Home

About Us

Contact Us

Reality Checks

Global Warming Articles Page 2

Return to Global Warming Page 1

Arctic IceCapades. 

The recent report Artic Climate Impact Assessment has raised the temperatures of those calling for drastic action to reduce CO2 levels…especially those calling for action by the United States.

The report, available on line, repeats much of the information contained in the IPCC report and complements it with narrative and illustrations designed to create an emotional response. Projections contained in the report are derived from computer models.

At issue, however, is whether the science supports the report’s conclusions Since much of the information contained in the IPCC report has either been discredited or questioned, e.g. the Mann Hockey Stick, and that computer models have proven to be unreliable for forecasting climate change, the entire report needs careful analysis before accepting the report’s conclusions.

The essence of the report is that arctic ice is melting because of CO2 and that the recent increases in temperatures confirm this thesis.

The following illustration (from the book Meltdown by Michaels) shows the temperatures for the North Polar region over the last century: warming from the mid 1920’s to mid 1960’s is greater than has recently occurred.

The integrated warming early in the last century--before humans could change the climate very much--is larger than current warming.

It should be noted that much of the recent warming has been in the winter when temperatures are well below freezing so that ice can not melt as the result of the warming.

In addition, extensive measurements of ice thickness have shown no trend in ice becoming thinner: they have shown great variability in terms of ice thinning and then thickening.

CO2 Science Magazine reported the results of one such study as follows:

Laxon et al. (2003) used an eight-year time series (1993-2001) of Arctic sea-ice thickness data derived from measurements of ice freeboard made by radar altimeters carried aboard ERS-1 and 2 satellites to determine the mean thickness and variability of Arctic sea ice between latitudes 65 and 81.5°N, which region covers the entire circumference of the Arctic Ocean, including the Beaufort, Chukchi, East Siberian, Kara, Laptev, Barents and Greenland Seas. These real-world observations served a number of purposes:

1. They revealed "an interannual variability in ice thickness at higher frequency, and of greater amplitude, than simulated by regional Arctic models,"

2. They undermined "the conclusion from numerical models that changes in ice thickness occur on much longer timescales than changes in ice extent," and

3. They showed that "sea ice mass can change by up to 16% within one year," which finding "contrasts with the concept of a slowly dwindling ice pack, produced by greenhouse warming." 

Laxon et al. thus concluded that "errors are present in current simulations of Arctic sea ice, stating in their closing sentence that "until models properly reproduce the observed high-frequency, and thermodynamically driven, variability in sea ice thickness, simulations of both recent, and future, changes in Arctic ice cover will be open to question”.

The voluminous content of the146 page report Artic Climate Impact Assessment cannot be thoroughly evaluated in a short news story: And the full scientific portion of the report won't be published until 2005.

It seems clear, however, that the underpinning of the study -- that arctic ice is melting because of CO2 and that the recent increases in temperatures confirm this thesis -- is suspect, since there was an earlier period (1920 – 1960) when Artic temperatures were higher...before the recent increases in CO2 levels.

November 28, 2004

The Broken Mann Hockey Stick. 

A new study by Dr. Hans von Storch of Germany's GKSS research center, hammers another nail into the coffin of the already discredited hockey stick generated by M. E. Mann et al.

The Mann study purportedly showed a gradual temperature drop from 1000 AD to 1900 AD, then a sharp rise in temperatures over the 20th century; thereby doing away with the little ice age and creating the impression that the sudden rise in temperature was caused by humans.

The hockey stick is actually a blending of different temperature proxies (the handle of the hockey stick) grafted onto temperature data for the 20th century for the Northern Hemisphere (the blade of the hockey stick). Twentieth century data for the Southern Hemisphere was ignored; a fact that, by itself, distorts the hockey stick no matter other deficiencies.

One of the proxies used by Mann was tree rings. Tree rings pose certain questions since judgments have to be made on whether to use the distance between rings or the width of the ring. Furthermore the rings show an average for a year and do not show winter lows or summer highs.

The global coverage of proxies is extremely sparse when compared with the worldwide network of modern temperature stations, not to mention satellite data from the past 30 years.

Altogether Mann et al used 112 proxies, most of which only go back to the 1600’s. Only 55 go back beyond 1600 and only 12 extend beyond 1400 AD. This latter group of proxies, only 12 covering a 400 year period, is no better than random numbers.

The new study by Dr. von Storch et al worked backwards, and tried to regenerate the computer generated climate records.

“In each case, Dr. von Storch said, the method nicely reproduced the last 100 years but sharply underestimated big century-long warm and cool spikes further back in time."

The discredited hockey stick was the center piece in the National Geographic’s article on global warming. It is found several times in the IPCC’s reports and is repeatedly referred to in the media. 

The hockey stick has been proven to be wrong; and this demolishes one of the key pillars supporting global warming.

October 24, 2004  

Hurricanes Past. 

The recent spate of hurricanes has given rise to the cry that global warming is causing an increase in severe weather.

Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the UN’s Environment Program, said the recent series of hurricanes that have devastated the Caribbean and parts of the United States demonstrate that reducing emissions is even more urgent now.

However, a look at the facts over the past century shows that hurricanes have not increased in severity or in frequency during the past 30 years, the period during which global warming is said to have manifested itself.

Of the hurricanes that reached the continental United States, there were 90 during the first half of the twentieth century and only 75 during the second half: An average of 7 major hurricanes reached the U.S. during the first half and only 6 during the second half of the century.

Table I shows the frequency of all hurricanes and of major hurricanes to reach the U.S. during each decade of the twentieth century.

Some insurance companies are claiming that global warming has increased the severity of storms as measured by casualty losses. After the ten most costly hurricanes (Table II) are adjusted for population growth and inflation only 2 of the ten were in or after 1969; while six were in the first half of the century.

When not adjusted for population growth and inflation 7 of the ten most costly storms occurred in or after 1969. (Andrew 1992, Hugo 1989, Agnes 1972, Betsy 1965, Camille 1969, Diane 1955, Frederic 1979, Floyd 1999, New England 1938, Fran 1996,)

The insurance losses are clearly attributable to the increased population affected by the storms and not to the frequency or severity of the storms.  

A recent Knight Ridder newspaper story claimed:  “If it seems as if more monster hurricanes, such as the soon-to-strike Frances, are swirling off the U.S. coast, you're right. We're in the midst of a record-breaking decade of hurricane activity.” 

This claim was based on NOAA’s Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index that only covered the second half of the twentieth century.

As can be seen from the above tables, the number and severity of storms were greater in the first half of the twentieth century and, contrary to the claim by the Knight Ridder newspapers, we are not yet in a record breaking decade of hurricane activity.

Hurricanes have been the subject of detailed scientific study analyzing data going back several thousand years. These studies all show that there have been fewer hurricanes during warm periods than cold.

One recent study demonstrates these findings: “Elsner et al. (2000) developed a history of major hurricane strikes of Bermuda, Jamaica and Puerto Rico, finding far fewer such storms in the last half of the 20th century than in all five of the preceding 50-year periods.  From 1701 to 1850, for example, when the earth was locked in the chilling grip of the Little Ice Age, the frequency of major hurricane occurrence was fully 2.8 times greater than it was from 1951 to 1998; and from 1851 to 1950, when the planet was in transition from the Little Ice Age to the Modern Warm Period, it was 2.2 times greater.” (Quoted from CO2Science.org paper; Hurricanes ( Atlantic Ocean - Global Warming Effect) -- Summary.)

Source of Hurricane data: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For more information go to: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/index.html

October 18, 2004

Triangulation Raises Global Warming Doubts. 

Recent scientific papers have helped explain the differences between temperatures taken at ground level and those taken by satellites and balloons: Satellite temperature readings, confirmed by weather balloon readings, show little if any warming in the lower atmosphere (i.e., the region between 5000 and 30,000 feet).

The satellite readings have indicated there is little global warming which is contrary to the claims of the IPCC and many NGO’s. Equally disturbing is that the IPCC computer models say that temperatures should increase with altitude; which the satellite readings show is not happening thereby casting a further cloud over the integrity of the IPCC’s computer models.

Now, two recent studies have confirmed that economic conditions are influencing the temperature readings at ground level. It has been the ground level readings that the IPCC and alarmists have used to claim there is global warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

In May 2003 University of Maryland researchers, Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai, published a paper that showed that half of the temperature increases at ground level are due to urban and other land use changes. This is twice as great an impact as previous estimates based on urbanization alone.

Now, Canadian Ross McKitrick, an economist, and Patrick Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences, have published a paper showing the linkage between a nation’s GDP growth and warming. The paper had four years of peer review.

The paper shows that around “one half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can be changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, or upkeep of records”. This worldwide study complements and expands on the University of Maryland study that focused on the United States.

This triangulation of scientific data (satellite temperature readings, confirmed by weather balloon readings, with ground temperature increases due in large part to economic land use factors) demonstrates that there is little global warming caused by greenhouse gasses.

September 12, 2004

EPA Science Forum 

Greater public education is needed on climate change so that a better informed public would be less likely to support extreme policies driven by an apocalyptic vision of the future. “Public ignorance and confusion are enablers of politicization”. 

This was one of the statements by Bill O’Keefe, President Marshall Institute, who spoke on the need for public education and the establishment of priorities for climate research.

He addressed the topic Science to Support Decisions on Climate Change at the June EPA Science Forum.  

He stated that climate models should have a much lower priority in government research. Rather than focusing on models that give poor and misleading forecasts he wants greater focus on building the knowledge base and data that could eventually turn computer models into useful tools.

Specifically he stated that a high priority should be given to research “on key climate variables such as water vapor, feedbacks, cloud formation, solar variability, ocean currents and aerosols”. These are some of the variables about which little is known; yet assumptions about them are plugged into computer models; brining to mind the computer truism, GIGO (garbage in garbage out).

With respect to models he said that in spite of their severe limitations they “are being made more complex and misused with abandon”. Until science has better inputs for the models, “efforts to build and use more complex models will simply squander scarce resources and perpetuate the conflict we have witnessed over the past decade”.

One of the basic criteria for policy should be to recognize that the time horizon for planning and actions should be inversely related to the extent of uncertainty. The greater the uncertainty the more important it is to look to short term actions and avoid actions that lock the country into long term commitments.

“We need to honestly face up to the fact that our ignorance of the climate system dwarfs our understanding of it.”

He noted that we have time to pursue short term issues as we are not facing a near term crisis. “Over the next few decades, most scientists believe that modest increases in temperatures will produce net benefits for the U.S." By continuing to reduce carbon intensity and increase energy efficiency, actions that are well underway, we are on a path that makes sense for the economy. It can “be debated whether we should do more, but it is wrong to say that nothing is being done”.

Policies that fly in the face of economics and energy realities will have little hope of surviving. Though not stated; “it is the economy stupid” when it comes to public acceptance of long term solutions to economic problems.

“In the end, climate policy is energy policy”.

The entire text of William O’Keefe’s presentation can be obtained from the Marshall Institute at www.marshall.org.

July 4, 2004

Little Global Warming.  

Satellite temperature readings continue to show little warming of the Troposphere.

University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) scientists measure the middle to lower atmosphere using microwave sounding units (MSU’s) mounted on satellites. Orbiting the Earth the MSU’s monitor Oxygen molecules whose emissions vary depending on the molecule’s temperature. These measurements show that the temperature of the middle atmosphere has warmed at the rate of +.03 degrees C per decade over the past 25 years. 

This rate of change is dramatically lower than the rate of change from surface measuring stations which show a +.17 degree C warming per decade during the same period.

The UAH satellite temperatures also contrast sharply with climate computer models; these models say that temperatures at the middle to lower atmosphere should warm faster than at the surface; that is, temperatures at the lower to middle atmosphere should be rising more than +.17 degrees C per decade: Not the .03 degrees that satellite measurements show.

The UAH measurements have been challenged by other scientists claiming that the UAH scientists have not properly accounted for variables (such as satellite decay) when transcribing raw data.

The other scientists, using the same raw data, have arrived at higher temperatures than those developed by the UAH scientists; where the higher readings conform more closely to the computer models.

The key to distinguishing between these conflicting claims is that only the UAH readings have been confirmed by temperature readings from weather balloons. 

Temperatures of the lower atmosphere are taken twice daily by thermometers mounted on weather balloons released from locations around the world. Only the results from the UAH compare favorably with the readings taken by weather balloons. (UAH scientists have published their most recent findings in Geophysical Research Letters.)

Because the UAH readings contradict the computer models, the people who believe that drastic action should be taken to combat global warming have gone to great lengths to discredit the UAH findings. As mentioned above, only the UAH temperatures have been validated by weather balloon readings.

Another study (to discredit UAH temperatures) was in Nature by the University of Washington ’s Qiang Fu at al. They argued that the cooler air from the Stratosphere was contaminating the satellite data. They used satellite temperature measurements of the Stratosphere as an indicator of how much cooling had worked its way into the tropospheric temperature history.

In making their calculations they inadvertently introduced negative heat which is a physical impossibility. In doing so they over compensated for the effect that the Stratosphere has on temperature readings taken in the Troposphere.

The UAH scientists had previously recognized the possible effect of Stratospheric cooling on their data and had compensated for it.

The UAH scientists, John Christy and Roy Spencer, have produced a temperature history that has stood the test of time and withstood constant challenges: their data from the satellites and confirmed by weather balloon readings, show there has been very little global warming over the past 25 years.

As has been reported in earlier news articles, the amount of warming that is probably going to occur over the next hundred years is below the lower limit of the IPCC’s projections of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. This contrasts sharply with the media’s constant reporting of the upper limit. 

(Note: The higher readings from ground stations are probably due to the Urban Heat Island Effect. Also the ground and satellite readings cited above both contain a range of possible error. At their face values the readings taken at the surface show that temperatures are rising nearly six times faster than the temperatures derived from satellite data. Using extreme error limits, or the most favorable case for the advocates of global warming, ground temperatures are rising twice as fast as the satellite temperatures. No matter how the data is analyzed, there has been little warming of the troposphere over the past 25 years.)

The source for this article includes papers published by CO2andClimate.org Contact TSAugust for instructions on how to access these in depth papers.

June 20, 2004

Gulf Stream Not In Danger. 

Recent studies show there is little if any possibility that the Gulf Stream will collapse and thereby start a new ice age.

One study (by Dr. M. E. Raymo Research Professor, Boston University --see below) establishes that the thermohaline flow (the most commonly recognized part of which is the Gulf Stream) has remained relatively constant during glacial and interglacial periods of the last two million years. The paper concludes that the North Atlantic Deep Water variability may play a passive role in long term climate change.

Another paper, Winter Weather Wonder II (see below) cites several studies including the following:

• Carl Wunsch (Professor of Physical Oceanography, MIT) has concluded that, rather than shutting down during the Last Glacial Maximum some 20,000 years ago, the Thermohaline Current (THC) ran at a shallower depth.

• Geoff Jenkins, senior climate researcher at the Met Office's Hadley Centre, believes the Gulf Stream shut down around 11,000 years ago due to the rapid infusion of fresh water from Canada; but, he says, this huge source of fresh water no longer exists.

• While early computer models showed a weakening of the THC due to CO2, later models show no weakening. As early as 2000, researchers from Max Planck Institute (MPI) of Meteorology in Hamburg found no weakening of THC under carbon-dioxide produced global warming.

• Similarly the newest UK Hadley Centre model confirms MPI's work. This model, employing a spatial grid of 37 km in the equator compared to 200 km in older models, finds little evidence of a weakening or collapse of THC with increased atmospheric CO2.

And, in Nature, Carl Wunsch of MIT says halting the Gulf Stream would be impossible: "the only way to produce an ocean circulation without the Gulf Stream would be to turn off the wind system or stop the Earth's rotation, or both."

While there is mounting evidence that the Gulf Stream will not collapse, there is agreement that any change, if it were to occur, would take place over a century and not a decade.  

Stability of North Atlantic water masses in the face of pronounced climate variability during the Pleistocene by M.E. Raymo et al. April 21, 2004

From Winter Weather Wonder, Part II. By Willie Soon, Lucy Hancock and Sallie Baliunas 2/24/2004

June 13, 2004

No Increase in Violent Storms. 

Global Warming and the movie Day After Tomorrow assert that violent storms will increase as the result of Global Warming. Many have cited the increase in Tornados and Hurricanes over the past fifty years as proof that this is true.

The facts belie such claims.

The number of reported tornados

has increased due to significant improvements in our ability to detect tornados. With the advent of weather radar during the 1960’s and 1970’s the number of tornados rose in proportion with the increase in the number of radar stations. Reports then leveled out until the new Doppler radar’s went on line in 1988: Again the number of tornados rose proportionately.

In addition, the number of severe tornados ranking F3 through F5 on the Fujita scale has actually declined slightly. The net of these facts is that with newer and better technologies we are detecting weaker storms that show up on the Doppler Radar but which people would never have previously observed.

With respect to hurricanes, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that the maximum winds in storms measured by hurricane hunter aircraft have declined significantly.

Technology has also provided better warning as to where hurricanes would strike land allowing people to move inland away from the threat of high winds and high seas. But the hurricanes end up killing as many or more people because the coastal states have larger populations now than fifty years ago and because the rain deposited inland produces flash flooding that is harder to predict.

While there may be more reported tornados its because our new technologies allows us to see them on the radar screen whereas fifty years ago a weak tornado would have dipped briefly to earth in a remote cow pasture where no one would have seen it.

May 23, 2004

No Increase in Violent Storms. 

Global Warming and the movie Day After Tomorrow assert that violent storms will increase as the result of Global Warming. Many have cited the increase in Tornados and Hurricanes over the past fifty years as proof that this is true.

The facts belie such claims.

The number of reported tornados

has increased due to significant improvements in our ability to detect tornados. With the advent of weather radar during the 1960’s and 1970’s the number of tornados rose in proportion with the increase in the number of radar stations. Reports then leveled out until the new Doppler radar’s went on line in 1988: Again the number of tornados rose proportionately.

In addition, the number of severe tornados ranking F3 through F5 on the Fujita scale has actually declined slightly. The net of these facts is that with newer and better technologies we are detecting weaker storms that show up on the Doppler Radar but which people would never have previously observed.

With respect to hurricanes, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that the maximum winds in storms measured by hurricane hunter aircraft have declined significantly.

Technology has also provided better warning as to where hurricanes would strike land allowing people to move inland away from the threat of high winds and high seas. But the hurricanes end up killing as many or more people because the coastal states have larger populations now than fifty years ago and because the rain deposited inland produces flash flooding that is harder to predict.

While there may be more reported tornados its because our new technologies allows us to see them on the radar screen whereas fifty years ago a weak tornado would have dipped briefly to earth in a remote cow pasture where no one would have seen it.

May 23, 2004

Global Warming Dialogue. 

Sir David King (Prime Minister Blair’s Chief Scientist) cited the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) as support for implementing the Kyoto Accord. 

Key scientists cried foul and responded as follows:

Richard S. Lindzen responded by saying that “as a lead scientific author of the IPCC WG I report, I can assure readers … that neither of these studies warrant the actions being promoted by Dr. King.”

And he said “Specifically, it is quite wrong to say that our NAS study endorsed the credibility of the IPCC assessment report. We were asked to evaluate the IPCC "Summary for Policymakers" (SPM), the only part of the IPCC report that is ever read or quoted by media and politicians. The SPM, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. In fact, it is no such thing.  Largely for that reason, the NAS panel concluded that the SPM does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.”

“The full IPCC report, most of which is written by scientists about specific scientific topics in their areas of expertise, is an admirable description of research activities in climate science.  It is however not directed at policy. The SPM is, of course, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. As a consequence, the SPM has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.”

Later Mr. Lindzen said, “Sadly, the reports of both the IPCC and the NAS have been used by Kyoto supporters as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty, far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge.” (Emphasis added)

Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 

Another Scientist Dr. Tim Ball said:

“It is not surprising that Dr. King wants Canadians to meekly follow the UK's lead and implement draconian, but completely unnecessary, carbon-dioxide emission limits. Europe wanted the Protocol, not to resolve global warming, although that is the moral high-ground position they take, but to establish a level trade playing field by imposing a carbon tax on the developed world. This is because they believe North America has an advantage of cheap energy, and so set targets Europe could easily meet but which would cripple our international competitiveness.” (Emphasis added)

And yet another scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer said:

“The real danger is that the science advice given to the government will cause serious economic damage to Britain [or the US]. It is utterly irresponsible to recommend a climate policy that calls for reducing fossil-fuel use by 60 percent (with respect to 1990) by 2050.  It amounts to a system of fuel rationing that would raise energy prices to astronomical levels for consumers, cripple industry, increase joblessness and poverty, and ultimately threaten a breakdown of the social order.”

“He [Dr. King] is forced to admit albeit indirectly that the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon emissions is ineffective; but then the point of the Kyoto Protocol was to set up an international process whose scope could be ratcheted up.”

S Fred Singer is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and President of the non-profit Science & Environmental Policy Project.  A former director of the US Weather Satellite Service, he has published widely on climate problems.

(The above quotations were extracted from The Week That Was, March 13, 2004 that can be seen on www.sepp.org.)

March 28, 2004

Glaciers and Global Warming. 

The retreat of some glaciers has been widely reported in the media. What has not been widely reported is that some glaciers are increasing in mass.

Within Europe,"Alpine glaciers are generally shrinking, Scandinavian glaciers are growing, and glaciers in the Caucasus are close to equilibrium for 1980-95." According to  Dr. R. J. Braithwaite, (School of Geography, University of Manchester, England) 

Temperatures undoubtedly affect glaciers. The question is: Are glaciers a proxy for the canaries that signaled danger in coal mines, in so far as global warming is concerned?

There are only 115 glaciers that have a five year record of mass balance data and only 42 that have a ten year data record.

In an analysis of mass balance in Arctic glaciers, it was found that the rate of loss of mass has decreased in the recent past, a period in which increasing amounts of CO2 should have resulted in faster loss of mass if there were a direct correlation between global warming, CO2 and loss of mass in glaciers.

Even more telling is that there are 160,000 glaciers in the world and only 67,000 (42%) have been inventoried to any extent. There are only slightly more than 200 for which mass balance data is available for one year or more (including the 115 mentioned above).

It is not possible for such a small (200) sample, not selected randomly, to provide a scientific basis for drawing any conclusions about the relationship between glaciers and global warming.

In addition the retreat of some glaciers can be attributed to a specific cause. For example, Mt Kilimanjaro has lost 80% of its glacier since 1912. Findings recently published by Nature indicate that the loss of forests on Kilimanjaro’s foothills has been the cause of the glaciers demise. The lack of humidity from the forests to replenish and sustain the glacier has resulted in the glacier melting under the equatorial sun. Furthermore, satellite temperature readings taken since 1979 show no increase in the temperature of the troposphere in the Kilimanjaro region.

  January 25, 2004

Copyright © 2002 - 2006 TSAugust