South Africa
Dr. Kelvin Kemm
Strategy Developer, Nuclear Physicist, and Past Chairman of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation
What needs changing in Climate Change thinking? The terms; ‘Global Warming,’ ‘Climate Change’, and more recently ‘Climate Crisis’ echo around us on virtually a daily basis. We see vivid TV imagery of street demonstrations with participants demanding action by governments and private companies. We see demonstrators dressed in clown outfits, or dressed as flowers, or Mother Earth, singing and dancing. We see artistically created and gaily decorated street posters and banners, reminiscent of a carnival procession. There are climate articles in popular magazines, right next to the story of the latest Hollywood scandal, or the fashion predictions for the coming season. There are also 'climate science' articles in economics and finance magazines, sadly often containing as much scientific rigour and credibility as a national economics analysis written by a florist. Even companies which should be totally credible like banks and auditing firms, publish embarrassingly bad inaccurate reports and policies on climate change, just to please clients. They just gamble on the hopes that most readers are so ill-informed themselves that they will not spot all the scientific errors. If they published a financial analysis of the same calibre, it would be cause for huge mirth and amazement in the halls of a Stock Exchange. So where do these people get their scientific information from? Well, mostly from popular magazines and material provided by the street demonstrators. Or from a schoolgirl addressing the UN in which distinguished UN ambassadors sat spellbound at the schoolgirl wisdom. Imagine the young schoolgirl giving the UN a presentation on international economics, or the solutions to major world health problems. Would UN ambassadors fall over each other to announce to the TV cameras just how much their eyes were opened and how they will now inform their respective governments. That makes for an interesting mental image. Invariably very emotive terminology and imagery is used to hammer home a climate message to recipients, who apparently do not have the cognitive ability to correctly understand. We therefore constantly hear of this global warming as if it is a new phenomenon on the planet. The public are not told of the fact that the world has gone through warming events before; such as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Roman Warming, and the Minoan Warming. They are not told that the MWP was as warm as now and probably warmer. They are not told that this was followed, at the time of Shakespeare, by the Little Ice Age when the Thames froze so solid that horse-drawn 1
coaches were driven down the river. One has to wonder why this is all covered up, or at the least intentionally overlooked in the interests of encouraging a pliable public mood. The term 'the science is settled' is used a great deal. But is the science settled? What is this science anyway? Popular mood Of course the climate articles in popular magazines, the demonstrations featured on TV, and the calls to politicians and business to 'see sense,' all contribute towards a popular mood amongst many people. Then add to this the age-old technique of the fear factor. Tell people that they are going to fry and die, or that their properties will be drowned in floods, or that crop failures will lead to mass starvation. Tell school children that they will have no future, and that this state of affairs is the fault of their parents' generation and of the current world governments. Predictably, a result is many politicians clamouring to convince impressionable voters that they are really totally behind any actions to curb industry, who can clearly be seen to be at fault. Bankers join in to explain how they will only finance industry expansions which make sense to the bankers, who have themselves never been in a factory or down a mine. So we find an interesting state of affairs in which some world leaders and business leaders want to be seen to be solidly amongst the popular crowd, rather than amongst the quieter professionals who are actually the ones who are right. How does science evolve? There are essentially two approaches to developing scientific advance. The one is for a scientist to create a theoretical proposition based on intelligent guesswork and informed speculation, and then to present the proposals to the experimental scientists to test, to see if reality does what the maths proposes. This was the approach used by Einstein. The other approach is when some scientist discovers or observes some real occurrence and is able to carry out some real experimental measurements which may or may not make sense. The scientist then presents the measured observations from reality to the scientific community in the hopes that others can generate the maths to explain what is happening. James Watt did this when he found that expanding steam could move objects, like the lid of his mother's boiling kettle. Michael Faraday also used this approach when he found that if he moved a magnet near an electrical wire, it induced an electrical current. This observation eventually led to the development of electric motors, generators and transformers. Of course, Watt's observations led to the development of the steam engine which was a major factor in launching the industrial age. Neither Watt nor Faraday had much formal education and lacked the mathematical skills to fully scientifically formulate what they had discovered. In 2
contrast, Einstein who was mathematically very competent did not do any experimental or observational work to prove any of the ideas which he proposed. He left that to others. The point being that scientific formulation and development has evolved over centuries, to follow a very well-defined set of protocols to verify the accuracy of notions or ideas which are proposed, or to explain the scientific process behind some sighting or observation. The protocols exist for a reason; to ensure truth and to avoid errors. What has been observed on the climate front? It is interesting to take our minds back a short time to the 1970s and ask: what was the popular climate scene then? Interestingly that was a period of fear over a story of potential extreme global cooling. Around the world there was fear that the planet was freezing up. There were stories of eternal winters, of lakes and rivers freezing solid, of streets permanently clogged with snow. Newspapers and popular magazines carried these stories. This fear was triggered by the fact that global temperatures had declined for a decade after rising at the time of World War II. Then in the 1980’s temperature began to rise, leading to fears of global warming. Talking of cooling and warming, let us get a bit of a handle on the actual magnitudes of the numbers. The recognised figure for global warming is about 1oC, which is the rise in atmospheric temperature 'since the industrial age,' which is the phrase which global warming protagonists like to use. So when was 'the industrial age'? It was the same period as the Crimean War, or the beginning of the reign of Queen Victoria. That is the same period as when Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States, and Mpande was King of the Zulus. If you attend a concert and applause enthusiastically, your hands will rise in temperature by more than that 1oC figure. So your hands will rise in temperature by more than the planet has risen since Queen Victoria said: "We are not amused." What about the CO2? The amount of CO2 gas in the atmosphere has risen from a proportion of 0.03% to 0.04%. If you were to equate the height of Table Mountain to the total composition of the atmosphere, then the total CO2 percentage would be the equivalent of placing a hiking rucksack on the top of the Mountain. The increase in CO2, since the presidency of Abraham Lincoln would be equal in height to a tin of jam inside the rucksack. Greenhouse Effect and Enhanced Greenhouse Effect
3
In the earlier days of global warming, before the concept of climate change was introduced, one heard a great deal about the Greenhouse Effect. So what is that? Obviously the term is linked to the botanical greenhouse, but the comparison is not very good. A botanical greenhouse gets warm mainly because it is sealed up and the warm air is trapped inside. The air warms because the sunlight shines through the glass and warms up the ground, plants, pots and air inside. It is not so much due to what is called the Greenhouse Effect. In the case of planet Earth, sunlight comes in and warms the ground, vegetation, water, and so on. The heat comes in, in the form of the infrared in sunlight. The ground; vegetation; water; then re-radiate some of the heat absorbed, again as infrared (IR). But there is a law of physics which states that the re-radiated IR cannot be at the same wavelength as the IR which was absorbed. Some of the re-radiated IR will not pass back out through the atmosphere. This is the Greenhouse effect. So let us examine how this works: CO2 molecules will absorb certain IR wavelengths, but not others. So there are some IR wavelengths which come in from the Sun and pass through the CO2 of the atmosphere, but then the re-radiated IR will not pass back through the CO2 because it is then at a different wavelength, a wavelength for which CO2 is not 'transparent.' This heat is then trapped and leads to some warming of the atmosphere. This is known as the Earth's Greenhouse Effect. This Greenhouse Effect has always been present and has meant that the Earth became warm enough for life to develop on the Planet. Without the natural Greenhouse Effect, it is quite likely that the Earth would have remained too cold for any advanced life to develop. But then at the end of the 20th Century we started to hear of 'Global Warming,' and it was attributed to an 'Enhanced Greenhouse Effect,' which is a totally different matter. What is more, the 'enhanced' effect was attributed to additional CO2 gas accumulated since the time of Queen Victoria and President Lincoln. This is the amount of CO2 equal to the height of a jam tin on Table Mountain. The truth of the matter is that we do not know if there is any 'enhanced' greenhouse effect taking place. What we do know is that the temperature of the atmosphere has increased by about 1oC since Queen Vic. But why this has happened is uncertain. Historical evidence What history tells us is that at the time of Shakespeare, which was also the time when Jan van Riebeeck landed at the Cape of Good Hope; the climate was unusually cold in England and Europe. In fact in England the period is known as the Little Ice Age (LIA), and at times the Thames froze over with the ice being so thick that people rode horse-drawn carriages on the river. A number of paintings of the period exist, showing
4
Ice Fairs being held on the river with crowds of people, tents, horses and carriages on the ice. This all happened without any evident change in CO2 concentration. If we look further back in history to Medieval times, we find that it is welldocumented that there was a period of warming which is known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). During this period Vikings farmed in Greenland, and there is evidence of various crops being grown in Europe under warm conditions. Such crops do not grow there today. Going back yet further, we find another cold period known as the Dark Ages Cooling, and before that another warm period; the Roman Warming. Interestingly all the warm periods are associated with health, wealth and prosperity, whereas the cold periods are associated with crop failures, hunger and strife. Also interesting is evidence that both the MWP and the Roman Warming had warmth peaks which were hotter than the planet is now. Those warm periods certainly had nothing to do with industrial CO2. So why is the current slight warmth attributed to a CO2 increase, particularly CO2 produced by industrial activity and modern human advance, and improvement in living standards. There is also scientific evidence in South Africa indicating the presence of the MWP, the LIA and the Roman Warming occurring over much of southern Africa, supporting the contention that these temperature variation periods were global and not localised to Europe, as some people like to claim. Where does extra CO2 come from? It has been stated here that extra CO2 has definitely accumulated in the atmosphere since the time of the Crimean War and the rule of King Mpanda. The total amount is represented by the jam tin on Table Mountain. So where does CO2 generally come from? Atmospheric CO2 comes from natural plant growth, from natural combustion and chemical processes, and from the oceans. Some CO2 also comes from industrial activity. Oceans and lakes release vast amounts of CO2 as they warm. Cold water holds more CO2 than warmer water. Anybody who has ever used a home carbonation device to make soda water or fizzy drinks knows this. The instructions tell you to use cold water out of the fridge, because it absorbs much more CO2 gas than warm water, so you get a much fizzier drink. There is no doubt that the technological advance of Mankind plus the huge increase in world population has led to a significant increase in atmospheric CO2. But CO2 is also constantly produced in massive amounts by totally natural processes. The big question is: does the increase in CO2 matter? Or maybe it is beneficial and we need more of it.
5
There are in fact many indications that the world is currently CO2-deprived and that we need more of it. All plants on earth evolved in conditions of much higher CO2 content than now. Plants love CO2 and thrive in higher concentrations. This produces higher crop yields and general vegetation growth. The planet is now greening itself more than ever before. How does heat trapping work? Popular magazines and simple newspaper articles regularly tell us that atmospheric CO2 traps heat. They also say that more CO2 means more heat-trapping. But why does CO2 trap heat, but not oxygen or nitrogen? They skip that question out. A simple mental image is created, of some 'blanket' of CO2 acting like a layer around the Earth. Why does the popular image of the blanket of CO2 appear to work for heat travelling outwards but not for heat travelling inwards from the Sun? The answer is that heat-trapping is far more complex than the simplistic picture created by popularist media, and the spokespersons at street demonstrations. What happens is that there is an interaction between the photons of light and the CO2 molecules. Well in reality it is photons of infrared, which humans can't actually see, but IR lies right next to the red part of the light spectrum, so thinking in terms of 'light' is fine for a mental picture. The CO2 molecule is like a stick, or a straight rod. When an infrared photon of the correct wavelength strikes a CO2 molecule, it vibrates. Generate a mental picture of a guitar string being plucked. But this vibration only happens if the IR is of the correct frequency or wavelength. (frequency and wavelength are linked so one can actually use either term to illustrate the point). Other IR frequencies pass on without being stopped. When IR comes in from the Sun, it covers a whole range of frequencies. These come in and strike the ground, trees, water and so on. The rules of physics dictate that all objects will re-radiate some of the heat absorbed. The rules also state that the re-radiated heat must be at a different longer wavelength. So a wavelength that will pass by a CO2 molecule on the way in, will be altered to a different wavelength on re-radiation, which could interact with a CO2 molecule on the way out, and be trapped. That leads one to the realisation that there is a saturation point. A CO2 molecule can't just keep absorbing more and more heat. The technical jargon is that the atmosphere has various IR-windows, and IR passes through some of them but not others. These IR-windows have been studied in great detail by the people who make IR-guided military missiles. In the early days of IR missiles, jet fighter pilots used a trick to evade a missile fired at them. When the 6
missile locked-on they would fly towards the Sun. The missile would then 'see' the brighter Sun and interpret that as the jet exhaust. The pilot would then execute a quick turn and the missile would continue to race towards the Sun. But missile development soon got past that weakness, and missiles became much 'smarter'. The missile was programmed to be able to detect the IR frequencies from a jet engine, and to distinguish it from the IR spectrum of the Sun, so a missile was no longer 'fooled' by that trick. The point being that IR penetration of the atmosphere is extremely well understood by science. It is far more complex and subtle than the popular magazine version projected in Climate Change stories. Science is not a popular vote The popular magazines, and the orator on a soapbox in the park, like to say how many people agree with their interpretation. But correct and accurate science is not the result of a popular vote. It has to be correct, or it is wrong! There are many people in science history who were right, when the popular vote was well and truly against them. Consider Galileo who stated in public that the Sun does not orbit around the Earth; it is the other way around. Galileo was not the discoverer of this idea but he made the mistake of trying to popularise the idea. This went against the conventional but incorrect interpretation of the time. The authorities of the day did not want to appear wrong so they condemned his ideas, banned his book, and even sentenced him to house arrest. His book was banned for 500 years. But it turned out that the ideas that he explained were right. Charles Darwin was also shouted down by the authorities of the day. He was ostracized by society, not for 500 years, but for many years of his career span. As intelligent people began to realise that he was right, he was brought back into favour, to the point that he was awarded accolades and was held up as a genius. Isaac Newton was discounted by many and he became so upset that he hid much of his work. Eventually Edmund Halley, after whom Halley's Comet was named, persuaded Newton to publish his famous work 'Principia,' and Halley paid the publication costs. Newton caused science to take a great leap forward, but he agonized over how to convince sceptics. When Einstein first proposed what appeared to be crazy ideas, like the idea that time slows down the faster you travel; numbers of people discounted the ideas as too crazy to be true. But at least Einstein produced his proposals in the 20th Century when society would not burn him at the stake, and a wider group of qualified scientists could openly debate.
7
Today with Global Warming and Climate Change ideas, sadly in many respects, society has returned to the time of Galileo, and they seem ready to 'burn anyone at the stake' who does not accept the catastrophe version of Global Warming, without question. A claim of a large-scale popular vote seems to trump any smaller group of qualified scientists who disagree. That is not a desirable state of affairs in which to make important decisions which affect the economy and progress of the country. Media manipulation In our modern world there is more public media than ever before. Sadly what is also true is that more and more public media is controlled by less and less responsible and competent people. A few decades ago, all the public media had to be printed, such as a newspaper or magazine, and they relied on sales to stay in business. Each publication had an editor who had to exercise careful judgement on the basis of sustaining sales. Today, in contrast, virtually anybody can set up a personal publication on the internet, at virtually no cost, and broadcast worldwide with no requirement of sales volume to stay in business. In addition, the person does not answer to anybody who can remove them for poor work, or for irresponsible behaviour. A result is a proliferation of publicly available material which ranges from being of suspect accuracy, to being blatantly wrong, to being outright propaganda. Furthermore, the people who write for a propaganda effect assemble their own 'facts' very rapidly, and then write using emotive language and vivid imagery designed to draw in well-meaning but gullible readers. In contrast, all scientists take time and care to assemble genuine factual information and then present it in a dry academic manner which is designed, by tradition, to be open to opposing scrutiny, and not at all designed to garner emotive public support. Predictably the propaganda camp has a huge advantage, and they use it. As the more mainstream magazines realise where much public sympathy lies, albeit wrong, they can't resist getting on the same bandwagon because a pre-conditioned receptive audience is waiting. Many politicians and business leaders then want to be publicly seen to be in the heart of popular public sentiment, and so they back the incorrect science. What it boils down to is that for the economic health and welfare of the nation, responsible thinkers and decision-makers must see past the volume of incorrect noise around the climate change issue and find the real truth. In the 1930’s numbers of sensible, thinking German citizens could see through the public 'noise' of the Hitler movement. But historical analysis informs us that many of them thought that in due course it would all just die out, and that the society would return to normal. Well it didn't.
8
Fake public perceptions concerning Climate Change are already damaging for the economy and society at large and can become much worse. Basic statistics What do we encounter in the public media, related to statistics? How often have you heard that Global Warming and Climate Change will lead to dry areas becoming drier, and wet areas becoming wetter. We are then told that this trend will lead to crop failures and floods. Ask yourself; why should a dry area not get wetter and a wet area not get drier, leading to improved crop yields and the availability of more land for agriculture and urban development. Everyone knows that if you flip a coin many times, the result will be 50% heads and 50% tails. So why do climate change enthusiasts predict a virtual 100% bad outcome, if the climate changes. Why does popular media not ask this very fundamental question? The whole statistics issue can be examined in much greater depth, which some scientists have done. The results are mostly ignored by the media. These include realities like the Heat Island Effect. One finds for example, that many weather measuring points were set up decades ago at places like an airfield or a rural agricultural station. Then as development took place, the aircraft type, size, and flight frequency changed dramatically, and activity around the agricultural station increased and altered to be more mechanized. But daily temperatures are still being recorded, without considering the general increase in heat produced by the altered activities close by. This is called the Heat Island Effect. Many such measuring points have been found to have reported increased temperatures over decades; the temperature increases reported being amounts of less than one degree. So what do such temperature records really tell us? Do they really say that the planet is warming, or do they tell us that the airport is much busier than it used to be? Computer models Modern computer models are incredibly sophisticated and complex. They utilise advanced mathematics. Such models are used by structural engineers to predict if a proposed bridge or high-rise building design could collapse in a high wind or earthquake. They are also used to predict Climate Change. In the case of a bridge design, scientists and engineers build small model bridges to scale, and then blow air currents around them, or shake them, to simulate winds or 9
earthquakes. The resulting data is fed into the computer model to advance towards accurately simulating real world conditions and scales. The same happens for climate models, but it is not very easy to build a small-scale experimental climate, particularly when you want to insert very small variations, and then carry out predictions valid for a hundred years into the future. A climate is also incredibly complex, so producing accurate models is extremely difficult. But the real big snag is that such climate models are extremely sensitive to very small variations in input conditions. In the case of Climate Change issues, the inputs consist of very small variations to start with. We are talking about temperature changes of less than one degree since the reign of Queen Victoria, with the added complexity that the nature of society has continuously changed as well. The geography and land topology does not change around the bridge construction site as the bridge is being designed. Designers can at least keep that effectively constant as they develop an evolving bridge design. Unfortunately, all too often one reads in a popular article that 'computer models predict' that climate change in some area like the Cape citrus region is going to result in crop failures. Other publications then repeat and reinforce that this is going to happen, because 'scientists say...' But readers are not informed that climate computer models are maybe 50% accurate if you are lucky, and that if you alter one or two Cape inputs ever-so-slightly, that the model will quite possibly produce the opposite answer. A very dangerous thing to do is to take different computer models and add them together, and then 'average them out' so to speak. But this is what the UN IPCC does. They take 29 models and 'add them together'. The outcome produces a result with a prediction that the vast circumpolar body of water between South Africa, South America and Australia; and the Antarctic, comes out to be 1.5oC or more, warmer than it really is. If this were the case in reality, it would cause huge tracts of sea-ice to melt to water, which would result in significant climatic changes. So in effect the IPCC approach assumes huge tracts of ice to be water, which would result in significant climatic changes. Another thing which has been done by scientists is that the computer model predictions from the 1970s and 1980s have been compared with what actually happened since then. None of the models have predicted the current situation. Some looked quite good for a few years but then deviated. So if computer models have not been able to correctly predict the outcome of the last 20 years, why should one believe the predictions for the next 20 years, or for the next century. Let us accept that the models must be getting better, but the data sensitivity is still the same. We are still talking of fractions of a single degree being able to make a major difference. On the basis of computer models, some people have come up with a magical number of a 2oC 'Tipping Point.' They say that at some point by the year 2100 the atmospheric temperature could increase by 2oC since the time of President Lincoln. They then say that at that moment runaway global warming will occur, which will herald major disaster. 10
This 2oC Tipping Point belief has become so universal that Prime Ministers and Presidents mention it, and governments build it into national policy. Consequently, it informs national economic policy. This in turn affects the construction of energy systems, transport development, water supply, and the list goes on. One must ask: is this sensible? Psychology of the game We went through the 'global cooling' scare of the 1970’s, which most people probably don't know about or don't remember. There was not a very large public fear factor established at the time. This then gave way to Global Warming. Global Warming disaster predictions abounded. Silly stories came about, like Global Warming leading to such severe water shortages that water wars would break out between countries. Nobody seemed to ask: where would the water go? Or; after the war what would the winning country do; go and take all the water from the losing neighbour? How? Comments about the MWP, LIA and other historical natural climate change events were suppressed. Public fear had to be vigorously fanned; in the strategy of the warming enthusiasts. When the predicted warming did not get hot enough and when dramatic temperature rises failed to materialise, 'Global Warming' was altered to 'Climate Change' so that snowed-in airports in Europe and the US could also be blamed on 'warming.' Then the idea of 'Extreme Weather Events' was introduced and utilised to create more fear, by blaming any major weather event on climate change. In reality extreme weather events are no more frequent now than they ever have been. Records show this, but those statistics are suppressed. Quite ridiculous have been attempts to try to show that hurricanes striking the US are far worse than in previous years. One tactic was; drawing graphs of increased insurance claims for storm damage. No account was taken of the fact that by sheer bad luck a couple of hurricanes struck highly built-up areas, like Hurricane Sandy hitting New York City in 2012. But as far back as 1900 the worst hurricane ever in US history caused something like 10 000 fatalities. It was Hurricane Galveston. Critical terminology change Recently a subtle but critical change in terminology took place. Without many people noticing; the word 'change' became 'crisis' in many media comments. So now we see the term 'climate crisis'. Obviously, this term sounds much more urgent. This term was largely projected by the organisation calling itself; Extinction Rebellion. One incident which projected them to prominence was them holding a mass demonstration in London which blocked roads and bridges and caused a great deal of chaos for a number of days. The British authorities were strangely reluctant to act 11
against them, to reopen the roads and bridges. The demonstrators were characterized by a carnival mood. Demonstrators dressed up in a wide variety of costumes, sang and danced, and waved artistic placards. The urgency of a ‘crisis’ was projected; without any evidence that there is one. The computer-generated Tipping Point was used as a crisis marker. The term ‘crisis’ was repeated around the world; such that many media outlets just seemed to assume that there is a crisis. They repeated the message. School children were encouraged to go on strike. Many other associated actions of the extreme green lobby were quite bizarre. What do we know scientifically? We regularly hear people of standing in life saying, ‘the science is settled’. But that certainly is not true. The situation is far more complex than projected. So what do we actually know, scientifically speaking? We know that since the time of the reign of Queen Victoria that the atmospheric temperature of the planet has increased by about 1oC. We also know that since about the same time the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere has increased from 0.03% to 0.04%. We know that the CO2 percentage has continued to rise since the time of Queen Victoria and President Abraham Lincoln, which is also the time of the Great Trek. But we also know that the temperature since that period did not rise all of the time. Around the 1940’s the temperature rose quite a lot, then fell during the 1950's, only to rise again in the 1960’s. This was followed by quite a steep decline in the 1970’s, followed by a rising trend in the 1980’s. Just before 2000 it flattened out for the following decade. During all of this time the CO2 concentration continued to rise. We know that there is an effect called 'greenhouse warming' in which the temperature of the atmosphere is affected to some degree, by infrared interacting with some gases in the atmosphere. We know that these gases include water vapour; carbon dioxide; methane; of which water vapour is by far the largest contributor. We know that CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere by normal biological processes; by the oceans; by geological processes, such as volcanoes and chemical reactions in minerals; and by modern industry. We know that there are a number of other factors which affect atmospheric temperature such as cloud cover and ocean currents. We know that regional factors contribute to the whole. For example, what type of surface does the sunlight strike when impinging on the Earth. Is it ocean, land, or ice? In the case of land; is this desert or dense vegetation, etc. Such considerations lead to different amounts of heat being absorbed and emitted. In view of this, it is clear that the variations in the Seasons also play a role.
12
We know that the temperature of the planet has varied significantly over the time of recorded history. For example, records exist for the Medieval Warm Period (MWP); Little Ice Age (LIA); Roman Warming Period; Minoan Warming; etc. We know that no industrial CO2 played any role during past centuries. Another important scientific factor We know that a constant, but variable, stream of nuclear particles from the Sun affects the Earth's magnetic shield and upper atmosphere. This is called the Solar Wind. Effects are clearly seen in the Northern and Southern Lights, visible over Polar Regions. We know that solar storms on the Sun cause variations in the magnetic field of the Sun which in turn cause the Solar Wind to vary. We know that an indicator of solar activity is sunspots, which are visible from Earth. Sunspot activity has been accurately recorded scientifically since the mid 1700’s but has also been recorded, less formally, from various places around the Earth from periods much earlier than that. What we discover is that the variations in the solar magnetic activity match up rather accurately with the observed temperature variation on the Earth. They clearly match up with the MWP and the LIA. There are also matches with the Roman Warming and the Minoan Warming periods. In fact the temperature of the Earth for the past few centuries matches the solar magnetic activity graph far better than it matches the CO2 concentration graph. Such scientific evidence of a match with solar magnetic activity should cause scientists and scientifically interested lay people to take serious note. But objecting scientists who do put up their hands and appeal for attention are offensively labelled ‘deniers’ and even hounded out of jobs. We also know that a constant stream of cosmic rays from Deep Space affects cloud cover. There is therefore no logical scientific reason to imply that atmospheric CO2 is any more of a factor in the observed global warming than is the Earth’s magnetic field variation, induced by the Sun. So what is actually happening to the atmosphere with the cosmic rays and the magnetic variations of the Sun? What is causing what? Space and Sun We know that cosmic rays from Deep Space constantly impinge on the upper atmosphere of the Earth. We know that these cosmic rays can lead to the creation of clouds. The condensation trails seen behind high-flying jet aircraft are well-known. These are, in effect, streams of cloud. What happens is that the engines eject fine particles of soot and also eject ionized particles. These act as nucleation points on which water condensation starts and so leads to cloud formation. It is the same thing which happens when nuclear particles come in from outer space and cause the creation of ionization nuclei in the atmosphere. These become sites at which cloud droplets form. 13
When a higher amount of nuclear radiation comes in from outer space more cloud is formed. So how does the amount of nuclear radiation coming into the atmosphere vary? The answer is that it has to pass through the magnetic field of the Earth which acts as a partial shield for electrically charged particles. Under normal circumstances this effect can be seen in the well-known Northern and Southern Lights, seen over Arctic and Antarctic regions. The coloured curtains of light which dance in the sky are formed from charged particles from outer space that are coming down through the atmosphere, creating an effect very similar to how a fluorescent tube light works. Over the Polar Regions the Earth's magnetic field is rather vertical as it 'comes down' to the Poles, so the electrically charged ions do not cross the magnetic field so much, and consequently are not deflected away. If the magnetic field surrounding the Earth is stronger it will screen out more ionic radiation from outer space. When the Earth's shielding field is weaker then more particles get through. The Earth's protective shield is produced as a combination of the magnetic field of the Earth and the magnetic field influence from the Sun. It is well known that the Sun goes through regular magnetic cycles. These are correlated with the number of sunspots observed on the surface of the Sun. Few sunspots means low magnetic activity. Sunspots are actually giant magnetic storms, so more sunspots mean increased magnetic activity. This results in a stronger magnetic influence on the Earth. The observed conclusions arrived at are that a weak magnetic shield around the Earth allows more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere. They induce more cloud. More cloud prevents the Sun’s natural heat from reaching the ground. This causes the Earth to be cooler, leading to global cooling. A stronger magnetic shield leads to global warming, due to less cloud shield, thus allowing the ground to absorb heat and so heat up the atmosphere generally. The MWP, LIA, and modern warming (and lack of during the 21st Century) link well to Sunspot number and magnetic field variation. Linkage to CO2 concentration is very poor, and any actual causality cannot be shown. It is inferred because of the existence of a Greenhouse Effect and the physics of IR windows. Why the focus on CO2? Organisations such as Greenpeace and other similar ones, have pushed hard to ‘save the planet,’ from an increase in CO2 emissions. This call is only meaningful if there is someone to blame. The blame has been directed at industry in general and the burning of fossil fuels in particular. Since ‘saving the planet’ is a very honourable-sounding cause to strive for, it is easy to gain many supporters. It would be a very inconvenient truth to have to admit that observed global warming is entirely natural and is caused by the Sun. Also, that this has happened often before. 14
Even more awkward is that global warming periods have been associated with health, welfare and economic progress, whereas cooling periods (like the LIA) are associated with crop failures, disease, famine and economic failure. So attacking CO2 production allows groups to produce conferences; international meetings; and legislation; leading to the inducement of guilt and blame. So it is a very good target for rage, indignation, and financial return. You can’t do all that for solar magnetic activity. Give it some thought These days it is almost impossible for a day to go by without reference to Climate Change appearing somewhere. The topic is a psychology which pervades life in general. It affects so many things; from flying in aircraft, to canned food, to electricity production, to driving your car. Business after business tells you to be green and that their product is so green because their claim is based on CO2 which they have 'saved' because they never produced it in the first place. This is like explaining how much gold you have 'saved' because you don't own gold-plated cutlery. One has to ask the question: if this psychology pervades society to such a degree, is it not important at least to understand the basis of the argument? The CO2 argument leads to wind and solar power; carbon taxes; and the CO2-use figure printed on your air ticket. We see promotional material urging people to use wind and solar power to 'Save the Planet.' Note that the motivation is not because that technology is a superior engineering or superior economics solution. So consumers are paying for political policy, not for engineering efficiency. We are being driven by a belief philosophy, and not by optimum economics. What if the fundamentals supporting that belief are wrong? If they are wrong then in due course the truth will come out, it always does. The inescapable conclusion is that many more members of society really need to think for themselves. Far too many are getting all of their information from popular magazines and from people on public platforms, beating an emotional drum. When a 16 year old Swedish school girl gets invited to address the United Nations on the scientific topic of Climate Change one really needs to wonder if this is correct. Why were international representatives to the UN so enraptured by her, particularly when her presentation was so full of offensive remarks? Is something wrong? What percentage of the public is being fooled all of the time? What percentage some of the time? What is the real truth behind the barrage of comment? Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and is CEO of Stratek Business Strategy Consultants, a project management company based in Pretoria. He carries out business strategy development and project planning in a wide variety of fields for diverse clients. Stratek@pixie.co.za
15
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.” Voltaire 1694 - 1778 “Doubt is an uncomfortable condition, but certainty is a ridiculous one.” Voltaire 1694 - 1778
16