Dr. Rameshwar Bali
Associate Professor
Center of Advanced Study in Geology
Lucknow University
Dr. Rameshwar Bali received his Ph.D. in Structural Geology in 1988 from the Lucknow University. He has published Six papers in International and 14 papers in National Journals He has been Principal Investigator of DST sponsored three major projects on Landslide investigation in Himalayas. Dr. Bali is also Co- Principal Investigator of two DST sponsored projects. One on GANGOTRI GLACIER and the other dealing with the Structural and Neotectonic evolution of Northeast Himalaya. Presently Principal investigator of a major DST sponsored project on PINDARI GLACIER .
His current research interests includes:
1. Impact of Climate change on Himalayan Glaciers and Chronology of Glaciation in
Himalaya.
2. Morphotectonic and Neotectonic evolution of Himalayan region.
James Lawrence Powell study of science papers concerning AGW revealed 24 that rejected AGW which included 1 on glaciers by Bali.
Abstract
Bali et al. 2011Following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of 2001, a hype regarding the future of Himalayan glaciers, flooding of Indo-Gangetic plains and coastal areas and drying of glacially fed rivers has been created. However, the recent studies of some of the Himalayan glaciers indicate that the rate of recession of most of the glaciers in general is on decline. These observations are in contradiction to the widely popularized concept of anthropogenically induced global warming. It is believed that the rise of temperature of around 0.6A degrees C since mid-nineteenth century is a part of decadal to centennial-scale climatic fluctuations that have been taking place on this Earth for the past few thousands of years.
Other papers authored by Bali are less explicit.
We argue that the late Quaternary glaciations in the Pindar valley were modulated by changing insolation and summer monsoon intensity including the LIA, whereas the 20th century recessional trends can be attributed to post-LIA warming.
Qing-Bin Lu, Associate Professor Physics and Astronomy Department, University of Waterloo, Ontario
At Qing Bin Lu’s own webpage he offers this quote
“The younger participants in this Discussion should take note how vigorously science rejects novelty. This rejection mechanism is as necessary as the one that operates in living organisms; it prevents the birth of monsters. However, it has the additional effect of making us inherently conservative.” John C. Polanyi, Faraday Discuss., 1997, 108, page 467
Q B Lu is a man who offers a unique theory on global warming- it is manmade, it has been warming, it is not CO2 [that reached saturation some time ago, but it will start cooling because it is both solar activity and CFCs.
Dr. Lu’s newest paper “Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change” was published in International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 27 (2013) 1350073 (38 pages), available online at: www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732 ; an earlier version was published at
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6844
.
So is Q B Lu a victim of an inherent conservative scientific community or simply suffering a Galileo Complex?
Qing-Bin Lu Revives Debunked Claims About Cosmic Rays and CFCs
A new paper by Qing-Bin Lu in the International Journal of Modern Physics B is gaining coverage for its claim that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), not CO2, is causing global warming. This sensationalist headline is often repeated with little mention that Lu’s claims are not new, and have not held up to scientific scrutiny in the past. In fact, Lu has been promoting his theories about CFCs for years, and mainstream scientists have found no merit in them. Critics have said Lu makes a fundamental scientific error by confusing correlation with causation, and does not effectively challenge the physical evidence of the warming effects of CO2, a body of knowledge built up over 150 years.
For a detailed response to the criticism of the paper by QB Lu can be found here.
Peer reviewed paper dismissing the findings of QB Lu from his original version in 2011 [PDF]
Skeptical Science criticism ending with the paragraph-
Frankly, the paper is a non-story. It may seem like news due to the grandiose claims of overturning the vast body of scientific evidence supporting CO2-caused global warming, but it is very rare for a single paper to accomplish this type of feat. More often the single paper claiming to overturn the body of established scientific research is wrong. That is clearly the case for Lu (2013), which is based on assuming rather than proving the hypothesis, unphysical curve fitting, and misrepresenting the cited research.
Moreover, this study isn’t new. It’s actually the third Lu has published about his CFC warming hypothesis. The first two were addressed by RealClimate, two peer-reviewed published responses, Skeptical Science, and others. Andrew Gilkson at The Conversation, Climate Science Watch and Rabbett Run (here and here) are also good resources for debunking Lu’s latest effort.
Where did Q B Lu get his inspiration? CFCs and their replacements after the Montreal Protocol are GHGs and there was a sceptic theme some years ago that suggested the ozone hole was allowing more solar energy to enter the atmosphere. For a guide the Real Climate website did an article back in 2005 . Curiously the concern about CFCs and the Ozone Hole and AGW ended up entwined in public opinion.
Smear tactics [from the BBC 2005]
All the delaying tactics, denials and obfuscations bring to mind what happened in 1974 to two American scientists, Professor Sherwood Rowland and Dr Mario Molina. They coolly set out the evidence that the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in refrigeration, aerosols and air conditioning were eating at the ozone layer which protects mankind and plants from dangerous ultraviolet radiation
They were at once smeared as scaremongers. The manufacturers ran an all too successful campaign to fog the issue. A lazy media bought into it. The public got bored and bamboozled. And as they did so, millions more tons of the pollutant were added to the atmosphere.
Thirteen years later when the world finally woke up to an ozone hole bigger than anyone had predicted, there was a swift international agreement – led by the US – to find alternatives to the CFCs. In the meantime, great damage had been done.
Frank Sherwood Rowland best-known work was the discovery that chlorofluorocarbons contribute to ozone depletion. Rowland theorized that man made organic compound gases combine with solar radiation and decompose in the stratosphere, releasing atoms of chlorine and chlorine monoxide that are individually able to destroy large numbers of ozone molecules. It was obvious that Frank had a good idea of what was occurring at higher altitudes when he stated “…I knew that such a molecule could not remain inert in the atmosphere forever, if only because solar photochemistry at high altitudes would break it down.”[4] Rowland’s research, first published in Nature magazine in 1974, initiated a scientific investigation of the problem. The National Academy of Sciences concurred with the findings in 1976 and in 1978 CFC-based aerosols were banned in the United States.
The Denial Industry [Real Climate]
In the public debate, many of the climate contrarians (such as Fred Singer) got their start denying that CFCs were affecting ozone, using many of the same arguments they now use about climate change (CFCs are heavier than air! it’s all the sun! the science is uncertain! the scientists are KGB agents! any controls will cause untold misery in the developing world!), and for much the same reasons. But through this all, Sherry Rowland strode tall (literally – he was 6 ft 5 in), and played a large role in debunking some of the wild claims (such as the idea that it was all volcanoes).
S. Fred Singer still at the forefront of denying the dangers of CFCs in 2010 with a Heartland Institute policy document.
Yet in spite of the hardships caused by the hasty phaseout of CFCs and other suspected ozone-depleting halocarbons, the EPA has never questioned the adequacy of the science that forms the basis for its phaseout policy. The facts are that the scientific underpinnings are quite shaky: the data are suspect; the statistical analyses are faulty; and the theory has not been validated (3,4). The science simply does not support this premature and abrupt removal of widely used chemicals — at great cost to the economy.
Robert Merlin “Bob” Carter is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and adjunct professorial research fellow in earth sciences at James Cook University, Queensland. Retired- now works as science advisor for Heartland Institute to cast doubt on AGW.
Carter is critical of the IPCC and believes “alarmist” statements about dangerous[12] human-caused global warming are unjustified.[13] In 2005, he argued against climate change being “man-made” by asserting that the global average temperature did not increase between 1998 and 2005, while the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased.[14] In 2007, Carter participated in an expert panel discussion after the airing of The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary on ABC.[15][16]
His position on global warming has been criticized by other scientists such as David Karoly,[17] James Renwick[18] and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.[19]
Carter has published primary research in the related field of palaeoclimatology, investigating New Zealand’s climate extending back to 3.9 Ma.[20][20][21] He has also published several critiques of anthropogenic global warming in economics journals.[12][22] In 2009, he co-authored a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research claiming the El Niño-Southern Oscillation can account for most of the global temperature variation of the last fifty years.[23] A comment on this paper was published by nine other scientists in the same journal.[24] Carter with co-authors John Mclean and Chris de Freitas submitted a response to this comment but claimed they were censored.[25][26]
He is a contributor and reviewer of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2009 report, Climate Change Reconsidered and lead author of the 2011 interim report.[27][28]
In 2012, documents stolen from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 (USD), “as part of a program to pay ‘high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message’.”[29] While Carter did not deny that the payments took place, he would not disclose what the payments were for.[29] Carter “emphatically denies” any suggestion that his scientific opinion on climate change can be bought or swayed by funding.[30] Other journalists have argued that Carter’s fee of $19,080 a year is insignificant compared to the billions of dollars those who support climate alarm receive.[31][32]
Carter has appeared as a witness in front of the Parliament of Australia,[33] and testified before the United States Senate[34] on the issue of climate change. From his Wikipedia entry
Bob (at 5.00 min) earning his Heartland salary.
Bob Ward takes Bob Carter to task over climate in the Guardian 2010
Bob Carter waiting for the next ice-age- 2007
For the last three years, satellite-measured average global temperature has been declining. Given the occurrence also of record low winter temperatures and massive snowfalls across both hemispheres this year, IPCC members have now entered panic mode, the whites of their eyes being clearly visible as they seek to defend their now unsustainable hypothesis of dangerous, human-caused global warming.
Bob Carter waiting for the next ice-age – any day now – since 2009
Nonetheless, by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s disproved projections of warming, seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of denying it.
ending the piece with-
Perhaps a reassessment will finally occur when two-metre thick ice develops again on Father Thames at London Bridge, or when cooling causes massive crop failure in the world’s granary belts.
Bob Carter is often critical of computer predictions of the IPCC being wrong- according to Bob his prediction of a coming little ice age will show who’s right. Time will tell.
Allan Savory, Environmentalist [and NOT a denier of AGW]
He has said that the primary contributor to global warming is desertification rather than the consumption of fossil fuels and by regenerating habit through the re-introduction of the herd-predator type arrangement, we can do a lot to reduce global warming while improving the productivity land rendered useless.
The above is just one of many references that deniers attribute to be the opinion of Allan Savory- the above was randomly plucked from the internet.
Allan Savory is just the kind of expert deniers need, he is informed, intelligent and is an environmentalist. His wiki bio gives some background to his views and expertise.
Allan Savory does not deny AGW nor stated that desertification is the primary cause. The issue derives from two different sources- in the first instance land use changes is recognised [even by the IPCC] to have an effect on climate change and this has been picked up on by some scientific deniers. In Allan Savory’s case his TED lecture was linked to by denier websites. His counter intuitive argument is that deserts need more cattle not less.
His arguments when taken completely within context have been criticised. This link is well worth reading. and you may want to read this for a fuller picture. For more research on the positive aspects of Allan Savory’s approach search for ‘mob grazing’ which is a technique some farmers are adopting.
Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said:
‘The fact that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.’ –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013
Dr [of sport] Benny Peiser would have us believe climate scientists are seeing the error of their ways and concede AGW isn’t actually CAGW. so what is Piers Forster’s stance on climate change? He certainly does not deny that AGW is happening and is serious but his comments can be interpreted by others for their agenda.
The BBC and the Guardian quote IAGP’s Prinicipal Investigator Piers Forster’s reaction to the leaked IPCC report. In his response to the recent posting by a blogger of the WG1 draft report Piers comments,
“Although this may seem like a ‘leak’, the draft IPCC reports are not kept secret and the review process is open…..I think we as scientists need to explore how we can best match the development of measured critical arguments with those of the Twitter generation.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20726355
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/ipcc-climate-change-report-leaked-online
On the United Bank For Carbon website dedicated to saving rainforest for which Piers is a trustee, it says
He was one of the principal authors of the 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that was a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He is also a lead author for the next IPCC assessment report, due in 2013. He currently leads a large research team, researching various aspects of climate change, principally investigating the multiple causes of climate change and possible climate mitigation strategies.
His research has convinced him that rainforest protection should be the first priority of any successful mitigation strategy. ["]Due to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, rainforests around the world are actually growing more and more vigorously – this increasing growth rate actually removes around a quarter of the CO2 mankind emits every year. Yet we are still deforesting at an alarming rate. Research at Leeds has shown how this deforestation leads to both increased CO2 emissions and widespread climate effects, such as a reduction of rainfall in tropical regions.
Between 1990 and 2005 the world has lost over 10 million hectares of rainforest (an 8% reduction of rainforest area). And this deforestation itself emits more than a billion tonnes of a carbon annually, accounting for around 12% or more of current global carbon dioxide emissions. If we succeeded in stopping all deforestation tomorrow we would instantly cut our global emissions and make sure rainforests can continue protect us from the worst of climate change going into the future.["]
The statement that: Due to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, rainforests around the world are actually growing more and more vigorously – this increasing growth rate actually removes around a quarter of the CO2 mankind emits every year. will delight deniers who constantly refer to CO2 as plant food.
Other references to Piers Foster such as the link of black carbon to warming are also seized on by deniers. From The Guardian
“There are exciting opportunities to cool climate by cutting soot emissions, but it is not straightforward.
“Reducing emissions from diesel engines and domestic wood and coal fires is a no-brainer, as there are tandem health and climate benefits.
“If we did everything we could to reduce these emissions, we could buy ourselves up to half a degree less warming – or a couple of decades of respite.”
However, curbing the impact of soot may not be a simple process, the researchers pointed out. Typically soot was emitted along with other particles and gases that may actually cool the climate.
Organic matter in the atmosphere produced by open vegetation burning may have an overall cooling effect, for instance. But other reduction targets are likely to have a clear benefit, say the experts.
“One great candidate is soot from diesel engines,” said Forster. “It may also be possible to look at wood and coal burning in some kinds of industry and in small household burners. In these cases, soot makes up a large fraction of their emissions, so removing these sources would likely cool the climate.”
Tackling soot would have an almost immediate effect, because of the short amount of time it stays in the atmosphere.
While the leading greenhouse gas carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for long periods, soot emissions are washed out within a few weeks and then replaced.
“Soot mitigation is an immediate effect but helps for a short time only,” said Forster. “We will always need to mitigate C02 to achieve long-term cooling.”
Rose also quoted Myles Allen -professor of geosystem science in the school of geography and the environment and department of physics, University of Oxford- “David quoting me in the Mail on Sunday as saying that “until recently he believed that the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century” and “adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower“.” Myles recounts his misquoting in The Guardian. The quote by Piers also seems to be from a direct conversation with Rose- so far Piers has not responded to the wording: however the terms of science- i.e. high estimates which would lead to near extinction of humanity in 100 years does not negate the seriousness of IPCC low estimates. 2c increase is just an unknown change as 5c!
Climate deniers will happily mis-quote, quote out of context, lie etc any apparent voice that supports their opinion. Climate change is complicated and will have genuine voices of descent with regards to process and conclusions, it is the true scepticism of science, denialism however, will seize on anything and polarizes any minor differences and uncertainties. Because of the nature of the internet the words of Piers Forster will be around for decades as will Myles Allen and will be quoted by those who share none of the other views of the scientists and will dispute CO2 as a GHG.
David Evans, Rocket Scientist.[desmogblog.com/david-evans] a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.["and part-time 2008 to 2010, (it was disbanded in 2007 !) modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering"] Is married to Jo Nova – blogger of denial site jonova, has his own website sciencespeak has written 1 science peer-reviewed paper back in the 80s not related to climate change science.
The campaign to force people to accept that “the debate is over” and that man-made CO2 emissions are driving climate change is in deep trouble, with another top global warming advocate – rocket scientist and carbon accounting expert Dr. Richard Evans – completely reversing his position. [Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet, July 22, 2008]
Writing in the Australian he proclaimed his scepticism after years of being a warmist.
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I’ve been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
David Evans reasons are 1/ No Hot Spot 2/ no evidence that CO2 is causing increased warming 3/it stopped warming in 2001 4/co2 rise lags warming
Slight change in opinion in 2011 Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about
Let’s set a few things straight.
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.
David Evans conclusions are challenged here. What is not dealt with is David Evans’ references to the AGW ‘gravy train’ and links to banking.
David Evans has written up a paper that describes just what kind of Octopus we are dealing with, and it’s bigger and more insidious than almost anything you can imagine. It’s a long paper, but if you are not aware of how our currencies are created out of thin air, backed by nothing, and why the Global Financial Crisis was not a surprise to those of us watching the money supply, then stand back, hold onto your hats and take a deep breath.
It’s like living in The Matrix. (Jo Nova)
Bankers and conspiracy theories have been around for centuries with ‘Protocols of Elders’ being key to New World Order paranoia. His language and insinuation is dealt with here, it makes for disturbing reading.
There are a small number of families who, over the centuries, have amassed wealth through financial rent seeking. They are leading members of the paper aristocracy. For example, the Rothschilds are the biggest banking family in Europe, and were reputed to own half of all western industry in 1900. That sort of wealth doesn’t just dissipate, because unless the managers are incompetent the wealth tends to concentrate. The banking families don’t work for a living in the normal sense, like the rest of us. They avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible. Since they own or influence all sorts of media organizations, it isn’t too hard. There are unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, but nobody can really credibly say how much wealth and influence they have.
What are the paper aristocracy going to do in the aftermath of the current huge bubble? The course and end of the bubble are quite foreseeable, so they must have a plan. Manufacturing Money and Global Warming 2009
When did David Evans turn from warmist to sceptic?
As a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 he seems to be a strong authority on the basis he has changed his mind given ‘new facts’ but when did this change happen, and did it happen at all?
Back in 2005 he wrote a paper claiming no hot spot for the The Lavoisier Group an organisation based in Australia that promotes scepticism of current scientific consensus on global warming. In a presentation to the group [pdf 2007] he says he was in fact a contractor to do computer modelling. He goes on to say that he is not a climate modeller and was modelling carbon in the human and natural environment. Despite being a contractor he says he resigned in 2005 but not because of his scepticism, this he says developed after 2000 when new evidence emerged [he only started to work for the GH office in 1999].
Fritz Vahrenholt, the the grandfather of global warming who after he changed his position was shunned, or rather:- The believer who never was.
Fritz Vahrenholt (born May 8, 1949 in Gelsenkirchen-Buer) is a German politician (SPD), industrialist and environmentalist.[1]Biography
Varenholt had studied Chemistry in Münster and started his professional career at the federal Umweltbundesamt (environmental protection agency) in Berlin and the Ministry for Environment of Hesse. From 1984 till 1990 he was in a leading role in Hamburg, first as Staatsrat for environment, 1990 to 1991 for the administral Senatskanzlei, and the Umweltsenator (senator for the environment) in Hamburg from 1991 to 1997.In 1998 he entered the energy industry and until 2001 was on the Board of Deutsche Shell AG, a Shell subsidiary. In 2001 he moved to post of CEO of the wind turbine company REpower Systems AG and remained there until 2007. From February 2008 he was CEO of electric power company RWE subsidiary RWE Innogy, a post he will step down from in mid-2012. Prof. Dr. Varenholt has a doctorate in Chemistry. In 1999 he was made an Honorary Professor of chemistry at the University of Hamburg.[2][1][3]Global Warming Skepticism
Vahrenholt is skeptical of human-induced global warming. In 2012 Vahrenholt together with geologist Sebastian Lüning published Die kalte Sonne: warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet[4] (The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Crisis Isn’t Happening), a book asserting that climate change is driven by variations in solar activity. They predict the Earth is entering a cooling phase due to periodic solar cycles, and will cool by 0.2 to 0.3 degrees C by 2035.[3] Other contributors are Nir Shaviv, Werner Weber, Henrik Svensmark and Nicola Scafetta.Vahrenholt’s claims have been met with criticism from Global Warming experts who have argued his arguments contain errors. He has also been criticized for misrepresenting the IPCC, and the evidence for Global Warming. [5] [6] [7]
The claim Vahrenholt was a believer and now sceptic is from notrickszone denial blog quoting the German media : SPIEGEL features a story on environment expert Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, author of the new book Die kalte Sonne” (The Cold Sun). Vahrenholt’s underlying message is “It’s also the sun, stupid!”
THE CLIMATE REBEL
With heretical claims, RWE manager Fritz Vahrenholt is causing a commotion: ‘The climate catastrophe is not taking place’, the environment expert claims. The sun is being underestimated as a natural climate factor. ‘The sun has been weak since 2005′, Vahrenholt said in a DER SPIEGEL interview. ‘We can only expect cooling from it for the time being.’”
Fritz Vahrenholt, 62, who holds a doctorate in chemistry, has been a rebel throughout his life. “Perhaps it’s just part of my generation,” he says.
He is typical of someone who came of age during the student protest movement of the late 1960s, and who fought against the chemical industry’s toxic manufacturing plants in the 1970s. His party, Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), chose him as environment senator in the city-state of Hamburg, where he incurred the wrath of the environmental lobby by building a waste incineration plant, earning him the nickname “Feuerfritze” (Fire Fritz). He worked in industry after that, first for oil multinational Shell and then for wind turbine maker RePower, which he helped develop. Now, as the outgoing CEO of the renewable energy group RWE Innogy, he is about to embark on his next major battle. “I’m going to make enemies in all camps,” he says.
………I don’t claim that I know precisely whether the sun is responsible for a 40, 50 or 60 percent share of global warming. But it’s nonsense for the IPCC to claim that the sun has nothing to do with it.
In the same interview Vahrenholt reveals himself to be more lukewarm rather than sceptical
SPIEGEL: If we take your book to its logical conclusion, it will be unnecessary to reduce CO2 emissions at all.
Vahrenholt: No. Even a temperature increase of only one degree would be a noticeable change. But I am indeed saying that climate change is manageable because the cooling effects of the sun and the ocean currents give us enough time to prepare. In any case, it will be easy for us in Germany to adjust.
Vahranholt admits he is doing no original research. His environmental qualifications are also suspect as the quote demonstrates as well as his association with Shell. As for the believer who became a sceptic:- this seems to have derived from his book launch where he is described as being the founder of the German Green movement, a statement that is not true, he was an SPD politician who had the office of environment minster whilst the SPD and Greens were in coalition government. Spoke at the GWPF 2012 conference and reiterated his ‘green’ credentials.
Duncan Wingham is sometimes wrongly claimed to be a AGW sceptic.
Dr. Wingham and three colleagues published an article in the journal of the Royal Society that casts further doubt on the notion that global warming is adversely affecting Antarctica. By studying satellite data from 1992 to 2003 that surveyed 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet (72% of the ice sheet covering the entire land mass), they discovered that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing at the rate of 5 millimetres per year (plus or minus 1 mm per year). That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. According to their best estimates, Antarctica will “lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm” per year. [from a 2007 'Denier' site]
In the 1990s, Wingham was involved in a four-year satellite study of the Antarctic ice sheet. His conclusion then, and from later research, is that the Antarctic has contributed little to observed rising sea levels in the 20thC. Paradoxically Wingham stated It is possible that the consequences of global warming on sea level rise have been underestimated. He expanded Other sources of rise must be underestimated. In particular it is possible that the effect of global warming on thermal expansion [on the oceans] is larger than we thought.[2]
In a 2005 interview Wingham stated Antarctic is to some extent insulated from global warming because to its north are zonal flows in the atmosphere and ocean, unimpeded by other landmasses…I am not denying global warming[3]
From the article quoted in Wikipedia
“I am not denying global warming. For instance, Greenland, in the northern hemisphere, does seem to be going. But Greenland’s ice cap – Greeland is quite far south – is a last survivor from the ice age and only its height protects it. The more that cap melts, the more it will continue to melt as it gets lower and warmer. But Antarctica is different. Even in the Arctic I am sceptical of some claims that 40 per cent of the sea ice has already vanished, and that what remains is drastically thinning.
“Sparse data from subs in some parts of the Arctic do seem to show a thinning trend, but our preliminary observations using satellite data point to large growth and decay from year to year and place to place, by as much a meter in just a few years. Here too natural variability is considerable. No one doubts that the ultimate fate of Arctic ice looks a grim one, but I believe we have too few data to be confident of how fast it will meet its fate.”
The article dates from 2005- a 2012 report that includes Duncan Wingham is less sceptical of alarmist claims of diminishing Arctic Ice.
Nir Joseph Shaviv (Hebrew: ניר יוסף שביב, born July 6, 1972) is an Israeli‐Americanphysics professor, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science. He is currently an associate professor at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[1] He is also the head of the national coordinating council of faculty unions in Israel.
He is most well known for his solar and cosmic rays hypothesis of climate change.
Dr. Shariv’s digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence — only speculation — that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change– the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming — is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC’s own findings, man’s role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man’s effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is “incriminating circumstantial evidence,” which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding “evidence of fingerprints.” Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, “without other ‘suspects.’ ” However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible “other suspects,” he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century’s warming.
“Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming,” he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist.”
The sun’s strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can’t have much of an influence on the climate — that C02 et al. don’t dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, “will not dramatically increase the global temperature,” Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant.”
The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% –sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth’s climate.
In another study, directly relevant to today’s climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth’s temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 — instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.
“I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue.” His conclusion: “I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go.”
How do cosmic rays alter the climate?
According to WUWT and GWPF – “Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures”.
Jasper Kirkby of CERN and his 62 co-authors, from 17 institutes in Europe and the USA, announce big effects of pions from an accelerator, which simulate the cosmic rays and ionize the air in the experimental chamber. The pions strongly promote the formation of clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules – aerosols of the kind that may grow into cloud condensation nuclei on which cloud droplets form. What’s more, there’s a very important clarification of the chemistry involved. [Aug 2011]
Nature who published the research balanced the findings.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory: ‘cosmic rays’ from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth’s atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe’s high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.
The findings, published today in Nature1, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.
For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet’s atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.
The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.
Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.
Outside of the denial-sphere the cosmic-ray effect is considered tiny when compared to CO2. More detail on why cosmic rays are poor at seeding clouds can be found here.
Willis Eschenbach, blogger with a certificate in massage and a B.A. in Psychology.Has worked recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil. A profile can be found at desmogblog.com/willis-eschenbach. Has produced no peer-reviewed papers on climate science
[I'm a] Heretic. I am neither an anthopogenic global warming (AGW) supporter nor a skeptic, I believe the entire current climate paradigm is incorrect. from WUWT
Willis speaking at Heartland conference.
Islands float! From WUWT
Willis explains how Floating Islands work, and he should know, he spent a lot of time working on one. He also explains why CO2 isn’t an issue. He writes:
Does increased CO2 cause increased sea level rise?
Short answer, data to date says no. There has been no acceleration the rate of sea level rise. Sea level has been rising for centuries. But the rate of the rise has not changed a whole lot. Both tidal stations and satellites show no increase in the historic rate of sea level rise, in either the short or long term.
A summary of his views can be found at WUWT from 2010 although Willis is complex, he believes that there has been an increase in temperature in the last century yet sets about proving that Australia is cooling. Take any one of his views on climate change and it is easily adapted into something slightly different in his numerous blogs.
