IPCC’s Report on Climate Change: Myths & Realities

A World Meteorological Organization insider’s view of the IPCC report.

Guest essay by Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Formerly Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN

[A note to readers: English is not Dr. Reddy's primary language. I have made some edits to his original manuscript for clarity, but some readers may find the writing style a bit less fluid than they are used to. - Anthony]

It is argued by the IPCC that models that predict future temperature scenarios are based on physical principles but at the same time accepting the fact that there are several other localized or globalized factors contributing to it. Such factors are rarely accounted for in their models. Thus, there are no clear cut physical principles concerning global warming. It is basically statistical inferences that vary with data and period.  The IPCC uses the number of people accepting the predictions to validate it. In science, unless they are verified by ground realities, they are generally termed as “hypothetical”, which has no meaning in science. The IPCC is sensationalizing the impacts based on such hypothetical predictions on several processes, including agriculture.


The IPCC, UN, Media, agencies like World Bank, Oxfam, CGIAR, etc. are using Climate Change as synonymous to Global Warming.  This is not so; Global Warming is one component of Climate Change in which natural variations play vital role with extremes forming a part. The World Meteorological Organization of United Nations (WMO/UN) published a manual on “Climate Change” as far back as 1966. It dealt with methods to separate man-induced variations from natural variations.  Natural variations are beyond human control, only we have to adapt to them. On the contrary, the impact of global warming must present a trend, increasing or decreasing to ascertain its impacts. The IPCC and UN bodies are talking about individual events that are part of natural variations as associated with increased global temperatures.

These are highlighted by the media with misleading headlines. By attributing the impacts associated with normal climate extremes within the limits of Climate Normals and rhythms present in meteorological parameters to global warming is dangerous.
Now the IPCC itself has agreed that 100% of the raise in global temperature is not associated with the raise in Anthropogenic Greenhouse gases and agreed that around 10% is contributed by urban-heat-island effects – this contributes to rise in night time temperature and lower layers of troposphere temperature. These are localized effects.

Same is the case with changes in land use and land cover, known as Ecological changes.  The majority of meteorological stations are in urban areas and thus urban-heat-island effect is going to be added to global warming component and on the contrary meteorological stations are sparsely located in rural areas that generate cold-island-effect due to increased activity of irrigated agriculture and spread of irrigation reservoirs is not going in to global warming component – however, this may create a trend in precipitation at local and regional scales like that seen in AP precipitation.

In all around 50% of raise shown under global warming is influencing the local and regional aspects but not national and global aspects like sea level raise, ice melt, etc. Southern hemisphere with less number of urban areas, with less ecological changes and with more area under ocean waters showed lower temperature raise over the average pattern.  In the case of Northern Hemisphere with more urban areas, more ecological changes and with less area under ocean waters showed higher temperature rise over the average pattern.
It is a fact that in the last 17 years there has been no significant change in temperature, including ocean temperatures; ice melt in Arctic and Antarctic zones are within the standard deviation around the mean; no change in precipitation – monsoons, etc. In association with local conditions and natural disasters the sea levels show rises in some places, falls in some places, and no change in the majority of places.

Ice is confined to outside the South Polar Ring and inside the North Polar Ring.  That means South Polar ice melt is the true reflection of global warming impact on ice melt.  At present it is not showing any melt in the Southern Polar zones.  The Southern Polar zones are on the contrary building ice. North Polar zones are losing the ice but this is within the long-term standard deviation around the mean – within the accepted statistical terms. In the North Polar zone, impacts other than climate are also contributing to ice melt.

Alaska shows a large fall in sea level.  Along the USA coastlines, a large part showed a 0 to 1.0 feet fall, this may be associated with human activity along the coastal zones, tidal erosion, etc. [San Francisco airport does not show any sea level rise]. Also, error variations are far higher than the estimated rise, which is not statistically significant.  In addition, all these localized natural variations play a vital role – even the global temperature showed a 60-year cycle – sine curve. Cyclonic activities including Hurricanes and Typhoons – and precipitation, all present cyclic variations. With the growing population of the planet,  and building more structures in the path of cyclonic storms – that includes Hurricanes & Typhoons – and Tornadoes, and thus this makes ordinary storms more damaging.
Food production, food security & nutrition security are not affected by global warming. Floods and droughts are part of rhythms in precipitation, however, their impacts are modified by agriculture technology and ecological changes. Food includes not only agricultural products but also include several others such as Dairy products, Poultry products, Sea & Water products [fish & prawns], Animal products [meat], etc.

These are affected by agriculture technology and pollution components and not by global warming as crops adapt to temperature regimes which is evident from extremes in temperature given under climate normal data. These, along with ecological changes are the major contributors of destruction of biodiversity – on land, in water including oceans. Pollution, more particularly from new agriculture technology, is the major source of health hazards globally and not associated with Global Warming.  Global Warming is in fact a brain-child to counter the Environmental Movement against pollution, more particularly agriculture pollution, initiated in late 60s and early 70s.

In the agricultural perspective, these matter: stop wastage of food; plan better utilization of water resources; shift from chemical inputs to organic inputs technology that help reducing pollution and public health aspects; do not forget that the losses due to intense weather systems increase with the population growth. Globally, cold waves are affecting many more vulnerable people than heat waves. Wild fires have nothing to do with global warming. Dry weather helps spread of fire over wet weather, which is nothing to do with global warming.

==============================================================
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
http://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=author_see&id=5178

About these ads
This entry was posted in Agriculture, IPCC and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to IPCC’s Report on Climate Change: Myths & Realities

  1. Patrick Adelaide says:

    Kind of a nice essay. I think it needs a paragraph or two defined as a conclusion, otherwise it just hangs. Of interest is why the WMO pushes a climate change agenda when its technical advisors are presumably providing them with this kind of feedback.

  2. G. E. Pease says:

    Perhaps the WMO is now anticipating the kind of climate change planet Earth has experienced as frequently as global warming: global cooling.

  3. Mike Bryant says:

    The world is waking up from a bad dream. Nothing, bad or good, is caused by only one thing. Only in the simplest of minds are problems so easily solved. A refreshing look into reality.

  4. Mi Muba says:

    Global warming and climate change are widely intermingled. This is more common in backward countries where performance to counter the menace of climate change is projected as efforts to control global warming. Writer has raised valid points in this post and they need to be more publicized.

  5. wayne says:

    Ahhhh… some intelligent honesty. So rare. Especially like the many points all laid out in one plain English essay. Only complaint I could find is the missing of a clear definition of “AP precipitation”? Associated Press? ;)

  6. Policycritic says:

    Thank you, Dr. Jeevananda Reddy!

  7. Policycritic says:

    This is an interesting comment:

    Global Warming is in fact a brain-child to counter the Environmental Movement against pollution, more particularly agriculture pollution, initiated in late 60s and early 70s.

    If Dr. Reddy is reding this, could he amplify this some more?

  8. Dodgy Geezer says:

    In spite of the language style, the opening paragraph shows a clarity of thought and presentation which I seldom see in AGW commentators. I have noted it for future arguments.

    Thanks, Dr Reddy.

  9. Can I suggest that when addressing the public scientists should use of terms like “urban heat pollution influencing the data”. “Urban heat island” is a good term for science, but the public just switch off because it sounds like jargon, and jargon sounds like someone is about to pull the wool over your eyes. “light pollution” has been widely accepted and understood by the public as the reason why we cannot see the stars in cities at night, “urban heat pollution” is the reason we cannot read the heat data in cities and expresses what the the public understand. It also has strong visual metaphor images that stick in the mind better than the too heavy scientific term UHI.

  10. jim southlondon says:

    WUWT is a US Climate Skepti site so many would have heard of The Day After Tommorrow which was a glossy Hollywood TV Movie with Jason Robards and Steve Guttenberg about a nuclear Attack on the US from the mid 1980s Thatcher Regan cold war era.

    In the UK we had a similar nuclear war disaster movie called Threads which aired a year after Day After Tomorrow one of the themes in Threads was the idea by Carl Sagan of a Nuclear winter.So much dust and smoke thrown into the atmosphere it blots out the sun.

    Threads is the Debbie does Dallas / Deepthroat of Disaster porn .
    Threads is grim shocking and very disturbing however if you can stomach the whole film it is actually very engaging and entertaining.The morning after it was broadcast back in 1984 a BBC news crew went to the city of Sheffield where it was set to get local public reaction and were shocked at how many locals said they enjoyed it.Threads is an epic but tragic love story focusing on ordinary people in a recognizable back then a future war time setting its basically Gone With Wind with Radiation Sickness.Be warned if you click on the link above.

    Fortunately as the Cold War ended the political and media elite have cynically switched their attention onto Environmentalism to ensure their prestige.Denzil Washington said to Gene Hackman in .Crimson tide famously said “war is just the continuation of politics by another means”.That Equally applies to the cold war, the war on terror and the war on climate change.

    Unfortunately the idea of a Nuclear Winter as with all Environmentalism exaggerate the impact of man and underestimate the vastness and robustness of the planet.
    After Desert Storm retreating Iraqi forces set the Kuwati oil wells on fire also the huge Australian bush fires of 2007 proved Nuclear Winter theory does not stand up to scrutiny.The vast amounts of pollution many millions of tonnes of smoke cleared out of the Atmosphere in less than a few days.

    As i have i posted on Bishophill if you can disprove the wild over hyped alarmist theories from the past maybe you can disprove the wild over hyped alarmist theories from the present

  11. RichardLH says:

    “even the global temperature showed a 60-year cycle – sine curve”.

    I think that this is probably the most ignored aspect of current climate science. It is a well observed phenomena across a wide range of climate data. But it is rarely mentioned or considered as a factor to be accounted for in magnitude, phase or period in most data analysis done on that data. Even to ‘prove’ its absence in a data set.

  12. Bill Illis says:

    The Earth is still warming. Its just hiding in the deep oceans.

    That means that, while it is not warming at the surface where 7 billion of us live, and 10 million other species live, …

    … the Giant Squid, some ancient fishes, and the Sperm Whale will notice in 100 years, that ocean temperatures 1000 metres down, have risen to 1.9C from the 1.7C they were 100 years earlier.

  13. fhhaynie says:

    The IPCC agenda isn’t about controlling climate. It is about finding an excuse to control the use of fossil fuels. The distrbution of the wealth of nations is the goal.

  14. DirkH says:

    jim southlondon says:
    December 8, 2013 at 3:57 am
    “Unfortunately the idea of a Nuclear Winter as with all Environmentalism exaggerate the impact of man and underestimate the vastness and robustness of the planet.
    After Desert Storm retreating Iraqi forces set the Kuwati oil wells on fire also the huge Australian bush fires of 2007 proved Nuclear Winter theory does not stand up to scrutiny.The vast amounts of pollution many millions of tonnes of smoke cleared out of the Atmosphere in less than a few days.”

    Just like the CO2AGW psychos today, Carl Sagan used a flimsy unrealistic computer model to come up with his best selling nuclear winter brand.
    http://www.textfiles.com/survival/nkwrmelt.txt
    Sagan was part of the TTAPS team himself that made a ridiculously wrong, stupid and idiotic simulation of the Earth.
    “In 1982, the so-called TTAPS team (Richard P. Turco, Owen Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack and Carl Sagan) undertook a computational modeling study ”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

    Allegedly a tiny 100 Megatonnes of TNT equivalent would have sufficed to shockfrost the globe.
    As a kid I was duely impressed.

    So, they’ve been lying to us for many decades now. Never trust a government scientist especially when he makes a TV career.

  15. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Julian, Urban Heat Island is readily understandable by all. To call heat “pollution” is to open up another Pandora’s box of eco-regulation.

  16. Robert of Ottawa says:

    fhhaynie, the UN certainly wants control of the wealth and energy of the planet, but little will be redistributed in any direction other than upwards, to the bank accounts of the UN.

  17. “Global warming is in fact the brainchild to counter (replace?) The enviromental movement
    ……….

  18. fhhaynie says:

    Robert,
    I tend to agree, EU would like to have more of the wealth of oil and coal rich nations. Burning food and trees isn’t the way to help energy poor developing countries. An internation tax will only favor those that are in control. Follow the money.

  19. Richard says:

    A massive problem rarely talked about is damage done by non indigionous species, rabbits in Australia, biggest cause of species loss . In South Africa non indiginous plants are causing problems with water supplies, drying up streams etc.

    What economic impact do invasive species have on California?
    It has been estimated that in California alone, invasive pests cost this state at least $3 billion a year! A recent analysis by the California Invasive Plant Council (Spring 2009) indicates that weeds alone cost California at least $82 million per year. Some estimates suggest that invasive species cost the USA $138 billion per year, and that 42% of endangered US species have reached this status because of invasive species. Globally, 80% of endangered species are threatened primarily by invasive species, only habitat destruction causes greater endangerment of native species.

  20. Unmentionable says:

    Julian in Wales says:
    December 8, 2013 at 3:21 am
    “… “light pollution” has been widely accepted and understood by the public as the reason why we cannot see the stars in cities at night, “urban heat pollution” is the reason we cannot read the heat data in cities and …”

    The word “pollution” invites unnecessary misuse, remember the absurd carbon-is-pollution meme? It’s also misleading as lot of the urban heat energy is solar in origin, just the way it’s being absorbed and reflected then stored and released varies with respect to an undeveloped terrestrial surface. So still need to distinguish it from heat released by humans. So now you have two categories.

  21. Ric Werme says:

    jim southlondon says:
    December 8, 2013 at 3:57 am

    … many would have heard of The Day After Tommorrow which was a glossy Hollywood TV Movie with Jason Robards and Steve Guttenberg about a nuclear Attack on the US from the mid 1980s Thatcher Regan cold war era.

    You’re thinking of “The Day After”. YouTube has the attack “money shot” which is a mix of real and fanciful footage, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2H1E02iMHg

    “The Day after Tomorrow” is a cheesy disaster film with all sorts of improbable and impossible scenes. Its science advisor was Michael Molitor PhD. My comments about the movie are within http://wermenh.com/2016.html – 2016: The [Next] Year without a Summer, Notes on Abrupt Climate change. Hey, we’ll find out in a few years.

    Looks like I need to find a new Michael Molitor link. Suggestions welcome.

  22. seth says:

    Great essay. Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy points out three times that the climate variations are within statistical norms. According to whom? Have the data been reviewed by a statistician? I’d like to know. The misuse of statistics in the climate debate have led to piles of bogus information. Call me a skeptic.

  23. dulcimerpete says:

    Unfortunately, Dr. Reddy had to go “organic.” Surely it’s past time for us to recognize that the ‘Big O’ belief system has significant similarities to, and union with, the alarmist belief system. Maybe that’s just my perspective as an agriculturalist, but surely having a mature conversation about our food supply is just as important as having a mature converstation about our energy supply.

    Still, I appreciated the rest of Dr. Reddy’s perspective and this post. Looking for complete agreement isn’t wise. After all, if you’re with a group of people you agree with 100%, you’re probably in a cult.

  24. Don Gleason says:

    Put an Executive Summary on this and send it to all members of Congress (cc IPCC I suppose). Is this paper current?

  25. Bruce Cobb says:

    seth says:
    December 8, 2013 at 6:45 am

    Great essay. Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy points out three times that the climate variations are within statistical norms. According to whom? Have the data been reviewed by a statistician? I’d like to know. The misuse of statistics in the climate debate have led to piles of bogus information. Call me a skeptic.
    That’s funny, I’ve been through it several times, and didn’t see that. Are you a concern troll, by any chance?

  26. Robert of Ottawa says:
    December 8, 2013 at 5:46 am

    “Julian, Urban Heat Island is readily understandable by all. To call heat “pollution” is to open up another Pandora’s box of eco-regulation.”

    Thus speaks a scientist: most of my friends talk about weird weather and know nothing of UHI. This is the problem, we try to speak in language that is precise and unemotional and good for debate. Our opposition do not want debate, they merely want propaganda through the media to push through their messages to the non science majority, they live on peddling their junk through the media and media savvy politicians. Most people, in these days of celeb culture, think entirely in emotional terms. Their language is dumbed down. This goes against the grain for your mind which is trained to be precise and debate ideas to reach conclusions. If you want to reach down into the culture which is not steeped in your non-emotional language and influence their thought patterns you have to communicate in a language which they are willing to accept.

    We have won the science debate, but the hacks do not pick up on our message because they also are talking in emotional terms about AGW. To get the hacks you have to start dumbed down and then gradually introduce terms like UHI after you have got their attention.

    This may sound cynical, but I do believe in the goodness of people. We sometimes have to reach out and offer a hand up. I hate the dumbed down culture, but I really think ignoring those who are immersed in modern culture is a weakness that undermines our winning arguments.

  27. Seth says@6:45
    Wrong. Bogus information( mann’s hockey stick, 97% consensus is on agw- not
    Cagw,, rising temps.are only .8° c., hardly enough for cagw to be real, lpcc refusing to
    Release data to support their bogus claims, co2 is not
    Pollution, seas are not rising……wind farms @20% capacity at best,
    Cbs news reports 600,000 bats killed in U.S. in 2012.

  28. Gary Pearse says:

    Richard says:
    December 8, 2013 at 6:20 am

    “A massive problem rarely talked about is damage done by non indigionous species,…”

    I have no problem with the notion that these have been harmful, but please don’t trot out the models and figures of how much these have cost. Every economic and ecological issue that has been caused by humankind is automatically blown grandly out of proportion. Biologists are taught at a young and impressionable age that “When it comes to ecology, it is worth than we thought”. I believe it is the E=Mc^2 of biology.

    I said a number of years ago as an estimate based on the psychology of disasterologists, to take IPCC/AGW industrialist’s climate sensitivity estimates and divide them in half and we would be closer to the real effect of rising CO2, if there is one (being an engineer for half a century, this rule of thumb has served well). Actually, they have recently divided it in half themselves but I realize that my estimate was overly generous as it is likely to reach an asymptote at half again what they are currently clinging to. They won’t let it go down further because it means that some half a degree is all they would be able to squeeze out of it and you might as well take down the tents, pay off the performers and shift to another profession.

    My children will remember my, “It isn’t as bad as all that” in response to most of what was freaking them out as they were growing up. In a discussion about the ozone hole with some o-hole alarmists some decades ago (and re-discussed with a chemist on this site who had worked on the big bad ozone problem) I remarked that only oxygen (O2) among the atmospheric gases is paramagnetic (attracted to a magnetic field) and all the rest, including CO2 are diamagnetic so, to some degree we have an ozone-CO2-N2-noble gas “hole” at the poles filled in with O2, particularly the south pole because weather there is not such an atmosphere mixer. The corollary is we are going to have a concentration of all gases in the temperate and equatorial zones except O2. The o-hole alarmists, who didn’t know this, simply brushed it aside because they were part of an important team. I’ve mentioned this phenomenon on WUWT a few times and didn’t get much traction but that’s the way it is in the skeptical world – they are grudging lot, thank goodness.

  29. Ric Werme says:

    Oh, that’s why WP doesn’t convert my youtube links into youtube viewers.

    The “Day after Tomorrow unlikely freeze New York scene:

  30. Chris Edwards says:

    Maybe Im weird but I found this very clear and readable, native english speakers tend to use more words than needed, this just presents the facts (like all things don’t blindly believe but fact check yourself) and does not try and lead you by the nose to the writers own conclusion. Great essay thank you!

  31. TImothy Sorenson says:

    @Jim in South London, OMG, I saw that film at a foreign film festival long long ago. I loved it! As a young child in central Minnesota during the mid 60′s we had “the drills” : the city would announce a special all city drill time during a normal school day so we would here the real ‘simulated nuclear attack horn’. Seems to me during the spring and summer the friday at noon horn was the tornado horn test, and I believe the ‘nuclear horn’ test was on a monday at noon. They would blast the horn and then the school would announce that it was only a test. We would all have to grab our coats and slide our desks to the inside of the classroom by a wall and then we would crawl under the desks. Funny thing I never saw the teacher do it.

    Very nostalgic moments going on in this head right now. Not that the thought of nuclear was is imminent is fun, but being 10 is.

    Thanks Jim

  32. Pamela Gray says:

    Overall writing style and organization is also culturally dependent. Western organization has a clear but building opening, a smashingly organized 3-pt middle limited by the opening topic, and a rather sudden falling conclusion. Other cultures may not value that style and instead slowly build to a maximum number of facts without comment or re-interpretation. Oral histories are like that.

  33. Arno Arrak says:

    I quote:

    “… there are no clear cut physical principles concerning global warming. It is basically statistical inferences that vary with data and period. The IPCC uses the number of people accepting the predictions to validate it.”

    That is so. But what is clear cut is that they insist that humans are causing warming as a result of the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. This is something that can be checked. The greenhouse theory states that carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere absorbs outgoing infrared radiation which turns to heat, warms the atmosphere, and causes global warming. Fortunately we know exactly how much carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere and how much is there thanks to the Mauna Loa laboratory in Hawaii. They tell us that there is more carbon dioxide in the air now than ever before, but unfortunately this record CO2 concentration is unable to cause any warming. Not just for now but for the last 15 years. This is cessation of warming but IPCC is too embarrassed to admit this and wants it called “hiatus,” with the implication that it is only temporary. I assure you there is nothing temporary about it. Clearly our CO2 emissions are not now and never have caused any greenhouse warming. But if 15 years of no-warming is still too skimpy for you, there was a similar lack of warming in the eighties and nineties that lasted for 18 years. The reason that you don’t know about this other no-warming period is that the guardians of official temperature at the IPCC invented a fake warming called “late twentieth century warming” to cover it up. I spotted this when doing research for my book “What Warming?” and even warned about it in the preface to the book. Nothing happened for two years but then, suddenly, last fall, the big three of temperature – GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC – decided that they don’t want to show this fake warming any more. What they did was to adjust their temperature data for this time slot to parallel the satellites which do not show the warming. It was done secretly and no explanation was offered. The explanation is that I exposed their scam. It required cross-Atlantic coordination to pull it off. Obviously they all knew what this was about. We can now add these “liberated” 18 years of no-warming to the current 15 years of no-warming and find that there has been no greenhouse warming at all for the last 33 years. It is not likely that there was any earlier than that when the amount of CO2 in the air was a lot less. And since greenhouse warming is the life blood of that alleged anthropogenic greenhouse warming we can say now that AGW simply does not exist. It is a pure fantasy. And the entire global warming movement is nothing but a pseudo-scientific farce. Unfortunately this is not a laughing matter because thanks to their propaganda trillions of dollars have been wasted on “mitigating” a non-existent warming.

  34. “It is argued by the IPCC that models that predict future temperature scenarios are based on physical principles…. ”

    Modellers love to say this. The trouble is that it’s more or less irrelevant.
    We build houses with bricks, timber and mortar. But it all depends on how you use these materials.
    If you don’t know what you are doing, then the house will almost certainly collapse, and claiming that you had used good bricks, well seasoned timber and fresh mortar won’t make it stand up again!
    The analogy is obvious regarding climate modellers.

  35. Huub Bakker says:

    Richard @ 6:20am

    “Globally, 80% of endangered species are threatened primarily by invasive species, only habitat destruction causes greater endangerment of native species.”

    Much as I agree with what you say (opossums are a protected species in Australia but are ‘noxious pests’ in New Zeland where they were introduced. Similar ‘noxious pests’ are rabbits, deer, scotch thistle, gorse, broom… and the varroa bee mite, which has devastated our honey bee populations.), I can’t agree with your statement quoted above. If 80% of endangered species are primarily threatened by invasive species then less than 20% can be primarily threatened by anything else, nor, therefore, can anything be a greater primary threat.)

  36. Huub Bakker says:

    And while New Zealand’s name is a bastardisation of the Dutch ‘Nieuw Zeeland’ that Abel Tasman named it, nowhere is it spelt ‘New Zeland’ as my previous post suggests. :-)

  37. Ulric Lyons says:

    Record cold in the Antarctic, -91.2°C:
    http://kowcheg.net/2013/12/08/record/

  38. Policycritic says:

    Gary Pearse says:
    December 8, 2013 at 8:05 am

    I remarked that only oxygen (O2) among the atmospheric gases is paramagnetic (attracted to a magnetic field) and all the rest, including CO2 are diamagnetic so, to some degree we have an ozone-CO2-N2-noble gas “hole” at the poles filled in with O2, particularly the south pole because weather there is not such an atmosphere mixer. The corollary is we are going to have a concentration of all gases in the temperate and equatorial zones except O2. The o-hole alarmists, who didn’t know this, simply brushed it aside because they were part of an important team.

    Where can find out more about this?

  39. jim Steele says:

    “Ice is confined to outside the South Polar Ring and inside the North Polar Ring. That means South Polar ice melt is the true reflection of global warming impact on ice melt. ” Exactly what I have argued in “Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is the Better Climate Change Indicator” http://landscapesandcycles.net/antarctic-sea-ice–climate-change-indicator.html

  40. Slartibartfarst says:

    Very interesting. Makes sense to me. Rational. Objective. Devoid of religio-political ideology.
    Thankyou Dr Reddy.

  41. Sleepalot says:

    “Global warming is in fact the brainchild to counter The enviromental movement
    against pollution (…).”

    That’s absurd as saying “the Holocaust is the brainchild to counter antisemitism” or “it became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

  42. Jimbo says:

    The IPCC uses the number of people accepting the predictions to validate it. In science, unless they are verified by ground realities, they are generally termed as “hypothetical”, which has no meaning in science.

    There you have it in a nutshell.

    We may be heading into another Little Ice Age in the next decade. My model run tells me so and I wrote a paper based on my model run, so there. Where is my funding?

  43. _Jim says:

    Gary Pearse says December 8, 2013 at 8:05 am

    The o-hole alarmists, who didn’t know this, simply brushed it aside because they were part of an important team. I’ve mentioned this phenomenon on WUWT a few times and didn’t get much traction but that’s the way it is in the skeptical world – they are grudging lot, thank goodness.

    It would help your case to cite something, a paper or relevant material, like what’s below, for starters:

    One might then expect different components to have different scale heights determined by their molecular weight. In particular, considering the difference in molecular weight between N2 and O2, one might expect the O2 mixing ratio to decrease with altitude. However, gravitational separation of the air mixture takes place by molecular diffusion, which is considerably slower than turbulent vertical mixing of air for altitudes below 100 km ( problem 4. 9 ). Turbulent mixing thus maintains a homogeneous lower atmosphere. Only above 100 km does significant gravitational separation of gases begin to take place, with lighter gases being enriched at higher altitudes. link

    Effects of Gradient Magnetic Fields on CO2 Sublimation in Dry Ice

    In the present study, we observe the sublimation of dry ice into the atmosphere in the presence and absence of a strong static magnetic field, which is generated by a superconducting magnet. The results show that magnetic fields on the order of a Tesla can possibly enhance the release of CO2 gas from dry ice. A hypothesis concerning the passive transportation of CO2 by magnetic force acting on oxygen is proposed and discussed based on a qualitative experiment.

    link

    One then needs to work out the ‘forces’ that would work on the gases in the atmosphere at the poles to separate them ‘out’ according to magnetic etc. properties.

    .

  44. Jean Meeus says:

    “The IPCC agenda isn’t about controlling climate. It is about finding an excuse to control the use of fossil fuels. The distrbution of the wealth of nations is the goal.”
    Maybe I am stupid, but why would rich countries such as France, Germany and the USA wish to give money to poor countries? Because they are philanthropic? (And, no, I am not a warmist…).

  45. CPA says:

    This is the World Meteorological Organization. We have no record of Mr Reddy having worked at WMO. He is most definitely NOT an “insider”

  46. Brian H says:

    the major contributors of destruction of biodiversity

    What destruction? It happens in models of island ecosystems, wrongly extrapolated to continental ecologies. To quote Willis Eschenbach, “Where are the corpses?” There are orders of magnitude differences between observation and ecologists’ imagination.

  47. Though his use of the terms “prediction” and “validate,” Dr. Reddy implies the existence of a statistical population which, however, does not exist.

  48. Edohiguma says:

    You should also not forget that even today for most people, even in the west, the only source of information is their local media and they only speak one language, thus making it impossible for them to find other sources of information.

    See, I love my father, but I can’t discuss such things with him, because all he ever reads and sees comes from local, single language media, which happily goose-steps in the swamp of hysteria.

    I had that recently when discussing Fukushima with him and pointing out the facts. Nope, no chance. He kept throwing around the same nonsense German media has been throwing around since 2011, which is based not on fact but on emotional hyperbole and hysteria and has even been disproved. Our local and the German media would never lie, right? Alone the notion that “WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!” sells a lot better than a calm, rational approach is completely false, right?

    A certain dictator with a ridiculous mustache must be really unhappy now. He would have it so much easier today. All the media bombardment makes it so simply to convince untold numbers of people that even the dumbest lie is the truth.

  49. Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy says:

    I read the comments. Policy critique asked “amplify” my observation and another suggested to include one or two paragraphs on conclusions.

    Amplification –

    Traditional agriculture systems were evolved with centuries of experiences of farmers. It is a farming system based, where crops and cropping system practices vary with weather and soil. Thus it was a sustainable agriculture system with low risk and provided food-nutrition and economic security to farmers specifically and villagers in general. The impacts of weather aberrations on agriculture were not high as the input costs were low. With green revolution technology, the scenario changed completely and agriculture became unsustainable with high input costs and food become unhealthy, created new diseases. That is, the so-called green revolution turned into yellow revolution. In this system chemical inputs are the primary component. It basically works under irrigation – on this government investing huge sums. In this system, the traditional mixed/intercropping based farming system was replaced by mono crop system. This lead poor quality fodder and thus animal husbandry slowly disappeared from farming systems. In the traditional agriculture nutrient rich fodder helped animal husbandry. With the green revolution, governments are diversifying large sums towards subsidies on chemical inputs. Thus, the cost of agriculture has gone up, which is causing high risk to farmers. Use of the chemicals in agriculture created air, water, soil and food pollution. Polluted runoff water from agriculture fields created non-point pollution. This affected surface and ground water, rivers and finally oceans. Classical example is the Mississippi River polluting Gulf of Mexico – thousands of kilometers of areas become dead zone. The polluted food introduced new diseases and to cure those diseases drug manufacturing industries & hospitals were/are established, which in turn created air, water, odour pollution. This resulted new diseases. The vicious circle is going on. Under irrigation system the chemical inputs increase the production. For example, the traditional paddy yields range between 1300 to 1500 kg/ha with minimal input costs. The new high yielding seeds increased the yield by 500 kg/ha. The chemical inputs increased by 2000 kg/ha under high input costs. Post harvest losses become large as there are no storage facilities and lack of timely transport facilities. Businessmen took advantage and exploiting farmers – through exports getting benefitted. FAO reported around 30% of the produce is going as waste and my estimate for India is around 40 to 50% and thus to that extent natural resources were wasted. At the cost of governments and farmers, the main beneficiaries under the green revolution agriculture system were chemical inputs producing multinational companies. Even the genetically modified crops system works under this system only. Additionally farmers have to invest more on seeds as they are patented. Here again the seed companies get benefitted and for farmers the cost of inputs goes up and thus risk.

    Rachel Carson (1962) book titled “Silent Spring” ignited the environmental movement. This book dealt agriculture related pollution. US Senator took up the task to spread far and wide. At this point of time UN took responsibility on the environmental issues. Environment is facing two sources of pollution, namely point sources and non-point sources. To control or to reduce point source pollution governments brought in laws & Acts as well standards and agencies to monitor them. In the case of non-point source pollution there is no such mechanism as it involves change in technology which needs government intervention and support. The UN initiative concentrated on point sources of pollution – principally industrial & transport pollution and thus on greenhouse gases – and thus converted this on global warming in place of climate change. The environment movement principally started on non-point source of pollution that is agriculture pollution. Here the multinational companies’ interests are involved. This pollution is increasing with the time and without any control.

    Conclusions

    Ecological changes have both direct and indirect effects on weather & climate in addition to direct impacts on environment & life forms on the Earth. The researchers’ haven’t given that much importance as that given to hypothetical global warming theories as these needs only sophisticated computers without scientifically validated data sets. There is an urgent need to change the mind set in this direction to solve the problems associated with climate change as a long term solution at local and regional scales. The research in the area of agriculture is polluted with global warming projections of IPCC. The national governments must look at the local and regional level weather aberrations patterns to improve the quality of research in agriculture. To achieve the goal national meteorological services must bring out historical facts on weather aberration patterns and natural variations. There is a need to account the physical changes along the coasts before we attribute motives to sea level rise and thus its impact.

    Heat-island effect

    The terminology is not new. In London a book was published on this subject 250 years back on London temperature. The main cause of urban heat-island effect is the modifications of the land surface by urban development as well its geometry – urban canyon effect – along with air pollution. Destruction of water bodies and greenery amplify the impact.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  50. Policycritic says:

    Dr. Jeevananda Reddy,

    Thank you! You seem to be saying what Dr. Vandana Shiva from your country, and what Rosalind Petersen have been saying. Petersen runs the Agriculture Defense Coalition here . She worked for the US Dept of Agriculture in California as a Crop Loss Adjuster before she retired, and is particularly worried about the effect of geoengineering on non-point sources of pollution damaging agricultural land. That section of her site is rife with official documents about it that might interest you. The videos are good.

    I really appreciate your time in answering me, which I can tell was significant. Thank you.

  51. Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy says:

    About statistics:

    In meteorological elements, we talk of weather and we talk of climate. Climate is statical summary — averages, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, etc. So, when I say within the standard deviation — climate of ice at Antarctica and Arctic –. We compare year to year seasonal trend around the mean [average]. When we have average, that means we also have the standard deviation — a historical fact sheet.

    About my association with WMO:

    I started my carrier in India Meteorological Department, Pune, India. — My first paper published on climate change relating to onset of monsoon over Kerala Coast, presenting a 52-year cycle — Then Moved to International Crops Research Institute for the Semi Arid-Tropics [ICRISAT] one of 13 institutes of CGIAR. Here I looked at cyclic variation in few selected locations southern Africa. From here I went to The Australian National University, Canberra/Australia [completed my Ph.D. in around 11 months] — my Ph.D. thesis as scientific articles published in Agric. Meteorol. Journal & renamed Agric. For. Meteorol. journal — published ten papers in this journal. From here moved to Brazil as Consultant to EMBRAPA/IICA/Petrolina [you can find my work in the Brazilian Journal, one of them relates to homogenization of northeast Brazil in terms of precipitation, found 52-year cycle in Fortaleza precipitation data] –. From here moved to Mozambique as FAO/UN expert — you can find my work in the National Agriculture Research Institute Libary — [I went to Argentina as short term FAO-consultant to Ministry of Agriculture]. From there moved to Ethiopia as FAO/UN expert. There the government asked me to move to WMO/UN project as Team Leader – Chief Technical Advisor, which was vacant for three years [as they could not get suitable candidate]. I joined the project. After completing the period, I submitted the project proposals for the extension for three more years. This was accepted by the government, UNDP & WMO. However, I told the government I may not continue as I have other family commitments in India. So, I returned to Hyderabad, India. Since then I first compiled all my work in a book form published — Agroclimatic/Agrometeorological Techniques: As applicable to dry-land agriculture in Developing countries” — book review appeared in Agric. For. Meteorol. [Reviewd by Vice-President in-charge of Agriculture Meteorology in WMO]. After this ten more books were published. Four are available at http://www.scribd.com. I am working voluntarily as environmental issues and also associated with India Meteorological Society. Fellow of Andhra Pradesh Akademy of Sciences. My biography was included in Who’s Who of Moques (USA).

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Comments are closed.