center. This leaves us with a global warming sea level gain of about 1.8 millimeters per year—or 4 inches per century. The rise has remained constant during the 20th century despite the moderate 0.6 degree C warming of the planet.

In the movie, a whole Antarctic ice sheet shatters on Gore’s computer screen. In the real world, that isn’t happening. It is only the Antarctic Peninsula—2 percent of the continent’s land area that sticks up toward the far-off equator—that is warming. It recently earned headlines by calving an ice floe as big as Rhode Island, not an unusual event.

But the East Antarctic ice sheet is more than 2,000 times bigger than Rhode Island, and the ice is two miles thick! John Stone of the University of Washington, reporting in Science on January 3, 2003 says the West Antarctic ice sheet has been retreating so slowly for the past 10,000 years that it still has not fully accommodated the end of the last Ice Age, and apparently still has about 7,000 years of ice to melt—and the East Antarctic ice sheet is melting even more slowly than that.

So. Al Gore says Antarctic melting will suddenly raise the sea levels by 20 feet, and the experts say 4 inches per century. Seth Borenstein, an AP science writer, did a column on June 27 headlined, “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy.” The dean of environmental studies at Duke is quoted as saying “He got all the important material and got it right.”

Were they talking about the same movie I saw? Gore overstated the impact of global warming on the Antarctic glaciers by about 50-fold. Or did he mean that 7000 years was “sudden”? How can so-called scientists applaud his accuracy either way?

Why Isn't the Atmosphere Warming Like the Earth's Surface?

Stuart Bartlett wrote this in response to Dennis Avery's article http://americandaily.com/article/16013
This is great if your right, but should we really be gambling with things of this nature when the stakes are so high? If there is not human caused global warming, we still aren't doing ourselves any favors by burning fossil fuels. Everyone agrees that our energy dependence is a huge problem and if we were to become more energy dependent the world assuredly be a better place. What I'm getting at is, what are your arguing for?

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Sudden Cooling of World's Oceans Revealed by New Research

The world’s oceans cooled suddenly between 2003 and 2005, losing more than 20 percent of the global warming heat they’d absorbed over the previous 50 years! That’s a vast amount of heat, since the oceans hold 1000 times as heat as the atmosphere. The ocean-cooling researchers say the heat was likely vented into space, since it hasn’t been found stored anywhere on Earth.

John Lyman, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, says the startling news of ocean cooling comes courtesy of the new ARGO ocean temperature floats being distributed worldwide. ARGOs are filling in former blank spots on the world’s ocean monitoring system—and vastly narrowing our past uncertainty about sparsely measured ocean temperatures.

The ARGO floats have even confirmed an earlier sudden cooling of the oceans—from 1980 to 1983. At that time, researchers lacked enough confidence in the sparse marine thermometer set to report that cooling publicly.

Lyman says the discovery of the sudden ocean coolings undercuts faith in the global warming forecasts because coolings randomly interrupt the trends laid out by the global circulation models. As Lyman put it, “the cooling reflects interannual variability that is not well represented by a linear trend.”

The new ocean cooling also recalls several NASA studies in the last five years that found a huge natural heat vent over the Warm Pool of the Pacific. Studies coordinated by Bruce Weilicki, of NASA’s Langley Research Center, found that when sea surface temperatures rise above 28 degrees C, Pacific rainfall becomes more efficient. More of the cloud droplets form raindrops, so fewer are left to form high, icy, cirrus clouds that seal in heat. As a result, the area of cirrus cloud is reduced, and far more heat passes out into space. This cools the surface of the world’s warmest ocean water

Weilicki’s research teams say that the huge natural heat vent emitted about as much heat during the 1980s and 90s as would be expected from a redoubling of the CO2 content in the air. They used satellites to measure cloud cover, and long-range aircraft to monitor sea temperatures.

Weilicki says the heat-vent’s previously unknown changes in the global energy budget were two to four times larger than scientists had previously believed possible. “Several of the world’s top climate modeling research groups agreed to take on the challenge of reproducing the tropical cloud changes. But the climate models failed the test, predicting smaller-than-observed variability by factors of two to four.”

Layman says the sudden ocean coolings particularly complicate the problem of separating natural temperature changes from man-made impacts on the Earth’s temperature. The impact of human-emitted CO2 has been assumed to accumulate in a straight-line trend over many decades.

Meanwhile, since the 1980s, the Earth’s ice cores, seabed sediments and cave stalagmites have been revealing a moderate, natural 1500-year climate cycle linked to solar irradiance. Temperatures jump suddenly and erratically 1-2 degrees C above the mean at the latitude of Washington and New York for centuries at a time, and more than that at the Poles.

Temperatures vary hardly at all at the Equator during the 1500-year cycle and Bruce Weilick’s NASA heat-vent findings seem to indicate why. The Warm Pool of the Pacific acts like a cooking pot, with its “lid” popping open to emit steam when the water gets too hot.

The more we look, the more we learn about the Earth’s complex climate forces—though not much of the new knowledge comes from the huge, unverified global circulation models favored by the man-made warming activists.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Big Oil Strike Could Save 100 Million Acres of U.S. Forests

Chevron’s big new Gulf of Mexico oil strike could save 100 million acres of U.S. forests from being plowed down to grow inefficient biofuels. Does that spark your eco-interest in off-shore oil drilling?

It should.

Right now, those are our choices for increased energy independence.

Chevron and its partners gambled $100 million on a pioneering well into an older strata of rock than we’ve ever drilled before. New seismic technology helped the oil companies find the oil deposit far beneath a massive salt dome. The gamble, that the well would flow strongly enough to be economically viable, was a big winner.

The betting right now seems to be that Chevron’s new Jack field will produce a total of 10–15 billion barrels of oil. By itself, that could increase U.S. proven oil reserves by 50 percent! Other oil companies aren’t saying how much oil they might have in the region’s still untapped fields, but oil analyst Wood McKenzie says the older rock strata potentially represent a “world-class success story.” And, America has not only the Gulf of Mexico but also massive un-drilled oil-bearing formations off both our Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and gas-bearing formations under federal lands.

Contrast the Jack field success with the sad tale of corn ethanol. U.S. gasoline consumption was 134 billion gallons in 2003. America’s cornfields produce only 244 gallons worth of gasoline per acre per year. Each bushel of corn is worth 2.7 gallons of ethanol, and U. S. corn crops have lately averaged 138 bushels per acre. That’s an average per-acre yield of about 375 gallons of ethanol—which we must then discount for ethanol’s 35 percent lower energy content.

It would thus take more than 546 million acres of U.S. cropland to replace our current gasoline use with corn ethanol. Total U.S. crop plantings have recently been about 440 million acres—and that land has produced all our food and fiber, plus billions of dollars in farm exports that also help feed the world. Soybeans represent an even worse return, as acre of U.S. soybeans is worth only 52 gallons of biodiesel per year.

Neither biofuel is profitable without huge government subsidies.

Most importantly, America just doesn’t have enough farming acres to produce both food and biofuels. The Conservation Reserve land is too dry. We’d have to denude huge tracts of forestland somewhere in the country—steep, wet or rough land that might yield only half as much corn per acre as current corn acres. That’s why it might take more than 100 million acres of forest to match the Jack’s oilfield’s energy production over the next 20 years.

Complicating things further, corn needs lots of energy-intensive nitrogen fertilizer, lots of fossil-derived pesticide protection, and fuel for the fermentation. Corn ethanol delivers only 25 percent more energy than it takes to make it. With ethanol’s energy discount, we’d have to produce six gallons of ethanol for each gallon of imported gasoline we displace.

If we are sacrificing our forests to avoid more CO2 out of fear of global warming, understand that the Modern Warming looks like another of the moderate, erratic, natural 1500-year climate cycles. The ice cores and seabed sediments tell us those have been going on for the last one million years.

Should we chainsaw 100 million acres of forest for corn ethanol before we have proof that the Modern Warming is caused by human-emitted CO2 and not by Mother Nature? Or should we lease more offshore drilling?