Neutral Fact Finder Points to Melting Glaciers as the Cause of Global Warming, Rising Sea Levels and Rising CO2 in Atmosphere
President Elect Trump and incoming EPA director Pruit rightfully skeptical of consensus climate scientists claims says Brian Kelleher, Engr.
SAN JOSE, Calif., Jan. 10, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — The following is the opinion of Kelleher & Associates Environmental Mgmt LLC regarding rising CO2 levels and Global Warming and their interrelationship with fast melting glaciers:
Dear President Elect Trump, NOAA, EPA and interested parties:
I am among the country’s top environmental engineers and have been used extensively over the past several decades by the California Courts as a neutral fact finder who helps case special masters and litigating parties resolve legal disputes over who is liable for legacy pollution of contaminated properties without the need for trial. Within this role I am provided many linear feet of technical reports, pleadings, case summaries, expert witness reports, etc. I conduct a dispassionate unbiased review of the data and provide the case special masters and litigating parties with concise unbiased conclusions and recommendations that cannot be used at trial. In so doing, I have developed an uncanny ability for quickly seeing the forest through the trees when it comes to assessing massive amounts of technical scientific data. Given all that is at stake and because it is right up my alley, I felt a moral and professional obligation to apply my special talent and experience to the vitally important question at hand. In conducting my review over the holidays, I reviewed data published on the NOAA website and many others.
Background – Data from polar ice cores shows that the earth’s climate going back many millions of years is aptly described as the cycling of major and minor advances and retreats of glaciers from the poles separated by brief interglacial periods of relatively warm weather. During the past 420,000 years there have been four major ice ages with a frequency of about 100,000 years with the prolonged cold intervals in between comprised of roughly 20,000 or 40,000-year cycles of minor advances and retreats. According to NASA, the natural cycle of ice ages is triggered by perturbations in the earth’s axis and its elliptical orbit around the sun as they relate to the amount of thermal energy the earth receives from the sun. In about 1860 A.D. global temperatures started rising, rapidly marking the end of what is referred to as the Little Ice Age which commenced in about 1300 after a period of global warming called the Medieval Warm Period that commenced in about 1000. Commencing in the 1860s atmospheric CO2 levels began to slowly rise concurrent with sea levels indicating that glaciers were melting/retreating toward the poles picking up steam in the late 1800s and 1900s. According to EPA, CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels did not reach levels of concern to climate scientists until about 1950.
Conclusions – The collective climate data is telling me that rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 is a signature identifier/direct result of rapid glacial melting and is not the cause of either today’s or historic rapid global warming. In my opinion, NOAA has failed to produce any factual evidence that would stand up in court supporting its claims that the current period of global warming is out of the ordinary much less the result of human activities. As I see it, the only way that NOAA could possibly substantiate its controversial claims that current temperature increases are a cause for major concern is by restricting its analysis to the current and immediately preceding interglacial periods and providing hard scientific proof that current data differs significantly from the parallel data for the handful of very similar past intervals when CO2 levels suddenly took off and spiked—with the focus on temperature. I predict that any attempts to provide such proof will be frustrated by accuracy and resolution limitations in using ice-core data. Moreover:
1. The start of the current period of rapid global warming coincides very closely with an ultra-giganormous sized solar flare striking the earth in 1859 strongly suggesting a relationship with solar storms/solar activity. The glaciers were already in full retreat from this or some other cause circa 1950 when fossil fuel CO2 emissions reached levels of concern to climate scientists.
2. There is nothing unusual about CO2 spiking during interglacial periods. This is the second major interval of CO2 spiking that has occurred during the current interglacial period and CO2 spiking occurred at frequent intervals during the immediately preceding interglacial period about 120,000 years ago. I found the published ice core data for the prior periods of rapid change to be of grossly insufficient resolution and reliability to draw meaningful comparisons with current data. I have no reason as a neutral fact finder to believe the current spiking period is significantly different than the prior ones with respect to temperature which is all that really matters.
3. Except for the incidental correlation I discuss in item 4 below, I found no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and upward global temperature trends. For example: (a) CO2 was flat lined at about 275 ppm throughout the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age; (b) during the last four ice ages, the glaciers were in both full advance and full retreat at 250 ppm; and (c) rapid increases in CO2 during glacial retreats tend to lag behind rapid increases in temperatures.
4. Instead, I found vast unambiguous evidence that rapid CO2 increases occur only when rapidly melting/retreating glaciers are interacting with the earth’s oceans and atmosphere in creating rapid global warming, rising seawater levels and signature rapid atmospheric CO2 increases. The available evidence shows a linear relationship wherein rapidly melting glaciers cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise higher and higher the closer the retreat gets to the poles, reaching levels far in excess of what can be attributed to Henry’s Law governed interchanges with a slowly warming ocean surface. By all appearances the excess CO2 in the atmosphere very slowly reenters the oceans once the glacial retreat stops.
5. I found that there is at least a five-fold effect that explains the well-documented atmospheric CO2 spikes as glaciers rapidly melt/retreat: (a) Henry’s Law related increases from the warming of the average surface temperature of the oceans combined with deep seawater up-welling; (b) the CO2 escaping the melting ice; (c) the CO2 degassing due to rapid warming of the massive deluge of frigid fresh water cascading across the land and glacier surfaces and then forming a floating skin of warming freshwater at the ocean surface; (d) the CO2 degassing from the deeps due to disruptive/turbulent effects on thermoclines; and (e) the CO2 emitting from bacterial decomposition of massive amounts of organic matter that had been trapped within and under the retreating ice and is being exposed to air.
6. I found overwhelming evidence that once a major or minor glacial retreat gains sufficient momentum, it becomes self-sustaining for a certain geologic period of time and causes rapid global warming on its own with incidental atmospheric CO2 increases.
7. I conclude that the driving force behind the self-sustaining glacial retreat has to be the greenhouse gas effect of the massive amounts of water vapor resulting from item 5(c) above taking into consideration that the warming effect is produced in the very areas where it is needed most.
8. I cannot tell how much the CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels commencing in 1950 have been incrementally contributing to the current rapid climb in atmospheric CO2, but I consider the increases a potential blessing to humanity rather than a threat. This takes into consideration the fact that the current interglacial period has already lasted longer than the last creating concerns that the glacial tide is about to turn. Once the current melting stops, high levels of atmospheric CO2 could hopefully help stall the onset of what could be the next major ice age.
Recommendations – President Trump should remain skeptical and charge the director of NOAA with evaluating my conclusions and request a response to be reviewed by a panel of qualified civil and environmental engineers. With the identification of the true driver of glacial retreats (lots of water vapor continuously hovering over the actively melting areas), I claim to have debunked the published and widely accepted climatic theory that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 had an important greenhouse gas effect in accelerating the ending of the ice ages. Rather than fret and rant about global warming, I suggest everyone enjoy it while it lasts.
I warrant that I have conducted my investigations impartially and believe my conclusions are sufficiently supported by valid scientific evidence to stand up in a court of law.
Disclaimer – This press release contains the personal opinions of an American citizen based on his understanding of technical data and his experience as a neutral court consultant. Despite my professional standing, I am not claiming to be a professional engineer nor a consulting engineer given where I reside. California, unlike the rest of the country, does not grant licenses to environmental engineers given a long standing preference by its licensing board to rely primarily on state registered geologists to protect the state’s lands, indoor air and waters.
Sincerely,
Brian T Kelleher
Principal, Kelleher & Associates Environmental Mgmt, LLC
San Jose, CA 95121
(h/t to WUWT reader Robert Bissett)
Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/neutral-fact-finder-points-to-melting-glaciers-as-the-cause-of-global-warming-rising-sea-levels-and-rising-co2-in-atmosphere-300388426.html
Note: I don’t subscribe to some of the claims made here, especially #1, where he blames the Carrington event for kicking off the change. I provide this PR only for discussion – Anthony
Perhaps relevant to this is a post found on another well known blog See:
and a clip from the article:
So that was NASA’s view back in the day.
Makes more sense than a climate model.
I found Kellehers essay to be very interesting for several reasons:
“…the forest through the trees when it comes to assessing massive amounts of technical scientific data.”
Coupled with ptolemy2’s remark :
” This is what Karl Popper, the most important philosopher of science, devoted his career to demonstrating: that science can only be deductive, not inductive.”
From my own approach to complex issues, these two statements are equivalent. My own experience in 40 years of applied science and engineering is that most folks fundamentally do not get this. I think this is a fundamental root cause of why so much scientific work is, well, not particularly useful (ie crap).
I did not read Kellehers essay closely, or try to analyse or validate any specific point. My own take is to do so somewhat misses the point. My own summary is that he concludes that the earths climate changes all the time, and it likely involves big stuff like glaciers, ocean circulation, orbital variance, solar variance, water vapor and probably some other stuff, and that we really don’t have the foggiest useful idea of how these all work together in any meaningful predictive way. Arguing about a couple ppm of CO2 in this context just seems rather pathetic.
The forest I am seeing through the trees is the global warming effect focused directly along the glacial melt lines during all rapid glacial retreats and periods of rapid CO2 increases.
I see the solar flare of 1859 damaging the outer atmosphere
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/saber-solarstorm.html
NOAA says current global warming is caused by greenhouse gas effect of increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. Brian says climate data is showing that global warming during major glacial retreats is from greenhouse gas effects of water vapor hovering over melting glaciers boosted by solar reflection off ice sheets plus rapid warming of freshwater piling up on the glaciers and ocean surface and replacing ice
> During the past 420,000 years there have been four major ice ages with a frequency of about 100,000 years…
That is not true. There has been ONE major “Ice Age”. We are currently living in the Pleistocene Ice AGE which began about 2.6 million years ago.
It would be correct to say: “During the past 420,000 years there have been four major Glacial Periods with a frequency of about 100,000 year.”
AGE is a very long time. PERIOD is relatively short.
Yes, I know what you meant, but conflating “Ice Age” with “Glacial Period” although very common only serves to confuse people. It is especially poor practice for one of “the country’s top environmental engineers”.
Some thoughts from an old guy with no professional qualifications.I think the author has actually claimed that the melting ice causes global warming.?Did I read it wrong?Can’t be true .Ice absorbs heat when it melts.
The atmosphere is colder than it otherwise would have been.With 90 to 99 % of earths freshwater in Greenland(10%) and Antartica(90%) depending on who’s #s are used ,these ice sheets form an enormous heat ‘sink’ which serve to moderate temperature swings.As they melt they cool the atmosphere and since the melt water is colder then the average temp.of the oceans,cools the oceans also.Air colder, oceans colder.Where did the heat go?In the Oceans.The average temperature is lower but the volume is larger
and contains more heat.Don’t see how it effects CO2 much.At the end of the day I think we are all stuck with a lot of conjecture about systems that are too complex for human understanding.
It’s an interesting read, but who is the audience?
I find the closing statement
>> I warrant that I have conducted my investigations impartially and believe my conclusions are sufficiently supported by valid scientific evidence to stand up in a court of law.
to be troubling.
Thus it is not science, for a court of law can’t decide science. If it could PI would equal 3.
Here’s a scary bunch of research on sea ice, as it relates to CO2, for anyone who might want to plow through it:
http://www.natur.gl/fileadmin/user_files/Dokumenter/Afhandlinger/PHD_Dorte_Haubjerg_Soegaardr.pdf
… very scary.
… and from S. F. Ackley
http://oceans11.lanl.gov/trac/CICE/raw-attachment/wiki/WorkshopPresentations/1Ackley.ppt
… we have THIS:
Again, processes in ice seem to exist that we might be overlooking in our assessment of the CO2 story. And if such processes exist in sea ice, then do similar processes (or other processes) exist in glacial ice over millions of years, to render our expectations of records derived from ice records a bit overblown ?
Bet on it. People come up with Just So stories, which gain credence by persistent repetition, but actually are based on very shaky foundations, if not entirely on sand.
The number of things we don’t know about these processes will fill volumes in years to come.
Robert,
There are a huge differences between sea-ice and glacial ice: sea ice starts at temperatures just below freezing and still contains a lot of water and salts (and biolife) in that water, which remains open until much lower temperatures.
Glacial ice is from snow deposits and has little impurities (coastal more than inland), very little liquid water (some 5 atoms thick at -40°C at the bubble wall) where CO2 can hide at much lower temperatures (-20 to -40°C for most cores) and besides some extremophyles no life forms that can survive the long storage in deep ice…
Further, the 0.025 Pg CO2/year extra sink by melting sea ice in spring is part of the natural cycle which was more or less in equilibrium with the pre-industrial atmosphere at 280-300 ppmv over the whole Holocene. Meanwhile humans emit ~9 Pg/year…
This extra sink may interfere with the calculation of the amount of human induced CO2 in ocean waters near Antarctica…
There are lots of unknowns in the natural cycles. While that is very interesting, it is not important for the CO2 balance, as the current overall result of all natural cycles together is known to reasonable accuracy: a net sink of ~4.5 Pg/year…
I’m amazed at the number of ad hominem attacks on the author of the feature article in this thread. Where would be be if a scientific theory could be dismissed simply because of the originator’s playful wordsmithing, or lack of modesty?
Personally, I’m repulsed by people who accept high praise and awards with the words “I’m deeply humbled”. I want to jump up and say “so what the hell would you say if you were branded a pumped up has been?”.
But that wouldn’t justify my dismissing any coherent argument they might offer, nor lessen my appreciation of whatever skill was demonstrated to win this public acclaim.
otropogo,
You are, of course, right. Despite my precautionary note (see below), arguments should be evaluated on their own merits and not the merits of their author.
Has anyone else tried a web search for “Kelleher & Associates Environmental Mgmt LLC”? Yahoo brought up [… 1963,” occasional researcher/writer and full time environmental scientist/engineer Brian T. Kelleher is … Kelleher & Associates Environmental Mgmt LLC … ] and a link to http://www.kelleherassoc.com/ [full time environmental scientist/engineer Brian T. Kelleher] which brought up a “The Complete Unraveling of the JFK Assassination” blog.
Yes, David in Texas, I have tried that very search, and nada, except the JFK thing.
Seems a bit sparse, doesn’t it ?
“I am among the country’s top environmental engineers….”
BS! Engineering is about doing the job correctly. The legal profession is often about winning an ‘argument’. It is unethical for an engineer to make claims outside their field of expertise.
For example, might ethically testify in court that his client remediated a property by meeting California EPA requirements using established environmental engineering practices.
I am trained as a mechanical and environmental engineer. I have used this training to design systems to protect people (safety) and the environment while producing power from nuclear power plants. Understanding science makes it easy to recognize when some lawyer is dishing out a load BS on CAGW (POTUS Obama).
“Given all that is at stake and because it is right up my alley, I felt a moral and professional obligation to apply my special talent and experience to the vitally important question at hand.”
BS, Brian Kelleher has a moral and ethical obligation to not represent himself as an expert.
There is a clear difference between between an informed opinion and a sack of manure.
Please read my disclaimer. I went out of my way to emphasis that I considered myself not just qualified but uniquely qualified to weigh in on this subject and explained my motives. Go ahead a call me delusional but I would very much appreciate it if you do not accuse me of being unethical or conniving. As I trust you can clearly see I am 100 percent confident in my conclusions and recommendations and contend that time will tell that I have sufficiently proven my points though I wish I had added a little more detail here and there.
The question of whether humans are causing climate change is a real big deal. I see NOAA jumping at conclusions and making an enormous mistake. I am taking the most proactive substantive actions I can come up with to do something about it. Go ahead an throw out whatever insults you so desire. I have a very thick skin for that stuff given my profession.
Since writing the release I have had a change to review NASA data on solar flares, and there is no longer any doubt in my mind that the ultragigameganormous one in 1859 set off the current period of global warming and that subsequent ones are also having an effect. When I have a chance, I will be comparing the timing with temperature changes. That 1859 event was so big it had to have substantially damaged the outer atmosphere and in particular the ozone layer which translates to massive increases in the thermal energy reaching earth over an extended period with most of it presumably heading into the arctic. Oh by the way, this is an example of an ability to see the forest through the trees. Its right there staring at everyone and nobody else can see it. So now that NASA has told us that solar flares bring bursts of pure hydrogen (which is lethal to ozone) who has the strongest argument. The industrial revolution? Seems far fetched. I expect that climate scientists in the not too distant future will be blaming solar flares for the onset and perserverence of most of the glacial retreats using current data to create the model.
Who has presented the most sensible and defensible arguments on what greenhouse gas emissions causes glacial retreats? CO2 dispersed trough the vast atmosphere? Seems very far fetched.
At any rate, I want to thank everyone who did for reading the release and especially those that provided kind and/or encouraging words. Although my short visit to this site was not my cup of tea, I appreciate both the exposure Mr Watts provided and all the feedback—except the overt nasties.
Best regards to all
BTK
What I think I noted was that this letter originated as a press release from an information distribution company whose job it is to target this information to audiences whom the writer pays this company to target.
This, in combination with the lack of information about the author on the web, raises questions in my mind. And, yeah, given the writer’s tone of strong self assurance and expertise, I see it more as a piece designed to sell something.
There might be some valid directions of thought within the piece, but its overall purpose seems pretty transparent — to sell a particular side of the issue for the sake of winning a position and the advantages of doing so. It’s a marketing piece, in other words, more than it is anything else.
I might be making a super-giganormous mistake in saying this, but that’s my take on it now.
“…There might be some valid directions of thought within the piece, but its overall purpose seems pretty transparent — to sell a particular side of the issue for the sake of winning a position and the advantages of doing so. It’s a marketing piece, in other words…”
BINGO!
Maybe it’s The Donald making an “hommage” appearance reprising his own early entrepreneurial self. And maybe Russian hackers are helping by covering up his online tracks while the NSA, CIA and US military intelligence are busy reading Hillary’s e-mails again, in case they missed something.
Pure, unalloyed self-marketing. But the argument offered may have merit.
Let’s remember that it wasn’t Shah Jahan who designed and built the Taj Mahal, nor Peter the Great who built the Ladoga Canal that made St. Petersburg possible. Yet very few people know the names of the actual builders. Very few technical geniuses are also whizzes at marketing and self-promotion.
So it is ok to start with unethical statements if there is a disclaimer at the end.
As an engineer, I am not qualified with regard to BTK being delusional. If is just by opinion.
…. ultra-giganormous sized solar flare…..
Yes, those are the ones you have to watch out for. Sneak up on you, they do!
A knowledgeable intern probably did the actual writing of the piece, before the claimed author signed off on it to send to the information distribution (i.e., press release) company that distributed it. … just a guess, of course.
v’