Why is there so much preoccupation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations and reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions when it is well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the CO2 contribution to the overall greenhouse effect is so weak that it can be easily supplanted by small changes in clouds and water vapor, or natural climate-changing constituents?
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Why Would You Believe This? (5 of 8) 'The effects of climate change [due to man] are already being felt in Asia and Africa.'
Of course, taking this literally, it is banal and unobjectionable. Everywhere, all the time, the 'effects of climate change' are taking place, and being 'felt' by something or other. Our climate has never been fixed anywhere, over any time period.
But of course, the sentence is a piece of spin, in the context of climate alarmism (1), perhaps designed in the hope that our compassion will distract us from the faulty logic. While Asia and Africa have long been locations of awful earthquakes, famines, floods, and droughts, they are growing in economic strength to help deal with them. Countries like India and China are surging ahead with economic development thanks in some part to burning hydrocarbons in the form of oil, gas, and coal.
Much of Africa and many parts of Asia remain burdened by feeble property rights, religious politicking, ruthless elites in power, and widespread corruption. These, combined with anti-development urges of self-styled 'environmentalists', are the sources of harm most capable of reform by human action. When faced with a variable, and often threatening, climate, it is better to be rich enough to respond, react, and protect, than to be poor and relatively helpless.
I present below some counter-examples, showing that relatively warm spells, such as the one we are in, have been more beneficial than relatively cool ones (such as during the Little Ice Age) in Asia and Africa, and some quotations to show that some commentators and some politicians there have not been fooled by the powerful and pernicious PR of the IPCC.
'In the case of mean river discharge, the empirical observations go doubly against climate alarmist predictions, i.e., most rivers show no change, while most of those that do change exhibit decreases. In the case of maximum river discharge, the empirical observations go doubly against climate alarmist predictions, i.e., most rivers show no change, while most of those that do change exhibit decreases, indicative of less flooding. In the case of minimum river discharge, the empirical observations go doubly against climate alarmist predictions, i.e., most rivers show no change, while most of those that do change exhibit increases, indicative of less drought.' Source: (2).
'nearly every major famine in India [over the period of their study] coincided with a period of reduced monsoon rainfall'
'noting two particularly devastating famines ... occurred at the beginning of the Little Ice Age '
'...marine sediments ...and a pollen record from the western Himalaya ... also indicate a weaker monsoon during the Little Ice Age and a relatively stronger monsoon during the Medieval Warm Period."' Source: (3).
In other words, a continued gentle warming does not necessarily mean increased droughts in India and other parts of Asia.
Let us turn to Indian politics. It seem the government there has benefitted from sounder scientific advice than that which has a strangehold in the West. This observation from 2008 serves as an illustration:
'India has issued a report challenging global warming fears. This is dramatic. The Indian Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change said that India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth in order to cut gases. Referring to claimed changes in climate attributed to human activity, the report declares: "No firm link between the documented charges described below and warming due to an anthropogenic climate change has yet been established." ' Source: (4).
In China, researchers there are exposing the IPCC-promoted hockey-stick as wrong (we already know from hundreds of studies that it is wrong just about everywhere, and statistically unsound as well, but we also recall the major role given to it by Gore and others wishing to profit from the IPCC lead):
'During the last 500 years, apparent climate fluctuations were experienced, including two cold phases from the 1470s to the 1710s and the 1790s to the 1860s, two warm phases from the 1720s to the 1780s, and after the 1870s. The temperature variations prior to the 1500s show two anomalous warm peaks, around 300 and between approximately 1100 and 1200, that exceed the warm level of the last decades of the 20th century.' Source: (5).
'In Africa's Namib Desert, the greatest floods of the past two millennia occurred during its coldest period, the Little Ice Age, with nothing to compare to them during what climate alarmists typically describe as the warmest portion of the past two millennia, i.e., the latter part of the 20th century. These real-world observations are the exact opposite of what they predict about floods and global warming.' Source: (6).
Here is but one of several studies reported on at the CO2 Science site:
'Equatorial east Africa was significantly drier than today during the Medieval Warm Period from AD 1000 to 1270, while it was relatively wet during the Little Ice Age from AD 1270 to 1850. However, this latter period was interrupted by three periods of prolonged dryness: 1390-1420, 1560-1625 and 1760-1840. These "episodes of persistent aridity," in the words of the authors, were "more severe than any recorded drought of the twentieth century." In addition, they discovered that "all three severe drought events of the past 700 years were broadly coeval with phases of high solar radiation, and the intervening periods of increased moisture were coeval with phases of low solar radiation." ' Source: (7).
From the false invention of the hockey-stick plot with its message of unprecedented temperatures, to Gore's fatuous blaming of the melting snows of Kilimanjaro on man-made global warming, the attempts to portray Africa as a victim of industrialisation elsewhere have failed miserably. It has not gone un-noticed, as illustrated by the remarks of a Professor Alexander:
'Let me make one point abundantly clear. Since the establishment of the IPCC in 1988 not a single person in South Africa has died as a result of provable climate change. But thousands have died from poverty-related starvation, malnutrition and disease. How dare those who call themselves scientists deliberately suppress this information? How dare they ignore the suffering of all these people? How dare they steadfastly refuse to participate in multidisciplinary studies where their alarmist theories can be demonstrated to be without foundation?
Also, there is also no statistically believable evidence of linkages between climate change, and increases in the occurrence and magnitude of floods, droughts and threats to water supplies.
Climate alarmist tactics are obstructing the right of these people to progress towards the normal lives that those in the western nations enjoy.' Source: (8).
For summaries and links to many more scientific papers on topics such as desertification or other climate-related disasters in Africa or Asia, see the CO2 Science site: (9).
Readers wishing to study a set of climate deceits re Asia and Africa (and elsewhere), could gain much from the 'IPCC Corner' at the Global Warming Policy Foundation site (10), where the following topics are currently listed:
African crop yields Amazon rainforest Disappearing mountain ice
Dutch sea level error Himalayan glaciers NGO reports
Trends in disaster losses IPCC's Bangladesh Problem
IPCC and the Stern Review Scandal
For climate-related deception in general, Pierre Gosselin currently has listed 70 links to various ‘gates’ and other scandals, including several specific to Asia or Africa: (11).
Once again, the sentence we have examined in context, is seen to be misleading in the light of the evidence we have shown, and does not give support for alarm and extravagant actions that in all likelihood would makes things worse for countries in Asia and Africa by crippling their economic development.
It is easy to imagine such sentences being used every week in schools throughout the world, encouraging sympathy, alarm, and dismay in children. And with what justification? I have not yet found any.