Reassessing the Climate Role of Carbon Dioxide
ABSTRACT: The authors evaluate the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “consensus” that the increase of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin and is causing dangerous global warming, climate change and climate disruption. They conclude that the data do not support that supposition.
Most of the currently accepted scientific interpretations are examined and the given impression that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase the earth’s surface and/or air temperature is questioned.
New insight is offered drawing a conclusion that no additional warming is possible due to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Acceptance of that IPCC paradigm is incurring costly and draconian efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, tax such emissions and replace fossil fuel combustion by alternative energy systems whether such alternatives will achieve the desired results or not.
The totality of the data available on which that theory is based is evaluated here, from Vostok ice-core measurements, to residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, to more recent studies of temperature changes that inevitably precede CO2 changes, to global temperature trends, to the current ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, to satellite data for the geographic distribution of atmospheric CO2, to the effect of solar activity on cosmic rays and cloud cover.
Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2. Furthermore, CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential ingredient of the Earth’s ecosystem on which almost all life depends via photosynthesis.
This paper rejects the new paradigm of “climate science” and asserts that the traditional, century old meteorological concepts for the factors that control weather and climate remain sound but need to be reassessed.
THE UN IPCC HYPOTHESIS
Over the last 200 years, data show that there has been a more or less steady increase in the average atmospheric concentration of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), from 280ppmv (parts per million by volume) to 400ppmv. That is a 43 percent increase, from 0.028{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} to 0.040{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. CO2 is said to be a “greenhouse gas” which traps heat or prevents infrared radiation from being lost to free space.
It is argued that the increase of CO2 is caused by the human combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum products and natural gas. The resultant increase in greenhouse warming of the Earth is said to have already been observed and any continuing increase will result in dire consequences. According to the IPCC paradigm, increases in atmospheric CO2 precede, and cause, parallel increases in the Earth’s temperature.
A large number of the world Governments, professional societies, editors of scientific journals, print journalists, TV media reporters, and many corporations generally accept the validity of the IPCC paradigm. Accordingly there is a concerted effort to reduce CO2 emissions, tax such emissions, and replace fossil fuel combustion by alternative energy sources.
The purpose of the report is to summarize all available observations and measurements relating to the IPCC paradigm and question all aspects of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) / Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACG) hypothesis.
THE ICE-CORE DATA
Our common experience with extreme events such as hurricanes, typhoons, blizzards, tsunamis, droughts, floods, heat waves, cold waves, tornadoes, earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, leads to the conclusion that weather, climate and geology are controlled by natural forces on a scale that dwarfs human activity and ability to influence them.
One example of such extremes is found in the ice-core data obtained from drilling into glaciers in Greenland or Antarctica. The ice-core data from the Vostok station in Antarctica are shown in Figure 1.
The red line shows the inferred atmospheric CO2 concentrations from bubbles trapped in the ice and the blue line the atmospheric temperature relative to recent value as inferred from oxygen isotopic ratios [1]. The data span the last 420,000 years and reveal four Glacial Cooling eras whose average temperatures are some 8 to 9 degrees C below current values. The data show some five Interglacial Warming eras with temperatures 1 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than current values. The Greenland data are similar.
The average time span between peak cooling (or maximum warming) eras is 100,000 years and would appear to correlate with the periodic changes in the eccentricity of the Earth’s elliptical orbit about the sun.
The data also shows a correlation between long term variations in temperature and variations in CO2. At the extreme of a Glacial Cooling era, CO2 values are as low as 125 ppm. At the peak of the ensuing Glacial Warming era, CO2 is as high as 290 ppm. It is acknowledged that many things can occur to CO2 molecules trapped in bubbles in ice for many centuries, so the absolute values measured in the ice cores should not be taken at face value although the relative values are probably accurate enough: They reflect more than a doubling of CO2 between a Cooling era minimum and a Warming era maximum.
The IPCC uses the observed correlation between CO2 and temperature in Vostok data to support their theory but a closer inspection of the data shows that the changes in temperature always precede the changes in CO2 by several hundred to a thousand years. The same precedence is observed in the most recent Glacial Warming being experienced. This suggests that a theory of CO2 as the prime forcing agent for temperature change is mistaken and temperature change itself is the driving force behind the rise in CO2 levels. Shorter term variations in CO2 over the last several decades show a similar trend with changes in sea surface temperature inevitably leading to changes in atmospheric CO2. [2]
The IPCC paradigm also ignores that which the Vostok data clearly indicates, that anthropogenic CO2 emissions had no influence on the Earth’s temperature as the observed doubling of CO2 during the Warming eras could not have come from human emissions which were essentially nil 400,000 years ago.
The most likely sources would have been tropical oceans and other natural events such as volcanic emissions, forest fires, vegetative decay and limestone weathering. These same sources are likely responsible for recent increases in atmospheric CO2. The amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans as carbon is about 50 times greater than the amount in the atmosphere. As the oceans warm, dissolved CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere, just as soda pop emits CO2 bubbles when poured into a warmer glass. As oceans cool again, CO2 dissolves back into the oceans, in the same manner as soda pop being made by injecting CO2 gas into cold water.
The issue of whether the origin of recent CO2 increase is principally natural or man-made is important for the veracity of the IPCC paradigm. The implications of the Vostok data, plus the recent OCO-2 satellite measurements (Fig. 2), show that the current sources of CO2 are overwhelmingly natural. They do not correlate well with the proclaimed IPCC paradigm.
DATA TO SUPPORT THE UN IPCC PARADIGM
Published data that might appear to support the conclusion that human CO2 emissions have caused a modest increase in the average temperature of the Earth is shown in Figure 3.
The average monthly surface air temperature anomaly as measured by the National Climatic Data Center is shown in blue and the atmospheric CO2 concentration in red. CO2 concentrations are the average monthly values measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The dashed gray line indicates the approximate linear trend. The boxes at the bottom of the chart indicate whether a temperature trend is positive or negative relative to the CO2 trend. The data is taken from Ole Humlum’s “climate4you” website. [2]
The temperature data are shown as “anomalies” – that is, as differences in the actual temperatures from their average value base for an extended period of time. Note the anomaly values vary by about 1°C at most, whereas actual temperatures vary by as much as 50°C, reflecting their seasonal or diurnal variations at a given station.
The CO2 data show a continuous increase from 1958 onward, whereas the temperature trend is downward between 1958 and 1978 (a negative correlation). Between 1978 and 2003, both temperature and CO2 trend upward (a positive correlation). From 2003 to 2010 the temperature trend is flat (a “pause” with no correlation) and 2010 to the present is again positive with the El Niño event in the Pacific Ocean being a possible influence. The entire period could end up flat, as happened after the previous El Niño event in 1998.
Over the same time-span human global emissions of CO2 show a general increase from 2.5 billion metric tons in 1958 to about 10 billion metric tons currently. This generally positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 increase and the increase in human CO2 emissions may prompt one to conclude that human emissions cause a CO2 increase and, concomitantly, cause temperatures to rise. Such a conclusion is, however, contradicted by the negative correlation between temperature and CO2 during the period 1958-1978 and the “pause” from 2003 to 2010.
That a parallel between anthropogenic emissions on the one hand and increased CO2 and higher temperatures on the other, constitutes a causal relationship as the IPCC asserts, is questionable.
For, while a parallelism between two separate quantities does not prove that the two are causally related, the lack of parallelism proves that they are not causally related.
From 1958 to 1978 the average global temperature dropped some 0.25°C while human emission of CO2 from fossil fuels tripled. This CO2 emission did not contribute to global warming over that period – eliciting suggestions of a coming ice age. Data from 1910 to 1940 indicate a similar increase in temperature as for 1970 to 2000 despite fossil fuel production at that time being around five times lower than it is today!
In 1929 the production of fossil fuels was 1.17 Gigatons of carbon per year. Following the stock market crash and the depression, human production decreased to 0.88 Gigatons per year — a 30{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} drop. Yet during that same period both atmospheric CO2 and temperature continued to rise at around the same rate as before and in 1934 the “dust bowl” began when temperatures climbed higher than they have been since.
THE AVERAGE LIFESPAN OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE
Thus far, in our assessment of the IPCC CO2 paradigm, we’ve dealt with what we saw as a lack of objectivity and failure to apply the more important questions. We now examine the position of AGW advocates, including the IPCC, that CO2 emitted into the atmosphere lasts for centuries. Some claim it accumulates for thousands of years and would make the Earth uninhabitable.
The residence time of atmospheric CO2 (i.e., its turnover rate) refers to how long it takes for a CO2 molecule to be removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks. The most authoritative study of the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is that of Professor Tom Segalstad of the University of Oslo [3].A variety of methods, and a variety of researchers, consistently find short residence times.
“Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. Any CO2 level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth’s interior.”
THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURE RECORD
Figure 4 is a plot from the 1990 IPCC report which shows an early global temperature reconstruction. This depicts the well-established Medieval Warm Period (MWP) which reached its peak in about 1200 AD and then gave way to the Little Ice Age (LIA) which lasted from about 1400 to 1850. Those periods are well documented in history and accepted by climatologists. The Viking colonization of Greenland took place during the Medieval Warm Period when lush green vegetation thrived, giving it its name. The Viking settlements collapsed during the Little Ice Age, when even the Thames in London froze over.
If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also? John Daly [5]
Like the Vostok data, this curve presented a serious problem to the supporters of AGW. The Medieval Warm Period peaked at a higher temperature than today and at a time when there was no significant human emission of CO2. This naturally raised the question: What would be so unusual about the current warming trend that necessitated the response to link it to human CO2 emissions? In return, the AGW advocates drew attention to a little known 1999 paper using tree ring data to assess past temperatures [4], eliciting memories of the now infamous presentation of the “Hockey Stick” curve.
Tree rings are not a reliable temperature proxy because they are influenced by many other factors, apart from temperature: rainfall, sunlight, cloudiness, pests, competition from other trees, soil nutrients, frost, and snow duration. Nevertheless, the tree ring curve as shown in Fig. 5 was accepted by the IPCC and replaced their earlier curve. As can be seen, it has the shape of a hockey stick. Trees grow only on land and 71{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the Earth’s surface is covered by water. The data was only from the Northern Hemisphere, yet presented as the global temperature curve. Quoting John Daly: “It was a coup: total, bloodless, and swift, and the hockey stick was greeted with a chorus of approval from the greenhouse effect supporting industry.” [5]
The MWP and the LIA became non-events, consigned to an “Orwellian memory hole”. It was argued that they were strictly local European phenomena and the tree ring hockey stick was duly presented in the media as: “New studies indicate that temperatures in recent decades are higher than at any time in the past 1000 years….with the 1990’s as the warmest decade and 1998 as the warmest year”.
Knowledgeable climatologists and other concerned scientists questioned these results and asked for copies of the original data to check the analysis leading to the hockey stick. The authors of the hockey stick initially resisted, delaying release of data and details of the computer program used to analyze the material and the requested E-mail communications among the various authors of the tree ring report have yet to be received. An independent committee of statisticians was appointed to evaluate the tree ring results. The conclusion was that the authors had “misused certain statistical methods in their studies, which inappropriately produced hockey stick shapes in the temperature history”. They also concluded that the claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade in the millennium and 1998 the hottest year could not be supported by the original data.
The UN IPCC ignored the situation and did not refer to it again.
Recent climatological data assembled from around the world using different proxies attest to the presence of both the MWP and the LIA in the following locations: the Sargasso Sea, West Africa,, Kenya, Peru, Japan, Tasmania, South Africa, Idaho, Argentina, and California. These events were clearly world-wide and in most locations the peak temperatures during the MWP were higher than current temperatures.
This is John Daly’s conclusion on the matter:
“The evidence is overwhelming from all corners of the globe, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age clearly show up in a variety of proxy indicators, proxies more representative than the inadequate tree ring data. What is disquieting about the hockey stick is not its original publication. As with any paper, it would sink into oblivion if found flawed. Rather it was the reaction of the greenhouse effect industry to it – the chorus of approval, the complete lack of critical evaluation of the theory, the blind acceptance of evidence that was so flimsy. The industry embraced the theory for one reason and one reason only – it told them exactly what they wanted to hear”.
John Daly died not long after writing that. One of the notorious “climategate” e-mails mentioned his death as a “fortunate occurrence” and “some cheering news.” Daly knew that the hockey stick was inaccurate from day 1.
EVASIONS AND SUBTERFUGE
“Daily we see the news media presenting apocalyptic views, not backed by solid measurements or comprehensive scientific theory. When we try to correct them, our contributions are routinely rejected.” — Segalstad
The hockey stick incident is not unique. There are other instances of questionable science that have appeared, displaying the same pattern: new data surfaces seeming to challenge the IPCC paradigm, a short time later a new paper appears with a dozen or so co-authors containing a convoluted statistical analysis dismissing the challenge and reaffirming the IPCC paradigm. The statistical analysis manipulates the data, enabling conformity to the requirements of the author. The conclusion then is prominently displayed but the original data withheld.
In one incident, co-author Martin Hertzberg asked a prominent IPCC supporter his opinion of the work Henrik Svensmark had published showing a strong correlation between solar activity and cloudiness. [6] The data was obtained from the European Space Agency. Hertzberg had inquired what he thought of Svensmark’s theory for the correlation as having been caused by the influence of the sun on cosmic ray activity in the solar system. His response was that he didn’t agree with the data or the theory.
When Hertzberg posed the same question to AGW critics they responded positively to Svensmark’s work and his theory. He then sent an e-mail to the AGW supporter asking on what basis he rejected Svensmark’s work. He responded by making reference to a paper claiming that there was no correlation. Again, the data was kept hidden, the conclusions being reached by convoluted statistical analysis, whereas a direct examination of the raw data presented by Svensmark showed a clear correlation without the need for any statistical analysis.
On another occasion, the observations that show temperature changes always preceding CO2 changes was challenged by AGW advocates. Despite the totality of the data indicating otherwise, it was claimed the reverse was true. The pattern remained the same: an argument made in a multi-authored paper with the conclusions based on convoluted statistical analysis.
The next focus of the AGW proponents was the so-called AGW “pause”: that is, the absence of any significant temperature rise for a period of around 10 years, based on land instruments together with 18 years of data derived from satellite observations at a time when CO2 had increased from 370 to 400 ppm (Fig. 3). They sought data that showed an increase in temperature for that period which was eventually found in the inlet seawater temperatures measured by ocean going vessels. A group of government scientists then wrote a paper challenging the “pause” which Science magazine duly published. A Committee of Congress requested the e-mail correspondence among the authors but the agency involved is currently resisting that request.
The pattern in AGW lobby publications is clear: there is a reluctance to look at the totality of the data, pick the tidbits that agree with the requirements of political bosses and put out a press release before the paper appears in a Journal, thereby avoid giving peers an opportunity to verify the results before the public is alerted. It is a process that does not qualify as scientific research and is a propaganda tool that undermines the integrity of science.
SOURCES AND SINKS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2
An issue of critical importance with regard to the IPCC’s paradigm is the origin of the recent increases in CO2. Are they natural or caused by fossil fuel combustion? The question has been covered earlier in this paper. The preponderance of evidence suggests that human emission is not a significant factor in the increase. Indeed, as shown below, previous IPCC publications, which are no longer available online, calculated human CO2 emissions to be around 4 to 5{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the global total.
Natural carbon sources substantially overwhelm human emissions. The sinks that balance those sources in geologic time are the dissolution of CO2 into the cold oceans, its circulation within the oceans, photosynthesis to form plant matter, its use by ocean organisms to form exoskeletons and its inorganic precipitation as CaCO3 (calcium carbonate).
Satellite data confirm Segalstad’s analysis of the 13C/12C ratio for CO2 in the atmosphere. [8] He showed that the isotopic ratio in the atmosphere today is not much different to that which it had been in the pre-industrial era. Since fossil fuels are rich in 12C, their combustion would disturb the ratio and Segalstad’s measurements uncovered little isotopic difference between the current and the pre-industrial atmosphere, a clear sign that fossil fuels are not the principal source of atmospheric CO2 increases.
Both the satellite data and the isotope ratio data support Segalstad’s conclusion that fossil fuels are not a significant source of atmospheric CO2. The conclusion is reinforced by the Vostok data for the millions of years prior to the industrial age when human fossil combustion was essentially nil yet atmospheric CO2 doubled between Glacial Cooling and Interglacial Warming eras.
There is a substantial amount of recent global data from European, American, and Japanese satellites that measure the total atmospheric CO2 worldwide. The data is difficult to access and where published, the author’s interpretations have appeared ‘primitive’ and ‘cherry-picked’ to conform to the agency’s “party line” about the dangers of “greenhouse gases”. Examples of such satellite data are depicted in the earlier Figure 2 above and Figure 8 below.
More significantly, the data from those figures show that CO2 levels above the industrialized US and Western Europe are some 25 ppm lower than the values over the Amazon and sub-tropical Africa. With their lush vegetation those tropical rainforests should be a photosynthesis sink, yet the data show high levels that would be characteristic of a source.
The agencies collecting the data suggest that the high CO2 levels are caused by “burning of savannas and forests.” Alternatively, the source could be the vegetative decay of the plant growth from previous years. The data also show that the tropical latitudes over both land and water are major sources.
What is needed is a complete analysis of the totality of the data to explain both the geographic and seasonal variations. Such an explanation has recently been provided by Salby. [8] As was also shown in the Vostok data, the satellites show that the major factor in determining the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is the temperature and thus not human emissions.
REALITY
It was more than a century ago that the scientific basis for Meteorology was established, largely by Scandinavian scientists. Those schooled in that discipline became known as Meteorologists. Today, a new breed of researchers has joined their ranks calling themselves “climate scientists” and favored word usages are “carbon pollution”, “greenhouse gases”, “global warming”, linked to “climate change”, “climate disruption”, “dirty coal” and “atmospheric CO2 concentration” and a belief that unless we stop burning fossil fuels the planet will be destroyed. Their allies are environmental activists and liberal or democratic politicians who support of the IPCC paradigm.
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant but an essential ingredient in the Earth’s ecosystem on which almost all of life depends via photosynthesis.
Experiences of hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, blizzards, floods, tsunamis, droughts, monsoons, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions intuits that such weather, climate, or geological events are controlled by strong natural forces on a scale that dwarf human activity or the ability to completely control them.
The forces and motions in the oceans and atmosphere are driven by the following.
- First, the motions of the Earth relative to the Sun: periodic changes in its elliptical orbit, its rotation about its polar axis, changes in the tilt of that axis, and its wobble or precession.
- Second, solar activity variations that influence the radiant energy reaching the Earth and also modulate cosmic ray activity, which influences cloud cover and cloudiness.
- Third, the distribution of land and water on the Earth’s surface, which controls its temperature distribution, moisture availability, monsoon effects, hurricanes, and other storm tracks.
- Fourth, the topography of the Earth’s surface which causes copious precipitation on the windward side of mountains and aridity on the leeward side.
- Fifth, fluid motions within the Earth’s oceans that determine moisture availability and ocean surface temperatures (El Niño and La Niña cycles).
- Sixth, volcanic eruptions that inject huge amounts of dust into the atmosphere, increasing the Earth’s albedo and periodically inhibiting sunlight from reaching the Earth’s surface.
- Seventh, known and yet-to-be charted underwater volcanic eruptions, including the recently discovered “black smokers” that spew super-heated water continuously. They are expected to number in the hundreds of thousands. The ocean floor is less well-known to science than the surfaces of the Moon and Mars.
Water in all its forms is the main agent through which those forces operate. Water provides vapor in the atmosphere, heat transport by evaporation and condensation and the vast circulating mass of the oceans where heat capacity dominates. Finally, it provides the cloud, snow, and ice cover that influences the Earth’s albedo and thus play a part in the radiative balance between the Sun, the Earth, and free space.
For the past year, neutron monitors [9] near the Arctic Circle have recorded an increasing intensity of cosmic rays. In the plot below, neutrons monitored by the University of Oulu Cosmic Ray Station are traced in red; gamma-ray/X-ray measurements over California are in gray. Increased cosmic ray penetration is making itself felt not only over the poles, but also over lower latitudes where Earth’s magnetic field provides greater protection against deep space radiation.
This type of radiation through our atmosphere is modulated by solar activity. Solar storms and Coronal Mass Ejections [10] tend to sweep aside cosmic rays, making it more difficult for them to reach the Earth. Conversely, low solar activity allows an extra dose of cosmic rays to penetrate. Indeed, the ongoing increase in cosmic ray intensity is probably due to a decline in the solar cycle.
Solar Maximum of Cycle 24 has already passed and we are heading toward a new Solar Minimum. NASA forecasters expect solar activity to drop sharply in the years ahead and cosmic rays are poised to increase accordingly. More cosmic rays will increase cloud cover across the globe and together with the expected Solar Minimum will drive global temperatures downward.
Those are the well-established factors that control weather and climate and recognized by Meteorologists for over a century. An 0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} CO2 presence is essential for life on Earth. The idea that a constituent of that scale in the atmosphere could control or significantly influence those forces would not seem feasible, particularly in the absence of proven evidence.
CONCLUSION
As demonstrated, empirical evidence does not support the claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause global warming and/or climate change. We suggest that without adequately proven evidence being demonstrated – should it exist in the first place – such a conclusion can not be adduced from the facts.
DEDICATION
This paper is dedicated to the memory of Alexander Cockburn, a journalist and author whose careful study of the available meteorological data resulted in a series of articles published in the Nation Magazine (5/14/07 – 6/25/07). These articles represent a challenge to the prevailing paradigm that human CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion are warming the globe and disrupting the climate. Below is his introduction to that series.
“In time to come historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter half of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet’s downward slide. Then as now, a buoyant market thrived on fear. The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in ‘carbon credits’ is in formation. Those whose ‘carbon footprint’ is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves.
“The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world’s present warming trend. The greenhouse fear mongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind’s sinful contribution – and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity and greed.”
The editors of Nation Magazine felt compelled to dissociate themselves from Cockburn’s analysis and publish only articles by environmental groups who adhere to the consensus that global warming/ climate change is of anthropogenic origin and an existential threat. They do not countenance scientists who challenge that paradigm.
REFERENCES
- Petit, J. R. et al , 1999 “Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica”, Nature, Vol. 399 pp 429 – 436
- Humlum Ole, 2015, http://www.climate4you.com/
- Segalstad, T.V., 1997, Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2
- IPCC, 2001, Third Assessment Report. Mann, M. E. et al., Geoph. Res. Ltrs, Vol 26, No 6, p 759
- http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
- Svensmark, H., 2000, Cosmic Rays and Earth’s Climate, Space Science Reviews,Vol. 93, pp 155-
166
- U.S. Department of Transportation, circa 1996: Transportation and Global Climate Change
- Salby, Murry, 2012, Video presentation
- Neutron monitor
- 10. Coronal Mass Ejections
*AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Martin Hertzberg (United States)
Dr. Martin Hertzberg was first trained as a meteorologist at the US Naval Postgraduate School and served as a forecasting and research aerologist at the Fleet Weather Central in Washington DC. He subsequently obtained a PhD in Physical Chemistry at Stanford and later served as a Fulbright Professor. Dr Hertzberg established and supervised the explosion testing laboratory at the U. S. Bureau of Mines facility in Pittsburgh (now NIOSH). Test equipment developed in that laboratory has been widely replicated and incorporated into ASTM standards. Published test results from that laboratory are used for the hazard evaluation of industrial dusts and gases.
Dr Hertzberg is an internationally recognized expert on combustion, flames, explosions, and fire research with over 100 publications in those areas. While with the Federal Government he served as a consultant for several Government Agencies (MSHA, DOE, NAS) and professional groups (such as EPRI). He is the author of two US patents: 1) Sub-micron Particulate Detectors, and 2) Multi-channel Infra-red Pyrometers.
Dr Hertzberg is also a long time climate writer and in recent years, his interests have returned to weather prediction and he is a well published skeptic of anthropogenic global warming/climate change.
Hans Schreuder (Holland)
Hans Schreuder trained as an analytical chemist in The Hague and spent fifteen years working in that field, testing pharmaceutical products as well as researching the recycling of plastics and rubber. For another fifteen years, he gained extensive experience as an international technical contractor, including writing quality control manuals whilst working in South Africa . He was accepted as a member of MENSA after passing the relevant tests.
Schreuder has long been a staunch and highly regarded critic of the greenhouse gas theory and outspoken commentator, using his two websites as a publishing hub for fellow scientists critical of the theory.
Schreuder has written many articles on the subject and in May 2009 submitted a 109-page written report, supplemented with a 45 minute oral submission, to the Northern Ireland Climate Change Committee.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their appreciation for the editorial work of Alan Siddons and for the critical review by Joe Postma.
Trackback from your site.