Skip to comments.The Catastrophic Global Warming Myth
Posted on 08/16/2002 1:49:55 PM PDT by The Raven
Last month, the Bush White House, citing a new study, revisited its position on global warming. The media went into a feeding frenzy and, like an e-mail scam that wont die, the global warming debate has again been resuscitated. Unfortunately, the new study is based on the same old studies chief among them the 1996 IPCC s Summary for Policy Makers -- whose conclusions rest on three fallacious claims:
1) Based on historical weather data, average global temperatures have risen dramatically in the latter half of the 20th Century.
2) Scientific research indicates that the cause of such rising temperatures is man made.
3) There is a consensus among scientists supporting both claims.
The first claim that global temperatures have risen dramatically since 1940 finds its source in the
approximately 100 year-old temperature record of the National Weather Service. According to the NASA report, Global Climate Monitoring: The Accuracy of Satellite Data, though, the NWS record is based strictly on surface temperature readings. When weather balloon and satellite records are examined one finds temperatures either stayed the same or actually declined by as much as 1 degree F during that period.
What if we step outside the NWS box?
Data extrapolated from tree ring, ice core and lake sediment indicate that in the 18th Century the average world sea and surface temperatures were 71 degrees F. Climatologists refer to this period as The Little Ice Age. Such data also show that in 1000 BCE the average global temperature was over 25 degrees Celsius or 77 degrees F. By comparison, the average global temperature in 1999 was 73.5 degrees F. The conclusion to reach about the claim of dramatically rising global temperatures in the latter half of the 20th Century is clear. First, it depends on where you stick your thermometer, on the surface, (whose reading will be highly inaccurate due to urban hot spots) or in the atmosphere (the most accurate readings). Second, the significance of the data depend upon the historical climate record of the planet. Here, as with any kind of scientific data, context and perspective is everything.
Of the second claim, that the cause of global warming is man-made, environmental activists point to the correlation between recent global industrialization and the sweltering summers of 1998 and 1999. A correlation, though, is not proof of cause. If global industrialization were the cause of planetary warming, the satellite and balloon temperature record from 1940 to 1980 a period of far greater worldwide
industrialization would show a marked increase in average global temperatures, which it does not. Indeed, such data show temperatures declining.
A cause and effect relationship, though, has been discovered between solar activity and global temperatures. Danish climatologists Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen (in the 1991 issue of Science) and Douglas V. Hoyt and Dr. Kenneth H. Schatten (in their book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change) found that global temperature variations during the past century are virtually all due to the variations in solar activity.
What about carbon dioxide levels? Scientists have found that past carbon dioxide levels, based, again, on historical and pre-historical tree ring, ice core and lake sediment samples, have changed significantly without human influence. Note, too, that between 1940 and 1980, when man-made levels of CO2 swelled rapidly, there was a decline in temperatures.
If scientific temperature records belie global warming; if scientists conclude that global temperatures are minimally affected by man; where, then, is scientific consensus the third claim supporting the notion of global warming? The answer is: there isnt any.
In 1996 the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the IPCC -- released a document titled, Summary for Policy Makers, which supported the notion of global warming. Environmentalists crowed that 15,000 scientists had signed the document.
However, the report was doctored without the knowledge of most of those 15,000 scientists, whose protests became so vocal that the lead authors backed off their conclusions, disavowing the document as a political tract, not a scientific report.
In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed the Oregon Petition, which declares, in part: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
In 1999 over ten thousand of the worlds most renowned climatologists, astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter by Frederick Seitz, NAS Past President, that states, in part: the Kyoto Accord is based upon flawed ideas.
Finally, in a paper in June of 2001, aptly titled, GLOBAL WARMING: The Press Gets It Wrong our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens.
In light of these facts, if the continual resurrection of the issue of global warming in the media is not a consummate example of the Big Lie, Id be hard pressed to find a better one.
--Steven Brockerman is an assistant editor for Capitalism Magazine, www.capitalismmagazine.com
And for insurance (since they aren't positive).
"This temperature update presents the NASA satellite measurements of monthly temperature anomaliesthe difference between the observed values and the 19791998 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 deg C and provide more uniform coverage of the entire globe than surface measurements, which tend to concentrate over land.
"June 2002: The global average temperature departure was 0.20 deg C; the Northern Hemisphere temperature departure was 0.217 deg C; and the Southern Hemisphere departure was 0.183 deg C.
"Below: Monthly satellite temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere (top) and Southern Hemisphere (bottom). Trend lines indicate statistically significant changes only.
The weather is changing
It never hasnt been.
The Sun causes temperatures on Earth to increase? Who'd a thunk it?
All this time, I thought it was my SUV that caused the seasons to change.
Yes, but when wasn't it ever?
I must say I don't like the changes.
I know what you mean. This afternoon, we had a thunderstorm in my neck of New Jersey.
I was very scared, as I couldnt recall moisture falling from the sky like that.
Somebody told me they call it rain. My dirt-lawn will be thrilled to see it.
The cause of this phenomenon is something else entirely. At this point, anyone who tells me with the air of certainty that man-made emissions are the culprit, will be considered a charlatan.
However, they cannot be ruled out either. But crippling industry (Kyoto) should not be done before convincing evidence is in, and before a cost-benefits analysis is conducted. The cure might still turn out to be worse than the disease.
Yes, but when wasn't it ever?
It never wasnt never ever.
Don't sweat it. Those charts are utterly meaningless. They show temperature variations over a 23 year period. The Earth has been experiencing "weather" for billions of years.
23 years isn't a sample set...it's a data point. Statistically worthless.
The errors in the models they use have large variances due to the sun's brightness. The effect is larger than the effect they are trying to measure...the effect of CO2.
I think I know where Gore stuck his thermometer.
They didn't take into account the body heat level of booing fire fighters and police when they see Hellery. Causes a hot day every time.
One thing that bugs me, there is no clear meaning to what kind of anomalies are being charted. I guess it means temperature deviations. It almost looks like this chart was made to trick people into thinking that the temperature was going up.
And we don't even have to think about where the Sinkmiester stuck his, nor do we really want to.
Yes, when we have a hot day---its because of greenhouse gases causing global warming.
When we have a cold day---its global warming too because greenhouse gases have "made the weather unstable."
Since when has the weather ever been stable? (unless you live in San Diego).
The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
by Bjorn Lomborg (Author)
see larger photo
Our Price: $19.60
You Save: $8.40 (30%)
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $49. See details.
Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours
Edition: Paperback | All Editions
THIS BOOK IS GREAT IF YA WANNA LEARN THE REAL STATS AND REAL MYTHS ABOUT THE ENVIROMENT
The cultural tides may have turned somewhat in recent months, but skepticism remains central to our national character. In the opinion of Grist Magazine, that's a good thing: No mind should be above changing, and no precept should be protected from scrutiny. Hence this special issue on Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist.
Lomborg, an associate professor of statistics at Denmark's University of Aarhus, applies the doctrine of doubt to environmentalism and concludes that most of the movement's sacred cows are, to put it bluntly, bull:
We will not lose our forests; we will not run out of energy, raw materials, or water. We have reduced atmospheric pollution in the cities of the developed world and have good reason to believe that this will also be achieved in the developing world. Our oceans have not been defiled, our rivers have become cleaner and support more life. ... Nor is waste a particularly big problem. ... The problem of the ozone layer has been more or less solved. The current outlook on the development of global warming does not indicate a catastrophe. ... And, finally, our chemical worries and fear of pesticides are misplaced and counterproductive.
Lomborg claims that these and other worries are "phantom problems" created or inflated by the environmental movement for its own ends, with the result that time and money are diverted from other, needier causes.
That is a serious charge, and as such it must be taken seriously. To date, the mainstream media have done just that -- but they have also taken the book at face value, with little or no critical analysis. A Washington Post reviewer raved about its "magnificent achievement"; the New York Times, the Economist, and others were equally gushing.
Grist wondered how the book would hold up under more rigorous scrutiny, and asked respected scientists and leaders in their fields to address the allegations in The Skeptical Environmentalist. By bringing a healthy dose of skepticism to Lomborg's own claims, the resulting compilation fights fire with fire; we leave it to our readers to determine who gets flambeed.
Is it also a coincidence that I could buy the old Freon for $.99 a can at the discount stores in the 1980's, and the replacement stuff costs over $6 now? I know inflation made up some of that increase, but not 600%.
However, I think Dupont invented Freon way back in the 1920's, so I doubt it still had a patent in force. Personally, I think the anti-Freon campaign was just another scam (big lie) put out by the eco-freak community. Real dyed-in-the-wool eco-freaks don't want anyone to have A/C, cars, outboard motors, lawn mowers, barbecue grills, or probably even heated homes. I believe they are also responsible for the non-existent "global warming" scam. There have been temperature variations throughout all of Earth's history, many of them were far, far, larger than this one. If there really is one that is.
The eco-freaks can have my air-conditioned pickup when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
For a rebuttal of this theory, see http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1994/vo10no23.htm
If the earth heats up, more water is evaporated, creating clouds and the earth cools.(remember the "nuclear winter" scenario?) Once the temperature reaches some happy medium, the clouds dissipate, and the earth warms. To me, this explains the temperature cycles seen in the small amount of historical data that does exist.
Simple physics will react to any intervention man could create.
But aside from that --- getting back to the sun.....there are obvious cycles in the data......I couldn't find if the climate folks have the sun's cycles in their models. Here's an explanation, however, I found on the sun:
"...The sun experiences magnetic cycles that last 22 years, during which the sun reaches peak brightness and then swings back to a dimmer state. Baliunas also points out that, "The length of the magnetic cycle is closely related to its amplitude; thus the sun should be brightest when the sunspot cycle is short."
According to Baliunas, "Changes in the length of the magnetic cycle and in Northern Hemisphere land temperatures are closely correlated over three centuries." She also argues that if the data are correct, "Changes in the sunspot cycle would explain average temperature change of about 0.5 degrees C in the past 100 years."
A play on words? You can use the mean to 'mean' "pretty much the average". The two terms--mathematically--are not identical, but "close enough". They are using the "mean" temperature.
The mean is that temperature below which 50% of the sampled temperatures will occur and above which 50% of the sampled temperatures will occur.
This is true. They used to plot this data against the predictions of the warming doomsayers, using computer programs. The prediction is that we should all be roasting by now. For some reason, they no longer show the prediction alongside the data.
The moderate warming is wholly assignable to an equally-moderate increase in the "Solar Constant", i.e., the output power of the Sun, which has been gently rising for several human lifetimes.