Candidates on the Issues: Global Warming

The Associated Press ^ | Wed, Feb 04, 2004

[presidio9]

The Associated Press chooses an issue three times a week and asks the presidential candidates a question about it. Today's question and responses:

GLOBAL WARMING: Should the United States support the Kyoto treaty to limit global warming?

Democrats:

Wesley Clark: "Not only did President Bush (news - web sites) pull out of Kyoto, but he has utterly failed to address the problem of global warming in a serious way at all, choosing instead to deny the science, effectively hiding his head in the sand. We need to re-engage with the international community to address carbon emissions and global warming more broadly. Whether it's rejoining Kyoto or finding other multilateral approaches, we have to address this global problem with global leadership."

Howard Dean: "We must reject the Bush doctrine of isolationism and rejoin the international dialogue on global climate change. A Dean administration will work to re-engage with the international community to deal with the environmental, economic and public health threats of global warming. We must also actively reduce our own emissions and set an example to our neighbors. The technologies for cleaner power plants, factories, and vehicles are present; now we need real accountability — firm and fair standards to level the playing field and give industries the incentives to adopt and improve these technologies."

Sen. John Edwards: "America must be a leader in the world's effort to reduce global warming. While the Kyoto agreement had problems, President Bush made a terrible mistake in simply walking away from Kyoto and our allies. We must work with other nations for an international framework that reduces global warming and maintains America's economic strength at the same time."

Sen. John Kerry: "Some of our most serious environmental challenges — and opportunities — are taking place on an international stage and they require American leadership in the international community. Unlike the Bush administration, I will not abdicate this responsibility and opportunity. I will make sure that the U.S. re-engages in the development of an international climate change strategy to address global warming, and identifies workable responses that provide opportunities for American technology and know-how."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: "Conserving energy and complying with the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites) would promote national security and Mideast peace as well as curb global warming. As president, I will sign the Kyoto climate change treaty because we need it for our children and our grandchildren."

Sen. Joe Lieberman: "Yes. I attended and supported the work at the international conferences in Buenos Aires and Kyoto. Recently, Senator John McCain and I introduced groundbreaking legislation to help cut greenhouse gas emissions."

Al Sharpton (news - web sites): No response.

Republican:

President Bush: No response.

[Ron in Acreage]

Global warming is a communist created hoax. Just like Kwanzaa.

[ancient_geezer]

A good read:

The Non-Science
of Global Warming
By Robert E. Stevenson, Ph.D. *
Published in 21 ^st Century Science & Technology magazine
(Winter 1996-97 edition, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 51-59)
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/ocean-1.html

Along with the Douglas V. Hoyt's(Senior Scientist with Raytheon/ITSS) essay on the subject:
http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/

[ancient_geezer]

Robert E. Stevenson, Ph.D. *
Published in 21 ^st Century Science & Technology magazine
(Winter 1996-97 edition, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 51-59)
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/ocean-1.html

Several reliable research scientists using and studying models, including Michael Schlesinger, from Oregon State University at Corvallis, pointed out that "You have every right to be skeptical [of today's models], but it is the best we can do [at this time]. Our ability to detect global warming is near zero." Mike was one of about two dozen who responded with similar caution. Several of them were in federal government laboratories; in NOAA and NASA, and who, after a few months of such reaction were heard from no more. And, as you might imagine, their responses never reached the popular media.

[Ron in Acreage]

The earth is supposedly 4 billion years old. How can anyone think that the existence of man for 2000+ years, can have any effect on its temperature. Next they'll tell us we can control the earths orbit as well as its temperature. They're all F'n nuts.

[petercooper]

The U.S. Senate VOTED AGAINST KYOTO 95-0.

I'm sure Edwards, Kerry and LIEberman all voted against it.

Stupid DemocRAT dopes!!!!!!!!!

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[railsplitter]

Support Global Warming!

It helps the homeless stay warm!

[Mike Darancette]

As president, I will sign the Kyoto climate change treaty because we need it for our children and our grandchildren."

Hey Dennis you ignorant putz - the Senate has to ratify it.

[altair]

Bookmarked. I'll remember to reread this article when it comes to time to hold my nose and vote for President.

[RightWingAtheist]

Al Sharpton (news - web sites): No response.

As one of the major sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide, The Irreverent Al must of realized he'd be a hypocrite for supporting greenhouse legislation

[RightWingAtheist]

Read the scientific literature to find out how we do indeed have an effect on the Earth's temperature.

Global warming is real hard science. What isn't remotely realistic is pie-in-the-sky-by-Keynes schemes like Kyoto whose economic consequences would outweigh enviromental benefits.

[Hunble]

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

"Capitalism will destroy the Earth and only Socialism can save it."

People, how many time do you need to be proven wrong?

Same song, second verse.....

[Hunble]

Correct!

Global warming is real hard science.

Without a large amount of water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere, this planet would be frozen solid. That is a scientific fact.

Water vapor (H2O) is the most important of the "green house" gases.

Hint: Next time you fall for the "global warming" crap, define "normal" first!

[boris]

"Global warming is real hard science."

Satellite Temperatures — The Long Run

For some, twenty-five years of data doesn’t sound like much for use in establishing long-term trends in global temperature. But, the temperature data collected by NASA satellites corresponds with the time when the potential human impact on climate should have been greatest. It has been collected consistently from samples of the atmosphere over the entire globe. This makes it of great importance. Because the data nearly “cover the earth,” these measurements are unique among existing climate datasets. This also makes them an invaluable tool in assessing the impact of human activity on the global atmosphere. The satellite data now spans a quarter century. Happy anniversary!

The U.S. first began collecting and recording atmospheric temperature data from space platforms on November 16, 1978, a couple of weeks after the successful launch of the TIROS-N/NOAA satellite carried aloft several instruments designed to collect environmental data for the earth. One of these instruments — the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) — was designed to measure the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere by recording the microwave energy emitted by oxygen molecules. Such a measurement is an indication of the temperature of the molecule. These measurements have been made continuously since then using similar instruments subject to various technological improvements and launched aboard various satellites. In each instance, the new instrument became operational before the demise of its predecessor. This allowed for calibration to assure continuity of data.

Temperature observations made from space have one disadvantage; they measure only the average temperature within broad atmospheric layers. For example, a single satellite temperature measurement is made for the atmospheric layer that extends from near earth’s surface up to an altitude of 30,000 feet. The result is a measurement of the lower troposphere. But, MSUs aboard the satellites have a distinct advantage; they are able to take measurements of temperatures from over 95 percent of earth’s surface. They are “blind” only to small regions around the North and South Poles, and in places where mountains protrude through the lower atmosphere (the Himalayas).

The first MSU history of temperature measurements was published in Science in 1990 by Roy Spencer, a microwave expert at the National Atmospheric and Space Administration, and John Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. Their analysis introduced the climatological community to the idea that satellite temperature measurements could be used to monitor global temperature change in the earth’s atmosphere. In the thirteen years since their first publication, the satellite temperature record has grown to be a centerpiece in the global warming debate. This is because it represents the most consistent, widespread, and accurate measurement of global temperature in the lower atmosphere — a region computer climate models predict should warm at the greatest rate due to the build-up of greenhouse gases. Many of us contend satellite measurements provide one the best tools available for assessing the accuracy of global climate models. As a consequence, the data set is controversial.

Spencer’s and Christy’s satellite record, with the collection and analysis of the data for November 2003, celebrates its twenty-fifth anniversary. What we’ve learned in that time is that the MSU data show global-averaged temperature in the lower troposphere to have warmed by about 0.19ºC (0.34ºF). Much of that warming has come since the El Nino of 1998 and is confined to latitudes north of 30ºN. There appears to have been little to no warming in the tropics and southern latitudes.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 are extracted from a recent report by Spencer and Christy. They depict both the 25-year-long global temperature history from the satellites (Figure 1) and the spatial pattern of the 25-year observed temperature trends (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Monthly satellite temperature anomalies from November 1978 through November 2003 (from Spencer and Christy, http://www.uah.edu/News/climate/25years.pdf).

Figure 2. Pattern of temperature change as observed by satellites for the period November 1978 through October 2003 (from Spencer and Christy, http://www.uah.edu/News/climate/25years.pdf).

The satellite data record indicates the atmosphere has warmed up over the last twenty-five years (1) less than the amount calculated using observations taken at the earth’s surface, and (2) much less than the amount calculated by most global climate models, which incorporate observed changes to the atmospheric system (i.e., volcanic eruptions, solar variations, greenhouse gas increases, aerosol changes, etc.). The discrepancy in these measurements casts doubt on what scientists really know about what is going on with regard to “global warming.” It raises three immediate questions: are the climate models functioning correctly, is the satellite data accurate, and/or is there a flaw in the surface observations? As a consequence, Spencer’s and Christy’s analysis of the satellite data is given close scrutiny by several research teams who suggest there are adverse influences on the satellite observations caused by such things as orbital decay, orbital drift, and intersatellite calibration. They claim Christy and Spencer do not properly account for such effects.

On the contrary, Spencer and Christy have carefully addressed each expressed concern and done so in great detail. They have also demonstrated close correspondence between their calculated temperatures and those independently observed using radiosondes to transmit data from the weather balloons that are launched twice daily around the world and used to gather meteorological information for daily weather forecasts. Similar close correspondence has not been demonstrated for alternative representations of Christy’s and Spencer’s satellite data. Therefore, their data remain the de facto standard to beat.

We conclude that the satellite data is all but completely verified and the discrepancy between datasets suggests problems with the surface data, the computer models, or a bit of each. Surface temperature measurements will respond to influences that are not related to large-scale climate changes: things such as urbanization, landscape change, changes in agricultural practices, movement of instrument location, and changing times of observation. There have been many attempts to account for such influences, but most are not easily quantifiable and therefore are difficult to adequately account for. Furthermore, many regions of the earth are sparsely sampled. In regions like the oceans (which comprise most of earth’s surface), observations are extrapolated from a single observation point and are assigned to represent large geographic regions. This less than ideal situation illustrates an inherent and not easily overcome flaw in the surface temperature records.

We also note that in the regions where surface temperature measurements are most plentiful, land areas in the United States, Europe, Russia, China, and Australia, there appears to be greater agreement between the surface measurements and the satellite measurements. This correspondence weakens where measurements are sparser, suggesting that, in calculating large-scale temperature trends (hemispheric or global), the satellite data may better represent real conditions than surface data.

The computer models introduce another source of error. On one hand, if the surface data is proven to be correct, the climate models would indicate the lower atmosphere should warm as fast as, or faster than, the surface. Yet surface temperatures have been observed to be warming faster than temperatures in the lower atmosphere. This fact alone indicates a major problem in the models. Yet, on the other hand, should the surface data prove to contain non-climatic warming elements which, when removed, bring the models more in line with the satellite measurements, only then could one claim the climate models better represent the vertical structure of the warming, but in so doing would be greatly over-predicting the rate of observed warming by about a third or a half.

Whichever the case may be, such inaccuracies cast doubt on the veracity and subsequent utility of climate models as a tool for assessing future climate. If the models cannot accurately capture the known behavior of the earth’s climate, they simply cannot be relied upon to make accurate future projections.

In the grand scheme of things, twenty-five years of data represents a tiny fraction of earth’s climatic history. But to anyone who has been involved in the greenhouse debate, those twenty-five years of satellite temperature observations provide a wealth of information. So, in this season of celebration, let’s add a toast for Spencer and Christy’s tireless efforts and to another quarter-century of satellite data collection as fruitful as the last.

References:
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1990. Precise monitoring of global temperature trends from satellites. Science, 247, 1558-1562.

Spencer, R.W., And J.R. Christy, 2003. Global temperature Report, 1978-2003. http://www.uah.edu/News/climate/25years.pdf

[boris]

USHCN Temperature Record of the Week: McGill, Nevada

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To bolster our claim that "There Has Been No Global Warming for the Past 70 Years," each week we highlight the temperature record of one of the 1221 U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations from 1930-2000.

This issue's temperature record of the week is from McGill, Nevada. During the period of most significant greenhouse gas buildup over the past century, i.e., 1930 and onward, McGill's mean annual temperature has cooled by 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit. Not much global warming here!

[boris]

Earth Track ­ November 2003

This temperature update presents the NASA satellite measurements of monthly temperature anomalies – the difference between the observed values and the 1979–1998 mean values. Global satellite measurements are made from a series of orbiting platforms that sense the average temperature in various atmospheric layers. Here, we present the lowest level, which matches nearly perfectly with the mean temperatures measured by weather balloons in the layer between 5,000 and 28,000 feet. The satellite measurements are considered accurate to within 0.01°C and provide more uniform coverage of the entire globe than surface measurements, which tend to concentrate over land.

November 2003: The global average temperature departure was 0.194°C; the Northern Hemisphere temperature departure was 0.259°C; and the Southern Hemisphere departure was 0.129°C.

Trend lines indicate statistically significant changes only.

Monthly Satellite Temperatures – Northern Hemisphere

Monthly Satellite Temperatures – Southern Hemisphere

[boris]

Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming

WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 27, 1992---As independent scientists, researching atmospheric and climate problems, we are concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, being developed by environmental activist groups and certain political leaders. This so-called Earth Summit is scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United States and other industrialized nations.

Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree.

A survey of U.S. atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases and decreases recorded since about 1880.

Furthermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey agreed that the theoretical climate models used to predict a future warming cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing climate record. Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical models.

Finally, agriculturalists generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning has beneficial effects on most crops and on world food supply.

We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the most severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the poor.

David G. Aubrey, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Nathaniel B. Guttman, Ph.D., Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center

Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D., Meteorologist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, M.l.T.

Robert C. Balling, Ph.D., Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University

Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Roger Pielke, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University

Michael Garstang, Ph.D., Professor of Meteorology, University of Virginia

Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory

Lev S. Gandin, Ph.D., UCAR Scientist, National Meteorological Center

John A. McGinley, Chief, Forecast Research Group, Forecast Systems Laboratory, NOAA

H. Jean Thiebaux, Ph.D., Research Scientist, National Meteorological Center, National Weather Service, NOM

Kenneth V. Beard, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Illinois

Paul W. Mielke, Jr., Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Statistics, Colorado State University

Thomas Lockhart, Meteorologist, Meteorological Standards Institute

Peter F. Giddings, Meteorologist, Weather Service Director

Hazen A. Bedke, Meteorologist, Former Regional Director, National Weather Servicev Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D., Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University

Roy Leep, Executive Weather Director, Gillett Weather Data Services

Terrance J. Clark, Meteorologist, U.S. Air Force

Neil L Frank, Ph.D., Meteorologist

Michael S. Uhart, Ph.D., Meteorologist, National Weather Service

Bruce A. Boe, Ph.D., Director, North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board

Andrew Detwiler, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, S. Dakota School of Mines & Technology

Robert M. Cunningham, Consulting Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society

Steven R. Hanna, Ph.D., Sigma Research Corporation

Elliot Abrams, Meteorologist, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, Inc.

William E. Reifenyder, Ph.D., Consulting Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus, Forest Meteorology, Yale University

David W. Reynolds, Research Meteorologist

Jerry A. Williams, Meteorologist, President, Oceanroutes, Inc.

Lee W. Eddington, Meteorologist, Geophysics Division, Pacific Missile Test Center

Werner A. Baum, Ph.D., former Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Florida State University

David P. Rogers, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Research Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Brian Fiedler, Ph.D., Asst. Professor of Meteorology, School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma

Edward A. Brandes, Meteorologist

Melvyn Shapiro, Chief of Meteorological Research, Wave Propagation Laboratory, NOM

Joseph Zabransky, Jr., Associate Professor of Meteorology, Plymouth State College

James A. Moore, Project Manager, Research Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Daniel J. McNaughton, ENSR Consulting and Engineering

Brian Sussman, Meteorologist

Robert D. Elliott, Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society

H. Read McGrath, Ph.D., Meteorologist

Earl G. Droessler, Ph.D., North Carolina State University

Robert E. Zabrecky, Meteorologist

William M. Porch, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory Earle R. Williams, Ph.D, Assoc. Prof. of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia, President, Science & Environmental Policy Project

Please note: Affiliations listed are for identification purposes only.

[E.G.C.]

BTT!!!!!!!

[Ron in Acreage]

"Scientific" literature? Any self appointed, tree hugging enviromental extremist,anti-capitalist, "scientist" can write anything he or she wants. And Jack Kevorkian is a "doctor". Measuring the earth temperature has millions of factors to consider. To have microscopic variances in the results does not mean anything "scientific" has been proven. Maybe the actual device doing the reading was off. Rainfall cools the earth, drought heats it back up. Clouds cool, sun heats. The constant changes in our weather patterns have an affect on a daily basis, and therefore can never be accurately measured.