[Pindar]

en dit bv eens goed lezen!

Global Warming or Urban Heating?

The World has NOT Been Warming the Way the Doomsayers Have Predicted
by Michael Theroux

There was another big march on Washington, D.C. It was called the March for Peaceful Energy and it commenced on October 24, 1998. Guessing from the numerous and quite disorganised emails received, its main themes appeared to be "global warming", "free energy", and "hemp":

"To effect implementation of the 1998 Comprehensive National Energy Strategy (CNES) that President Clinton has submitted to Congress proposed for $6.3 billion funding to ameliorate global warming pursuant to last December's Kyoto Protocol, with the additional public input constituted by [the] Citizen's Peaceful Energy Plan (CPEP)...

"Employing a global internet campaign supporting CPEP, grassroots organizers including University of Maryland students are determined to help President Clinton pass legislation to implement his 'Million Solar Roofs Initiative' and 'New-Energy' technologies to replace nuclear & fossil fuel power and to actually neutralize radioactive wastes. Hemp activists will join The March to champion a National Hemp Reform Act for cheap non-polluting biofuels and to heal the atmosphere by reducing carbon dioxide to reverse the greenhouse effect and increase oxygen to repair the ozone layer. All are concerned about the lethal threat posed to the oceanic phytoplankton by ozone layer depletion and about the oppression of indigenous peoples by energy industry policies."

While all of this seems to be a grand and noble undertaking, some serious questions arise from more fact oriented free-thinkers. First of all, I don't think President Clinton has Global Warming on his mind nor will he in the coming months. Secondly, while there is no question as to the efficacy of hemp as a potential replacement for depleted and wasted resources, the "reform of hemp" movement is tainted by the selfishness and the lack of credibility of far too many marijuana substance abusers. But, what is of greater interest here (and seems to be the focus) is the whole issue of Global Warming. What are the facts concerning so-called "Global Warming," and how are they arrived at? Why has the idea of global warming been thrust into the public limelight? Who is benefiting from the idea of Global Warming?

The Measuring of Global Temperature
Many aren't aware that there are two methods used to measure global temperature. The first, and the method used in defense of the idea of Global Warming, is to average out temperatures around the world as measured in white louvered boxes called Stevenson Screens, usually mounted one metre above ground. This antiquated way of data collection consists of the combined average of tens of thousands of thermometers world-wide. The boxes are usually placed where there may be appropriately trained people to read them, (as a teenager, I did this for the University of North Dakota - and was trained by another teenager!) such as at post offices, airports, pilot stations, radio/tv stations, etc. By far the majority are located mostly in cities, and on land.

The major problem with this method of data acquisition is that most cities and towns will show long-term warmings caused by what is called Urban Heat Island Effect — caused by the tendency of man-made structures to heat up to high temperatures in the daytime and slowly release that heat during the night, resulting in a higher daytime and even higher nighttime temperature than would exist in a nearby rural area. The effect, of course, increases as towns grow over time, so that warming effects in the towns will increase too.

Also, the system only measures temperature on land. Land occupies 25% of the earth's surface, while 75% of the planet is covered by water and ice. Many areas on land are not even covered such as deserts, tundra, mountains, and forests, but several urban areas are overpopulated with the temperature measuring stations. All of these problems with land measuring stations will definitely add up to false impressions of long-term global warming.

For example, below are rural `greenfields' temperatures for Australia. The post-1910 data used the standard Stevenson Screen. But if we look at the graph below that of only the six state capital cities of Australia, we get quite a different story. From the the comparison of graphs, it is clear that if the majority of land-based readings are taken in growing towns and cities, we end up with a long-term warming creep in the averaged data, a creep which is impossible to correct since there is no absolute point of reference against which to apply corrections.





The second, and newer method used to measure global temperature, is to use NOAA satellites to measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, giving the Earth a uniform global sweep, with bodies of water equally included. This method has been in use since January 1979, is said to be accurate to within one hundredth of a degree.

The two methods are compared below, referenced to a common start point in January 1979, (when satellite monitoring began). The urban-based surface network shows a clear long-term warming, but the satellites do not. So, the frequent claims that the earth has been warming is quite misleading. From the satellite perspective, 1997 was a very ordinary year indeed, the 8th coldest in the 19-year record. (from http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/ )



This chart represents over 19 years of data, and indicates the world has NOT been warming the way the doomsayers predicted during the very period when the most extravagant claims about warming were being made. Based on satellite measurement, 1997 was a cooler year than average, and certainly not the "warmest" as widely claimed by the greenhouse industry. The media has pretended the satellite data did not even exist, boosting the erroneous surface data instead (which shows global warming). The "greenhouse industry" scientists strongly oppose the satellite method. Some "leading pro-warming scientists" have directly attacked the satellite method by pompously demanding quality standards from the satellites that they fail to apply to their own data. Several scientists active in the greenhouse scare are themselves veterans of previous, — and discredited — scares. Some other scientists have been swept along by the hype and simply failed to maintain scientific standards in their work. This is once again reminiscent of the HIV=AIDS scandal where job security and funding come first and foremost — above real science.

The major reference for this article comes from the website, "Still Waiting For Greenhouse" at http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/ — entirely self funded and created by John L. Daly, author of several articles and papers on the greenhouse scandal, and the author of, The Greenhouse Trap, (Bantam Books, 1989). I would urge you to check out his website as there is far more to the controversy than could be detailed here, and Mr. Daly has done an extraordinary job of researching and compiling documents to back up what he is saying. His website "aims to highlight what many climate scientists know to be exaggerated claims and political propaganda about `Global Warming', based on unscientific (mostly computer model) evidence. The observed evidence indicates that LITTLE or NO global warming is happening and little should be expected." He demonstrates among other things, how the 11-year solar cycle is responsible for cyclic fluctuations in global mean temperature, and the site is loaded with graphs and charts of real data displaying the truth in his statements. Other topics covered include: The latest info on El Nino/La Nina, How the Sun, not the Greenhouse Effect, has warmed up the Earth during the last few centuries, How Cosmic rays, not man-made emissions of CO2, control the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, and "Scientism in the American Meteorological Society," at http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/scientism.htm.

The Global Emergency Alert Response (GEAR)
The email we received that sparked the initiative to compile this article came from the The Global Emergency Alert Response (GEAR). This organisation claims its goal is to "sound the alert and compel a response from everyone to address the need for 'Global Peace Now!' so human and natural resources may be more productively applied towards remedial actions addressing our global social and environmental emergency only partially characterized by the increasingly lethal climate changes from global warming and ozone layer depletion. "Stop Global Warming and Save the Phytoplankton from Ozone Layer Depletion with New-Energy Science and Hemp for Victory!", is the GEAR formula for how to save the atmosphere in time, if there still is time enough left to fix it before it is too late. Please join in the human internet chain reaction to spread this information on the solutions and actions at hand."

All of my dictionaries state that the word "compel" means to "force," "command," or "require," someone to do something. This brand of environmental nazism is not only typical of the politically correct elite, but is completely subject to the faulty science they have no business promoting. We have seen time and again the activist jumping upon a cause backed by poorly researched themes, only to use the power of hysteria to "educate" the public into frightened submission. There is no denying that our presence and practises may have an effect on our environment, and we certainly do not condone unconscious corporate atrocities. But, before we jump to conclusions, devise "how-to" formulas, and "compel" others to do our will, there had better be a lot of sound, serious research involved — and not baseless parroting for the cause.

http://www.borderlands.com/newstuff/...23/warming.htm

Pin d'Ar