Global Warming

As a user of wood, wood products and solvents in quite large quantities I was concerned that my activities could be harmful to me or the environment. As a retired Safety Manager I was able to satisfy myself that health risks to me and my customers were being properly controlled. Like most people however the predictions of drastic climate change were a matter of grave concern  but unlike most people I decided to look into it for myself. My most powerful tool has been the Internet and what I've found has appalled me. 

All of the dire predictions are coming from organisations working with huge and complex computer models and the global information used to programme them has come from the most prestigious of sources but sadly that information is badly flawed. What  I find so appalling however is that all the major governmental bodies are aware of the flaws but are doing nothing to correct it. The information that reveals the error has been in the public domain for a very long time and you may go and verify my words at any time. Click here to go to the best web-site I’ve found.

The main source of information for the computer models has been a vast network of weather stations all over the world. These weather stations measure Temperature, rainfall, wind strength and direction. The information all finds its way into vast databases where very powerful computers process it into a dynamic model of the global atmosphere. This is where, year on year, a very small but persistent increase in temperature has been found which if continued will ultimately produce all the disastrous effects the media loves to frighten us with. Note well that these predictions are not scientists with accurate thermometers and long established records saying “look its going up here” its statisticians and information technology people working with weather forecasters. All of the “evidence” is in the computer simulations, none appears anywhere in real life so far.

Next time you watch a weather forecast  watch what happens when temperatures around London are presented amongst those of the Home Counties. You will see a degree or two extra. Every city is now a “heat island” detectable from space with thermal imaging cameras. This is because with millions of people in a limited area the waste heat from all our energy consumption warms up our surroundings, not a lot but it has become significant. Additionally large lumps of concrete, tarmac and masonry all heat up by sunshine more than damp soil covered with foliage and the heat is stored to be released over-night. This drives up measured temperatures in the vicinity of large scale urban developments irrespective of energy wastage. Weather stations have to be operated and maintained by people, very few are totally automatic and sited remotely. With all these weather stations sited reasonably close to their operators the proximity of dense habitation has skewed their results. Temperature rises of as much as 0.1C have been attributed to populations as low as 10,000. (a lot of these weather stations are on the roofs of relevant institutions, in the old days the most publicised was the “Air Ministry Roof” now we are more likely to be told of conditions at the various airports.)

Radiosonde is another weather system that I know about because I worked on it as a young engineer. Basically a balloon is released carrying a set of weather instruments and a small radio to send the data back. It doesn't matter a lot where it is released it will spend most of its active life way up in the air, well away from habitation. There are databases of this information going way back and after processing the data in other big computers so as to be able to spot the smallest statistically significant trend no sign of global warming showed up.

Now via the Internet we have had access to NASA's data. The network of weather and research satellites has been producing truly global scans of temperature for a long time now only the instruments being based on infra-red sensors, are highly sensitive and easily calibrated to very high accuracy. If true global warming had been present at even a tenth of the lowest of the predictions it would have shown up easily but there was none.

In addition to global surface temperature measurements there is now a growing database of a method of measuring air temperature using microwaves. From January 1979, NOAA satellites were measuring the temperature of the lower troposphere (1,000 meters altitude to 8,000 meters)  using Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) mounted on the satellites and monitoring microwave emissions from oxygen molecules in the atmosphere. The wavelength of these emissions is directly related to the temperature. According to the Marshall Space Flight Centre, which controls these units, temperature measured this way is accurate to within 0.01C. Charts of these temperatures give the same results as Radiosonde. Click here to go to detailed reports.

Another thing these satellites can do is very accurately measure sea level, they have, and the data is on record, there is no average increase.  Archaeologists have also got in on the act by finding evidence of old habitation, they along with geologists have been able to determine an extremely slow and small movement. This result was not a rise in average sea level however it was a slow tilt in the land mass of the UK down one side and up the other (typical tectonic plate movement). Drastic changes in coastline have also happened but these have also gone both ways because in the main they are our fault (after allowing for the tilt). By building effective sea defences and breakwaters to stop erosion in some areas we have trapped moving sand and silt creating new land but elsewhere the disturbed currents have scoured out old beaches until their cliffs have fallen into the sea instead.

We should not have been surprised at the lack of sea level rise because the information needed to discredit the scare stories was given to us all back at school. Remember how when water freezes it expands so that not only do icebergs float but a percentage rises up above the waterline. A large portion of Arctic and Antarctic ice is in fact floating. Remember, submarines have gone under it all the way to the pole! Now if the floating ice melts no change in sea level will result at all, it will simply shrink back to sea level. Where ice has built up on top of land masses however this melt will cause sea level to rise but spread evenly over the whole of the world's water it represents no threat to us.

Now we come to climate change and increasing rainfall. This was causing me a problem because rainfall records go back hundreds of years and are in fact showing a small increase on average. Just last week however a new source of information came available to me as a group of scientists released their findings based on rainfall records locked into the growth rings of stalactites in limestone caves. This report was made public by way of a TV documentary (Einstein TV on Sky). The rate at which these limestone deposits grow is exactly related to rainfall and cannot be influenced by us because they go back thousands of years before we were able to make a difference by diverting waterways. What this geological evidence shows is that the globe goes through phases like this periodically and the current wet phase is nothing special. (That was a quote!)

Now anybody who has just been flooded will have a problem accepting all this but you folk I'm afraid have a completely different problem to solve. While driving through last years floods I chanced to look at the state of the water in the Stort Navigation and it was way up. In fact it was so far up it was above where it used to be possible to be, somebody some years ago had added a foot or so of concrete to the bank and the level was almost up to the top of that. The sluices were tight shut causing the flood plain further above to be fully awash to the new, higher level  Down stream the level was much lower and so I realised what was going on. Way down the valley there has been massive housing developments on the flood plains and to get permission a developer has to be able to prove that he or the councils have put in place sound facilities to prevent flooding. Now it is rarely possible to divert significant amounts of water so to protect a development you put in defences to hold it back. This means that water from up stream can't get away so the sluices further up must close to hold this back too and so on all the way upstream until a big enough flood plain is found to hold it all.  These very old and hitherto rarely used flood plains are now being overwhelmed.

We are seeing areas being flooded and very old houses wrecked that have never previously been flooded however far back the records are checked. We are told its yet more proof of climate change caused by global warming but the truth is a new floodgate much higher than the old water table maximum has been installed and closed to prevent the "defences" downstream from being inundated. The old time builders knew very well where the natural water table extremes were and built well above them. The way they knew was very simple, everybody had wells and could literally see where the water table was.

I have recently heard (TV documentary again) that the water table in London is rising very quickly and already many cellars are having to be pumped out. The reason is that it used to be the practice to draw water from the London chalk and literally thousands of pumps did. Modern standards of hygiene prompted by major disease outbreaks being traced to contaminated wells, stopped this. The buildings established while the chalk was being extensively pumped now have their foundations and cellars well below the natural water table. When the water table reaches its true natural level it will stop and the overflow will appear naturally in the Thames, the Thames wont rise however because its open to the sea. Once again London cellar flooding is not "yet another example of climate change" its the way high population density modifies the environment.

The next time you are told that something bad that has just happened is yet another example of global warming and climate change, just stop, think and cast about you for the real culprit. It could be simple ignorance and negligence working with a convenient scapegoat but increasingly it is a cynical exploitation of your ignorance. If you can successfully blame global warming you wont have to pay damages when you get it wrong. Who has profited by diverting a watercourse, who approved the deliberate flooding,  were the consequences properly evaluated beforehand? Who then should pay for the damage, the people who have just been flooded who built on "safe" ground or the people who built on high risk ground but whose "defences" held, or the people who profited by building the dikes, culverts and sluices so as to be able to sell the new developments? The real cynicism however is at government level where taxes are being made and distributed citing climate change by people who have access to far more data and expertise than us but naturally exploit the opportunity created by media driven hysteria.

I fully appreciate that this article represents personal views and interpretations of information which while fully available in the public domain is just as likely to have been manipulated by vested interests as any other. You the reader are therefore no further forward in the search for certainty. While I have written the above very positively and used both global and local sources of information of high repute, I am aware that all I have in fact done is damage the credibility of what has gone before (and been generally accepted by default).  We are already in a situation where the predictions of doom have been running long enough that the most pessimistic of them should already be measurable but they are not. What I want to see is a proper study carried out by properly qualified persons using all available data. I consider it very dangerous to allow reporters whose only qualifications relate to the media itself, to be able to run scare stories that cite only narrow portions of the available evidence, selected purely on the basis of supporting their articles. You can usually spot most of these fabricated items because they will start with a phrase along the lines of “a new report out today” but nowhere in the following piece will you find reference to the source of the report or the qualifications of its author.