Twitching In Sleep And Iron Deficiency

Global warming illusory, Part 1

by Zbigniew Jaworowsky, MD, Ph.D., D., D.Sc.

Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland.
also served as Chief of UNSCEAR,
Scientific Committee of the United Nations on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.

(English translation of Eduardo Ferreyra,
the article published in the journal Science & Technology Centruy 21st)

Despite billions of dollars in studies and millions of propaganda headlines , global warming predicted by computer climate modeling industry is not scientifically real.

The amount of money spent on climate studies worldwide has reached a staggering U.S. $ 5,000 million per year [1]. Only in the United States spend more $ 2,000 million, not including the cost of satellites, ships and construction of laboratories [2]. Climatologists have obtained this fabulous amount of money to invent a vision on a global scale catastrophe, caused by man.

In the decades of 70 and 80, the computer models prophesied a doubling of CO2 content in the atmosphere for the next 60 years. The greenhouse effect of this increase in CO2, along with other gases released by humans into the atmosphere, CH4, N2, CFC-11 (Freon), and CFC-12-supposed to increase the global surface temperature by 5 ° C. In the polar regions, increased projected to reach 10 ° C [3-5]. Later, climatologists truncated estimates of computer models of the temperature rise caused by man for the year 2100 to 3.5 ° C [6], first, and then to 2.3 ° C. [7]

Global warming caused by greenhouse gases caused by humans is normally presented as a grim disaster that will induce mass extinction of animal and plant epidemics of infectious and parasitic diseases, droughts and floods and even invasions mutant insects resistant to insecticides. It is predicted that the melting of glaciers will cause an elevation of 3.67 meters from sea level, flooding islands, densely populated coastal areas and big cities [6, 8].

befall mass migrations and a host of other social and environmental consequences, always harmful, never beneficial. According to one American climatologist, the tactic of "asústelos to death" seems to be the best means of raising funds for climate studies. Dr. Stephen Schneider, a leading prophet of global warming has stated very clearly:

"To capture the public imagination ... we do ... simple and dramatic statements, and very little mention of any doubts we may have ... Each of us must decide what the right balance between being effective and being honest. "[9]

Great international organizations such as World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the United Nations Environment (UNEP ), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others, addressed the huge influx of money for climate studies. The sources of these funds are the governments of many countries, the European Union and the World Bank. The IPCC Founded in 1988, became the chief scientific adviser to the countries that are part of the Convention Working Group on Climate Change United Nations, adopted in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, and known as the "Treaty on Climate Change."

IPCC reports, which have become the bible of bureaucrats and environmentalist fanatics, civilization accused of being responsible for global warming, and repeatedly declared that they reflect a true "consensus" in the scientific community. This consensus statement is absolutely false: The assessments, conclusions, and even the working method of the IPCC are criticized today by many scientists. A more accurate description current situation would be controversial. Science does not progress through a process of consensus or voting. There was no consensus on the idea of \u200b\u200bCopernicus, in his time, that the Earth orbited around the sun is not necessary consensus in science is useful for policymakers.

Many notable and competent have expressed their opinions criticizing the IPCC reports. For example, Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA and the American Physical Society, president emeritus of Rockefeller University, former chairman of the Defense Science Board, and former Scientific Advisor to NATO said: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of a process of peer review (peer review), the events that led to this IPCC report [10] . Dr. Keith Shine, one of the main authors of IPCC reports, described the editing process of the IPCC 1996 report as follows:

"We produce a draft, and then policy makers reviewed the line by line and change the way it was presented ... the data do not change but the way they are presented. It's very peculiar that they have the final say on what's in a scientific report " [11].

Cerca de la mitad de los científicos que tomaron parte en la preparación del informe del IPCC de 1996 no están de acuerdo con sus conclusiones [12] , y eso difícilmente es un "consenso". Hasta los más importantes publicaciones del establishment científico, Science y Nature, han expresado la falta de consenso del IPCC y su errónea metodología. Nature dedicó dos editoriales al tema, [13,14] y un editorial en Science dijo que:

"Si se examinan algunos artículo científicos sobre el tema (modelado del calentamiento climático) se encuentra un acuerdo virtualmente unánime de que los modelos computed are deficient. "[15] The incompatibility between procedures of the IPCC with accepted standards of scientific research carried Science to say that" the IPCC's reputation for correction procedures and consensus building about the accuracy science will be permanently compromised. "[16]

The European Forum for Science and Environment (ESEF), an independent organization, recently published two papers in which several dozen scientists (including Sir Fred Hoyle) present studies that contradict conclusions of the IPCC [17.18]. More hundred scientists signed the Leipzig Declaration, protesting the alleged consensus of the IPCC and the implementation of the Rio Treaty.

Leipzig Declaration called the terms of this treaty as "drastic policies lacking credible support from the underlying science" ... ill-advised, full economic and hazard likely prove counterproductive. " In 1998, 17,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition, protesting the Kyoto agreement in 1997. [19] These agreements demanded, among other things, the 35% reduction in energy production in the United States in a decade.

How sensitive are the leaders of the IPCC and organizations related to the threat of losing credibility (and therefore funding), it can be seen in a recent article by the former president of the overtly political IPCC, Bert Bolin, and four senior officials Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems (GCTE) and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP). Bert Bolin, writing in Science, September 14, 1999, commenting on the study by DeLucia et al., (Science, May 14, 1999, p. 1177), which projected that by 2050 the forests absorb 50% of CO2 produced man-that is, there is no imminent global warming. Bolin et al. stated: "In the current political climate post-Kyoto, scientific claims about the behavior of terrestrial carbon cycle must be done with caution..."

This is an open attempt to include political criteria in scientific statements, and a limitation on the freedom of science. This statement evokes the pagan spirit of the politically minded Soviet academic, Trofim Lysenko.

Both ideas, the global warming induced by humans and limiting the consumption of fossil fuels have long been politicized. (20) global warming became in a convenient justification for the now popular neo-Malthusian proposal of limiting population growth in Third World countries, and excessive taxation on fuel combustion. The so-called "BTU tax" would be $ 500 per ton of coal, [21] causing an eightfold increase in the price of bituminous coal and a drastic reduction in economic activity. The nuclear industry welcomed this, naively believing that, somehow, the fear of global warming will cause the public is more favorable to nuclear energy.

Maurice Strong, Secretary General Conference on Environment and Development United Nations, held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, marking the stage for political struggle: "We can get to the point that the only way to save the world will be the collapse of industrial civilization" [12]. Strong was seconded by Timothy Wirth, Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs: "We have to ride the global warming issue. Even if the warming theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."

Richard Benedick, another State Department representative said: "We must implement a treaty on global warming even when there is scientific evidence supporting the greenhouse effect." Maurice Strong advanced on his idea of \u200b\u200b"sustainable development" which he said can be implemented "by a deliberate pursuit of poverty ... ... reduced resource consumption and provincial levels of mortality control." This death sentence echoes the recommendations of Thomas Malthus in the 18th century, who counseled

"All children born, beyond what is required to maintain the population at this level, must necessarily perish unless they made place through the death of adult ... Therefore, we should facilitate, rather than silly and vain attempt to stop the operations of nature to produce this mortality. "[22]

Benefits and Costs of Catastrophism

The exhortations of climatologists on issues catastrophic are loved by the ministries of environment protection, because they justify their existence. They are also loved by the ministries of economy, eager to increase the budgets of governments through new taxes. Thus, the interests of climate scientists to get funding for their jobs are competing with the interests of governments. In fact, governments can earn 500 times more that climate, taxing all industrial emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere (5 gigatons of carbon per year) can reach 2.5 trillion dollars per year. However, losses in the global economy will be several orders of magnitude larger, ruining the entire industry in the world and cause a massive decline, as proposed by Maurice Strong in Rio de Janeiro. According to Sir Fred Hoyle, this may have the effect of making us go back to the Dark Ages Middle Ages. [23]

Just 25 years in the 70's, climate warming was called "improvement", ie a milder climate and the warm periods of the past were known as "optimal climate." Dr. Stephen Schneider, the most notorious of the prophets of the catastrophe of global warming, warned us in the '70s that industrial emissions would induce a drastic cooling, that shortly after the year 2000 would bring a new ice age [24]. At that time, the cooling was a better source of funding for the attack on the heating industry.

Scientific Bases for Weather Theories

global warming supposedly caused by human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, is a hypothesis based on computer models and theoretical arguments. The most important bases for this hypothesis is the analysis of greenhouse gases in ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. From the results, glaciologists have inferred that the content of preindustrial atmospheric CO2 was 26% lower than today. In many studies published in the last decade, studies showed that the ice samples are stained by the manipulation of data, unlawful refusal results did not suit, and unilateral interpretations-what disqualifies these studies as a reliable source of information on changes in the atmosphere during past eras.

Figure 1 Variation of Temperature on the Surface of the Earth

The three curves show temperature variations in the Earth's surface during the last million years (a), the last 10,000 years (b) and the last thousand years (c). The horizontal dotted line represents the temperature at the beginning of 20 century.
Source: IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change), 1990 (Note 6)

The low concentration of CO2 and other gases found covered in ice, are artifacts resulting from a variety of over 20 chemical and physical processes that occur either in the ice layers resulting polar ice drilling. They are the true pre-industrial atmospheric concentrations. Most of these processes tend to decrease the concentration of CO2 in the gas inclusions. These facts were totally ignored by glaciologists in its unilateral interpretation of analytical results [25-33]. Moreover, a careful analysis of the abundant Measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere made in the 19 th century, show that the average concentration before 1900 was 335 parts per million by volume (ppmv) [34]-ie, similar to the concentration of CO2 in 1978.

recently discovered that there is an inverse relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and stomatal frequency in tree leaves, and that this method provides an accurate method to detect and quantify the CO2 fluctuations over the past centuries. Maple leaves recovered from deposits of the Holocene was a lake in Denmark by a team of Dutch scientists, for example, show that 9,600 years BC atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 348 ppm concentrations as 1987. From 9,600 years before present (AAH) to 9,400 AAH levels remained between 333 and 347 ppmv. So, much against the famous ice estimates, the sign of stomatal frequency shows that concentrations of CO2 in the early Holocene were similar to those of the late 20.

The Dutch study authors said "Our findings contradict the concept of relatively stable Holocene CO2 from 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution" [35]. The study of the leaves of trees corroborate criticism of studies of ice cores and destroy the very foundations of the global warming hypothesis.

Temperature Changes: Long Cycles

atmospheric CO2 content and temperature have never been stable, have been fluctuating since the dawn of history. Geological evidence shows that the atmospheric concentration of CO2, which is now about 350 ppmv, was of 5,600 ppmv at the end of the Ordovician, are about 450 million years [36], in the Carboniferous period, 340 million years before now , was 4,000 ppmv, and in the Cretaceous period - 90 million years ago - was the level of 2,600 ppmv. These extremely high concentrations were not so obvious, associated with any "runaway greenhouse effect", the mantra of global warming propagandists.

Over the past 100 million years, the average surface temperature and the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have been systematically diminishing [37]. 50 million years ago, the CO2 concentration (2,000 ppmv) was almost 6 times larger than now, but the temperatures were only 1.5 ° C higher! In the Ordovician period, when the content of CO2 in the air was 16 times higher than today, the temperature of the tropics has not increased, and at high latitudes was recorded glaciation of Gondwanaland. [36]

The surface temperatures of the Sargasso Sea, east of the West Indies have been determined for a period of 3000 years analyzing the oxygen isotope ratio of fossil organisms in bottom sediments. The information runs until 1975. During l-heating period to 580 DC-Mediterranean countries, the Indian subcontinent and China enjoyed an unprecedented boom. Around 500 AD, a period Cooling was associated with a decline in the economy and European civilization, which was recovered in a new warming by the year 1000 AD Since the end of the Little Ice Age, the temperature has not again been as high as during the MWP.

Source: Adapted from LD Keiwin, 1996, Science, Vol 274, pp. 544-546

The reason for the lack of correlation between changes in temperature and CO2 concentrations in the past is that the main greenhouse gas is not CO2 but water vapor. It is also the case that increased CO2 concentrations above a level rather low may not cause an increase in temperature (see below). It was not CO2 that determined the permanent oscillations of Earth's climate, but changes in the solar constant which are in perfect correlation with climatic oscillations of a periodicity of about 2,500 years. This is suggested by the glacial deposits at the bottom of the North Atlantic, salt deposits in the glaciers, ocean sediments and carbon-13 content in tree rings.

The longer time scale, the duration of alternating long and asymmetric glacial cycles and much shorter warm interglacial periods, was 20,000 to 400,000 years [39]. For about 2 million years, a cycle typically lasted 100,000 years, with glacial cycles of 90,000 years duration, and warm periods of 10,000 years [6, 40, 41]. During the past 850,000 years there were 7 or 8 of such cycles. (See Figure 1). The temperature difference between warm and cold phases is 3 ° C. [42]

The current warm period began 10,500 years ago (6), so you can expect very soon the beginning of a new ice age, perhaps in the next hundred or thousand years. After an excellent climate around 1100 AD, came the Little Ice Age between 1550 and 1700, when the average global temperature was 1 ° C lower than now (Figures 1 and 2). After 1750, the climate warmed again, but we have not yet reached the level of the Century 12 (Figure 2). Around 1938 there was an acceleration of warming, and in the 40 years until 1976, the planet has been cooling. Between 1978 and 1984 there was a rapid increase in global surface temperature. The 40-year period of cooling between 1938 and 1976 occurred when 75% of total manmade CO2 was released the atmosphere (Figure 3). It is obvious that these changes were not dependent on the anthropogenic emissions of CO2.

The 40-year period of global cooling of the atmosphere between 1938 and 1976 occurred when about 75% of the total mass of CO2 produced by man was released into the atmosphere. Annual emissions of anthropogenic CO2 (dotted line) are plotted against changes in temperature near the earth's surface (solid line).

Source: Notes 96, 97 and 98.

In the European regional level, the measurements of nine representative meteorological stations show no warming between 1780 and 1989. Except for the years around 1940, Europe's climate has been cooling over the past 200 years (Fig. 4). For example, between 1780 and 1980, summer temperatures in Warsaw decreased 0.39 ° C, in Vienna, 0.91 ° \u200b\u200bC, in Prague and Budapest, 0.53 ° C. In Warsaw, the two warmest periods were the years 1899-1919 and 1934-1954, in Vienna, 1788-1817, 1943-1963 and 1970-1990; in Prague, 1797-1817 and 1943-1963, in Budapest, 1788 - 1808, 1934-1954 and 1971-1991. The maximum deviation of the average temperature of the region was +0.82 ° C, and was observed in the years 1797-1817 [43].

Except for the years around 1940, Europe's climate has been cooling over the past 200 years. Here are the trends in summer temperatures in Europe, 1780-1989, nine weather stations representative cities: Budapest, central England, De Bilt, Edinburgh, Hohenpeissenberg, St. Petersburg, Trondheim, Uppsala and Warsaw.

Source: GR Weber (see note 43).

In the United States, average annual temperatures do not show major changes between 1895 and 1997. The trend was only one hundred years +0.022 ° C per decade, and for the period 1940-1997 , 0.008 ° C per decade [44]. All these regional fluctuations can not be related to the emission of greenhouse gases caused by humans.

Satellite measurements of lower troposphere temperatures gives evidence against the theory of global warming caused by man. Between 1979 and 1997, these measurements (270,000 daily readings over 95% of the planet's surface) show a slight cooling trend of -0.04 ° C per decade (Fig. 5). At the same time, separate measurements over land and sea floor showed a warming of +0.15 ° C per decade, while computer models talk of 0.18 ° C per decade [46]. Satellite measurements are given in Figure 6. The difference between the satellite and balloon measurements, on the one hand, and firm ground, on the other, usually explained as the result of the influence of local warming of cities on land measurements, and changes in the methods of ocean measurements.

Figure 5 GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGES OF THE MEDIA in the lower troposphere

Satellite measurements of lower troposphere temperatures between 1978 and 1997 (30,000 daily readings over 95% of the Earth's surface ) show a slight cooling trend of -0.4 ° C per decade. The changes in average temperature of Earth's atmosphere are shown here of satellite measurements of lower troposphere (solid line) and the near-surface dotted line.

Source: Adapted from Gordon AH (see note 99).

data from 107 stations in California for the period 1940-1996 show that the temperature increases with increasing population density in areas where stations are located. In a country station that is not near any "urban heat island" is a negative trend during the same period 1940-1996. [47]

Figure 6
satellite measurements of temperature in the lower troposphere

satellite measurements of lower troposphere temperatures between 1978 and 1999 (deviations from average)

Notes:

1. F. Bottcher, 1996. In "The Glacial Warming Debate." J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environmental Forum), pp. 267-285
2. SF Singer, 1996. In "The Global Warming Debate", J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environ-mental Forum), pp. 146-157.
3. S.H. Schneider, 1975, J. Atmosph. Sci. Vol. 32
4. V. Ramanathan, M.S. Lian, y R.D. Cess, 1979, J. Geophys. Res. Vol. 84, pp. 4949-4958.
5. S. Manabe y R.T. Wetherald, 1980, J. Atmosph. Sci. Vol. 37, pp. 99-118.
6. Panel Intergubernamental de Cambio Climático (IPCC) 1990, "Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment", J.T. Houghton et al., eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
7. Panel Intergubernamental de Cambio Climático (IPCC) 1990, "Climate Change 1995: The Second IPCC Assessment", J.T. Houghton et al., eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
8. J.S. Hoffmann, J.B. Wells, y J.G. Titus, "Future Global Warming and Sea level Rise," en G. Sigbjamason, ed. Iceland Coastal and River Symposium, Reykjavik, Islandia, (National Energy Authority, 1986)
9. R. Bate y J. Morris, 1994. "Global Warming Apocalypse or Hot Air?" (IEA Environmental Unit)
10. F. Seitz, 1996. The Wall Street J., June 12
11. N. Winton, 1995. Reuters World Serv. Dic. 20
12. R. Kremer, 1998. Brainstorm, Abril, pp. 28-32
13. J. Maddox, 1991. Nature, Vol. 369, p. 189
14. J. Maddox, 1994. Nature, Vol. 369, p. 97.
15. P.H. Abelson, 1990. Science, Vol. 247, p. 1529.
16. A. Meyer, Nature, Vol. 378, p. 433.
17. ESEF, 1996. "The Global Warming Debate", J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environmental Forum).
18. ESEF, 1998. "Global Warming: The Continuing Debate", R. Bate, ed. (London: The European Science and Environmental Forum).
19. F.S. Singer, 1999. "New Heat in Global Warming," Financial Post (Toronto).
20. S. Boehmer-Christiansen, 1996. In "The Global Warming Debate", J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environmental Forum, London), pp. 234-248.
21. A.S. Manne and R.G. Richels, 1990. In "Scientific Perspectives on the Greenhouse Problem", R. Jastrow, W. Nierenberg, and F. Seitz, eds. (Ot tawa, III.: The Marshall Press; Jameson Books, Inc.), pp. 211-243.
22. T.R. Malthus. "An Essay on the Principle of Population; or A View of its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness; With an Inquiry into our Prospects Respecting the Future Removal or Migration of the Evils Which It Occasions", (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
23. F. Hoyle, 1996. In "The Global Warming Debate", J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environment Forum), pp. 179-189.
24. S.l. Rasool y S.H. Schneider, 1971. Science, Vol. 173, pp. 138-141.
25. Z. Jaworowski, T.V. Segalstad, y V. Hisdal, 1990. "Atmospheric CO2 and Global Warming: A Critical Review",
26. "Report of the Norsk Polarinstitutt, Oslo, No. 59, pp 1-75.
27. Z. Jaworowski, TV Ssgalstad, and N. Ono, 1992. The Sci Tot. Environ., Vol 114, pp. 227 - 284.
28. Z. Jaworowski, TV Ssgalstad, and V. Hisdal, 1992. "Atmospheric CO2 and Global Warming: A Critical Review", second revised edition (Oslo: Norsk Polarinstitutt) Meddelelse No. 119, pp. 1 -76.
29. Z. Jaworowski, 1994. Environ. Sci & Pollut. Res, Vol 1, pp. 161-171.
30. Z. Jaworowski, 1996. In "The Global Warming Debate J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environment Forum), pp. 95-105.
31. Z. Jaworowski, 1996. "Greenhouse Gases in Polar Ice: Atmospheric Artifacts or Reality" Environment Conference 1996, Environment and Chemistry, the German Chemical Society, Ulm, Germany, 7-10 October, 1996.
32. Z. Jaworowski, 1997. 21st Century Science and Technology, Vol 10, No. 1 (Spring), pp. 42-52.
33. Heyke HE, 1992. Fusion Vol 13, pp. 32-39.
34. Heyke HE, 1992. Earth. Coal-and gas-petrochemicals, Brenn.-Chemie "Vol 45, pp. 360-362.
35. G. Slocum, 1955. Month. Weeth Rev. Oct., pp. 225-231.
36. F. Wagner et al., 1999. Science, Vol. 284, pp. 1971-1973.
37. C.J. Yapp y H. Poths, 1992. Nature, Vol. 355, pp. 342-344.
38. M.l. Budyko, 1982. "The Earth's Climate: Past and Future" (New York: Academic Press).
39. R.A. Kerr, 1996. Science, Vol. 271, pp. 146-147.
40. J. Imbrie y J.Z. Imbrie, 1980. Science, Vol. 207, pp. 943-953.
41. E.J. Barron, S.L. Thompson, and S.H. Schneider, 1981. Science, Vol. 212, pp. 501-508.
42. J. Imbrie y J.Z. Imbrie, 1979. "Ice Ages, Solving the Mystery" (Short Hills, N.Y.: Enslow Publ.).
43. T.J. Crowley, 1983. Rev. Geophys.; Vol. 21, pp. 828-877
44. G.R. Wesber, 1996. En "The Global Warming Debate", J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environment Forum), pp. 113-138.
45. W.O. Brown and R.R. Heim, 1996. Climate Variation Bulletin 8, Historical Climatology Series 4-7, (Dec.), National Climate Data Center, USA; http://www.ncd. noaa.gov.ol/documentlibrary/cvb.html
46. A.H. Gordon, 1998. "Bias in Measured Data ", in R. Bate, Ed," Global Warming: The Continuing Debate "(London: The European Science and Environment Forum), pp. 52-62