Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore pens treatise on the positive effects of CO2 – says there is no crisis
We should ask those who predict catastrophic climate change, including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, some pressing questions regarding the outcome if humans had not intervened in the carbon cycle.
- What evidence or argument is there that the global climate would not revert to another glacial period in keeping with the Milankovitch cycles as it has done repeatedly during at least the past 800,000 years?
- What evidence is there that we are not already past the maximum global temperature during this Holocene interglacial period? • How can we be certain that in the absence of human emissions the next cooling period would not be more severe than the recent Little Ice Age?
- Given that the optimum CO2 level for plant growth is above 1,000 ppm and that CO2 has been above that level for most of the history of life, what sense does it make to call for a reduction in the level of CO2 in the absence of evidence of catastrophic climate change?
- Is there any plausible scenario, in the absence of human emissions, that would end the gradual depletion of CO2 in the atmosphere until it reaches the starvation level for plants, hence for life on earth?
These and many other questions about CO2, climate and plant growth require our serious consideration if we are to avoid making some very costly mistakes.…
By Paul Homewood
Joe Romm has been up to his tricks again:
Last Thursday, Greenland’s capital hit 75°F, which was hotter than New York City. This was the highest temperature ever recorded there in June — in a country covered with enough ice to raise sea levels more than 20 feet.
It comes hot on the heels of the hottest May on record for the entire globe, according to NASA. As the map above shows, May temperature anomalies in parts of the Arctic and Antarctic were as high as 17°F (9.4°C) above the 1951-1980 average for the month.
Greenland in particular has been shockingly warm this spring. Here, for instance, is “land surface temperatures for April 2016 compared to the 2001–2010 average for the same month” from NASA:
NASA reports that some parts of Greenland were 36°F (20°C) warmer than “normal” — and remember, in this map, the new “normal” is the 2001–2010 average, which means it already includes a century of human-caused warming.
Romm’s ploy is straightforward:
- Temperatures of 75F must be unheard of in a place like Greenland.
- Ice sheets will surely melt quickly in such temperatures.
He reinforces his message like this:
Some might note a worrisome pattern, driven by ever-rising levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide.
Joe gets his “record temperature” from the highly reliable Weather Underground. However, their weather records show maximum temperatures bouncing up and down during that day. Somehow, we are expected to believe that the temperature jumped up several degrees at ten to every hour!
It is evident that there are two recording stations at Nuuk. No serious meteorologist would declare a record just based on one, when the other was so much different.
In any event, 75F (23.9C) is not even a record. According to DMI, the highest temperature recorded at Nuuk was 24.2C, back in July 1908.
As for his ridiculous map, supposedly showing Greenland temperatures 20C warmer than normal in April, it presumably has not occurred to him that there ARE NO WEATHER STATIONS IN THE INTERIOR OF GREENLAND.
The map comes from satellite observations from NASA, who comment:
This temperature anomaly map is based on data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite. Observed by satellites uniformly around the world, land surface temperatures (LSTs) are not the same as air temperatures. Instead, they reflect the heating of the …
What is known about sea level rise?
The long-term record is from tide gauges spread around the world. The oldest records date back to the 1890s and the average rise for 225 tide gauges spread around the world is 1.48 mm per year. (Source: Sea Level Info.)
This is close to the generally accepted 1.72 mm per year for tide gauges.
In the 1990s, Australia set up a series of very accurate tide gauges all around Australia and on many Pacific Islands (BoM reports). These show that, for the majority of sites, the sea level rise since the mid-1990s was less than 2mm per year.
The Pacific Islands record shows, for instance, that the sea level in Tuvalu has hardly changed since 1992. As a result of the now-ending El Niño effect, the Tuvalu sea level is about 100 mm below the level in 1994-1997.
Research by Paul Kench, of the University of Auckland, has established that the area of most atolls is increasing because natural processes build up the islands. Without this, all the atolls would have drowned as the sea level rose at 30mm a year at the end of the last Ice Age.
According to Sea level rise – history and consequences, by Bruce Douglas, Mark T Kearney and Stephen P Leatherman, there has been no acceleration of the rate of rise during the 20th century.
Data are available from satellite observations since 1993. These show a rise of about 3.2mm per year with indications of a recent decline in the rate. Nobody seems to be able to explain why it is about twice the tide gauge rate.
Satellites v tide gauges
Many “climate scientists” have adopted the dubious practice of substituting satellite for tide gauge readings post-1993 so they can claim that the rate of rise is increasing.
Predictions of sea level rise from the more realistic of the IPCC computer models range from about 150mm to 600mm by 2100.
In 2011, NASA’s predictions range from 200mm to 700mm. The Ministry for the Environment and NIWA seem to have used an Australian prediction that cobbled the satellite record on to the tide gauge record and predicts a sea level rise of something like 0.5m to 0.8m by 2100.
The Royal Society of New Zealand leads the pack with a projected rise of 0.3m to 1m. This is more than anybody else and …