Still Waiting For Greenhouse

Note this site's new URL for your bookmarks

Last update -  0900 GMT, 10th April 2001

A Frozen Lake in Australia 
Pine Lake, Tasmania,  29 July 2000, 2 pm.    © John L. Daly

Still Waiting for Greenhouse

A Lukewarm View of
 Global Warming
- from Tasmania

by     John L. Daly

Special Reports on Major Climate Issues 
by  John L. Daly

A Smoking Pea-Shooter (19 March 2001) The latest scare story from the industry is that human influence on the  greenhouse effect has now been measured in a British study of two sets of satellite data 27 years apart. This report examines the details of the study and reveals some surprising facts not reported in the media, including what may be a significant flaw in the study itself.

The Top of the World: Is the North Pole Turning to Water? (2 Feb 2001) 
Water at the North Pole was big news in August 2000. Was it just another media scare story, or is the Arctic sea ice really disappearing?  This report details the whole issue of Arctic sea ice.

The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science (12 Nov 2000)  
The new dogma by both the IPCC and US National Assessment is that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age during the last millennium never happened. Their claim is both false and politically inspired.

Testing the Waters: A Report on Sea Levels
Has global sea level risen 10 - 25 cm during the 20th century as claimed by the IPCC? This report presents conclusive evidence to show that the claim is false and based purely on modelling, not on observation.

The `National Assessment': Regional Pain with No Gain  (14 Sept 2000).
A critical analysis of the NAS treatment of the US regions.

The `National Assessment' Overview: Politics Disguised as Science  (22 Aug 2000).
A critical review of the details of the US `National Assessment report to the US Congress.  

The Surface Record: Global Mean Temperature and How it is Determined at Surface Level
An argument for an independent review of the `surface record'. The satellites were reviewed, so why has the `surface record' escaped an independent examination in the public interest?


"Is this the picture that takes the heat
out of global warming?" - asks the BBC
Photo 29th Aug. 1999, 1.04 pm, AEST (around mean tide) © John L. Daly

`Mark of a Hot Dispute'
- the BBC story on the `Isle of the Dead'

Melbourne Herald-Sun story on the `Isle of the Dead'

Sea Levels!

Testing the Waters: A Report on Sea Levels
by John L. Daly

The `Isle of the Dead' - Zero Point of the Sea?
Part 1 of a two part report by John L. Daly

Part 2 of  `The Isle of the Dead'
- a review of the evidence
`Open Review' comments on the `Isle of the Dead'

The Lecture at the Royal Society
(CSIRO finally goes public on the 1841 benchmark 
with -
`Open Review'


Stop Press !! ............Stop Press !!

Shakespeare Climate Awards (28 March 2001)

The Global Warming scare has taken on some of the tragic and comical features of a William Shakespeare play.  With the awards season upon us, it is time to dedicate Shakespeare plays to some of the players in the ongoing climate debate.  So, be upstanding for the `Shakespeares' -

To all the participants of the Hague Conference, who stayed up night after night in intense negotiations which ultimately failed, goes the play `Twelfth Night'.

To British environment minister, John Prescott (alias `the Beast'), and his French counterpart Madame Voynet (alias `Beauty'), in loving memory of their tempestuous dealings at the Hague last year, goes the play `Antony and Cleopatra'.

To George W. Bush, President of the United States, who has in one short letter read the funeral oration to the Kyoto Protocol, is dedicated the play `All's Well that Ends Well'.

To rising star, Professor Michael E. Mann (he likes it said in full), the primary author of the discredited `Hockey Stick', goes the play `The Comedy of Errors'.

To Al Gore, one-time Vice President of the United States and author of the now defunct Kyoto Protocol, is dedicated the play 'Love's Labour's Lost'.

To Christie Whitman, the new head of the EPA who wanted to re-ignite the global warming scare, but who has since been reined in by her boss, President Bush, goes the play 'The Taming of the Shrew'.

To the NOAA, who have somehow contrived to claim that January 2001 was one of the warmest on record (news to everyone else still recovering from hypothermia), goes the play `The Winter's Tale'.

To former IPCC luminary and author of the infamous `chapter 8' of the 1995 IPCC report, Ben Santer, goes the tragic play `MacBeth'. Deep.

To British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who thinks the foul British weather is now caused by global warming, goes the play `The Tempest'.

To Sir John Houghton, autocratic head of the IPCC, is dedicated the tragedy `Julius Caesar'. To whom will he say `Et tu, Bruté?'

To the National Assessment Team, whose flights of pure fiction about future US climate flew like a lead balloon, is dedicated the comedy, `Much Ado About Nothing'.

To the IPCC, with their latest unsubstantiated claims of a future 6-degree warming goes the play `Midsummer Night's Dream', because that's what they have resorted to in place of science. 

To Fred Singer, whose inspired confidence about future climate stands in stark contrast to the scaremongers, goes the play `As You Like It'.

To those princes of Denmark, Friis-Christensen, Lassen and Svensmark, whose persistent research proved the sun to be the primary driver of climate changes goes, what else, `Hamlet, Prince of Denmark'.

To Stephen Schneider goes the special salesmanship award, a play about a super salesman with a penchant for pounds of flesh, `The Merchant of Venice'.

To Bill Clinton, former President of the United States, who like the tragic hero of this play, let himself be led by flatterers and courtiers, ultimately to his final disgrace. The play? - `King Lear'.

To the Idso Dynasty, Sherwood and his sons Craig and Keith, who have meticulously catalogued and measured all the beneficial effects which plants will receive from CO2 enhancement. To them is dedicated the play `Measure For Measure'.

To Fred Palmer, recent president of the Greening Earth Society, who did more than anyone to bring a widely scattered band of climate sceptics together to resist the Kyoto Protocol, and who has occasionally been heard to mutter "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...", is dedicated the play most appropriate to his key role - `Henry V'.

It is regretted that no-one in the climate community was able to earn the play `Romeo and Juliet', due to lack of nominees. I disqualified myself due to conflict of interest as distinguished judge of these awards. However, there's always hope that someone (or even a pair of someones) might eventually earn it and bring enduring peace to the world of climate.

Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, suffering from `global warming'. (Photo taken 2nd March 2000, © Tom Klein)

Snow Job (8 Apr 2001)

Newfoundlanders and the Irish have one thing in common. They both copped bucketfuls of snow in the dying days of winter and in early Spring. All caused by global warming of course. At this rate of warming, the earth will freeze over.

In Newfoundland, Canada, after a tough winter, most Newfoundlanders weren't expecting more snow during Spring. But it just kept falling, breaking a record set 119 years ago on Saturday 7th April.  People in St. John's, Newfoundland, can look back on a season that brought more snow than the winter of 1881-82.  The old record of 598.2 centimetres fell when weather officials announced a snowfall of 599.8 centimetres. For you metric-phobes, that's nearly 21 feet !

Since October, Newfoundland has been hit with enough snow to reach the top of a two-storey building. Weather experts say Newfoundland can expect to see wintry conditions for at least two more weeks.  Kyoto Protocol anyone?

Ireland fared little better. After several years with little snow, the capital city Dublin was inundated with snow in the last week of February, settling to depths which lasted into March.  For a brief splendid moment, the normally Emerald Isle came to resemble Santa's playground.  Will the Irish government now be so enthusiastic about joining other E.U. countries in making the ill-fated protocol an all-E.U. affair?  (thanks to Brendan Fitzsimons and Barry Hearn for the intel.) 

Dublin snowscape.  Photo © Brendan Fitzsimons

`Cigarette Science' (8 Apr 2001)

William Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado, was recently featured by the BBC. He is one of the growing number of atmospheric scientists who is sceptical of the global warming theory.   William Gray said in part - 

"Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has now taken on a life of its own.  It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject. This includes the governments of developed countries, the media and scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research on this topic."

Harsh words indeed for the greenhouse industry. This linkage between funding and research has always been a sensitive issue.  `Cigarette science' was how one commentator years ago described the `science' bought and paid for by tobacco companies. The greenhouse industry operates in the same way but on a much grander scale, spending upwards of $4 billion worldwide per year.  All of that money hinges on one unproven theory about how trace gases in the atmosphere behave. Any member of that industry questions that theory at their peril. To do so incurs loss of funding, career stagnation, and academic isolation. 

But William Gray does question it - 

"I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming."

Shhhhh....  the public, or even the President, might hear you. 

See also - `Profiting From Panic' - an op-ed commentary on this same topic in the Nando Times by Prof Tim Patterson and Tom Harris, both of Canada.

Climate Junket (29-Mar-2001)

Climate conferences are lavish affairs, rarely held in ordinary places, but rather in exotic locations, less a conference, more a holiday junket for over-stressed climatologists.

The latest in the southern hemisphere is the `14th Australia New Zealand Climate Forum', to be held for four days in September, an opportunity for scientists in this part of the world to meet (yet again) and compare papers (repeating all the same tired old themes). But a glance at the map of Australia and New Zealand and where the main populations are located easily show where the optimum location for such a conference should be, a location which would minimise air travel for the participants, to demonstrate their commitment to avoiding excessive use of greenhouse gases in unnecessary travel.  They lecture the rest of us all the time on the need for such restraint. Sydney, Melbourne or Canberra would be the optimum locations to minimise such costs to an environment they claim to hold so dear.

But not for them. "Do as we say, not as we do" is their catchcry. This conference is to be held in Darwin, Northern Territory, about as far away as one can get from all the main centres of academic activity. The location will involve the attending scientists to travel thousands of kilometres, emitting tons of greenhouse gases on the way, just to have a taxpayer-funded junket in a balmy tropical setting.

This comes at a time when the greenhouse industry is exhorting all Australians and New Zealanders to economise on the use of fossil fuels.  From their actions, rather than their words, it is clear they are not really serious about climate change at all, but simply indulging their own appetite for exotic travel in the name of `fighting climate change'.

For Previous "Stop Press!" news,
 click the Tasmanian Devil

Tasmania- Be Tempted

The Hot Rock 
(30 Mar 2001)

This week's scare story in the greenhouse saga comes from Australia. Without waiting to publish results, without waiting for peer review, expeditioners of the Australian Antarctic Division returning from 5 months at Heard Island deep in the Southern Ocean (53.10S 73.51 E), were scarcely ashore at Hobart before they were before the media telling tales of climate woe from Heard.

Their story basically was that Heard Island, diameter 25 km, had warmed three-quarters of a degree celsius in 60 years, "coastal glaciers are rapidly retreating, the sea is invading, and vegetation is expanding as ice steadily disappears at this wilderness on the edge of the polar climate zone." One of the expeditioners claimed a glacier tongue had receded 500 metres in 14 years. Scary.

Claims of atmospheric warming at Heard were based entirely on glacier retreat, not on measured temperature. This is because there is no permanent weather station there. Many glaciers in the world (e.g. Iceland) have been observed to retreat with no change in atmospheric temperature. Thus, such retreats can only be caused by increased solar radiation in recent decades or rebound from the earlier Little Ice Age.

The reported `impacts' of this real or imagined warming at Heard were dire too. More vegetation (tut-tut), more sea birds (shaking heads), many more fur seals (gasp!), and 25,000 king penguin pairs compared with only 3 pairs in 1947 (horror!). With all that new wild life bursting out all over, climate change must be `much worse than previously thought' (the now standard cliche to grab attention).

But the expeditioners were not telling the whole story. The island is volcanic. It has two volcanoes, the bigger of the two recently active. There were eruptions in 1881, 1910, 1950-1954, and  in 1985 when there was an eruption of lava flow. Satellite images and observations from an Australian base revealed additional eruptive activity in 1992. Earthquakes were felt on the island by a team of biologists in Dec. 1992. A new lava flow was observed in mid-January 1993. On Jan. 5, 1997, a pilot on an Antarctic sightseeing tour near Heard Island saw a volcanic plume. That's six recorded eruptive episodes since 1947 when the first expedition visited Heard. However, the expeditioners coyly described the island's volcanic state as `semi-active'.

So Heard Island is a hot rock, and some ice has melted on it. Time to hit the panic button.

`Authority' (8 Apr 2001)

There are two ways in which the public can approach scientific, or pseudo-scientific claims.

One is to accept the `authority' of the source of those claims, usually scientists, sometimes the media, political figures, Nobel laureates, even film stars. 

Another is to independently consider the evidence itself and make a considered judgement without regard to the academic `authority' of the source.

The first encourages uncritical compliance with what may be a bogus orthodoxy.  The second is what good citizenship requires, to accept nothing on authority alone, but to review and assess the evidence for oneself.

Suppose we had gone along with `authority' in the 1970s? We would have been frantic about avoiding the next ice age. In the 1980s, we would have been building shelters against the `nuclear winter' (another discredited theory). In Britain, `authority' reassured the public about BSE disease until it had spread uncontrollably. Authority is used to promote genetic engineering of our food supply and even human reproduction itself with arrogant disregard for public misgivings about the use of such technology.

For these reasons, `authority' cannot be trusted to decide, without public debate,  such key questions involving public policy.

The greenhouse industry makes much of a supposed `consensus' of 2,500 scientists, again an appeal to `authority', but on closer examination, most of these were government officials, with only about 400 actual scientists, a large proportion of whom were in fields unrelated to climate. The IPCC has made a specialty of avoiding any public debate, preferring instead media circuses to hand down their findings playing the `authority' card for all its worth.

Robert Watson of the IPCC is now defending the actions of the greenhouse industry against the new Bush policy by claiming that scientists were united 98-2 or even 99-1 in favour of the global warming theory. He exaggerates of course, as always, but forgets one little thing.

One of the `1' happens to be the President of the United States.

Bush Rejects Kyoto (31 March 2001)

President Bush has followed up his public letter to Senator Hagel with a clear statement this week that the United States government does not support the Kyoto Protocol, and will have nothing further to do with it. He has not ruled out follow-up negotiations on climate, but made his terms clear for any future agreement. It must not harm the U.S. economy, and no major portion of the world's nations can be exempt from whatever actions are agreed. This contrasts with the unrealistic Kyoto arrangement where only the western industrial countries were required to cut CO2 emissions, and to do so based on 1990 as reference year. 

Use of 1990 was a ploy put up by the European Union to enable them to capitalise economically on restructuring to energy industries in U.K., Germany and France during the 1990s for reasons unrelated to climate. Other countries like the U.S. and Australia did not have this `head start' to make their emissions reductions easier to accomplish.

If President Bush does put up new proposals, the first aspect of Kyoto which should be dumped is the fraudulent use of 1990 as reference year. Then let's see how enthusiastic the E.U. is about emission cuts.


 Other Site Contents (Click the section label)

   Research papers from international guest scientists 

   Examples of junk Greenhouse science, fully peer reviewed

   Revealing facts about global climate and climate change

   Station Temperature records from around the world

   The political motivation behind `Global Warming'

   If this site is not big enough, try this huge links list

Recent Guest Papers

Solar Eruptions Linked to North Atlantic Oscillation by Dr Theodor Landscheidt (Canada) (9 April 2001).
After predicting that the next El Niño will peak late next year, Dr Landscheidt now shows that a similar correlation exists between solar motion/activity cycles and the N.A.O.

Carbon Dioxide Sink 1970-2000 and Model Projections to 2100: a Statistical Mass Transfer Analysis by Dr Jarl Ahlbeck (Finland) (12 Mar 2001)  In this report it is shown that the UN-IPCC CO2 model gives exaggerated future CO2 concentrations for given emissions probably due to underestimating the sensitivity of the carbon sink flow rate to enhanced atmospheric CO2.

Carbon Model Calculations by Peter Dietze (Germany) (31 Mar 2001) Carbon models lie at the heart of the IPCC predictions about future CO2 levels and future climate. But their numbers do not add up as shown in this paper.

Climate Change Skepticism Is A Noble Calling by Dr David Wojick (U.S.A.) (2 March, 2001)  In this short but incisive article, David Wojick explains the key role climate change sceptics have in the public policy process. For example, he states as a general `principle of assessment' - "When a body of science comes to have public policy implications it must undergo a higher level of scrutiny."

Beware of Global Cooling by Fred L. Oliver (3 Feb 2001) A detailed discussion on both the science and politics of `global warming'. This paper is the culmination of four years of study into the issue by the author. 

  Weather Station(s)
of the Week

Each week a rural or small town weather station(s) with a long consistent record of temperature will be posted to see if it has shared in `global warming'.

This week -
Marrakech (Morocco), &
Nouakchott (Mauritania),
northern Africa

These two stations are urban, Marrakech with 350,000 people and Nouakchott with 135,000. Unfortunately, good rural stations are few and far between in Africa, so we have to make do with urban stations. A map is provided.

Both records are unadjusted for urbanisation.


For previous `Stations of the Week' take the world tour of rural and small-town weather stations to see just how big - or how little - Global Warming really is

What the Stations Say

Latest Weather & Climate Information

Latest Satellite Image of Australia
      from James Cook Univ. Time is in GMT

 Latest MSL Synoptic Chart of Australia
      from Bureau of Met.. Time is in GMT

Daily Global Sea Surface Temperature
      from University of Wisconsin-Madison.

 Monthly Sunspot Data (Cycle 23)  
       from data published by IPS, Australia

Latest U.S. Temperatures (time GMT, temp. ºF)

 Global Mean Sea Level - from TOPEX-Poseidon satellites. (Click on the "Mean Sea Level Monitoring" linked item when the `AVISO' window opens.)

El Niño/La Niña 
Southern Oscillation

Click on image for the latest on El Niño/La Niña


Global Warming?

    The `Surface Record'  

It's not really a record at all, but a statistical composite from station records from all over the world, most of them from towns and cities, and most from countries which do not maintain their stations or records properly.

This record is compiled by the Goddard Institute (GISS) in the US, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in Britain. This GISS graph indicates a global warming of +0.8°C. Is it real? Or is it just a statistical product of urban warming skewing the data, and bad site management in non-OECD countries?

The warming up to 1940 has now been conceded by the IPCC to have been caused by the warming sun during the earlier part of the 20th century.

     The U.S. Record    

This is the composite record from hundreds of weather stations in the 48 states of the contiguous USA., the early 1930s being the hottest years of the 20th century. This is completely at variance with the GISS global record shown above.

Is the US record a better reflection of the global picture? Urbanisation has been more successfully corrected for in the US than in the rest of the world where there is a lack of rural baseline data from which to make urban adjustments to city records.

The US has the best maintained network of weather stations in the world, and this must surely be a better representation of the global picture too. The US record also agrees with the satellites (below)

    The Satellite Record 1979-2000 

    The new way to determine global temperature is to use satellites to measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, giving the Earth a uniform global sweep, oceans included, with no cities to create a false warming bias. This second method, used since January 1979, is accurate to within one hundredth of a degree,  and is clearly the best record we have.  Here is Global Mean Temperature (anomalies in °C) of the Lower Troposphere (lower atmosphere) for the 22+ year period January 1979 to March  2001, as measured by NOAA satellites. It shows a very different picture to that of the global `surface record' over the same period.

The actual data from which the above graph is derived.
  Northern & Southern Hemispheres compared.

Global trend per decade is +0.036°C, (Northern Hemisphere is +0.113°C, Southern Hemisphere is - 0.042°C.)
Global March 2001 anomaly is +0.009°C, (Northern Hemisphere is  +0.147°C, Southern Hemisphere is - 0.128°C.)

  The satellite chart indicates the world has not been warming the way doomsayers predicted.
See the Earth System Science Laboratory at the University of Alabama - Huntsville, USA

  Radio-sonde balloons have also been measuring atmospheric temperature above the smogs and heat islands of the cities. A comparison of the three data sets (sondes, surface, and satellites) are shown in this `World Climate Report' chart. The sonde and satellite data sources are quite independent of each other, yet are almost in lockstep, confirming the lack of significant warming over the period from 1979. The three sets are referenced to a common zero (as at January 1979) to compare subsequent relative trends.

Of the three records, the surface network is the one out of step. But over the USA and western Europe, both surface and satellites agree with each other at the regional level. This suggests the global surface record is exhibiting a false trend due to inferior non-OECD station records.

`What the Stations Say' page now has new stations added and some existing ones updated 

(See `El Niño and Global Temperature', to see why some years are hot, and some are cool.)

e-mail is most welcome

You are the  ThemeCounterth guest to visit this site

The counter shows today's total so far, and the cumulative total since October 1996.
Click on the counter image for additional statistics