Fathers for Life

Working in the interests of the owners of rural electric services 

| Home | Search | In The News | Contact Us | Share

Site Map
Table of Contents
Alternative Energy Sources
Contacting the Bruderheim REA
Deregulation of the Electricity Industry
E-mail List-Server
Energy Purchase Contracts (Electricity only) Price Comparison
Energy Utilities Board
Gas Meters
Global Warming Explained
Links Page
PC Tips
Pole-testing, pole-changes and line work
Popular Pages
Tips on Energy Savings


You are visitor

at the website of the Bruderheim REA since March 27, 2002

Global Warming Explained
Climate forecasts
What is wrong with the forecasts
The solar constant
The Little Ice Age
Is the Earth warming up or not?
Tree rings
Droughts, sand dunes, and wells that dry up
Greenhouse gases
Glaciers, polar ice and rising oceans
If only we had a bit of global warming

Global Warming Explained

What is wrong with the forecasts? 

How come none of the forecasts made by the promoters of the global-warming scare turned out right so far?

The following contains a few excerpts from a very detailed and very revealing study report that explains what is wrong with the hype promoted by people such as David Suzuki.

Precise forecasts that prove correct are a sharp criterion for efficient science. The protagonists of global warming remain empty-handed in this respect in spite of great material and personal expense.

In the eighties S. Schneider from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, predicted in his book “Global Warming” a huge jump in temperature, polar ice melting away, seas surging across the land, famine on an epidemic scale, and ecosystem collapse. Today this is no longer taken seriously. Yet other climatologists, too, made forecasts in the eighties they no longer maintain. C. D. Schönwiese [99], usually critical and cautious in his statements, still predicted in 1987 a 4.5° C rise in temperature until 2030, though only as an upper limit. He thought that the sea level in the German Bay could rise by 1.5 m till 2040 and in the ocean around India even 2 to 3 m. A projection of his temperature forecast yields 11.8° C [increase] for the year 2100. At the climate conference in Villach in 1985 similar predictions were presented to the public. The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] still predicted in 1990 and 1992 that global temperature would rise 1.9° - 5.2° C until 2100 [100] and thought that a rise in sea level by 1.10 m was possible [36].

All these predictions have turned out to be untenable. It is accepted that global temperature has risen by 0.5° C in the last hundred years. Yet during the last fifty years the temperature has remained approximately at the same level, even though 70% of the anthropogenic [human or human-made influence on nature] carbon dioxide contribution was injected into the atmosphere during this time. From 1940 to 1970 the temperature fell, and according to satellite data available since 1979, which are in good accord with balloon data [27], the trend in the lower troposphere has remained at -0.06° C per decade. The IPCC prediction made in 1992 proved so exaggerated that it had to be adjusted to reality three years later by reducing the rise range to 1° - 3.5° C by 2100. As to sea level rise, the IPCC meanwhile acknowledges (in accordance with a consensus in the specialized literature [3]) that sea level has risen by merely 18 cm in the last hundred years.[*] According to M. Baltuck et al. [3] it is very probable that the rising sea level is due to natural causes and not to man’s contribution to the greenhouse effect.[*]

* My note: Those estimates of the extent to which sea levels rose are apparently on the high side.  Far more so than with temperature records, it is very difficult to establish absolute references points by which to measure long-term changes in sea levels.  It appears that the promoters of the global-warming hype have been using their tide gauge data somewhat selectively.  For example, some of those gauges are subsiding because of the weight that the cities in or nearby which they are located exert on the crust of the Earth, and others of the gauges are sinking because the structures to which they had been attached, docks and piers, are sinking into the muck of the harbours in which those were erected.  There are more reasons why many of the tide gauges in the world are subsiding
   John L. Daly, science advisor of the Greening Earth Society, produced a detailed report of the quality of tide gauge locations and of the information they provide.  He furthermore collected study reports on research by many scientist into such information and found that the alleged 18 cm sea level rise over the past century is not true to facts.  He reports that, instead, the sea level rose by no more than 0.16mm a year over the last century.  That is a total of 1.6 cm over the last century, less than one tenth of the 18cm claimed by the IPCC doom-sayers.  Moreover, he reports that the results coming in from Project Poseidon, a satellite ocean surface survey, bear out what he found.  The alarming estimates, predictions and claims by the IPCC are out to lunch.  (More on that story; the whole story) —WHS

The discrepancy between IPCC forecasts and observed data stands out very clearly as to temperatures in the polar regions. The general circulation models, presented by the IPCC in 1990, predict for the regions near the poles in a CO2 doubling scenario a rise in temperature of more than 12° C [13]. If this were true, in the last 40 years with their steep increase in CO2 concentration, a warming trend with a temperature rise of several °C should have emerged. The opposite is true [20]. A joint investigation by American, Russian and Canadian scientists shows that the surface temperatures in the Arctic region observed between 1950 and 1990 are going down. They fell 4.4° C in winter and 5° C in autumn [43]. Satellite data too, available since 1979, do not indicate rising temperatures [105]. This agrees with data published by the world Glacier Monitoring Network in Zurich, according to which 55% of the glaciers in high latitudes are advancing compared with 5% around 1950. [See also: Hubbard Glacier surges —WHS]

4. Cosmic Radiation, Solar Wind, and Global Cloud Coverage

The most convincing argument yet, supporting a strong impact of the sun’s activity on climate change, is a direct connection between cloud coverage and cosmic rays, discovered by H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen [111] in 1996. It is shown in Figure 6. Clouds have a hundred times stronger effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even if the atmosphere’s CO2 content doubled, its effect would be cancelled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%, as shown by H. E. Landsberg [53]. Svensmark’s and Friis-Christensen’s result is therefore of great importance. The thin curve in Figure 6 presents the monthly mean counting rates of neutrons measured by the ground-based monitor in Climax, Colorado (right scale). This is an indirect measure of the strength of galactic and solar cosmic rays. The thick curve plots the 12-month running average of the global cloud cover expressed as change in percent (left scale). It is based on homogeneous observations made by geostationary satellites over the oceans. The two curves show a close correlation. The correlation coefficient is r = 0.95 [meaning, that it is pretty close to being absolutely certain that there is a connection between the amount of cosmic rays hitting the Earth and the amount of cloud coverage that results from that. —WHS].

Another contentious point is how long CO2 will stay in the atmosphere, several hundred years, or only five years? New results by P. Dietze and T. V. Segalstad show that shorter residence times are much more probable than the extended ones.

When K. Hasselmann (a leading greenhouse protagonist) was asked why GCMs [General Circulation Models] do not allow for the stratosphere’s warming by the sun’s ultraviolet radiation and its impact on the circulation in the troposphere, he answered: “This aspect is too complex to incorporate it into models” [8]. Since there are other solar-terrestrial relationships which are “too complex” such as, for example, the dynamics of cloud coverage modulated by the solar wind, it is no wonder that the predictions based on GCMs do not conform to climate reality.

Quoted from: Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics, by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Nova Scotia, Canada

Objective and reputable climate researchers work in many areas of science that relate to the climate of the world.  Their number is steadily increasing as the debate heats up and as the weather is turning colder.  These scientists identify a radically different culprit for changes in the weather, the Sun.  The Sun determines our daily weather and our long-term climate.  It is the controlling influence, and it has been controlling and influencing our weather and climate for a long time, since long before there was any industrialization, long before there was a civilization, even long before before man made an appearance.

The calculations done by General Circulation Models (GCMs) are the main source of the information that fuels the global warming hysteria.  Nevertheless, not one of them comes acceptably close to accurately calculating what the climate presently is at any location, let alone of the whole Earth.  Not only that, but all of the GCMs differ widely from one another as to what the climate was in the past, and as to what it is supposed to be in the future.

Therein lies the problem.  No one in his right mind will base any decisions about the future on tools that cannot determine with acceptable accuracy what the present is and the past was.

Next Page: The solar constant isn't constant.  The sun is a variable star. 

Back to Global Warming Index Page

Posted 2002 09 26 (page broken up into several pages)