PLEASE NOTE:


*

CCNet CLIMATE CHANGE - 22 November 2000
--------------------------------------

"As a boy, I remember seeing articles about the large global warming
that had taken place between 1900 and 1945. No one understood or knew if
this warming would continue. Then the warming abated and I heard little
about such warming through the late 1940s and into the 1970s. In fact,
surface measurements showed a small global cooling between the mid-1940s
and the early 1970s. During the 1970s, there was speculation concerning an
increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice age may not
be far off. Then in the 1980s, it all changed again. The current global
warming bandwagon that US-European governments have been alarming us
with is still in full swing."
-- William M. Gray, BBC Online 16 November 2000


(1) NATIONS IN STANDOFF OVER ISSUES AT GLOBAL WARMING CONFERENCE
    CNN, 21 November 2000

(2) WILLING TO COMPROMISE, BUT UNWILLING TO SACRIFICE CORE PRINCIPLES
    U.S. State Department, 21 November 2000

(3) SCIENTISTS CONTINUE TO ASSAIL CLIMATE TREATY
    Cooler Heads, 21 November 2000

(4) PROJECT TO UNLOCK ARMAGH'S UNIQUE 200-YEAR LONG METEOROLOGICAL RECORD
    Larry Klaes <lklaes@BBN.COM>

(5) MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD AND LITTLE ICE AGE IN SOUTHERN AFRICA
    CO2 Science, 22 November 2000

(6) THE SUN ALSO WARMS
    George C Marshall Institute

(7) CLIMATE MODELS AND THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT
    George C Marshall Institute

(8) GET OFF THE GLOBAL WARMING BANDWAGON
    BBC Online News, 16 November 2000

==================
(1) NATIONS IN STANDOFF OVER ISSUES AT GLOBAL WARMING CONFERENCE

From CNN, 21 November 2000
http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/11/21/hague.conference.reut/index.html

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (Reuters) -- Delegates at a U.N. climate change
conference deadlocked Tuesday over commitments to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, as industrial nations sparred with one another and developing
countries complained of being ignored.

The primary issues of dispute remained unresolved with three days remaining
before the conference concludes. And the final agreement draft was weakened
by hundreds of clauses or phrases isolated in brackets signifying
disagreement, delegates said.
 
The conference is to set the rules for countries to meet targets laid down
in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to curb emissions of heat-trapping gases,
primarily carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels.
The time frame from achieving the goal is 2008-2012.

After a night of deliberation, the European Union rejected a U.S. proposal
to credit countries for maintaining forests and farmland that absorb carbon
from the atmosphere. Such areas are known as "sinks." The credits would be
used to offset their emissions reduction quota.

U.S. delegates had portrayed the proposal as a concession, saying they were
prepared to take credits for less than the full amount of carbon that
forests actually soak up.

Europe nips U.S. forest sinks

"Having examined the data by our experts, we feel the U.S. proposal cannot
be seen as a compromise position," said French environment minister
Dominique Voynet.

U.S. delegation chief Frank Loy said the U.S. is ready to make agreements

 
U.S. delegation chief Frank Loy responded that other delegations were being
less than forthcoming in the negotiations.

"The United States has demonstrated real flexibility across a range of
issues," he said in a speech to the plenary. "We stand ready to make
reasonable compromises. We are waiting for others to do so as well. And time
is growing short."

The U.S. delegation was working within confined limits, knowing that a
skeptical Congress in Washington needs to endorse any agreement.

Rep. Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas who is close to Gov. George W.
Bush, said if Bush wins the presidency, Barton would recommend that the
United States abandon the Kyoto agreement and begin negotiations to leave
economies unfettered by environmental constraints.

"What you are seeing here is an exercise in futility in the worst case, or
an exercise in fantasy in the best case, and nothing I have seen this week
is going to be voted on in a positive way," Barton said.

Group of 77 wants relief

The developing countries, meanwhile, showed their impatience over the focus
on issues of the rich nations in the conference, in its second and final
week. The so-called Group of 77 is demanding a detailed program for
industrialized nations to transfer clean energy technologies and extra funds
for them to adapt to climate changes.

The group now numbers 134 countries and commands enough votes to quash a
final agreement.

Nigerian delegate Sani Zangon Daura angrily confronted the conference
chairman, Jan Pronk, about the exclusion of poor countries from delegation
leaders who meet daily to fix the agenda and set the pace of the convention.


"Consultations must not be converted into negotiations that involve only a
select number of parties," he told Pronk.

Nukes heat up the debate
 
In other conference developments, the head of the U.N. Environment Program
blasted proposals to include nuclear energy options as a means to slow
global warming.

"I'm utterly convinced that it should not be included in any type of
(agreement)," the U.N.'s Klaus Toepfer told reporters.

The nuclear power industry has argued that nuclear reactors are clean and
produce no carbon dioxide. But environmentalists have attacked that stance
and point to the longer-term problems of nuclear waste and safety.

The United States and Japan have said they would back plans allowing them to
fund nuclear projects in developing countries to reduce global emissions of
carbon dioxide.

Scientists say the Earth's temperature could rise by up to 6 degrees
Centigrade (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, with devastating consequences
on the environment and human life.

The U.N. weather agency said Tuesday that deaths from heat waves in big
cities worldwide are expected to double over the next 20 years if global
warming is not curbed.

"Heat waves are expected to become a major killer," World Meteorological
Organization Secretary-General Godwin Obasi said.

Small increases in global temperatures due to growing amounts of greenhouse
gases are amplified in big cities, he told reporters in The Hague.

Copyright 2000 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

=================
(2) WILLING TO COMPROMISE, BUT UNWILLING TO SACRIFICE CORE PRINCIPLES

From the U.S. State Department, 21 November 2000
http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/topic/global&f=00112101.ggi&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

Text: U.S. Under Secretary Loy at Climate Change Conference Nov. 21
(He reemphasizes U.S. commitment to climate change treaty)  (1130)

Under Secretary of State Frank E. Loy stressed the U.S. commitment to "meet
the challenge of climate change" in November 21 remarks delivered at the
U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in The Hague,
Netherlands.

He emphasized that the United States has already achieved significant
reductions in the growth rate of carbon emissions that are blamed for global
warming.

In order for the negotiations to come to a successful conclusion, Loy said
all the parties must take a more pragmatic approach and prepare to
compromise. "While we are willing to be flexible in our positions, we will
not sacrifice our core principles. The agreement we forge must be
cost-effective and have real environmental integrity."

Some U.S. negotiating proposals for allowable means to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions have been recently criticized by environmental groups and other
nations, but Loy reminded his audience that these ideas have been slated for
inclusion in the treaty since the earliest stages of negotiation.

"There are not loopholes or 11th hour gimmicks," he said. "Rather, they are
integral features of a comprehensive framework that reflects the physical,
political and economic realities that we face."

Following is the text of Loy's remarks as prepared for delivery:

http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/topic/global&f=00112101.ggi&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

===============
(3) SCIENTISTS CONTINUE TO ASSAIL CLIMATE TREATY

From Cooler Heads, 21 November 2000
http://www.globalwarming.org/cop6horner3.htm

By Chris Horner, Cooler Heads Counsel

(The Hague, Netherlands) November 21, 2000 - In the midst of international
negotiations on how
to significantly reduce emissions from energy use, "dissident" scientists
are vocally objecting to the underlying premise that individual and
industrial human activities influence Nature's dynamic processes, and the
absence of a critical debate.

This Sixth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations' treaty on the
theory of "global warming," called the "Kyoto Protocol" after the city where
the broad parameters were established in 1997, are now well along in their
second and final week. Debate, however, has been exclusively focused on how
to implement mandated emission reductions. Whether there is a scientific
basis upon which to mandate such reductions is deemed unworthy of
discussion. The reports constituting the official science, that is
purportedly "settled," is called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) report, which is actually a series of reports on several
related subjects.

Many prominent scientists attending this conference are rejecting that
science is not a topic in discussions of what certainly appears to be an
inherently scientific subject. That approach came under siege during two
briefings here by researchers from the United States and several European
countries, three of them "expert peer reviewers" of the IPCC product. They
criticized not the science purportedly supporting the summaries of IPCC
documents, in particular the Summary for Policymakers, but the differences
between the underlying science and the summary of that science.

Led by Dr. Fred Singer, of the University of Virginia and the Science and
Environment Policy Project, these scientists came from France, Germany, the
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom to air their grievances. They addressed
the measured temperatures, and the flaws in temperature projections that are
based on computer climate models. The focus of their indignation, however,
was the content of the recently leaked and anonymously authored summaries
for the latest round of IPCC studies. These researchers drew attention to
the fact that the science has specific, identified authors and peer
reviewers. The summaries are anonymously authored, and were not subjected to
any critique prior.

Dr. Richard Courtney, also an IPCC "expert reviewer" who is with the
European Science and Environment Forum (UK), passionately argued a lack of
measured "global" warming. He demonstrated that nearly all measured
increases in temperatures have occurred in regions, for example Siberia,
where data are sparse and not continuous, and are therefore doubtful. Dr.
Singer speculated
that the urban heat island effect (large cities holding on to heat) is
likely responsible for the differential in the less rural measurements.

Singer admitted this was speculation, as a "best effort" to reconcile the
difference between surface measurements, showing regional warming, and
satellite and weather balloon measurements, which affirm each other and do
not show any warming. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences affirmed the
satellite and balloon tools just this year. All participants agreed upon the

impact of the effect of developed areas holding radiated heat, and
speculated that the remote stations may merely be less well-maintained than
the regularly checked stations in the U.S. and Western Europe.

Also, those IPCC summaries all operate on what Dr. Courtney calls an at-best
strange presumption, that being that there is a difference between "climate
variability" and "climate change." Variability, according to the summaries,
is natural, while "change" is man-made. These summaries consider all
fluctuations occurring before the industrial revolution to be variability;
all that occurring after is "climate change." "Whatever that is, it is not
science," said Dr. Courtney.

Courtney, an avowed socialist, stressed that the scientists were of varied
political philosophies and thus were not joined or motivated by politics.
Indeed, he asserted the opposite, saying "chickens do come home to roost;
given time, these scientific flaws will come out but, it seems, that only
after an agreement which harms the poor is underway." He stated that, at
that time, "[journalists] won't blame the politicians who rammed this
through, but the scientists. And that's me. And I object."

Earlier, other IPCC reviewers briefed interested parties earlier in the
process, also expressing concern over the inconsistencies between the
underlying work and the summary proclamations. While being careful to avoid
citing any specific document not available to participating parties for such
purposes, they cited how the Summary for Policymakers provides headline
conclusions with underlying paragraphs that support the headlines. Some
underlying statements, they explained, do include judgments of uncertainty
or likelihood, which helps convey the confidence that should be assigned to
the conclusions.

However, they continued, there are many instances where facts and analyses
that do not support the conclusions are not mentioned. Because of this,
these reviewing scientists claim, the conclusions appear more conservative
than they are. They offered specific, detailed comments providing
suggestions, that they had already submitted to the U.S. negotiators,
whereby "balance could be added by including both statements that do and do
not support the overall conclusions."

Participating scientists in today's briefing, sponsored by the "Cooler Heads
Coalition" of public policy organizations focused on fostering debate over
the science and economics surrounding Kyoto, also included a geophysicist
and an expert on severe weather events. They addressed a packed room
liberally peppered with well-pierced youths who initially expressed
displeasure with this dissenting opinion. The audience, however, generally
settled down and in fact stayed in large numbers for extended sidebar
discussions with the scientists, afterward in the hallways.

===============
(4) PROJECT TO UNLOCK ARMAGH'S UNIQUE 200-YEAR LONG METEOROLOGICAL RECORD

From Larry Klaes <lklaes@BBN.COM>

http://www.arm.ac.uk/press/200years-on-the-Net.html

200 Years On The Net

13th November 2000

Staff at Armagh Observatory have begun a new project to unlock Armagh's
unique 200-year long meteorological record. These observations, which
comprise an important part of Northern Ireland's scientific heritage,
represent the longest climate archive from a single site in Ireland and have
a key role to play in understanding the causes of global warming. The
project staff will make the historic records available over the internet to
schools, historians, and individual climate researchers, and provide
individual series of typed data for detailed scientific analysis.

Armagh's unique weather records are of special interest to students of
global warming. John Butler, astronomer in charge of the project, said "In
the Armagh Observatory's records we already see the influence of Global
Warming over the past century and they indicate strongly that changes in the
Sun are at least partially responsible."

As storms, floods and heavy rainfall increasingly hit the headlines, we need
to know their cause, how unusual they are, and whether they really are
coming more often than in the past. Answers to these questions lie in
further research, and in detailed analyses of long time series
meteorological data such as that contained in the Armagh archive.

The meteorology project, which is expected to last for a total of two years,
is supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund. It will encourage greater
appreciation of Northern Ireland's rich scientific heritage, give modern
electronic access to the whole meteorological record and observational
archive, and provide a permanent climatological resource for future
research, learning and education.

For further details, contact John Butler or John McFarland at Armagh
Observatory, College Hill, Armagh, BT61 9DG; Tel: 028-3752-2928, FAX:
028-3752-7174; e-mail: cjb@star.arm.ac.uk; jmf@star.arm.ac.uk.

===============
(5) MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD AND LITTLE ICE AGE IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

From CO2 Science, 22 November 2000
http://www.co2science.org/journal/2000/v3n32c2.htm

Reference
Huffman, T.N. 1996. Archaeological evidence for climatic change during the
last 2000 years in southern Africa. Quaternary International 33: 55-60.

What was done
Based on the temperature and water requirements of the crops cultivated by
the first agropastoralists that lived in southern Africa, the author was
able to construct a climate history for the region based on archaeological
evidence related to the locations and sizes of various Iron Age settlements
uncovered there.

What was learned
It was determined that much of southern Africa is presently neither as warm
nor as wet as it was from approximately AD 900-1300. It was also determined
that this "medieval warm period" was followed by a cold period that
corresponds to the Little Ice Age, which had imbedded with in it, however, a
warmer episode between 1500 and 1675. Thereafter, the cold returned and
continued to approximately 1780, whereupon it gradually began to warm again.

What it means
The archaeological data upon which the climate reconstructions of this paper
are based, i.e., dated relic evidence of the presence of cultivated sorghum
and millets, is considered by the author to be so strong as to essentially
prove that the climate of the Medieval Warm Period must have been warmer and
wetter than it is today, for these crops cannot currently be grown in this
part of southern Africa under contemporary climatic conditions that are too
cool and too dry.  This finding thus adds to the other evidence we have
posted on our website relative to the fact that the Medieval Warm Period was
indeed warmer than it is today, which contradicts the climate-alarmist claim
that current temperatures are the warmest they have been for the past
millennium.  Also, the author's data "show the subcontinent-wide extent of
the climatic changes," demonstrating that both the Medieval Warm Period and
the Little Ice Age were more than just localized north Atlantic phenomena,
as the climate alarmists are trying to make the public believe.
 
Copyright 2000.  Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change


============
(6) THE SUN ALSO WARMS

From George C Marshall Institute
http://www.marshall.org/sunalsowarms.htm

By Dr. Sallie Baliunas and Dr. Willie Soon

Recent discoveries that shed light on the possible influence of the Sun on
the climate of the Earth owe to experiments and instruments born of high
technology and launched into space. They have provided us with new ideas
about the nature of changes in Sun's light, its charged particle emissions,
and how they both affect the Earth.

Changes of the Sun's light and particles interact in many different ways
with the Earth's environment that extends outward to the near space
surrounding Earth. The latest surprising developments in the study of the
Sun-climate connection suggest that the Sun notably influences the
temperature of the Earth, through both changes in the Sun's light and its
wind of charged-particles.

FULL REPORT at http://www.marshall.org/sunalsowarms.htm

============
(7) CLIMATE MODELS AND THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT

From George C Marshall Institute
http://www.marshall.org/Legatesclimatemodels.htm

By David R. Legates
George C. Marshall Institute
1730 K Street, N.W., Suite 904
Washington, D.C. 20006-3868

Executive Summary
 
The U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate
Variability and Change for the Nation intends to "provide a detailed
understanding of the consequences of climate change for the nation."  This
report argues that the National Assessment will not be able to provide
policymakers and the public with useful information on climate change
because of its reliance on flawed computer climate models.  These models,
which are intended to describe climate only on a very large scale, are
currently used by the National Assessment to describe possible scenarios of
regional climate change in the U.S.  Because current models cannot
accurately represent the existing climate without manipulation, they are
unlikely to render reliable global climate scenarios or provide useful
forecasts of future climate changes in regions of the United States as small
as the Midwest, West or South.
 

The Guide explains how General Circulation Models (GCMs) describe changes in
the complex factors that make up our climate, such as atmospheric changes,
interaction of the land, sea, and air, and the role of clouds in climate.
The strengths and weaknesses of climate models are discussed and the report
shows how researchers attempt to answer the important questions about global
warming as they refine their use of GCMs.

The two climate models used in the U.S. National Assessment are then
described with reference to their similarities and differences.  The
limitations of these models - the Canadian Global Coupled Model and the
Hadley Climate Model from Great Britain- are outlined with special emphasis
on their inability to provide useful regional scenarios of climate change.
The report concludes with an analysis of how well these two models reproduce
the present-day climate as a benchmark for their ability to reproduce future
climate.

FULL REPORT at http://www.marshall.org/Legatesclimatemodels.htm

===============
(8) GET OFF THE GLOBAL WARMING BANDWAGON

From BBC Online News, 16 November 2000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/newsid_1023000/1023334.stm

By William M. Gray of Colorado State University

As a boy, I remember seeing articles about the large global warming that had
taken place between 1900 and 1945. No one understood or knew if this warming
would continue. Then the warming abated and I heard little about such
warming through the late 1940s and into the 1970s.

In fact, surface measurements showed a small global cooling between the
mid-1940s and the early 1970s. During the 1970s, there was speculation
concerning an increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice age
may not be far off.

Then in the 1980s, it all changed again. The current global warming
bandwagon that US-European governments have been alarming us with is still
in full swing.

Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over the
last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many times
in the past.

This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global
ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean
circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes.
We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse gas
increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of water
vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that as
anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and upper-level
cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming - a positive
feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness that
some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts of
human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this positive
feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
 
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not
increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather
than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas
increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such a
negative feedback loop.

Climate debate has 'life of its own'

Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth and it
will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little greenhouse
gases we put into the atmosphere.

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.

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.

Copyright 2000, BBC

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK (CCNet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
The CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>.
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
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html
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 network.



CCCMENU CCC for 2000

The content and opinions expressed on this Web page do not necessarily reflect the views of nor are they endorsed by the University of

The content and opinions expressed on this Web page do not necessarily reflect the views of nor are they endorsed by the University of Georgia or the University System of Georgia.