THE Eiffel Tower was opened in 1889, and with an observation deck at about 300 m above ground level was then the highest human-construction on planet Earth.
Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University, now in Paris in advance of the COP-21 global warming talks, recently emailed me after descending the Tower:
“How many of the estimated other 39,999 persons attending the COP-21 talks in Paris will be aware that that when they descend from the Eiffel observation deck to the ground they will experience a warming of about 1.8 degree Celsius?”
“This is about twice the claimed global surface warming since the industrial revolution, based on thermometer measurements, yet very few tourists are observed to be shedding clothing against the increased heat as they dismount the tower at ground level.”
“It is this type of perspective and context that is so missing from the down-the-rabbit-hole nature of the climate political discussions, and related chicanery, that have preceded the COP-21 meeting,” wrote Bob. 
Bob also sent me the program for the alternative conference in Paris:
The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and its partners in the United Kingdom invite reporters, policy makers, and other interested parties to attend the Paris Climate Challenge (PCC) conference. It will be held at Espace La Rochefoucauld conference centre, 11 Rue La Rocheforcauld, Paris, from December 1 – 3, 2015.
The schedule of events may be seen at: http://pcc15.org/about/.
Tom Harris, ICSC executive director said, “In 2009 we presented the Copenhagen Climate Challenge which asked the United Nations to publicly substantiate each of ten fundamental assertions that underlie current climate concerns.”
“Endorsed by 161 science and technology experts well qualified in climate science, the challenge was presented as an open letter submitted to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and reported on by prominent media across the world,” explained Harris.
Most significant among the challenges was for proponents of dangerous anthropogenic climate change theory to substantiate claims that:
1. Recent climate change is unusual in comparison with historical records;
2. Human emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ are dangerously impacting climate;
3. Computer-based models are reliable indicators of future climate.
Harris reports, “Mr. Ban never responded or even acknowledged the scientists’ open letter.”
PCC lead coordinator, the Reverend Philip Foster said, “We are back this year to ask the same and more questions, and challenge the climate ‘consensus’ in Paris at COP 21 with alternative, more realistic climate hypotheses.”
For further information, contact:
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech. – thermofluids)
Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition
Email: tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net
** Phone (North America): 613-728-9200. From Europe: 001-613-728-9200, or from a mobile phone +-1-613-728-9200.
RELATED LINKS
www.climatescienceinternational.org
***
More information on how to calculate temperature gradients in the atmosphere here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The biggest issue in this debate relates to Climate data. No conclusions can be drawn until both sides of the debate can agree to a common source of data. Data that HAS NOT been manipulated
Climb the Eiffel Tower and it gets cooler as you go up, climb Kosciuszko and it gets cooler as you go up, climb Mt Everest and it gets cooler as you go up. I once lived at 3000 m for about 18 months, so I can provide anecdotal evidence of this pattern! As a corollary it gets warmer as you descend the Eiffel Tower, Kosciuszko, Everest etc.
Yes, 1.8 degrees difference up/down the Eiffel Tower is small and so you don’t have to take mountain gear up, or strip on the way down. However 1.8 degree difference world-wide average isn’t so simple. Some places will get hotter than that, weather patterns will change, seasonal temperatures will change with a knock-on effect to agriculture, good in some places, bad in others. (Another anecdote: I live in inland southern Australia, my lemongrass – 4 plants – used to seriously die back each winter – but not any more. They are 1.5-2m high and flowering. Warmer winters? more CO2 ? my imagination?). Well we can all cherry-pick data.
However I am certain that Bob Carter knows better and is using the Eiffel/temperature story as a media / political gambit. Pity he insults our intelligence, whether we agree or disagree about global warming.
Hi Helen
I would be interested to know approximately where you live in “inland southern Australia”, so we can see how much temperatures have rise since you started growing lemon grass. So, if you tell us the nearest town we can have a look at the Bureau of Meteorology data for that location.
Also, Bob stated that while the temp gradient from the top to the bottom of the Eiffel Tower is 1.8 degrees, the claimed global increase in temps is half of this i.e. 0.9.
However, my work would suggest, that at least for Australia, there has been no net increase in temps since 1895. There was cooling to 1950, and then warming of about 2 degrees (for inland southern Australia) since.
Cheers, Jennifer
Kind of ‘a down-the-memory-hole-lapse.’
George Orwell wrote it.
Yep I live on the Northern Tablelands of NSW and my lemongrass dies each winter – even if I keep it in a pot.Hows yer Basil Helen?
Anyway we know this whole scam uses climate as a ruse; it just acts as a catalyst for the grand plan.Noble cause corruption- or something like that.The so- called secular humanists are white acting western civilisation.
….anting!
I think Bjørn Lomborg or some other calculated that the temperature reduction from the INDC’s would equal 5 to 10cm.
So instead of using these billions you could just step a little up.
Peoble seems to grow higher meaning the heads would feel constant temperature.
Of course human co2 emissions in 2040 will total over 45 bn tonnes per year according to the latest projections from Obama’s EIA. In 2010 about 13 bn tonnes were emitted by the OECD countries and the non OECD ( China, India etc) emitted about 19 bn tonnes per year for a total of about 32 bn tonnes.
By 2040 that will increase by about 1 bn tonnes for the OECD and about 12 bn tonnes per year for the non OECD countries. Therefore if co2 is really the driver of their CAGW the Paris meeting is just a complete farce. Non OECD countries will emit about 12 times the new,extra co2 emissions that will come from the developed countries. So we can say that the mitigation of their so called CAGW is a complete con and fraud and will just flush trillions of dollars down the drain for a zero return by 2040. See page 21 of this EIA report.
http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_07252013.pdf
I am at present reading Fred Hoyle’s autobiography.A couple of quotes are relevant;Fred talking about a view that our solar system lay at the centre of the universe
“One is a demonstration of how almost the entire body of scientists can go wrong in a way that ,in later years ,seems absurd.’………When one considers all that is written of the wonders of astronomy,all that is spent by nations world wide in exploring those wonders, is it surprising that,with the exception of the sun’s gravity,which holds the earth beneficially in it’s orbit,nothing from outside is supposed to affect the conduct of life on the earth?’.
November temps for UAH V 6 show a drop in global temp of 0.1 C since October. And a drop of 0.21 C in the NH. Why is the NH showing these big swings?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-november-2015-0-33-deg-c/
@Helen.
Lemon grass as a proxy for temp variation – why not?
Probably just as ‘adjustable’ as bristle cone pines.
Regarding the records since 1895, I am amazed that very little is given to Charles Sturt’s superb diaries that chronicle his meanderings around Central Australia, in which he records temperatures far hotter than those fiddled by the BoM. Then again, there were only human computers back then that would clearly see the nonsense in any machine-driven manipulation of the real thing, and thus ought to ignored as ‘Coke’ had not yet been invented..
“Pity he insults our intelligence, whether we agree or disagree about global warming.”
Bob is not insulting your intelligence.
A degree or so need not be a worry.
My wife & I have a 64 Ha hobby farm in the Shire of Cuballing about 200km SE of Perth, WA.
Every three years we grow a 40 Ha oat crop. With uncertain rainfall it is a lucky dip as to yield.
This year we received only 40% of Long Term Average rain fall in the critical September/October finishing period. Despite this, our yield of three tonnes Ha-1 was regarded as good.
Our previous crop, in a good rainfall year (2012) returned four tonnes Ha-1.
I calculate that this year’s crop pulled some 384 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere to produce 120 tonnes of Wandering oats and a similar mass of stubble and root material, all of which contain approximately 40% Carbon.
While rain at the right time is the best indicator of crop performance (forgetting hail etc) the importance of sufficient CO2 as a water utilization tool cannot be underestimated.
Wether or not we have a small degree of warming it is small beer in the scheme of things but it is reassuring that we won’t be bothered by low CO2, given rainfall uncertainties.
Helen.
” (Another anecdote: I live in inland southern Australia, my lemongrass – 4 plants – used to seriously die back each winter – but not any more. They are 1.5-2m high and flowering. Warmer winters? more CO2 ? my imagination?). Well we can all cherry-pick data.”
I live in inland Southern Australia.
I’m a farmer in the southern MDB in the MIA
I also grow vegies in my garden.
Some years the crops and the vegies do well and some years they don’t.
Frosts can damage them but I see no evidence in my part of the world that it happens more or less than it used to.
It depends largely on when those frosts occur. If it happens at flowering time, it’s not good news for the crops or the vegies.
Since the trees have grown taller around my vegie patch they seem to be a little better protected from frosts and from heat….we get extremes of both in this part of the world.
How long have those 4 lemongrass plants been growing in your garden and what other variables are at play here?
I’m highly amused by your ‘cherry pick’ comment.
I guess you don’t understand that all statistical work ‘cherry picks’ to some extent. It is the nature of the beast.
It works on start/stop points and tries to hind cast and forecast by teasing out different variables and comparing them to each other.
It’s a useful tool but it’s far from a crystal ball.
The point that Bob was making is that temps vary more in short spaces of time and also vertically than the ‘averaged/homogenised’ global figures that we’re all supposed to be terrified about.
Your lemongrass plants put up with way more than that too if you live in inland southern Australia.
Another new study for OZ droughts was reviewed on ABC Vic Country hour yesterday. This covers the period 1500 to 2012 and like the Calvo and Vance studies this shows that the period from 1900 to 2015 is about as good as it gets.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/124002/pdf And here is another reference.
http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/500-years-drought-and-flood-trees-and-corals-reveal-australia%E2%80%99s-climate-history This second link gives an overview and it shows that all of the worst droughts occurred before 1900. We must surely be doing something right? SARC.
Good cherry pick, Deb.
Here’s another one for Helen:
In my NOTW, the Gold Coast, there used to occur on a horrendously regular basis at the rate of half a dozen a year, very destructive cyclones that washed Esplanade-front buildings into the ocean on a regular basis.
Since 1976 [with the odd exception of a Clayton’s variety] they just suddenly stopped.
Global warming?
Nothing surer! ☺
Here’s another one.
The BoM are trying to tell us that this season is comparable to 2002 & 2006 re inflows and precipitation.
We watched our crops die in 2002 & 2006.
We’ve had a pretty good harvest this season.
Their calcs are meaningless drivel because they do work on start/stop calendar points.
Ironically 2012 was not a good harvest even though BoM reports it as 30% wetter than average.
It flooded in Autumn 2012 but we didn’t get good follow up rains in Spring.
The crops were not that flash & neither were the pastures.
Irrigation was OK because they’d run out of excuses to NOT allocate water.
These people don’t seem to understand that SEASONAL TIMING (not necessary a calendar year) is just as important…whether it’s precipitation, frost, heat waves or anything else that’s climate/weather related.
Well the COP 21 Paris climate meeting is over and the media and politicians continue to talk nonsense and exaggerate the outcome. Here are a few facts that give a more honest assessment of the situation.
Lomborg’s expert group has brought out a new peer reviewed study that shows that the likely outcome by 2100 is a reduction in world temperature of just 0.17 C, but only if every country fulfills all their promises over the next 85 years. Of course this hasn’t happened in the past and will be most unlikely to happen in the future. They find that the more probable outcome is a reduction of just 0.05 C by 2100 or no measurable difference at all. His group includes four Nobel Laureates and 24 maths experts and economists to produce this PR study.
As well the father of the man- made climate scare Dr James Hansen ( NASA) immediately called the Paris agreement BS and a fraud. He has acted as Al Gore’s climate expert over the last twenty years. But here’s a few more facts to finish.
The sea level rise today at Sydney is just 0.65 mm a year ( 2.2 inches by 2100) and Brisbane 0.09mm a year or 0.31 inches by 2100. The latest PR studies show that droughts over Australia were much worse before 1900 than the period 1900 to 2015. Polar bears are thriving with a 4 to 5 fold increase in numbers since 1950. The latest satellite data shows no global warming for over 18 years and zero warming over Antarctica for about 37 years. There has been a 97% global reduction in death rates from extreme weather events over the last 100 years. The population at the start of the Industrial revolution was about 1 billion people and about 2 billion by 1900. But today over 7 billion people enjoy a much higher standard of living and much longer life expectancy than at any time in the past. Doesn’t it make you wonder why this is the case?
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises