Global warming, bad science and political correctness?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

DOCTORS FOR DISASTER PREPAREDNESS NEWSLETTER

January 2000

Vol. XVII, No. 1

GLOBAL WARMING ``DISCREPANCIES'' As the multimillion-dollar campaign to win support for the Kyoto Global Energy Rationing Protocol heats up, the National Research Council has issued a report and news release: ``New Evidence Helps Reconcile Global Warming Discrepancies; Confirms That Earth's Surface Temperature Is Rising.''

The report addresses a vexing body of evidence that the temperature of the earth's low- to mid-troposphere is not increasing. This is an extremely important discrepancy because climate models relied on by drafters of the Kyoto Treaty generally predict that ``temperatures should increase in the upper air as well as at the surface if increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing the warming'' (NRC press release 1/12/2000).

The main focus of the 84-page report by an 11-member scientific panel is to review and reassess old evidence in an effort to resolve the discord between global climate theory and actual observations, partly by ``correcting'' the data.

The executive summary acknowledges the need to consider ``the contribution of natural climate variability to decade-to-decade climate changes.'' It even mentions the sun as one of three external factors that can influence climate (volcanic eruptions and greenhouse gases are the others). Solar variability is alluded to four times, but in a purely qualitative sense. The graphs showing excellent correlation between solar magnetic cycle length and the earth's temperature are neither shown nor referenced.

Century-to-century climate changes (as in Ice Ages and the Medieval Climate Optimum) are ignored; no graphs go back further than 1880.

There is indisputably at least one human-caused effect in the surface temperature record: land-use changes such as urbanization, producing the heat island effect (which global warmers will now have to acknowledge). Weather stations tend to be located near population centers, producing biased data. Many areas are sparsely covered, and there is actually less land station coverage than in 1990.

The panel considers removing the data determined to be ``erroneous'' and ``adjusting'' biased data to account for inhomogeneities. But what of the possibility of biased scientists whose research funding depends on ``finding'' global warming?

Satellite-based Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) provide vast quantities of data (more than 15,000 measurements per day) and have truly global coverage. After applying numerous corrections, as for orbital drift, radiometer gain, and diurnal drift, the fact remains: Tropospheric temperature has changed so little over 20 years that a different sign for the trend is obtained, depending upon whether or not the final year of the record is included-a year that was extraordinarily warm in the wake of the exceptionally strong 1997-98 El Niqo. Panel members who wish to discount the significance of the satellite data note that the discrepancy with surface data might be explained ``if the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 were stronger and longer lasting than that of El Chichon in 1982'' [emphasis added].

The standard deviation of 0.2 to 0.3 ?C over 20 years in a globally averaged temperature time series ``makes it difficult to establish long-term temperature trends using a 20-year period,'' states the report. Yet the surface temperature trend over the past 20 years-an upward trend of between 0.25 to 0.4 ?C, depending on which data set or curve-fitting method is used-is precisely the information being used to sell Kyoto.

An ``ensemble of simulations'' run with the climate model (``computationally intensive numerical experiments'') has yielded a ``number of different possible scenarios.'' Yet, ``model- observation discrepancies indicate that the definitive model experiments have not yet been done.'' The panel concludes: the observed disparity between surface and satellite measurements is ``probably at least partially real.''

In other words, the adjusted real-world observations still don't agree with the global warmers' predictions. The panel further concludes that ``major advances'' in scientific methods will be necessary before important questions can be resolved.

The bottom line in the report is a plea for more research money, apparently to prove the admittedly problematic theory that Kyoto already assumes to be fact. Conclusions that readers can draw for themselves: (1) There is still no proof that the relatively benign climate now enjoyed by the earth (as compared with 1880) has anything to do with human activity and (2) The predictions of global climate catastrophe made by global warmers have been refuted, even if the 300-year warming trend continues.

You can read or search Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change on line at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9755.html or order a print copy from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave, NW, Box 285, Washington, DC 20055, (800) 624-6242. Nothing in this report invalidates the review of the evidence relevant to global warming and the effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide by Robinson et al., Medical Sentinel Sept/Oct 1998 (also available at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm). An excellent review of the NRC report by Arthur and Noah Robinson appeared in The Wall Street Journal, 1/18/2000, p. A26.

CHILLING RESEARCH AND COOKING DATA In May, 1999, Evan DeLucia and ten colleagues published an article in Science showing the fertilizing effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on the Loblolly pine. In a letter to the editor, Bert Bolin, first head of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote: ``In the current, post-Kyoto international political climate, scientific statements about the behavior of the terrestrial carbon cycle must be made with care...'' Translation by Patrick Michaels: ``Scientists had better consider NOT publishing results that might undermine support for Kyoto. Signed, the Boss.'' The IPCC's former chief scientist Sir John Houghton wrote in 1996 that climate change is a ``moral issue.'' He said that he agreed with the World Council of Churches, ``which calls upon the Government to adopt firm, clear policies and targets [read: Kyoto], and the public to accept the necessary consequences.'' The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will ``contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference.''

Michaels states: ``This is the chilled environment in which the secular scientist now works. Leaders of the world's premier scientific organizations on climate change now publicly call for the suppression of research findings and invoke religion, and not science, as the basis for policy'' http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/kyotoseffects.htm

In December, 1999, seven ``environmental'' groups released a worldwide map with more than 100 anecdotes and reports of scientific studies that purport to prove that global warming is on our doorstep. ``They've cooked their books,'' writes David Mastio (USA Today 12/16/99), and ``their map is as much a big lie as any created by a Soviet-era dictator.'' For example, the breakup of the West Antarctic ice sheet is hardly proof of global warming, as the sheet has been retreating by several hundred feet per year for more than 7,000 years. While some glaciers in Greenland are melting, other, more important ones are expanding. Is global warming responsible for tropical diseases in the United States? In 1793, an outbreak of yellow fever killed thousands in Philadelphia. Noah Webster collected observations from numerous physicians and used them to promote improved sanitation.

-- PA Engineer (PA Engineer@longtimelurker.com), February 25, 2000

Answers

Many links to responsible research are at the site.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html

The goal of a "Paleo Perspective on Global Warming" was to clear up some of the confusion surrounding the issues of global warming, greenhouse warming, the ozone hole, and related change in the Earth's climate system. In particular, we wanted to highlight what paleoclimatic data are, where they come from, and what the data contributes to the global warming debate.

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality. Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that the recent year, decade, and century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.

There are, however, questions remaining concerning Global Warming. For instance, what is causing all this warming and what are the implications for the future? The answers to these questions are not simple.

There is considerable debate centered on the cause of 20th century climate change. Few people contest the idea that some of the recent climate changes are likely due to natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar luminosity, and variations generated by natural interactions between parts of the climate system (for example, oceans and the atmosphere). There were significant climate changes before humans were around and there will be non-human causes of climate change in the future.

Just the same, with each year, more and more climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that human activity is also causing the climate of the Earth to change. First on the list of likely human influences is greenhouse warming due to human-caused increases in atmospheric trace-gases. Other human activities are thought to drive climate as well. As this web document points out, there is no doubt that humans are causing the level of atmospheric trace-gases to increase dramatically - the measurements match the predictions. There is also no doubt that these gases will contribute to global warming (since they warmed the Earth before humans). However, there is uncertainty about some issues. For example, these questions remain to be answered with complete confidence:

How much warming has occurred due to anthropogenic increases in atmospheric trace-gas levels? How much warming will occur in the future? How fast will this warming take place? What other kinds of climatic change will be associated with future warming?

Paleoclimatology offers to help answer each of these questions. Several of the paleoclimate studies reported on in this web document (Briffa et al., Mann et al., Overpeck et al.) have begun efforts to attribute past climate change to both natural and human causes, and to use this information to estimate how much of the current warming is due to humans (i.e., greenhouse warming). The best estimate is that about 50% of the observed global warming is now due to greenhouse gas increases. Although this number will continue to be refined, it indicates that the climate modeling community is on target with their estimates that the earth may warm an additional 2 to 7 degrees F in the next century.

What future global warming means to society is beyond the scope of these www pages. However, the paper by Overpeck et al. also includes an analysis of what the unprecedented 20th century warming has meant so far to the Arctic environment. Because the warming already seems to be causing unprecedented changes in glaciers, permafrost, lakes, ecosystems and the oceans, it is likely that future changes will be even more dramatic as the warming continues.

-- Is it warm in here or is (it@just.me?), February 25, 2000.


Junk science is rampant today. It's is useful for advancing the agendas of certain organizations.

Global warming or no, I think we should try to preserve the bioshere the way that it is. We can't predict what the changes we introduce to it in the form of pollutants will be. And we depend on it for survival. So I'm all for decreasing our reliance on fossil fuel power and transportation.

So I'm going to buy solar and wind power harvesting gear. (Actually already have.) It's something I can do where I'm sure my dollars are having a direct effect on the issues.

The UN or any international treaty organization proposing to tax the US citizen can get bent. And get lost. We're a soveriegn nation.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), February 25, 2000.


PA

Thanks for the articles. Global warming does seem to have become a fearmongering religion. Some fair, level headed and reasonable research appears to be lacking.

-- Lucy (lifeisgoodhere@webtv.net), February 25, 2000.


Researchers say global warming may be speeding up (with lots of caveats):

http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/02/23/fasterwarming.ap/index.html

-- Bugeye (New@lurker.com), February 25, 2000.


PA: Do you have a URL for the "Docs for Disaster Prep Newsletter"? Would appreciate it! Thx.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), February 25, 2000.


Anita, here is the link

DOCTORS FOR DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

-- PA Engineer (PA Engineer@longtimelurker.com), February 25, 2000.


what the heck is the world council of churches doing in the middle of all this pray tell?

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), February 25, 2000.

The World Council of Churches is a VERY liberal, EXTREMELY politically-active group of "supposed" churches (actually just un-elected church leaders) who routinely jump in to the political battles.

They are the source usually cited by the press whenever it wants a "church" view different from, or opposing conservative principles.

they have no scientific (or political) judgement, but (like most liberals) can be relied upon to spew whatever line is dsired, regardless of logic or analysis. To them, the facts don't matter. Only publicity and headlines.

If any group could be said to be "world-socialist" dominated, anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-US, and anti-free-world-defense (though they are never seen to criticize any Communist country or practice - including Christian persecution!) - it is this "council."

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 25, 2000.


Yes global warming is a political agenda!!!Do a search for john l. daly to get the lowdown on what is happening in that area.

-- just a thought (tigerpm@netscape.com), February 25, 2000.

Most of the glaciers on planet Earth are retreating, although there are some expanding (warmer oceans are thought to put more moisture into the atmosphere). Permafrost in Alaska is starting to melt. One quarter of the world's forests have been cut since world war ii (according to the smithsonian institution). Tornadoes in wintertime are a relatively new phenomenon in the US ...

A Delaware sized chunk of ice broke off Antartica about two years ago.

There is no dispute among climatologists that we are changing the climate. There isn't really any dispute in the rest of the world, although here in the US of A the fossil fuel lobby spends $$$ to hire "scientists" who claim that since we don't know everything that is happening we should do nothing. It's comparable to the strategy of the tobacco industry about four decades ago.

There is NO dispute that the carbon content of the atmosphere increased by about one-quarter during the twentieth century. The "confusionists" merely claim that this will benefit plants, although this is speculation. If they're wrong, we will all suffer greatly.

The insurance industry has been on the forefront of warning about the economic impact of climate change, since they're the ones who will go broke first (paying for storm damages).

I made most of my y2k preps anticipating climate change, not teotwawki. Sustainability, not mere stockpiling.

The doomers on this board should check out Ross Gelbspan's "The Heat is On" which includes a chapter on the "permanent state of emergency" likely to be induced by crop failures, desertification and water shortages.

Atmospheric chemistry doesn't care about anyone's political proclivities.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

-- mark (wind@solar.com), February 25, 2000.



Once again Mark,please do a search for john l. daly!!!He is from Tasmania,and doesn't get money from fossil fuels or anyone else.Yes many countries oppuse the Kyoto protocals.We in the usa are not alone in opposing the pseudo science of global warming

-- just a thought (tigerpm@netscape.com), February 25, 2000.

He said that he agreed with the World Council of Churches, ``which calls upon the Government to adopt firm, clear policies and targets [read: Kyoto], and the public to accept the necessary consequences.'' The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will ``contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference.''

It would probably make a tremendous difference IF and ONLY IF all polluting countries were to be bound by the protocol instead of only some of the 1st world countries and a smattering of the others. The way it is set up, it would serve to create a temporary reduction in pollution only until the major polluter countries like China, catch up in about 7-10 years and exceed our combined pollution output right now.

Actually, what it serves to do is redistribute wealth to those countries not participating in the Kyoto protocol, and does very little to address the *GLOBAL* need for honest, forthright and fully cooperative stewardship toward our resources and reduction in harmful wastes.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), February 25, 2000.


While I am not prepared to deny global warming is real, I am prepared to say that humans contribution to it is probably insignificant. I will not accept the destruction of the "free" worlds industrial base while the rest of the world is permitted to industrialize. It sounds too much like what "they" would want me to do.

-- JB (noway@jose.com), February 25, 2000.

The problem, Mark, is that many (most ?) of these supposed "scientists" claiming all these things is that they have been "bought off" - not always by money (though most are receiving HUGE grants to "study" global warming and research each others prejudged "conclusions" - such as your statement. The problem is that these supposed scientists ARE NOT in agreement, and are under great social and political pressure from their ecologist/anti-freedom "peers" to spout the conclusions they are making.

Look at the "thousands" of signatures supposedly on the summary of this report - they are NOT valid and independent scientific reviewers and researchers, but are many (repeated signatures) from fringe elements of a series of groups demanding world control of the economic system. Most (not all) but most are no more valid than that of my local libriarian - if that.

And no more independent a source of truth than that of a Clinton White House staffer claiming the President never lied.

If human activity is responsible for today's global warming, why did the glaciers and ice caps melt before?

Many times before.

You are making conclusions to justify your desire to shutdown American free enterprise. And so are most socialists worldwide, thereby condemning most of humanity to suffering, short life spans, death, and misery. Why?

Obviously, the world leaders and ivory tower scholars demanding these changes won't be affected though by the misery demanded of their citizens, subjects - er, slaves.

---...---...---

Once, when his theories were being attacked by the Nazi's because he was a Jew, Einstein remarked - "So they have 5000 signatures trying to prove the Theory of Relativity is wrong .... if I was wrong, they would only need one."

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 25, 2000.


As a resident of the Great State of Minnesota, I must say i't easy to be a "polly" on this one.

As best as I am able to determine, a little global warming should do wonders for the climate around here. An article in today's local paper (the Star-Tribune) suggested that the growing season in Minnesota would get longer, the winters milder, and things just a little wetter (and we do have occasional drought out here, being right on the line between forest and prairie).

So, think positively of us Minnesotans next time you think of buying that SUV. After all, we'll all feel a little sad when New York disappears underwater, but you can't make the proverbial omlet without breaking the proverbial eggs.

On the other hand, this winter is not being kind to the cross-country skiers (of which I am one), so I suppose global warming is not an entirely positive event.

-- E. H. Porter (E.H. Porter@just wondering.about it), February 25, 2000.



Mr. E.H. Porter,

>As best as I am able to determine, a little global warming should do wonders for the climate around here. An article in today's local paper (the Star-Tribune) suggested that the growing season in Minnesota would get longer, the winters milder, and things just a little wetter (and we do have occasional drought out here, being right on the line between forest and prairie).<

Allow me to add, kind Sir, that one additional, perhaps overlooked, benefit that will accrue to you folks in the "Land of 10,000 Lakes", is that I will migrate my skinny little ancient a** back up there to live too.

For now, it's too da*n cold up there for any mortal man to bear. But, come global warming? I'm outta here like a rocket and it's back to East Grand forks by the north Red river. I've seen worse. Not that many mind you, but worse non the less.

I spent some time in the land of the snow snakes & ice worms before this.

Heat it up a tad and I'll be back up there again. You might could maybe bribe Michigan to accept me though, if you was to try real hard.

Ohio you can forget about. The only thing that Ohio ever did that was right was to deny me a citizenship in the state. True.

I was born there, and lived there for 16 years, but they refused to accept that as proof of citizenship in the state. So, you can forget about Ohio.

The deal is - No warming, no S.O.B. Some warming, you cut a deal with Michigan or you move your butt over a little bit and make some room for a transplanted Yankee from Louisiana. Your option.

S.O.B.

-- sweetolebob (buffgun@hotmail.com), February 25, 2000.


just a thought,

Here's a link to John Daly's "Still Waiting for Greenhouse" site:

John Daly site

Lots of pertinent stuff there.

Meanwhile,

the http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/ site seems to have a neat approach "... to clear up some of the confusion surrounding the issues of global warming ..." etc, by simply asserting that conflicting reports are wrong, so there! :-)

For some conflicting reports, one might consider:

From: Alternate view

On the basis of various studies, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Houghton et al., 1990) has determined that the mean air temperature of the globe over the last thousand years most likely varied as shown in the figure at the following link:

Some temps

And then there is:

Long er term

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), February 25, 2000.


Here's another non-corrupted site for information on that "science" known as Global Warming.

http://www.sepp.org/

We've had how many Ice Age's in the last few million years? And after each one do you think it may "appear" to the mammals that the planet is warming? Get a grip folks. A 100 or 200 or 1000 year estimate that the planet is warmer is nothing.

And of course we are changing the atmosphere. We do that everytime we exhale!

-- BigGuy (champeaudavid@yahoo.com), February 26, 2000.


eyes_open ,

The UN or any international treaty organization proposing to tax the US citizen can get bent. And get lost. We're a soveriegn nation.

Watch six and keep your...

eyes_open<

I agree with you on this one for da*n sure.

I think that we should tell the UN to get the h*ll out of our country anyway, but they da*n sure aren't going to levy any taxes on me for any reason.

We American citizens had that basic discussion with England a few years ago, about 1775-1783, and again in 1812-1815 as I recall, and I kind of thought that the issue was dead. Now it seems as though we may have to remind our own government that we still want to keep it that way. At least as far as the United States of North America is concerned.

The basic premise of the Kyoto Protocol is flawed in it's assumptions, skewered in it's deductions, and is pure power politics, and pseudo science, in action, and massaging the numbers doesn't correct that error. It simply compounds it.

No one knows for certain sure just what the effects are, or what small portion of the global warming is attributable to human actions, if indeed any such global warming exists at all.

That we are changing the planet and it's basic biosphere is without question. What is in very serious question is just what the effects of this will be, and that question can only be answered in a future time.

I think that we must change our way of doing business soon, and greatly decrease our use of carbon fuels, and that of pesticides too for that matter. But, no one, not me, nor you, nor anyone else has a lock on the truth of the matter as yet, and therefore we must not rush into any half-baked plan that will cause more damage than is already extant, which this thing would do. And, it would do so in areas and fields far removed from the global warming theatre and deeply into the field of politics.

And, we damn sure don't need any August body assessing any energy rations, or taxes on any nation.

check 6

S.O.B.

-- sweetolebob (buffgun@hotmail.com), February 26, 2000.


Some extremely interesting points of view on this topic. But based on the evidence that Global warming is a myth, I am prepared to predict that average global temperatures will be lower this year than last year by 0.5C +/- 0.2C. And as the standard deviation for global temperature measurement is aproximately 0.25C, this is a very explicit prediction.

I am basing my prediction on the relationship between average global temperature and the El-Nino cycle (SOI) as described in this link.

Would any of the proponents of global warming care to have a go at predicting what they believe the change in average global temperature will be for the year 2000, and also state what they are basing their prediction on?

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), February 27, 2000.


Malcolm,

You might consider specifying satellite based temperatures, or whether urban heat island effects are eligible ingredients for settling one's prediction. :-)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), February 27, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ