IPCC has issued their report on climate change, but if you ask us, they just said the same old things, as expected. But I don’t think this satisfied most of the scientists, which have gont through the car-emissions-are-to-blame-for-the-global-warming theory already.

I guess the IPCC should define the term climate and discuss the factors that influence the climate. They should start the debate with the oceans and the sun, as they have been too close to the eyes of the IPCC members and were not observed.

You can find the report here. Enjoy and come back for discussions!

I was reading on the Internet about all the initiatives of driving less, using bikes, walking more, etc. Also, about using less electricity, changing the light bulbs, powering off the PCs ad all. All that being said by people while using their computers, after coming to work by car!

Anyway, let’s say we stop using cars and we use less electricity. Do you think we could produce some sort of global cooling?

Take the past century for example: did those people use cars or have PCs? Why did they have global coolings or global warmings? It seems like the naval war thesis shows some real expinations by now.

If one of your interests is global warming, I am sure you have a new word in your vocabulary lately: swindle. It all started from the documentary that you can also see at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU.

It has been strongly argued in its first days, first because it used out-of-the-context statements, later because it had inexact data, but, in the same time, it was highly appreciated as being courrageous enough to argue Gore’s Oscar movie and the IPCC report and talk about the oceans.

It is one of the loudest ways to state that climate change is not human made and that we should focus on the real issue rather than on changing lightbulbs and unplugging pc’s.

What do you think about it?

Extract from: “Ocean Governance: Strategies and Approaches for the 21st Century”, Conference paper, Honolulu/Hawaii, 1994 (FN 1)

What is Climate? (FN 2)
      

A simple definition of climate is average weather (FN 3).  Surprisingly, the Convention on Climate Change (FN 4) has no definition of the term climate at all, but defines “climate change” and “climate system.” These terms contribute little to understanding the meaning of climate. The definition of “climate change”(FN 5) is flawed in two ways. First, it states that “’climate change’ means a change of climate” and, second, it compares two things that have nothing in common: atmospheric pollution by humans and statistical weather records. (FN 6) The definition of “climate system” (FN 7) is also nonsensical as its meaning boils down to “interactions of the natural system.” (FN 8 ) Climate is a matter of water (in the air, ice, soil, and ocean) and its thermal efficiency and heat contribution. The factors related to quantity, aggregate, and temperatures of water are the most influential ones. In every respect the sea governs the global natural commons. Thus, climate is the blueprint of the oceans (FN 9), or as the speaker before me, Dr. Hans-Jurgen Krock, put it: The ocean is the principal actor in the global climate and weather drama. (FN 10)  A simple definition could therefore be:

Climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means. (FN 11)

NOTE: The sea surface temperature is +15° Celsius (C). The average temperature of the atmosphere is -17°C, raising the overall difference between the two media to 32º Celsius. The thermal efficiency of a surface layer of the oceans of three meters depth is as high as the efficiency of the whole atmosphere. (Footnote 23 in the essay)

The oceans run the global climate system, while the continents do little more than slow down “climatic dynamics.” Land areas, in particular if dry, are anti-climate. A simple demonstration is the well known sea wind emerging only a few hours after sunset. Correspondingly, the oceans could have kept the climate and temperature stable after Krakatoa erupted in 1883 and reduced average global sun radiation by 10 percent over 3 years. (FN 12)  The basic factors for the development of the global climate are sketched in the sea on a time scale ranging from a few seconds to many hundreds of years. Thus, the oceans are like a magnifying glass for long-term tendencies.

FN 1: The full essay on http://www.warchangesclimate.com ; or http://www.oceanclimate.de  at: http://www.oceanclimate.de/English/Sea_Law_1994.pdf

FN: 2; 7Actually, to Kenneth Marc, climate is a layman’s word not used professionally untilrecently. Cf. Kenneth F. Hare, The Vaulting of Intellectual Barriers: The MadisonThrust in Climatology,” Bulletin American Met. Society, 60 (1979): 1171-1174, and H.H. Lamb, The New Look of Climatology,” Nature, 223 (1969): 1209-1215.

FN: 3;   8J.T. Houghton, GJ. Jenkins, and JJ. Ephraums, (cds.), Climate Change – VieIPCCScientific Assessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. xxxv (hereaftercited as Houghton, Climate Change}.. According to W. Scherer ct al., “Approach toGOOS,” WMO Bulletin, climate may also be defined as: “the synthesis of weatherconditions in a given area, characterized by long-term statistics (such as mean values,variances of the variables of the state of the atmosphere in the area.” Cf. for furtherclimate definitions: Landolt-Bornstein, Meteorology/Climatology, Vol.4, subvol.c, (Berlin:1987): 1-5.

FN: 4; 9 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9, 1992 (UN Doc.A/AC 237/18 (Part It) Add.l), (hereafter cited as UN Framework); in 311.L.M. 849; in Robinson, (ed.), Agenda 21 & UNCED, Vol.3, pp. 1685-1713.

FN: 5; 10 Ibid., Article 1, para. 2: “Climate change” means a change of climate, which isattributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of theglobal atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

FN: 6; 11The background of the “new” climate change definition follows the first WorldClimate Conference 1979 definition of climate change as “the difference between long term mean values of a climatic parameter or statistic, where the means is taken over a specified interval of time, usually a number of decades,” see W. John Maunder, Dictionary of Global Climate Change (London: Chapman & Hall, 1992), p. 34. Now “one long term mean value” was replaced by “a human activity that alters the atmosphere.” While the 1979 definition was clear but useless, the 1992 definition is nonsensical and ridiculous.

FN: 7;  12 Article 1, para. 3 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Climate system” means the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and geosphere, and their interactions.

FN: 8; 13 A. Bernaerts, “Climate Change,” Nature 360 (1992): 292. A. Bernaerts, “Warming up-Science or Climate,” in L.O.S. Lieder, Vol-5, No.5., Honolulu 1993, p. 6. http://www.oceanclimate.de/English/LOS_1993.pdf

FN: 9;   14 Ibid.

FN: 10; 15 Cf. Victor D. Phillips, ct al., “Oceans – A Global Thermostat,” Sea Technology,(September 1992): 29-35. R.W. Stewart, The Role of the Oceans in Climate and Climate Change,” in K. Takeuchi and M. Yoshino, The Global Environment, (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1991), pp.118-126.

FN: 11; 16 A. Bernaerts, “Climate Change,” Nature 360 (1992): 292. http://www.oceanclimate.de/English/Nature_Letter_1992.pdf

FN: 12; 17 A. Bernaerts, “Voraussetzungen fur den globalen Klimaschutz aus der Sicht einesNautikers und Juristen,” Heft 4, Freunde und Forderer dcs GKSS-Forschungszentrumse.V. (1992): 1-42. in English:   http://www.oceanclimate.de/English/Climate_GKSS_1992.pdf   

We started the whole discussion about naval war changing the climate a while ago. At the beginning, we didn’t know how people would react and how they would see this theory, which, besides of being new in the picture, was also a bit shocking and unusual.

 It is pretty hard to link global warming that influences countries that don’t even have seaside, to maritime activity, even wars at sea. It is hard in the beginning! Reading the thesis, following the events that took place and seeing the changes that the climate has gone through, you begin to see that this global warming that happens today is no natural cycle, it’s now like it would have happened anyhow.

Ready for some reading? Open minded enough to spend a few hours on the theory?

Global warming is one of the hottest topics nowadays. The forthcoming Climate-Change report is nearly certain to conclude that there is at least a 90 percent chance that human-caused emissions are the main cause of warming since 1950, which will continue with higher temperatures of 2 to 4 degrees Celsius until the end of this century. Can 500 leading scientists be mistaken after submitting the fourth report in two decades?

 While it is not difficulty to see that after a global cooling from war winter 1939/40 until the 1970^th the average temperatures have increased significantly, the reliability of the two other essertainments should be greeted with cautious. IPCC still does not acknowledge, that the oceans and seas are the absolute driving force of the climate system (FN 1). The naval war thesis is presented and discussed by this website to support this claim as indicated in the graph.

 The immediate reaction of the oceans to naval war forcing should be not coming so much as surprise. A thin sea surface-layer of just three metres holds as much heat as the air column of 10’000 metres above the sea. Cooling this three metres layer by 1ºC, are enough to increase the atmosphere over its total heights correspondingly by 1ºC. And the heat capacity of the atmosphere is to an overwhelming degree dependent on the ‘ocean water’ in the air. Not talking in the first place of the oceans and seas when looking for climate changes, is not very convincing. The naval war thesis with huge and decisive ‘field experiments’ during WWI and WWII could make IPCC rethink its too narrow approach over the last 20 years.