Global Warming? An actual scientific report!

worldclimatereport ^

[BillM]

Posted: 02/ 04/ 07 8:08 am    Post subject: European Heat Wave 2003: A Global Perspective
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/01/31/european-heat-wave-2003-a-global-perspective/#more-215 January 31, 2007 European Heat Wave 2003: A Global Perspective Filed under: Climate Extremes, Heat Waves — Although the event occurred over three years ago, the summer heat wave of 2003 is still prominently featured in every popular presentation of the global warming issue. A web search of “Europe Heat Wave 2003” produces nearly 950,000 sites to choose from, and if you take that plunge, you will see estimates of 35,000 deaths directly attributed to that heat wave, although that number varies considerably from one site to the next. Although the number of deaths may vary, virtually every one of the sites mentions global warming as an underlying contributor, and statements like “even more extreme weather events lie ahead” are commonplace in the thousands of essays on the topic. Not surprisingly, many of these thousands of heat wave articles end with something like “the world must cut the carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming.” We have covered heat waves many times in the past at World Climate Report and shown that the link between extreme heat waves and global warming (or, at least, increasing death) is not nearly as strong as we are led to believe. An article in the recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters dares to ask the question “Was the 2003 European summer heat wave unusual in a global context?” We saw that title and new this was going to be good. A team of scientists from Colorado and France begin by noting “The European heat wave of summer 2003 has received considerable attention, both because of a potential link to larger scale warming patterns (e.g., “global warming”), and the large loss of life. Several studies find that this regional heat wave was quite unique and it has been suggested that such an extreme event could be accounted for only by a shift of statistical regime to one with higher variance.” Basically, others have argued that the climate has changed due to the buildup of greenhouse gases, variability has increased, and this increase in variability made the heat wave of 2003 more likely. The Chase et al. team decided to test this pillar of the greenhouse crusade, and as you might suspect, their findings are not going to make them popular with the greenhouse crusade. The team collected data on the temperature of the atmosphere from throughout the world for the surface to 500 mb (half way up in the atmosphere) for the period 1979-2003. For each month, they computed the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the temperature thereby allowing them to map temperature anomalies in terms of standard deviations above or below the mean. As seen in Figure 1 below for June, July, and August of 2003, Europe was definitely ground-zero for what is certainly an extreme event. However, it is interesting that far more than half the planet is portrayed in green tones indicating below normal temperature anomalies at that time. Europe was simply located in the wrong place at the wrong time, but it is immediately obvious that the heat wave was anything but global in nature. Figure 1. 1000–500 mb thickness temperature anomaly for June, July, and August 2003. Areas exceeding 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 standard deviations from the 1979–2003 mean are contoured in thick lines for anomalies of both sign (from Chase et al., 2003). Chase et al. analyzed the anomalies for all parts of the globe for the 25-year study period and conclude “Extreme warm anomalies equally, or more, unusual than the 2003 heat wave occur regularly.” Of course, they rarely appear in summer, directly over Europe, where many residents do not have the defense of air conditioning. They also note “Extreme cold anomalies also occur regularly and can exceed the magnitude of the 2003 warm anomaly in terms of the value of SD.” Of course, cold anomalies are tougher to sell to the public in terms of linking to global warming, so they are not nearly as well publicized, but they are definitely in the record. The global warming crowd will be thrilled to know that “There is a correlation between global and hemispheric average temperature and the presence of warm or cold regional anomalies of the same sign (i.e., warmer than average years have more regional heat waves and colder than average years have more cold waves).” This could make headlines – warm years tend to have heat waves and cold years tend to have cold waves! The next two conclusions might give warming advocates reasons to sweep the Chase et al. piece under the rug. The team found “Natural variability in the form of El Niño and volcanism appears of much greater importance than any general warming trend in causing extreme regional temperature anomalies as regional extremes during 1998 in particular were larger than the anomalies seen in summer 2003 both in area affected and SD extremes exceeded.” They show that in 2003, only 2% of the planet had temperature anomalies above two standard deviations, but in the big El Niño year of 1998, nearly 30% of the planet had temperature anomalies above two standard deviations. If we look at three standard deviations above normal temperature for the year as a whole, 1998 had over 5% of the planet covered, 2003 had 0% of the planet at that level. There is even more bad news for the global warmers. Chase et al. examined the trends in the data over the 25 years and found “Regression analyses do not provide strong support for the idea that regional heat or cold waves are significantly increasing or decreasing with time during the period considered here (1979–2003).” Sorry, but there is no evidence that things are getting worse when a global-scale analysis is conducted. They conclude that “our analysis does not support the contention that similar anomalies as seen in summer 2003 are unlikely to recur without invoking a non-stationary statistical regime with a higher average temperature and increased variability.” They basically show that heat waves like the one in Europe in 2003 can occur by chance even if temperature does not rise or the variability of temperature does not increase. There is no question that the heat wave of 2003 was a natural disaster in Europe with a substantial loss of human life. Europe was not prepared for an event that, from a purely statistical view point, was inevitable, with or without global warming. Reference: Chase, T. N., K. Wolter, R. A. Pielke Sr., and I. Rasool, 2006. Was the 2003 European summer heat wave unusual in a global context? Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L23709, doi:10.1029/2006GL027470.

[SouthTexas]

bump for later

[highimpact]

Don't look for this on the nightly news. Good post.

[Always Right]

Just a few of the things that have been attributed to global warming without any scientific foundation:

1. Crime
2. Malaria
3. Hurricanes
4. Tsunamis
5. Endangering Polar Bears.

[Vinomori]

The real deal?

Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon, National PostPublished: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

[concentric circles]

1000–500 mb temperature anomalies for June, July, and August 2003. Areas exceeding 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 standard deviations from the 1979–2003 mean are contoured.

[Shimmer128]

I'm pinging you just so i can get this tagline in there. Can you tell I've been reading????

[Wuli]

Don't give this report to Feingold and his friends in the Senate (inlcuding some RINOs), they will seek to suppress it as they are any science that disagrees with "human caused" "Global Warming".

[MNJohnnie]

Guess maybe these "Experts" might bother to do even a bare minimum of historic research?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

[Sam Cree]

From your post, "Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future."

Hard not to disagree with that statement. I was just trying to figure out how cold my freezer and refrigerator were - 3 different thermometers gave 3 different readings, with variations of several degrees. We've got climate scientists trying to quantify historical temperatures, taken at various places on earth, under varying conditions, with different thermometers of different makes, over a hundred years or more. No way can they pin it down to a degree or two. Yes, they've got satellite and other data, but I'd think that has to contain a large amount of theoretical rather than hard measurements.

[Vinnie]

And they are 'recording' temperatures thousands , millions of years ago? How?
Esp. when they claim 2 deg C. is a calamity.
I can understand their claiming an ancient period had slow growth, vis-a vis tree rings and such but nailing it down to a degree or two?? Hmmmmm

And of course there is the problem of their wanting a particular outcome. Schmooze the evidence?? You bet.

Create a crisis, get a gov. grant. $$$$$

[Sam Cree]

"Hard not to disagree with that statement" should read "hard to disagree!"

Proofreading is a good thing, he says to himself.

[sneakers]

bump for later reading

[edsheppa]

I find these politically motivated skeptics just as irritating as the politically motivated proponents.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

[Orlando]

One of the area with 1.5-2.0 is the Ross Sea.(2000-2005)

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/?search=Antarctica

The Larsen/Ronnie Sectors are being effected too:

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2007034/crefl2_143.A2007034183000-2007034183500.1km.jpg

for real-close-up image, check out 250m

[sageb1]

"Just a few of the things that have been attributed to global warming without any scientific foundation:

1. Crime"

Hate causes global warming. /s (or not /s)

[capt. norm]

One source of the original "global warming" was NWS temperature readings collected from airports over the years.

At the outset, airports were generally located out in the open rural spaces...few, if any, buildings etc.

Then the airports became surrounded with houses, businesses and buildings in general. This produced the well-known city "heat island" effect and suddenly the archived temperature readings from these airports showed a definite upward trend.

This phenomenon invalidates a lot of so-called global warming via temperature records.

[TX Bluebonnet]

bookmark for later

[Lakeshark]

Not to get off subject, but where I live, today it will be a high of.....*ta da*.....3 frickin degrees. Lake Michigan is having seizures as it is trying to freeze over.

Due to.........

*drum roll*

Global warming!!!!!!

What a theory......