The Sloppy Science of Global Warming
by Roy. W. Spencer
While a politician might be faulted for pushing a particular agenda
that serves his own purposes, who can fault the impartial scientist
who warns us of an imminent global-warming Armageddon? After all, the
practice of science is an unbiased search for the truth, right? The
scientists have spoken on global warming. There is no more debate. But
let me play devil's advocate. Just how good is the science
underpinning the theory of manmade global warming? My answer might
surprise you: it is 10 miles wide, but only 2 inches deep.
Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid
published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our
recent warmth - not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our
measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient
to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the
strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in
cloudiness. What might have caused such a change? Well, one
possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and
fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also coincided with
a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
The associated warming in Alaska was sudden, and at the same time we
just happened to start satellite monitoring of Arctic sea ice.
Coincidences do happen, you know...that's why we have a word for them.
We make a big deal out of the "unprecedented" 2007 opening of the
Northwest Passage as summertime sea ice in the Arctic Ocean gradually
receded, yet the very warm 1930s in the Arctic also led to the Passage
opening in the 1940s. Of course, we had no satellites to measure the
sea ice back then.
So, since we cannot explore the possibility of a natural source for
some of our warming, due to a lack of data, scientists instead explore
what we have measured: manmade greenhouse gas emissions. And after
making some important assumptions about how clouds and water vapor
(the main greenhouse components of the atmosphere) respond to the
extra carbon dioxide, scientists can explain all of the recent
warming.
Never mind that there is some evidence indicating that it was just as
warm during the Medieval Warm Period. While climate change used to be
natural, apparently now it is entirely manmade. But a few of us out
there in the climate research community are rattling our cages. In the
August 2007 Geophysical Research Letters, my colleagues and I
published some satellite evidence for a natural cooling mechanism in
the tropics that was not thought to exist. Called the "Infrared Iris"
effect, it was originally hypothesized by Prof. Richard Lindzen at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
By analyzing six years of data from a variety of satellites and
satellite sensors, we found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up
due to enhanced rainfall activity, the rain systems there produce less
cirrus cloudiness, allowing more infrared energy to escape to space.
The combination of enhanced solar reflection and infrared cooling by
the rain systems was so strong that, if such a mechanism is acting
upon the warming tendency from increasing carbon dioxide, it will
reduce manmade global warming by the end of this century to a small
fraction of a degree. Our results suggest a "low sensitivity" for the
climate system.
What, you might wonder, has been the media and science community
response to our work? Absolute silence. No doubt the few scientists
who are aware of it consider it interesting, but not relevant to
global warming. You see, only the evidence that supports the theory of
manmade global warming is relevant these days.
The behavior we observed in the real climate system is exactly
opposite to how computerized climate models that predict substantial
global warming have been programmed to behave. We are still waiting to
see if any of those models are adjusted to behave like the real
climate system in this regard.
And our evidence against a "sensitive" climate system does not end
there. In another study (conditionally accepted for publication in the
Journal of Climate) we show that previously published evidence for a
sensitive climate system is partly due to a misinterpretation of our
observations of climate variability. For example, when low cloud cover
is observed to decrease with warming, this has been interpreted as the
clouds responding to the warming in such a way that then amplifies it.
This is called "positive feedback," which translates into high climate
sensitivity.
But what if the decrease in low clouds were the cause, rather than the
effect, of the warming? While this might sound like too simple a
mistake to make, it is surprisingly difficult to separate cause and
effect in the climate system. And it turns out that any such non-
feedback process that causes a temperature change will always look
like positive feedback. Something as simple as daily random cloud
variations can cause long-term temperature variability that looks like
positive feedback, even if in reality there is negative feedback
operating.
The fact is that so much money and effort have gone into the theory
that mankind is 100 percent responsible for climate change that it now
seems too late to turn back. Entire careers (including my own) depend
upon the threat of global warming. Politicians have also jumped aboard
the Global Warming Express, and this train has no brakes.
While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear
that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now
considers true. If tomorrow the theory of manmade global warming were
proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective
sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of
anguish from vested interests.
About the only thing that might cause global warming hysteria to end
will be a prolonged period of cooling...or at least, very little
warming. We have now had at least six years without warming, and no
one really knows what the future will bring. And if warming does
indeed end, I predict that there will be no announcement from the
scientific community that they were wrong. There will simply be
silence. The issue will slowly die away as Congress reduces funding
for climate change research.
Oh, there will still be some diehards who will continue to claim that
warming will resume at any time. And many will believe them. Some
folks will always view our world as a fragile, precariously balanced
system rather than a dynamic, resilient one. In such a world-view, any
manmade disturbance is by definition bad. Forests can change our
climate, but people aren't allowed to.
It is unfortunate that our next generation of researchers and teachers
is being taught to trust emotions over empirical evidence. Polar bears
are much more exciting than the careful analysis of data. Social and
political ends increasingly trump all other considerations. Science
that is not politically correct is becoming increasingly difficult to
publish. Even science reporting has become more sensationalist in
recent years.
I am not claiming that all of our recent warming is natural. But the
extreme reluctance for most scientists to even entertain the
possibility that some of it might be natural suggests to me that
climate research has become corrupted. I fear that the sloppy practice
of climate change science will damage our discipline for a long time
to come.
Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of
Alabama in Huntsville. His book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming
Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies
that Hurt the Poor, will be published this month
The hottest year: 1934?
It was never supposed to be a trick question. Which year is the hottest on record? Depending where one looks, there are three different answers: 2006, 1998 or 1934. Until last week, the answer was supposed to be 2006, but it might have been 1998. Now, citing corrections of faulty data, NASA says it was actually 1934. The National Climactic Data Center disagrees; it still says 1998.
The differences are a matter of tenths of a degree Celsius, which might seem to diminish the significance of the corrections. Except that unusually warm years in the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s are themselves only a few tenths of a degree Celsius away from the purportedly dangerous hot temperatures of the present. Only one thing is certain: The political debate over global warming has rushed far ahead of the science.
Here's what we know: The National Climatic Data Center reported in mid-January that 2006 was the hottest year on record. Then, in May, it revised the numbers, concluding that 1998, in fact, was the hottest on record. NASA's old numbers echoed that last contention. But last week, it emerged that NASA had quietly restated its numbers, without fanfare or so much as a press release, after a blogger pointed out faulty methodology. Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.
The media coverage amid this confusion has been execrable. Last week's Newsweek purports to take readers inside the world of "Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine" without mentioning that the global-warming alarmists are even better funded, in some cases with government support. Naturally, Newsweek is not very interested in the recent data restatement.
Here's another hysteric, The Washington Post, in January: "Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years," read its front-page story, "capping a nine-year warming streak 'unprecedented in the historical record' that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday." Funny, but we thought "unprecedented" would require an absence of, well, precedents, such as the 1920s and 1930s. These years were similarly warm decades, like the present.
Alas, when the source of data that prompted this story, the National Climatic Data Center, adjusted its numbers in May, The Post did not correct its shrieking January story. Nor has The Post yet bothered to report NASA's latest data restatement. Instead, on Friday, we get: "Did Global Warming Cause NYC Tornado?"
If we cannot get through 2007 without a data restatement so fundamental that it dethrones the "hottest year on record," we should not keep hearing angry intonations that "The debate is over." The debate is not over — not if such basic climate data is so disputed
Article Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/EDITORIAL/108150004
WILL GLOBAL WARMING CAUSE ANOTHER NOAH`S FLOOD?
Man is a very clever animal. For example, he is the only one who knows that the world will end someday, and worries about it. And he is the only creature that can create anything out of a useless thing like ice.
Now, lets imagine ourselves in a man-made ice theater-- floor, roof, and all. We are sitting on chairs made of ice; drinking beer from glasses (made of ice of course), and we are about to watch a play.
What is the play about? The actor, (of course flesh and blood) is going to enter into a mighty cooking pot made of ice. Then he will be covered; and the giant ice cooking pot, suspended by equally giant tripods (made of ice too), is to be
heated by a gigantic fire.
As we the spectators watch to see what happens to the actor, we observe that first, the iced floor begins to crack
as a result of the fire. Then the pot begins to melt, and before we know it, the ice-made glasses on our hands, also begin to melt as a result of the heat.
Suddenly, the roof of the heated ice theater begins to give way and collapse on our heads, and before long, we find ourselves swimming in an ocean of water. So, we the spectators become actors; and birds and all sorts of flying things, become the spectators!
But wait. This is not a play. It is real, and very soon where once used to be our houses, might well become an ocean,
and we all will be swimming for our lives! And if you live in
a coastal city, say New York, London, or Cape Town; you had better start making your ark for another Noah�s flood. But how, you may ask, will this come about?
Over the decades, man has turned up the global thermostat through the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. This has caused climatic upheavals (heavy rain, drought, superkiller winds), and health hazard
(skin cancer).
It has even been speculated that the warming trend could bring about the opposite -- global freeze. It happened before in Europe at the end of the Ice Age when a natural warming initiated a phenomenon that shut up the Gulf Stream. Suppose it happens again, and throws us into a deep freeze for say, 2000 years (the previous one in Europe lasted 1,300 years).
What if the former wins out and the polar ice begins a Great meltdown. It has been melting for decades, and several bodies of water have been forming at the Arctic and the Antarctica. And so what?
If you live in Alaska, you will now understand why memorial crosses are collapsing on the tombs in your local cemeteries while the tombs themselves are yawning and displaying their bowels. And you will know why your house is sinking or slanting at a terrible angle, and why your country roads are cracking up.
Even the animals are perplexed as they roam into unexpected lakes (where once used to be ice), and grasslands (where forests once stood). So the marooned polar bear gazing helplessly at the equally marooned countryman knows that the ground on which they are standing is playing games.
Just in case you are skeptical of the global warming trend, you could do one of two things: Find out why ivory gulls are now soaring in the Arctic, the land of polar bears. Or look
up down under and say what caused the gaping holes in Australia.
Yes, there are difficulties in predicting the Greenhouse effect. This is as a result of the roles of some elements --melting ice and snow, clouds, the oceans, volcanoes and solar cycles -- in the heating and cooling process of the earth.
AccuWeather.com Position Statement
Global climate change is a matter of intense concern and public importance. There can be little doubt that human beings influence the world's climate. At the same time, our knowledge of the extent, progress, mechanisms and results of global climate change is still incomplete. New data are becoming available every day - from tree rings to deep sea samples, ice cores, glacial changes and climatological models - while the greatest minds all over the world are working to better understand climate change and its impact on life on earth.
Scientific understanding emerges through full consideration of relevant data, appropriate debate and the application of the scientific method. Thus, we urge all scientists and members of the public to engage in the global warming discussion, including AccuWeather.com's experts. We encourage our scientists to express their personal views without the constraint of a corporate position they must follow. We are pleased to offer a major forum on AccuWeather.com for the wide-ranging consideration of this topic.
In the AccuWeather.com Global Warming Center, you will find links to the latest research, commentary by experts with various points of view on all aspects of climate change, and a forum for you to share your own thoughts, ask questions, and interact with the best scientific minds and knowledge in this area. From time to time, we may post questions about climate change for general consideration and to further stimulate debate. We welcome your contributions to the discussion.
We encourage you to visit global-warming.accuweather.com often to keep abreast of the discussion
Outstanding Job That Anthony Watts Has Done On Documenting The Immediate Environment Of Suface Temperature Monitoring Sites
Anthony Watts is performing a seminal service to the climate community in leading the effort to document the immediate environment around surface temperature monitoring sites that are used to construct multi-decadal surface temperature trends and anomalies. His data and analyses for the sites can be found at Weather Stations.
The current Climate Science weblog is to recognize this essential contribution.
This analysis should be led by Tom Karl at the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), however, he has, unfortunately, ignored recommendations to do this (e.g, Pielke Sr., Roger A., 2005: Public Comment on CCSP Report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences“. 88 pp). Thus while we hear several times a year from NCDC (e.g. see) how the temperatures rank relative to other years, the large obvious problems with the historical climate reference network, that Anthony and his outstanding volunteers have shown, should be a wake-up call to the media and to the public that they are being provided temperature information by NCDC that is not spatially representative of actual temperature anomalies over the USA, and likely has a significant warm bias.
Study: Regional Nuclear War Would Weaken Ozone Layer
"A regional nuclear war would not only be devastating to the countries involved, it would cause havoc worldwide for at least a decade, according to a new analysis." - Foxnews.com
That is one good thing to know... a nuclear war is not the best for the world??? Like it is something we think about before we start the next one!! Read the full story here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347712,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/naturalscience
Top 50 Things To Do To Stop Global Warming
Global Warming is a dramatically urgent and serious problem. We don't need to wait for governments to find a solution for this problem: each individual can bring an important help adopting a more responsible lifestyle: starting from little, everyday things. It's the only reasonable way to save our planet, before it is too late.
Here is a list of 50 simple things that everyone can do in order to fight against and reduce the Global Warming phenomenon: some of these ideas are at no cost, some other require a little effort or investment but can help you save a lot of money, in the middle-long term!
Replace a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (cfl)
CFLs use 60% less energy than a regular bulb. This simple switch will save about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.Install a programmable thermostat
Programmable thermostats will automatically lower the heat or air conditioning at night and raise them again in the morning. They can save you $100 a year on your energy bill.Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summer
Almost half of the energy we use in our homes goes to heating and cooling. You could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple adjustment.Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditioner
Cleaning a dirty air filter can save 350 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.Choose energy efficient appliances when making new purchases
Look for the Energy Star label on new appliances to choose the most energy efficient products available.Do not leave appliances on standby
Use the "on/off" function on the machine itself. A TV set that's switched on for 3 hours a day (the average time Europeans spend watching TV) and in standby mode during the remaining 21 hours uses about 40% of its energy in standby mode.Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanket
You’ll save 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple action. You can save another 550 pounds per year by setting the thermostat no higher than 50°C.Move your fridge and freezer
Placing them next to the cooker or boiler consumes much more energy than if they were standing on their own. For example, if you put them in a hot cellar room where the room temperature is 30-35ºC, energy use is almost double and causes an extra 160kg of CO2 emissions for fridges per year and 320kg for freezers.Defrost old fridges and freezers regularly
Even better is to replace them with newer models, which all have automatic defrost cycles and are generally up to two times more energy-efficient than their predecessors.Don't let heat escape from your house over a long period
When airing your house, open the windows for only a few minutes. If you leave a small opening all day long, the energy needed to keep it warm inside during six cold months (10ºC or less outside temperature) would result in almost 1 ton of CO2 emissions.Replace your old single-glazed windows with double-glazing
This requires a bit of upfront investment, but will halve the energy lost through windows and pay off in the long term. If you go for the best the market has to offer (wooden-framed double-glazed units with low-emission glass and filled with argon gas), you can even save more than 70% of the energy lost.Get a home energy audit
Many utilities offer free home energy audits to find where your home is poorly insulated or energy inefficient. You can save up to 30% off your energy bill and 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Energy Star can help you find an energy specialist.Cover your pots while cooking
Doing so can save a lot of the energy needed for preparing the dish. Even better are pressure cookers and steamers: they can save around 70%!Use the washing machine or dishwasher only when they are full
If you need to use it when it is half full, then use the half-load or economy setting. There is also no need to set the temperatures high. Nowadays detergents are so efficient that they get your clothes and dishes clean at low temperatures.Take a shower instead of a bath
A shower takes up to four times less energy than a bath. To maximise the energy saving, avoid power showers and use low-flow showerheads, which are cheap and provide the same comfort.Use less hot water
It takes a lot of energy to heat water. You can use less hot water by installing a low flow showerhead (350 pounds of carbon dioxide saved per year) and washing your clothes in cold or warm water (500 pounds saved per year) instead of hot.Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possible
You can save 700 pounds of carbon dioxide when you air dry your clothes for 6 months out of the year.Insulate and weatherize your home
Properly insulating your walls and ceilings can save 25% of your home heating bill and 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Caulking and weather-stripping can save another 1,700 pounds per year. Energy Efficient has more information on how to better insulate your home.Be sure you’re recycling at home
You can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide a year by recycling half of the waste your household generates.Recycle your organic waste
Around 3% of the greenhouse gas emissions through the methane is released by decomposing bio-degradable waste. By recycling organic waste or composting it if you have a garden, you can help eliminate this problem! Just make sure that you compost it properly, so it decomposes with sufficient oxygen, otherwise your compost will cause methane emissions and smell foul.Buy intelligently
One bottle of 1.5l requires less energy and produces less waste than three bottles of 0.5l. As well, buy recycled paper products: it takes less 70 to 90% less energy to make recycled paper and it prevents the loss of forests worldwide.Choose products that come with little packaging and buy refills when you can
You will also cut down on waste production and energy use... another help against global warming.Reuse your shopping bag
When shopping, it saves energy and waste to use a reusable bag instead of accepting a disposable one in each shop. Waste not only discharges CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, it can also pollute the air, groundwater and soil.Reduce waste
Most products we buy cause greenhouse gas emissions in one or another way, e.g. during production and distribution. By taking your lunch in a reusable lunch box instead of a disposable one, you save the energy needed to produce new lunch boxes.Plant a tree
A single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. Shade provided by trees can also reduce your air conditioning bill by 10 to 15%. The Arbor Day Foundation has information on planting and provides trees you can plant with membership.Switch to green power
In many areas, you can switch to energy generated by clean, renewable sources such as wind and solar. In some of these, you can even get refunds by government if you choose to switch to a clean energy producer, and you can also earn money by selling the energy you produce and don't use for yourself.Buy locally grown and produced foods
The average meal in the United States travels 1,200 miles from the farm to your plate. Buying locally will save fuel and keep money in your community.Buy fresh foods instead of frozen
Frozen food uses 10 times more energy to produce.Seek out and support local farmers markets
They reduce the amount of energy required to grow and transport the food to you by one fifth. Seek farmer’s markets in your area, and go for them.Buy organic foods as much as possible
Organic soils capture and store carbon dioxide at much higher levels than soils from conventional farms. If we grew all of our corn and soybeans organically, we’d remove 580 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere!Eat less meat
Methane is the second most significant greenhouse gas and cows are one of the greatest methane emitters. Their grassy diet and multiple stomachs cause them to produce methane, which they exhale with every breath.Reduce the number of miles you drive by walking, biking, carpooling or taking mass transit wherever possible
Avoiding just 10 miles of driving every week would eliminate about 500 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year! Look for transit options in your area.Start a carpool with your coworkers or classmates
Sharing a ride with someone just 2 days a week will reduce your carbon dioxide emissions by 1,590 pounds a year. eRideShare.com runs a free service connecting north american commuters and travelers.Don't leave an empty roof rack on your car
This can increase fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by up to 10% due to wind resistance and the extra weight - removing it is a better idea.Keep your car tuned up
Regular maintenance helps improve fuel efficiency and reduces emissions. When just 1% of car owners properly maintain their cars, nearly a billion pounds of carbon dioxide are kept out of the atmosphere.Drive carefully and do not waste fuel
You can reduce CO2 emissions by readjusting your driving style. Choose proper gears, do not abuse the gas pedal, use the engine brake instead of the pedal brake when possible and turn off your engine when your vehicle is motionless for more than one minute. By readjusting your driving style you can save money on both fuel and car mantainance.Check your tires weekly to make sure they’re properly inflated
Proper tire inflation can improve gas mileage by more than 3%. Since every gallon of gasoline saved keeps 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, every increase in fuel efficiency makes a difference!When it is time for a new car, choose a more fuel efficient vehicle
You can save 3,000 pounds of carbon dioxide every year if your new car gets only 3 miles per gallon more than your current one. You can get up to 60 miles per gallon with a hybrid! You can find information on fuel efficiency on FuelEconomy and on GreenCars websites.Try car sharing
Need a car but don’t want to buy one? Community car sharing organizations provide access to a car and your membership fee covers gas, maintenance and insurance. Many companies – such as Flexcar - offer low emission or hybrid cars too! Also, see ZipCar.Try telecommuting from home
Telecommuting can help you drastically reduce the number of miles you drive every week. For more information, check out the Telework Coalition.Fly less
Air travel produces large amounts of emissions so reducing how much you fly by even one or two trips a year can reduce your emissions significantly. You can also offset your air travel carbon emissions by investingin renewable energy projects.Encourage your school or business to reduce emissions
You can extend your positive influence on global warming well beyond your home by actively encouraging other to take action.Join the virtual march
The Stop Global Warming Virtual March is a non-political effort to bring people concerned about global warming together in one place. Add your voice to the hundreds of thousands of other people urging action on this issue.Encourage the switch to renewable energy
Successfully combating global warming requires a national transition to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass. These technologies are ready to be deployed more widely but there are regulatory barriers impeding them. U.S. citizens, take action to break down those barriers with Vote Solar.Protect and conserve forest worldwide
Forests play a critial role in global warming: they store carbon. When forests are burned or cut down, their stored carbon is release into the atmosphere - deforestation now accounts for about 20% of carbon dioxide emissions each year. Conservation International has more information on saving forests from global warming.Consider the impact of your investments
If you invest your money, you should consider the impact that your investments and savings will have on global warming. Check out SocialInvest and Ceres to can learn more about how to ensure your money is being invested in companies, products and projects that address issues related to climate change.Make your city cool
Cities and states around the country have taken action to stop global warming by passing innovative transportation and energy saving legislation. If you're in the U.S., join the cool cities list.Tell Congress to act
The McCain Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would set a firm limit on carbon dioxide emissions and then use free market incentives to lower costs, promote efficiency and spur innovation. Tell your representative to support it.Make sure your voice is heard!
Americans must have a stronger commitment from their government in order to stop global warming and implement solutions and such a commitment won’t come without a dramatic increase in citizen lobbying for new laws with teeth. Get the facts about U.S. politicians and candidates at Project Vote Smart and The League of Conservation Voters. Make sure your voice is heard by voting!Share this list!
Send this page via e-mail to your friends! Spread this list worldwide and help people doing their part: the more people you will manage to enlighten, the greater YOUR help to save the planet will be (but please take action on first person too)!
If you like, you are free to republish, adapt or translate the list and post it in your blog, website or forum as long as you give us credit with a link to the original source.
Thank you.