"A British spring should not present a challenge to a penguin chicks
familiar with the sub- zero conditions of Antarctica. But the newborns
Walnut, Chestnut, Stan and Ollie are Peruvian penguins that are more used
to tropical sunny beaches than the rain, sleet and snow of an unusually
cold British April. They have been forced to resort to woolly blankets and
heated mattresses to survive the present unseasonal freezing temperatures at
Flamingoland Zoo, near Pickering, north Yorkshire."
--Sally Pook, The Daily Telegraph, 21 April 2001

"A Canadian scientist is pouring cold, unfrozen water on the notion
that global warming is melting arctic sea ice like a Popsicle at the beach.
Greg Holloway galvanized an international meeting of arctic scientists
Tuesday by saying there is little evidence of a rapid decline of the
volume of ice in the northern oceans. Despite breathless media reports and
speculation of an ice-free Northwest Passage, he suggests that it's far more
likely that the ice has just been moved around in the cycles of Arctic
winds. "It's more complicated than we thought," said Holloway, a
scientist with the Institute of Ocean Science in Victoria."
--Bob Weber, CNews Science, 24 April 2001

"The global warming fad has all the traits of a religious movement:
hysteria, cries of doom, demands that people sacrifice for a divine
entity ("the Earth"), and attacks on those who disagree. As an ancient
historian, I recognise that changes in sea level, the evolution and
passing away of species, the rise and fall in global temperatures, and even
the movement of whole continents are normal when viewed over centuries.
I also recognise that only science, industry and mass production can allow
us to live as we do."
--Dr John Lewis, Cambridge, The Sunday Times, 22 April 2001

"[Professor Richard S.] Lindzen has questioned whether a scientific
consensus has really coalesced around the notion that the planet is
becoming dangerously warmer. He has likened the greenhouse issue to the
eugenics movement of the 1920s, which held that certain mental defects
could be explained by a gene disorder. Lindzen has argued that the eugenics
movement, which led to a restrictive immigration law, was fed by a false
perception of scientific consensus and that a similarly false perception
of consensus is helping shape the public attitude toward greenhouse
warming. Lindzen notes that the future rate of temperature rise is very
much in doubt. For that matter, the temperature record is not absolutely
clear. Surface readings have shown significant warming, especially in the
last 10 years, but satellite data provide a somewhat different picture.
Using microwave profiles of the bottom five miles of the atmosphere,
Christy and NASA's Roy Spencer have compiled a record showing only a tiny
increase in global temperature since 1979. Warming in the Northern
Hemisphere has been counterbalanced by cooling in the Southern Hemisphere."
--Anthony R. Wood, Philadelphia Inquirer, 23 April 2001

    CNews Science, 24 April 2001

    CO2 Science Magazine, 25 April 2001

    CO2 Science Magazine, 25 April 2001

    CO2 Science Magazine, 25 April 2001

    CO2 Science Magazine, 25 April 2001

    Greening Earth Society, 20 April 2001

    Greening Earth Society, 20 April 2001

    Cooler Heads Coalition, 20 April 2001

    Eurekalert, 23 April 2001

     Mark Hess <
     The Daily Telegraph, 21 April 2001

     Benny J Peiser <>

     Jonathan Shanklin <>

     Alasdair Beal <

     Andrew Glikson <>

     Benny J Peiser <>

     S. Fred Singer
     Ananova, 24 April 2001


From CNews Science, 24 April 2001

By BOB WEBER-- The Canadian Press

IQALUIT, Nunavut (CP) -- A Canadian scientist is pouring cold, unfrozen
water on the notion that global warming is melting arctic sea ice like a
Popsicle at the beach.

Greg Holloway galvanized an international meeting of arctic scientists
Tuesday by saying there is little evidence of a rapid decline of the volume
of ice in the northern oceans.

Despite breathless media reports and speculation of an ice-free Northwest
Passage, he suggests that it's far more likely that the ice has just been
moved around in the cycles of Arctic winds.

"It's more complicated than we thought," said Holloway, a scientist with the
Institute of Ocean Science in Victoria.

The original theory was based on declassified records from the trips of U.S.
submarines under the ice.

Satellite pictures have clearly shown that the surface area of the ice has
decreased about three per cent a year for the last 20 years.

But the question was, How thick was it?

The submarine data generated headlines and cover stories from the New York
Times to Time Magazine when it seemed to indicate that ice volume had
decreased by 43 per cent between 1958 and 1997.

The evidence seemed good. There were only eight different voyages, but they
had generated 29 different locations across the central Arctic where there
were enough readings to make comparisons.

Holloway, however, couldn't make that conclusion jibe with any of his
computer models.

"We couldn't understand how the reduction could be so rapid," he said.

"My first thought was, What is it we don't understand?"

Holloway knew that there was a regular pattern of sea ice being blown into
the North Atlantic. He decided to examine if the wind patterns across the
circumpolar North could have had something to do with the missing ice.

Wind patterns blow across the Arctic in a 50-year cycle.

At different points in the cycle, ice tends to cluster in the centre of the
Arctic. At other points, the ice is blown out to the margins along the
Canadian shorelines, where the subs were not allowed to go because of
sovereignty concerns.

When Holloway lined up the submarine visits with what he knew about the wind
cycles, the explanation for the missing ice became clear: "The submarine
sampled ice during a time of oscillation of ice toward the centre of the
Arctic. They went back during a time when ice was oscillating to the
Canadian side."

Holloway had found the missing ice.

"I believe it is most probably explained with the shifting ice within the
Arctic locations," he said to applause from scientific delegates from Norway
to China.

If the submarines had made their first visit one year earlier and their
return one year later, Holloway says they would have found no change in the
thickness of the sea ice at all.

Holloway cautions that his research doesn't force a total re-evaluation of
the theory of global warming. Temperatures on average are rising around the
world, he says.

It does, however, deflate excitement about the possibility of an ice-free
Northwest Passage.

The chance of a year-round northern shipping route has thrilled commercial
shippers, worried environmentalists, and concerned those worried about
Canada's ability to enforce sovereignty in those waters.

"At this time, we do not have the basis to predict an open Northwest
Passage," said Holloway.

It also calls into question some of the findings and recommendations of the
International Panel on Climate Change, which accepted the 43 per cent
hypothesis in its report to various governments.

More data is coming in as further reports from American and British
submarines are released. But the furore over the first results contains a
lesson for both scientists and the public, Holloway says.

"It's a very small amount of time and a very limited number of places those
submarines could go," he said.

"The cautionary tale to all this is the undersimplifying of a big and
complex system."

"Who know what's going on out there?"

Copyright 2001, CNews,


From CO2 Science Magazine, 25 April 2001

The Nightly News of 20 April 2001 carried a revealing report from NBC's
Kerry Saunders entitled "A Chilling Crisis for Sea Turtles."  Reporting from
Florida, USA, Saunders discussed a phenomenon called "cold-stunning,"
wherein turtles exposed to unusually cold water temperatures suffer a number
of maladies that can be deadly. As marine biologist Glenn Harmon explained
during an interview, the abnormally cold temperatures put the turtles into a
comatose state where their immune systems shut down, making them vulnerable
to all kinds of viruses and bacterial infections, including pneumonia.

The most recent bout of cold-stunning, the report explained, was caused when
an outbreak of cold Arctic air severely chilled the waters of the Gulf of
Mexico this past winter. "Never before have marine biologists had so many
sick turtles to deal with," reported Saunders. And it wasn't just in
Florida, nor were the problems confined to sea turtles.

An Assoicated Press report of 10 January 2001 described scattered fish kills
in southern Louisiana and in the Perdido River on the Alabama-Florida
border. So great was the danger, in fact, that many of Florida's tropical
fish farmers moved their fish indoors or covered their ponds to protect
them. Manatees and pelicans were also hit by frostbite and needed rescuing;
and in South Carolina water temperatures dropped so low that they decimated
most of the roe that would have produced the state's yearly crop of white
shrimp, reducing the estimated catch by a whopping 99%.

Farther west, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department reported people along
the Gulf coast of that state finding "an unusual increase" in cold-stunned
turtles in one of the area's most extensive and devastating such episodes.
Even in advance of the coldest November-December period ever recorded in the
United states, there were cold-stunned turtles washing ashore; and the
phenomenon continued throughout the winter.

So why do we call these facts to your attention? Simply because they once
again put the lie to the claim that global temperatures are the highest they
have ever been during the past millennium. How could it possibly be so
uniquely and dangerously hot, when, in the words of Cheryl Joyner, as seen
on the NBC Nightly News report, "there has never been a cold-stunning this
large in the United States"?  It just doesn't add up. And since fish,
shrimp, manatees, pelicans and turtles don't lie, the fib must reside in the
temperature data, or at least in the manipulation and interpretation of the
data as they pass through the hands of IPCC functionaries.

Dr. Craig D. Idso, President 
Dr. Keith E. Idso, Vice President 
Copyright © 2001.  Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change


From CO2 Science Magazine, 25 April 2001

Jorgenson, M.T., Racine, C.H., Walters, J.C. and Osterkamp, T.E. 2001.
Permafrost degradation and ecological changes associated with a warming
climate in central Alaska. Climatic Change 48: 551-579.

What was done
The authors examined the extent, history and rates of permafrost degradation
in the Tanana River valley lowlands of central Alaska over the past 300
years using a combination of methods, including repeat aerial photography
(1949, 1978 and 1998), radiocarbon dating of organic material, and tree ring

What was learned
According to the authors, the "evidence indicates that nearly all the
permafrost degradation has occurred since 1750 and that 83% of the
degradation occurred before 1949."  They also determined that 53% of the
degradation occurred since 1850.

What it means
These results highlight another occasion where model projections do not
match up with reality; for according to the climate alarmists, permafrost
degradation in the planet's polar regions should be accelerating as a result
of CO2-induced global warming. Yet, as the data show, half of the melting
took place prior to 1850, and no scientist in their right mind would
attribute this degradation to CO2-induced global warming, as atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations varied little during this 100-year period

A similar argument can be made with respect to the authors' finding that 83%
of the permafrost degradation took place prior to 1949, for it is the second
half of the 20th century that has seen the majority rise in anthropogenic
CO2 emissions since pre-industrial times. Thus, little, if any, of the
permafrost degradation that has occurred in this central Alaska region can
be the result of CO2-induced global warming. Instead it must be a
consequence of a combination of other important factors.
Copyright © 2001. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 


From CO2 Science Magazine, 25 April 2001

Greenland - Summary

Studies of the growth and decay of polar ice sheets are of great importance
to global climate change, because of the potential for changes in the volume
of earth's ice fields to influence the rate and magnitude of sea level
change.  Many such studies have focused on the mass balance of the Greenland
ice sheet, because temperatures are much higher there than over the
Antarctic ice sheet.  In fact, many general circulation models (GCMs) have
predicted that an initial warming of the Greenland ice sheet may set in
motion a positive feedback cycle leading to further melting, as more and
more of the island's surface becomes ice-free and able to absorb an
increasingly greater amount of solar radiation.  This increased absorption
of solar radiation, the models suggest, will raise temperatures over the ice
sheet, causing it to lose mass at its surface.  However, like many other
horror stories connected with the global warming hypothesis, fears of
widespread and catastrophic melting of the Greenland ice sheet, especially
as a result of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration, are likely

At the present time, there is a dearth of mass balance data for the entire
Greenland ice sheet.  This lack of data severely limits the ability of
scientists to provide accurate estimates of the ice sheet's future
contribution to sea level rise (or fall), or to even characterize its
present state of balance (or imbalance).  In fact, because of a lack of
data, it cannot now be determined whether or not this great ice sheet has
thickened, thinned or remained constant over the course of the past several
decades; and it appears that it will be quite some time before such an
answer can be provided.

In a review of this subject, Reeh (1999) concluded that "we do not know
whether the ice sheets are currently in balance, neither do we know if their
volume or mass has increased or decreased during the last 100 years."  A
similar conclusion was reached by Braithwaite and Zhang (2000), who stated
that the Greenland ice sheet might "have to be monitored over many decades
to detect unambiguous evidence of either thinning, due to increased melting,
or thickening, due to increased accumulation," primarily because "the ice
sheet can thicken or thin by several meters over 20-30 years without giving
statistically significant evidence of non-zero balance under present
climate."  Furthermore, McConnell et al. (2000) have indicated that
"accurate detection of any long-term mass imbalance of the [Greenland ice
sheet] and assessment of likely causes will require multi-decadal time
series of surface measurements collected over the time period of interest."

In examining the data that do exist, it appears there is some evidence to
suggest that the ice sheet has remained constant or slightly thickened at
higher elevations while possibly thinning at lower ones. A comparison of
estimates of ice discharge from the higher elevations of the Greenland ice
sheet with estimates of total snow accumulation, for example, suggests that
the higher elevations of the ice sheet may have been "almost exactly in
balance" over the past few decades (Thomas et al., 2000). In addition, Davis
et al. (1998) used satellite radar altimeter data to examine changes in the
ice sheet at elevations greater than 2000 meters, reporting it to have
thickened at a rate of 2.0 ± 0.5 cm per year for the period 1978-1988.

In analyzing aircraft laser-altimeter measurements over southern Greenland
collected in 1993 and again in 1998, Krabill et al. (1999) reported a
thickening of the ice sheet above 2000 meters where the data were considered
"most reliable," but a thinning at the lower elevations.  These data, along
with additional data covering both northern and southern Greenland were used
in a study one year later where, once again, the authors reported an
essential balance at the higher elevations and a thinning at lower altitudes
(Krabill et al., 2000).

What might be responsible for these reported short-term trends? And what
effect, if any, are they having on sea level? Temperature is likely not to
blame, for the observational history of Greenland reveals that the highest
summer temperatures existed in the 1930s and "the 1980s and early 1990s were
about half a degree cooler than the 96-year mean" (Krabill et al., 2000).
Furthermore, proxy temperature measurements from two Greenland boreholes
have also revealed that recent "temperatures reached a maximum around 1930
A.D." and that "temperatures have decreased during the last decades"
(Dahl-Jenses et al., 1998).

Determining the Greenland ice sheet's contribution to sea level rise (or
fall) is just as difficult as determining its mass balance, for the simple
reason that estimates of sea level change are derived in large part from
estimates of ice sheet mass balance change, which, as discussed above, are
unreliable at the present time for Greenland.  Nevertheless, it should be
comforting for those in low-lying coastal regions to note that some newer
GCMs are projecting a sea level decline instead of a rise with a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 (Wild and Ohmura, 2000).  Still, such comfort may be short
lived, for Cuffey and Marshall (2000) have estimated that the Greenland ice
sheet's contribution to sea level rise during the past interglacial was
significantly higher than it is at present. And if sea level rose
significantly above its current level in the past, independent of rising
atmospheric CO2 concentrations, it can certainly happen again.

Where do all these observations leave us with respect to global warming and
the Greenland ice sheet? Pretty much in limbo. So the next time you hear
someone getting excited about the Greenland ice sheet shrinking (or, to be
fair, swelling), tell them to check back in a decade or two; for there's a
lot more data that need to be collected before a definitive answer about the
state of the Greenland ice sheet can be provided.

Braithwaite, R.J. and Zhang, Y.  2000.  Relationships between interannual
variability of glacier mass balance and climate.  Journal of Glaciology 45:

Cuffey, K.M. and Marshall, S.J.  2000.  Substantial contribution to
sea-level rise during the last interglacial from the Greenland ice sheet.
Nature 404: 591-594.

Dahl-Jensen, D., Mosegaard, K., Gundestrup, N., Clow, G.D., Johnsen, S.J.,
Hansen, A.W. and Balling, N.  1998.  Past temperatures directly from the
Greenland Ice Sheet.  Science 282: 268-271.

Davis, C.H., Kluever, C.A. and Haines, B.J.  1998.  Elevation Change of the
Southern Greenland Ice Sheet.  Science 279: 2086-2088.

Krabill, W., Frederick, E., Manizade, S., Martin, C., Sonntag, J., Swift,
R., Thomas, R., Wright, W. and Yungel, J.  1999.  Rapid thinning of parts of
the southern Greenland ice sheet.  Science 283: 1522-1524.

Krabill, W., Abdalati, W., Frederick, E., Manizade, S., Martin, C., Sonntag,
J., Swift, R., Thomas, R., Wright, W. and Yungel, J.  2000.  Greenland ice
sheet: High-elevation balance and peripheral thinning.  Science 289:

McConnell, J.R., Arthern, R.J., Mosley-Thompson, E., Davis, C.H., Bales,
R.C., Thomas, R., Burkhart, J.F. and Kyne, J.D.  2000.  Changes in Greenland
ice sheet elevation attributed primarily to snow accumulation variability.
Nature 406: 877-879.

Reeh, N.  1999.  Mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet: Can modern
observation methods reduce the uncertainty?  Geografiska Annaler 81A:

Thomas, R., Akins, T., Csatho, B., Fahnestock, M., Gogineni, P., Kim, C. and
Sonntag, J.  2000.  Mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet at high
elevations.  Science 289: 426-428.

Wild, M. and Ohmura, A.  2000.  Change in mass balance of polar ice sheets
and sea level from high-resolution GCM simulations of greenhouse warming.
Annals of Glaciology 30: 197-203.

Copyright © 2001.  Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change


From CO2 Science Magazine, 25 April 2001

Hormes, A., Müller, B.U. and Schlüchter, C. 2001. The Alps with little ice:
evidence for eight Holocene phases of reduced glacier extent in the Central
Swiss Alps. The Holocene 11: 255-265.

What was done
The authors determined the age of subfossil wood and peat samples from six
glacier forelands in the Central Swiss Alps in an attempt to identify and
quantify glacier recessions that occurred over the past 10,000 years.

What was learned
Observational records indicate that since the 19th century, the glaciers
under study have retreated with two readvance periods around 1920 and 1980.
Radiocarbon dating of the wood and peat samples revealed several periods of
glacier recession during the Holocene beyond present glacier locations: from
9910-9550, 9010-7980, 7250-6500, 6170-5950, 5290-3870, 3640-3360, 2740-2620
and 1530-1170 years before present.

What it means
It is important to note that shorter-term glacial fluctuations on the order
of decades are not likely to be resolved by the methods used in this study,
as it can take decades for trees and peat to become fully established in
areas vacated by receding glacial ice. Thus, the periods of glacial
recession noted in this study are more indicative of prolonged and/or large
magnitude climatic fluctuations.  That said, it is obvious that the current
terminus positions of the Central Swiss Alps glaciers examined in this study
fall well within their range of natural Holocene variability.  It therefore
follows that current values of the climatic factors influencing these
glaciers' mass balances, including temperature and precipitation, are also
likely to be well within their range of natural Holocene variability. Thus,
there is nothing unprecedented about the current glacial recession that has
occurred in this region since 1991, other than perhaps its lack of duration
and magnitude when compared with previous Holocene glacial recessions.
Copyright © 2001.  Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change


From Greening Earth Society, 20 April 2001

By Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D.
Greening Earth Society Science Advisor

American and Canadian scientists using an ice core glaciochemical time
series from the Penny Ice Cap on Baffin Island (in northern Canada)
determined the bay's sea-ice extent over the last thousand years, they
report in a recent edition of Climatic Change. The team concludes, "Our
sea-salt record suggests that, while the turn of the century was
characterized by generally milder sea-ice conditions in Baffin Bay, the last
few decades of sea-ice extent lie within Little Ice Age variability and
correspond to instrumental records of lower temperatures in the Eastern
Canadian Arctic over the past three decades." What makes this an amazing
finding is that Baffin Bay is within the Canadian Arctic - the very place on
the planet climate models "predict" greenhouse gas-induced warming should be
loud and clear by now.

Given what Grumet et al. found, we downloaded temperature data for the
region from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which
are provided as monthly temperature anomalies (departures from normal) for
the twelve 5° latitude by 5° longitude grid boxes covering the Baffin
Bay/Baffin Island area. The data span 1922 through 2000. The data, displayed
as Figure 1 [],
depict a highly variable near-surface air temperature record for Baffin Bay.
It nonetheless reveals a cooling of 0.56°C (1.01°F).

If one is in agreement with what Grumet et al. ascertained from their
research and agrees with the IPCC data, then what to make of the numerical
climate models that simulate warming for the same area during a time of
tremendous increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration?


Grumet, N.S., C.P. Wake, P.A. Mayewski, G.A. Zielinski, S.I. Whitlow, R.M.
Koerner, D.A. Fisher, and J.M. Woollett, 2001: Variability of sea-ice extent
in Baffin Bay over the last millennium. Climatic Change, 49:129-145


From Greening Earth Society, 20 April 2001

By Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D.
Greening Earth Society Science Advisor

To our delight, a recent edition of Climatic Change features research about
trends in heating degree-days and cooling degree-days across Turkey.
Kadioglu et al. assert that heating and cooling degree-days - which are
based on daily low and high temperatures, respectively - "are among the most
significant meteorological variables related to residential energy
consumption." If Turkey is adversely affected by "global warming" and
warming is occurring, the heating degree- days (related to home heating
demand) should decrease. Conversely, cooling degree-days (related to air
conditioning demand) should be on the rise. What these Turkish
meteorologists concluded as a result of their painstaking analysis is, "In
general, the sign of the trends is inconsistent with General Circulation
Models (GCM) predictions."

We downloaded the temperature data for Turkey that is available from the
UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The data are provided
as monthly temperature anomalies (departures from normal) within the eight
5° latitude by 5° longitude grid boxes that encompass Turkey. We examined
data for the half-century during which greenhouse gases rapidly increased in
their atmospheric concentration.

As seen by Figure 1, Turkish mean monthly temperatures show absolutely no
trend. Despite claims about a discernible human influence on climate that
are assumed to imply warming, the IPCC's own data show no warming, while
local climatologists report trends in heating and degree days that are
(using their word) inconsistent with predictions of the climate models the
IPCC uses to create its storylines. The General Circulation Models predict
winters will warm more quickly than summers. As a result, heating
degree-days should decrease. Turkish winters have cooled, so the opposite is
happening. Heating degree-days are on the rise. We were able to refine our
analysis and determine that Turkish summers have actually warmed slightly
while the winters have cooled slightly. And in either case, the trend is
statistically insignificant.

Give such evidence, one can only conclude (as have Kadioglu et al.) that
trends they observe in Turkey are "inconsistent" with the General
Circulation Models.


Kadioglu, M., Z. Sen, and L. Gültekin, 2001: Variations and trends in
Turkish seasonal heating and cooling degree-days. Climatic Change,


From Cooler Heads Coalition, 20 April 2001

Recent media accounts of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change give the distinct impression that climate models, the
primary source of global warming concerns, are getting more accurate all the
time. A news article in Science (April 13, 2001), however, sets the record

According to the author, Richard A. Kerr, "But while new knowledge gathered
since the IPCC's last report in 1995 has increased many researchers'
confidence in the models, in some vital areas, uncertainties have actually
grown." Gerald North of Texas A&M University in College Station said that,
"It's extremely hard to tell whether the models have improved" since the
last IPCC report. "The uncertainties are large."

Peter Stone, an MIT climate modeler, said, "The major [climate prediction]
uncertainties have not been reduced at all." And cloud physicist Robert
Charlson, professor emeritus at the University of Washington, Seattle, said,
"To make it sound like we understand climate is not right."

The three main areas of uncertainty are detection of global warming,
attribution of warming to greenhouse gases, and projecting future warming,
Kerr writes. Detection is probably the closest to being resolved of the
three. The IPCC puts warming at 0.6 degrees ±0.2 degrees centigrade with a
95 percent confidence level.

Attribution of global warming to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases
is much more difficult, however. The IPCC claims, "most of the observed
warming over the last 50 years is likely [66 percent to 90 percent chance]
to have been due to the increase of greenhouse gas concentrations."

Some modelers, such as Jerry Mahlman with NOAA and John Mitchell at the UK's
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, think the models are
getting better. The models are "getting quite a remarkable agreement," with
reality, said Mitchell.

"That's stretching it a bit," said John Christy of the University of Alabama
at Huntsville. Stone argues that human attribution "may be right," but, "I
just know of no objective scientific basis for that." Tim Barnett of Scripps
Institution of Oceanography and Jeffrey Kiehl of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research concur.

One of the primary means by which modelers have tweaked the models for
better results is the inclusion of aerosols. But according to Kiehl, "The
more we learn [about aerosols], the less we know." Indeed, according to the
IPCC report, "The uncertainties are so large that a best estimate with error
bars of the indirect cloud effect of aerosols is still impossible." Possible
aerosol cloud effects now range from no effect to a near total masking of
the alleged manmade greenhouse effect.

North argues that the "huge range of climate uncertainty among the models"
is a serious problem. "There are so many adjustables in the models and there
is a limited amount of observational data, so we can always bring the models
into agreement with the data."

According to Science, North explained that, "Models with sensitivities to
CO2 inputs at either extreme of the range can still simulate the warming of
the 20th century."

Many of these scientists still think something should be done to slow down
the emission of greenhouse gases. This, however, seems to be a reaction to
change as much as a concern over whether there will be any ensuing harm.
"The evidence for chemical change of the atmosphere is so overwhelming, we
should do something about it," said Charlson.

Quantifying the Uncertainties

Although most scientists are willing to admit that there are still large
uncertainties in the predictions about rising global temperatures, there has
been little effort to quantify those uncertainties. Uncertainties are
important, however.

According to a new study by researchers at the Joint Program on the Science
and Policy of Global Change at MIT, "Communicating uncertainty in climate
projections provides essential information to decision makers, allowing them
to evaluate how policies might reduce the risk of climate impacts."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not provide these
numbers, however. "The Third Assessment Report of the [IPCC] reports a range
for global mean surface temperature rise by 2100 of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees
centigrade but does not provide likelihood estimates for this key finding
although it does for others," says the study.

The researchers perform this calculation and conclude, "that there is far
less than a 1 in 100 chance of a global mean surface temperature increase by
2100 as large as 5.8 degrees centigrade." They also conclude, "there is a 17
percent chance that the temperature change of 2100 would be less than the
IPCC lower estimate" (

Even though it is much more likely that the amount of warming over the next
100 years will be less than 1.4 degrees centigrade than 5.8 degrees
centigrade or more, it is the higher number that is emphasized in news
coverage of the issue. This is highly misleading if the MIT calculations are


From Eurekalert, 23 April 2001

Contact: Anne Stark
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Researchers prove past cooling trend caused by move from forests to

Livermore, Calif.-Researchers in Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's
Atmospheric Science Division have demonstrated a cooling of up to 2-degree
Fahrenheit over land between 1000 and 1900 AD as a result of changes from
natural vegetation, such as forests, to agriculture.

Through climate model simulations, the LLNL research team made up of Bala
Govindasamy, Ken Caldeira and Philip Duffy, determined that a previously
recognized cooling trend up to the last century could, in part, be
attributed to the land-use change.

Previous studies had attributed cooling to natural climate variations. The
Livermore research, however, suggests that much of this cooling could have
been the result of human activity.

Forests tend to look dark from the sky, but agricultural lands, with their
amber waves of grain, tend to look much lighter. Dark colors tend to absorb
sunlight, and light colors tend to reflect sunlight back out to space.
Changing from forests to crops results in more sunlight reflected back to
space. This reflection of solar energy to space tends to cool the Earth,
especially in regions such as the eastern and mid-western United States,
where huge tracts of land have been converted to crops. In the 20th century,
some of this cropland has been reverting back to forest, especially in the
eastern United States.

Greenhouse gas emissions in the 20th century likely overcame any cooling
trends that took place up to that time. Growing more trees has been
suggested as a way to soak up carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, from the
atmosphere. However, earlier studies demonstrate that growing dark forests
could actually heat the earth's surface more because dark colors tend to
absorb more sunlight, despite the uptake of carbon dioxide.

"The Earth land surface has cooled by about 0.41 K (= by about 3/4 of a
degree Fahrenheit) due to the replacement of dark forests by lighter farms
growing wheat, corn, etc.," said Caldeira, a climate model researcher who
also is co-director for the Department of Energy's Center for Research on
ocean carbon sequestration. "This is an example of inadvertent
geoengineering -- we changed the reflectivity of the Earth and have probably
caused a global cooling in the past. This is now probably being overwhelmed
by our greenhouse gas emissions."

The research, published in the Geophysical Research Letters, also shows a
slight increase in the annual means of global and Northern Hemisphere sea
ice volumes in association with the cooling. The simulated annual average
cooling due to land-use change during this period is almost a half a degree
Fahrenheit globally, 0.66 °F for the Northern Hemisphere and .74 °F over

In the simulations, land use data for 1000 AD uses potential natural
vegetation, made up mainly of forests, while data for the 1900 AD period
uses standard current vegetation data, which is a mix of forest and
croplands, taken from the Community Climate Model developed at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research. The greenhouse gas levels in both
simulations are in concentrations taken at pre-industrial levels.

"The estimated temperature change in the continental United States as a
result of change from forests to agriculture is up to a 2-degree Fahrenheit
cooling," Caldeira said. "So, when we talk about global warming, we can no
longer take for granted that this global warming is starting from some
natural climate state, undisturbed by human activities."

Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a national
nuclear security laboratory, with a mission to ensure national security and
apply science and technology to the important issues of our time. The
National Nuclear Security Administration's Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory is managed by the University of California.


From Mark Hess <
Cynthia M. O'Carroll
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md          April 23, 2001   

(Phone: 301/614-5563)

RELEASE: 01-38               


Greenhouse gases are the main reason why the northern hemisphere is warming
quicker during winter-time months than the rest of the world, according to
new computer climate model results by NASA scientists.

Climatologists consider volcanic aerosols, polar ozone depletion, solar
radiation, and greenhouse gases to be important factors in climate warming.
NASA scientists input all of these factors in a climate model and concluded
that greenhouse gases are the primary factor driving warmer winter climates
in North America, Europe and Asia over the last 30 years. They found that
greenhouse gases, more than any of the other factors, increase the strength
of the polar winds that regulate northern hemisphere climate in winter.

Using a computer model that simulates climate through interactions of ocean
and atmosphere, scientists input current and past levels of greenhouse gases
such as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor and nitrous oxide. They found
that greenhouse gases such as those increase the strength of polar wind
circulation around the North Pole.

The polar winds play a large role in the wintertime climate of the northern
hemisphere. The winds blow from high up in the stratosphere down to the
troposphere and eventually the Earth's surface. When they strengthen, as
they do from increases in greenhouse gases, they blow stronger over the
warm, moist oceans picking up and transporting warmer air to the continents.
Thus, warm air from the Pacific Ocean warms western North America, and the
Atlantic Ocean warmth is shared with Eurasia. When winds are stronger,
winters are warmer because air picks up heat as the winds blow over the
oceans. When winds become weak winters become colder.

The findings by Drew Shindell, Gavin Schmidt, and other atmospheric
scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia
University, NY, appeared in the April 16th issue of the Journal of
Geophysical Research - Atmospheres.

Shindell noted that increases in greenhouse gases make the stronger polar
winds last longer into the springtime and contribute to a warmer early
spring climate in the northern hemisphere.

The stronger wind circulation around the North Pole creates a large
temperature difference between the pole and the mid-latitudes. Shindell
noted that the Southern Hemisphere isn't affected by increasing greenhouse
gases the same way, because it's colder and the polar wind circulation over
the Antarctic is already very strong.

"Surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have warmed during winter
months up to 9 degrees Fahrenheit over the last three decades, over 10 times
more than the global annual average 0.7 degree Fahrenheit," says Shindell.
"Warmer winters will also include more wet weather in Europe and western
North America, with parts of western Europe the worst hit by storms coming
off the Atlantic."

Year-to-year changes in the polar winds are quite large, according to
Shindell. But over the past 30 years, we have tended to see stronger winds
and warming, indicative of continually increasing greenhouse gases.

Shindell looked at volcanic activity from 1959 to 2000 and identified
volcanically active and non-active years. The researchers concluded that
because volcanic forcing is intermittent and decays rapidly, it seems
unlikely to have contributed greatly to the long-term observed warming
trend. Large volcanic eruptions such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991 inject
aerosols into the atmosphere and have a global cooling effect during the
years following an eruption.

Also included in the model were the 11-year solar cycle and the effects of
solar radiation on stratospheric ozone. Schmidt noted that long-term changes
in solar irradiance have influenced the upper atmosphere. "However, it is
unlikely that solar variability has been responsible for much of the
observed trend in increasing the polar winds," Schmidt said.

Because the upper polar atmosphere becomes colder when ozone is depleted,
the winds circling the pole are slightly enhanced. "However," Shindell
noted, "greenhouse gases have the biggest impact on the strengthening of the
polar winds, and in turn, the warming of the northern hemisphere during
winter months."

Shindell said that the warming trend would likely continue over the next 30
years as greenhouse gases continue to increase in the atmosphere.

For the abstract go to:


From The Daily Telegraph, 21 April 2001

By Sally Pook

A BRITISH spring should not present a challenge to a penguin chicks familiar
with the sub-zero conditions of Antarctica.

But the newborns Walnut, Chestnut, Stan and Ollie are Peruvian penguins that
are more used to tropical sunny beaches than the rain, sleet and snow of an
unusually cold British April. They have been forced to resort to woolly
blankets and heated mattresses to survive the present unseasonal freezing
temperatures at Flamingoland Zoo, near Pickering, north Yorkshire.

They are among a group of 12 Peruvian penguins born at the zoo. Andrew
Melton, the manager, said: "In South America the weather is perfect for
chicks at this time of the year. Our cold spring is bad enough for humans,
but they can't stand it.

"So we are doing everything possible to keep them snug and warm and alive.
At the same time we are hoping we get some sunshine so they can come out and
show themselves to our visitors. Everyone loves a baby penguin."

Temperatures plummeted to minus 5C (23F) in Perthshire and minus 1C (28F) in
Devon yesterday because of freezing winds blowing in from the Arctic Circle.
The Meteorological Office said it would get slightly warmer next week, but
not much.

A spokesman said: "We cannot expect it to get significantly warmer. Average
temperatures will be up to 13C (55F). Everyone is still going to need hats,
gloves and scarves."

Copyright 2001, The Daily Telegraph


From The Daily Telegraph, 25 April 2001 (letter section)

SIR - The unseasonal freezing temperatures in Yorkshire (report 21/4/01) are
not limited to the north of the country. Across the world, many countries
are reportedly suffering extreme winters and freezing spring temperatures
this year.

Two weeks ago, north California was hit by the worst frost in 30 years,
causing millions of dollars worth of damage to the wine industry. A week
earlier, snow was reported falling on cherry blossoms in Tokyo for the first
time in 25 years. In March, news reports from Russia gave details about an
extreme cold that had blasted Russia into "the coldest winter in a century".

From Siberia to the Far East, extreme chills have been reported with
temperatures 30 degrees below normal. According to the Red Cross, many
people died in Mongolia this winter as a result of a bitter cold front
sweeping across northern India, which brought "the coldest temperatures to
hit the region in several years".

The same cold front also swept into Pakistan, killing many Afghan refugees
and threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands others. In China, the Red
Cross reported the worst winter conditions in decades, while blizzards
paralysed South Korea in what weather experts there described as "the worst
snowstorm in 20 years".

Kazakhstan was subjected to its coldest winter weather in 40 years, at the
same time as the United States recorded its lowest two-month average
temperature (for last November and December) ever measured.

At a time when we are told that the past 10 years have been the hottest
decade during the past 1,000 years, it would appear that recent temperatures
around the globe are colder than they have been for much of the past

It will be interesting to monitor if this conspicuous climatic downturn
conceivably marks the end of a slender warming trend that is largely
responsible for much of the current greenhouse warming alarm.

Dr Benny Peiser
Liverpool John Moores University



From Jonathan Shanklin <>

Drs Idso should meet some fur seals before pronouncing that their increasing
numbers is entirely due to global warming and is a good thing. The increase
in numbers of fur seals has nothing whatsover to do with climate change. It
is a consequence of a) Sealers hunting fur seals to near extinction in the
19th century and b) Whalers hunting whales to near extinction in the 20th
century. With no hunting and plentiful food the fur seal numbers have

Jonathan Shanklin
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, England

From Alasdair Beal <

Dear Benny,

I am all for open-minded investigation of the rights and wrongs of theories
of climate change and some of the material on CCNet is interesting and
useful. However some items seem to be more to do with the hostility of US
industry to any efforts to reduce pollution and clean up the environment
than bona fide scientific discussion. Take, for example, Iain Murray's
article (CCNET Climate Scares, 20/4/01) arguing that 'It should be incumbent
on the Europeans to find some way of cleaning up their own mess, rather than
continuing on as they are, as the planet's worst net polluters'.

Murray bases this claim on the argument that although US industry, transport
and homes are responsible for almost half of the developed world's CO2
emissions, this is balanced by the fact that the wilderness areas of North
America (thank you, Canada) act as a CO2 sink. However earlier in the same
article he claimed that 'carbon dioxide is not really a pollutant, as the
Environmental Protection Agency has labeled it. It is a vitally important
contributor to plant life ...'. Murray cannot have it both ways - if CO2 is
not a pollutant, then his arguments about carbon sinks become irrelevant,
Europeans are not 'the planet's worst net polluters' and the USA remains
'king' of the world's polluters. However if CO2 is a pollutant, then the
idea that nothing should be done to clean up industry in the country
responsible for almost half of the world's CO2 emissions is ridiculous.
Either way, his argument does not make sense and looks more like an attempt
at cheap point-scoring than a serious contribution to the debate.

Murray also conveniently ignores the fact that the industry which emits all
this CO2 also consumes enormous amounts of natural resources and generates
all sorts of other pollutants. There are well-funded lobby groups which are
not really interested in the rights and wrongs of the scientific arguments
about global warming - they just want to use the debate as a smokescreen to
try to stop environmental restrictions being imposed on US industry.
However, regardless of the ultimate conclusion of the argument about CO2
emissions and global warming, it is surely obvious that measures need to be
taken to reduce the consumption of natural resources and emission of
pollution worldwide. As it is (per head) the biggest consumer of resources
and biggest emitter of pollution worldwide, the USA has a major
responsibility and it is going to have to play its part, whether the big
corporations like it or not. Oil consumption will have to be reduced,
pollution control will have to be improved, logging restricted (watch out
for those carbon sinks!) and many other measures will be needed to help the

Even if the theory of global warming is suspect, the measures in the Kyoto
Agreement would actually be quite helpful in achieving these goals. Don't
throw out the baby with the bathwater!

Yours sincerely,

Alasdair Beal


From Andrew Glikson <>

Dear Benny,

Before any CCNet reader obtains an impression as if greenhouse warming is a
mere conspiracy theory invented by sinister forces to frighten innocent
citizens, as alleged by some (CCNet 20-04-01), consider that:

1. The American Geophysical Union, the world's peak geophysical body,
concluded: "...Present understanding of the Earth climate system provides a
compelling basis for legitimate public concern over future global and
regional scale changes resulting from increased concentrations of greenhouse
gases..." (Eos, 1999, 80:454), based on accelerated rise in greenhouse gases
(CO2, CH4, N2O, CFC) and accelerated warming from 1919 (increased mean
temperature of 1.06 degrees C), following the onset of the industrial age.
Evidence includes data on tree rings, coral and ice core records, drastic
thinning of polar ice shelves in both the Antarctic and the Arctic, mean sea
temperature measurements and numerous other observations.

2. Recently the CSIRO (Australia) predicted an alarming degree of global
warming up to 6 degrees C this century, stating "This recent research also
strengthens the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change statement that
"the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global
climate" (

3. There is a singular lack of scientific arguments in many of the
articles/statements critical of scientists studying the greenhouse warming.
On the other hand conspiracy theories abound, including alleged manufactured
facts by scientists and government, reminiscent of UFO cover-up conspiracy
theories.  This calls for a detailed response from the climate researchers
on whose observations the realization of the unfolding tragedy of global
greenhouse warming is based.

4. As a website which aims to be a "scholarly electronic network" CCNet
should very careful to avoid giving an impression as if, for ideological
reason, it favor or highlights one point of view over another - for example
by selective citation of the views of one school of thought in the headlines
of CCNet bulletins, or by rephrasing of titles of contributions. In order to
redress the balance, where fundamental controversies such as greenhouse
warming arise, CCNet should invite views by proponents of opposite points of
view, as it has in fact done in other instances, for example in the context
of the P-T boundary extinction debate.  A perception of systematic
ideological bias in favor of one point of view may seriously undermine the
very basis on which free and open scientific discussion can survive.

Dr Andrew Glikson

Australian National University,
Canberra, ACT 0200


From Benny J Peiser <>

In the context of a scientific debate, accusations of political or
ideological bias are always intimidating. I very much regret such attacks
and inuendo (which occur on both side of the global warming devide) and
would rather keep the discussion squarely focues on evidencial matters. As a
scholarly network that focuses on all topical issues of neo-catastrophism,
CCNet has been (and will be) treating greenhouse warming catastrophism as a
scientific controversy - full stop. I am only too aware that the whole issue
has become increasingly politicised and hijacked for party political
pruposes. An independent and sceptical approach is therefore often difficult
to sustain. This is because scepticism, which is normally considered a key
feature of the scientific method, is frequently equated with right-wing
politics when applied to the greenhouse warming alarm. May I reassure
readers that I will not allow a serious scientific problem to be diluted by
political or ideological shenanigans.

Equally intimidating are accusations that CCNet has given the "impression as
if greenhouse warming is a mere conspiracy theory (reminiscent of UFO
cover-up conspiracy theories) invented by sinister forces to frighten
innocent citizens." To the best of my knowledge, I cannot recall that I have
ever posted any conspiracy theories on CCNet. The controversial claim that
enhanced greenhouse gas emissions will lead to catastrophic devastation
around the world with millions of human fatalities is made by many
scientists and politicians very openly. Despite all attacks and
initimidation, the claim should be treated as any other scientific
hypothesis: in a dispassionate and matter-of-fact method of scientific

I have invited climate researchers on numerous occasions to respond to the
criticism by their sceptical colleagues. I am more than happy to repeat this
invitation publicly. Regrettably, very few climatologists have been willing
to discuss their methods and dire predictions with their scpetical
counterparts. Some 500 researchers and academics from around the globe are
currently subscribed to CCNet, including a number of leading climatologists
and palaeo-climatologists. CCNet is an open forum in which all sound
arguments regarding the greenhouse warming scare will get a fair hearing.

Fred Singer, an eminent researcher and CCNet contributor, has listed twelve
of the most important issues for which no scientific consensus exists as
yet. I fully share Fred's conclusion that "we need a more targeted program
of climate research to settle major scientific problems" and have attached
his list of "unfinished business" below.

Benny J Peiser


by S. Fred Singer
Summary: Climate science is not "settled;" it is both uncertain and
incomplete. The available observations do not support the mathematical
models that predict a substantial global warming and form the basis for a
control policy on greenhouse (GH) gas emissions. We need a more targeted
program of climate research to settle major scientific problems.

1) The fate of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is uncertain: its uptake
into the ocean; the biological pump; the missing carbon sink. The future
growth of atmospheric CO2 depends crucially on estimates of residence time
and the amount of fossil fuels likely to be used for energy production. Some
researchers suggest an 8x pre-industrial value, while others doubt whether
CO2 will even double.

2) The temperature record of the last hundred years is of poor quality and
shows many discrepancies. Surface temperatures disagree with recent
measurements from satellites and balloons. The urban heat island effect may
skew the record.

3) General Circulation Models (GCMs) vary by 300% in their temperature
forecasts, require arbitrary adjustments, and cannot handle crucial
mesoscale and microscale cloud processes. Their forecasts of substantial
warming depend on a positive feedback from atmospheric water vapor (WV).

4) GCMs cannot account for past observations: the temperature rise between
1920 to 1940, the cooling to 1975, and the absence of warming in the
satellite record since 1979. Various explanations need to be explored:
reduced positive feedback from WV; increase in cloudiness; anthropogenic
aerosols; man-made land changes; increasing air traffic; solar variations
influencing climate.

5) Prehistoric climate fluctuations, on timescales as rapid as a decade, are
prevalent - as judged from the data from tree rings, sediments, and ice
cores. Such climate events are not explained by existing models, nor can
current GCMs account for El-Nino events, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and
other contemporary rapid changes in climate.

6) Sea level (SL) rise is a major feared impact of a future warming. It
seems likely, however, that increased evaporation from the ocean may lead to
more rapid accumulation of polar ice and a lowering of sea level. This
possibility is supported by an observed inverse correlation between SL rate
of rise and tropical sea surface temperature (SST).

7) Severe storms and hurricanes have diminished in the past 50 years. A
global warming trend is calculated to reduce the latitudinal temperature
gradient and therefore the driving force for storms and severe weather.

8) Global agriculture will likely benefit from climate warming and increased
precipitation; increased CO2 leads to more rapid plant growth; increased
nocturnal and winter warming leads to a longer growing season. Farmers can
and will adjust to climate changes.

9) The spread of disease vectors, like malaria-carrying mosquitos, is likely
to be unimportant in comparison to human vectors. In addition, medical
science and insect control technology are sure to progress.

10) Historical evidence supports the idea that warmer climate intervals are
beneficial for human activities, food production, and health. Cold periods
have had the opposite effect.

11) Mitigation techniques are available that can slow down the rise of
atmospheric GH gases and a possible climate change: energy conservation and
increased efficiency often make economic sense; hydro and nuclear power are
available now; solar energy may be around the corner; tree planting and
ocean fertilization may be low-cost methods of sequestering atmospheric CO2.

12) Policy measures should be applied with great caution and only when
justified by scientific data, lest they create more harm than good. In
particular, mandatory controls on energy use by whatever method can create
great economic losses, impacting especially on poor people and poor nations.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) states that
"...policies and measures to deal with climate change should be
cost-effective so as to insure global benefits at the lowest cost" (Article
3.3). The FCCC calls for an "economic system that would lead to sustainable
economic growth and development" (Article 3.5). The convention also calls
for periodic review as scientific knowledge and information grow.

Article 2 states the FCCC objective, namely the "stabilization of GH gas
concentrations ... that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system." We should note that science cannot as yet define
what that level is -- whether the present level, or some future level, or
the pre-industrial level. Defining "dangerous" levels is a daunting task for
climate science, and should be tackled before far-reaching policies are put
in place.


From Ananova, 24 April 2001

EU June summit to discuss anti-US sanctions - Prodi

The European Union is to discuss imposing sanctions against the US for
refusing to implement the Kyoto climate change treaty.

European Commission chairman Romano Prodi says sanctions will be on the
agenda at the next summit in Sweden in June, but he doesn't want to harm
relations between the US and the EU.

In an interview with the Italian daily Il Corriere della Sera, Mr Prodi says
the treaty is the fruit of years of reflection and the EU will insist on its

However, Mr Prodi says he will not allow the US's decision to be dramatised
to the point of damaging relations between the two blocks. The decision by
President George W Bush to reject Kyoto has been condemned by

Mr Prodi is ready to listen to US proposals to introduce more efficent
measures than those decided at Kyoto. He says that, so far, the US's
behaviour has diminished the possibility of finding a global solution to the
problem of pollution management.

He adds: "America's stance certainly does not bring us closer to the
introduction of an active environment protection policy."

Mr Prodi describes the situation as extremely fluid and the EU has to try to
salvage the Kyoto treaty without the US.

He also says the EU has to accelerate the establishment of an "economic and
commercial strategy" towards Latin America in view of the Spanish presidency
of the EU next year.

Copyright 2001, Press Association

The CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser <>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational
use only. The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for
any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders.
The fully indexed archive of the CCNet, from February 1997 on, can be
found at
DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the
articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not  necessarily
reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of this

CCCMENU CCC for 2001