I think Dr. Carlin looks pretty credible.  He is obviously not a great public speaker and he can probably count on one hand the number of times he has been interviewed on national television on one hand. He, wisely, doesn’t do a lot guessing in his interview and he even answers one question by saying that he can only report on what he was told.  Good for him – report the facts and let the conclusion grow from there.

I want to wish Mr. Carlin well – it is quite likely that this episode has injured his career and once again we see that the EPA is not really run by wise people!  Does everyone remember when the EPA was so derided that Ghostbusters even made fun of it?

Of course, Gretchen Carlson, asks the typical idiot question that she normally asks – this time stating she thinks that a law was broken.  Seriously, this woman needs to get off of national television. I was in a market that she covered earlier in her career and she was foolish then as well.  She is the reason that I rarely watch Fox and Friends.

Kim Strassel has an opinion in the Wall Street Journal where she does a fair amount of reporting on the difficulties that politicians are having in dealing with the coming global warming catastrophe. It seems that politicians are a lot like many of my readers, when scientists can’t agree on what is happening (and not just little disagreements but violently opposed to each other) one should probably wait to spend trillions of dollars on which side is correct.

Here are some highlights from Ms. Strassel’s article:

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

---

…New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

---

…Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

---

Credit for Australia’s own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published “Heaven and Earth,” a damning critique of the “evidence” underpinning man-made global warming.

---

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute’s annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama’s special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn’t.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on “unconvincing green science.” The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Other articles in the blogosphere that you may be interested in:

Will Australia Settle The Global Warming Debate?

Businesses must move quickly to exploit “perfect green storm”

The Global Warming Hoax and the Crazy Left Agenda 

Tell Your Representative to Sink the Bad Idea Known as Waxman-Markey 

Australia set to nix its own version of Cap & Trade 

Australia and Global Warming

Jump over to read WUWT if you like as the description is far clearer than what I will reproduce here.

Below is an overlay directly showing that 2009 temperatures (green) are similar to 1958 (red) and close to the mean.  Blue is mean temperature for the 41 year record.

global warming, arctic,

This article misses out by not making a big enough distinction that weather is not climate and climate is not weather. The amount of ice in any given 2 or 3 year stretch has as much to do regarding global warming as the occassional all time high or low that is hit in Peoria, IL. I have talked about weather v. climate before but we always seem to go around to the same things.

Last year, there was a great deal of talk about Arctic Sea ice and the fact that it was vanishing. Very little talk at the time had to do with the currents under the ice (except for here). The end of the world was at hand though if you read some blogs!

The post on WUWT does a good job of showing the various changes in ice thicknesses over the last several decades. It isn’t extremely scientific but it does show photos of open water and thin ice for as long as subs have been poking their head through the ice.

To their credit, they encourage readers to go to the original sources to get the complete story but, frankly, that is not good enough.  They have published the information in a way that is incredibly one-sided and is also not consistent from one chart to the next.  That is the true problem with the article, one cannot see the filters or data sources in this presentation so the inconsistencies are too strong.

The first chart tries to show temperature swings of the last 12,000 years.  The problem is that none of these previous highs (save one) show the temperature increasing, leveling off, and then increasing again.  This is absolutely the situation in the latest bump above the line which implies that something may be different in this latest warming trend.  Of course that difference could be the ways that the temperatures are gathered (with satellites today v. observing tree rings or other such proxies).

The second chart tries to ridicule the IPCC projections which are based on computer models (I give little credence to most computer models as regular readers know).  However, did they bother to look at the major inconsistincies with the chart immediately above?  The first chart is a straight line average starting and stopping at 15 degrees and the second is consistently increasing.  What are the differences and why?  While more in depth reading of both studies would likely give a clue as to the differences, showing both charts side-by-side raises huge skepticism in the quality of the data.

Also, why does the 2nd chart imply that historical average temperature was crossed at about 1960 but the first chart implies that it happened a few hundred years ago?

Then the 3rd chart shows temperature going down but that disagrees with the first chart where the final trend was going up and the second chart which has the average increasing on a regular pace.  What gives?

I could go on and on but I think you have seen the point.  The article stops being about the science that they rave about in the beginning of the piece and gravitates to a consistent whine that the IPCC is not fair and the US government administration should run away from its intended policies of climate crisis control.

I hope that future discussions of this are more about science and data.  Let the conclusions come without filtering for agenda and political goals.  It is frustrating to follow this topic so closely on this site only to be at the same basic point we were at when I first started this discussion.  We simply need to let the science figure this out and THEN we can prescribe the medecine for what ails us.  We cannot all agree if we have a cold, the flu, tuberculosis or liver cancer yet!  But I do know all of this political maneuvering is giving me a headache.

I think I will just go take 2 aspirin and see if I feel better tomorrow.

global+warming, climate models, greenhouse gas, IPCC

But, maybe, that is the point now.  Perhaps the discussion of global warming has evolved to the point that it is beyond the scientific discussion.  While this site (and many, many others) have tried to explain a variety of technical details of global warming – I find that many of my articles lately are discussing politics and politicians.

With the current economic mess, it is hard to worry about 20-40 years from now when most people are worried how they are going to pay their bills today and how they are going to retire in a couple of decades.  I offer this quote from NixGuy (a political commentary site that I enjoy):

Makes sense to me. Hard to get all worked about the world heating up when you’re freezing, you just payed $950 to fill the propane tank, and you might not even have a job next week.

So what do we do?  I suggest that we continue to discuss the scientific discoveries of environmental science.  We do not accept that the debate is over.  And we continue to contribute to the discussion of politics with the understanding that we are not arguing before a judge and jury where the facts and evidence are treated as the golden standard (we know what happens when judges rule on commentary of global warming).  Instead we are arguing in a world of “beliefs”.  The world where everything that one says should begin with “I believe that global warming is man-made” or “I believe that global warming is a natural cycle”.  And like all beliefs – arguing them is like arguing religion.

global+warming, George Will

A group of 13 prominent scientists have written a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon requesting him to “redress the lack of scientific integrity of the UN’s Climate Change Panel (IPCC) and to stop making reactionary and futile ‘Climate Change’ recommendations that hold back the developing world.”

I am not going to reproduce the entire letter here as it is freely available in PDF format.  I will point out that these are not lightweight scientists.  Evidently the signatories are below and they include at least one Nobel Prize winner.

• Piers Corbyn Astrophysicist & forecaster, WeatherAction, UK
• Vincent Gray IPCC Expert Reviewer, Climate Consultant, NZ
• Richard Courtney IPCC Exp. Rev., Energy & Envir. Consultant, UK
• Hans Labohm IPCC Expert Reviewer, Economist & Author, Holland
• Will Alexander Prof. Em. Dept. Civil & Biosystems, South Africa
• Don Parkes Prof. Human Ecology (Ret.) Australia & Japan
• Joseph D’Aleo Certified Consultant Meteorologist, Fellow AMS, USA
• Svend Hendriksen Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared), Greenland
• Alan Siddons Climate Researcher, USA
• Bob Ashworth Chem. Eng. (Energy & Environment), USA
• Norm Kalmanovitch Geophysicist, Canada,
• Jim Peden Atmospheric Physicist (Ret.), USA
• Hans Schreuder Analytical Chemist (Ret.)

Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.

John Coleman spoke before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce on the subject of global warming.  Mr. Coleman is not your typical weatherman!  Some say he is the father of the weatherman on TV (not likely) but at the very least he is one one of the most successful.  A full profile is available for him on Wikipedia but among his many accomplishments, he was the first weatherman on the national morning talk shows (remember David Hartman?) and also founded The Weather Channel.

Mr. Coleman is pretty adamant that the current global warming trend (which many question actually exists) is most likely natural in origin and has little to do with the influences of man.

There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

---

Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years.

---

Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son Ralph, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.

---

Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures.

---

And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughout the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

You can read his entire speech here.  It is a very convincing read so I suggest you click through and read it.

Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.

You may be aware of the current personal campaign that I am engaged with regarding what I consider to be improper behavior at RealClimate. The authors of that site decided to bet the authors of a scientific paper. I do not feel that is responsible behavior but in my efforts to convince them I wanted to try and find other scientific bets that fall into their category of bet (largely financial v. gentleman’s bet). To date I have failed in that search, I did find some interesting gems to share with you.

While I have failed to find a credible “big bet” that falls into the RealClimate fiasco, it didn’t take long in my research for me to stumble on this article at “The Climate Bet” and wanted to share it with you. As many of my longtime readers know, I feel that we can do a better job of computational models. In this video clip, Dr. Kesten Green of Monash University does a fairly credible job of casting doubt on the IPCC predictions that are based on these models. He even concludes that the IPCC has violated many of the appropriate methodologies that are required to come to this conclusion.

The quotes below the video are from The Global Warming Challenge:

Kesten Green claims that the IPCC climate models incorporate just 15% of the principles and procedures appropriate to scientific forecasting. Many IPCC scientists seem to be unaware of forecasting methodology as a scientific discipline, he adds. Instead, the Monash University specialist charges that the models’ elaborate mathematical formulas reflect the IPCC staff’s own opinions at both the input and output stages.

This discussion is in keeping with the current controversy I am having with RealClimate. The scientific paper in question is, at its core, a discussion of the proper boundary conditions and influences of natural events on climate models. These are the same models that Mr. Green calls a “black box” and led to poor predictions of IPCC. Discussion of these models is paramount to the understanding of global warming and forcing down dissenters by forcing scientists to defend their studies with their bank account is unacceptable.

Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.

Technorati Tags: global+warming,IPCC,forecast

The subject of global warming tends to bring out some fairly strong emotions. Earlier this week, I wrote about Dr. Gray’s opinion that he is being punished by his views. Also, Mr. Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States, has issued very strong challenges to the world and his marketing arm has compared this problem to WW2.

So it is no surprise when John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, says, “It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.”

But Mr Colemen slams their views as part of a global conspiracy: “Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming.”

---

“Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

---

He added: “I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.

“There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril.”

You can read the article here.

Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.

Technorati Tags: global+warming,Weather+Channel

I am starting to get suspicious whenever I see the phrase “Scientists Predict” in a title or opening paragraph. It almost seems that a scientist’s prediction is a lot like an appendix: everyone has one.

Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences has now predicted that for the next 8-10 years we won’t be seeing any global warming as the IPCC and Mr. Al Gore have predicted (there’s that word again). I am looking forward to other scientists standing up in the next few days to “predict” that this “prediction” is not accurate and that their “prediction” is more accurate.  Anyone have a spare crystal ball?

Of course, this “prediction” comes from a new computer model of how oceans behave. This is interesting, does this mean that the existing computer models that predict the end of life as we know it are old and obsolete and don’t include the ocean behavior?  Maybe we should invest more technology and effort in creating more comprehensive computer models (if you read this site often, you have read that before).

Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a “lull” for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

---

This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.

---

He stressed that the results were just the initial findings from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades and it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away.

---

The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998. [Editors note: this is the same warming peak that proponents of global warming took as being a sign that the end was near]

Today’s paper in Nature tries to simulate the variability of these events and longer cycles, such as the giant ocean “conveyor belt” known as the meridional overturning circulation (MOC), which brings warm water north into the North East Atlantic.

Click here to read the Nature article about this study.

Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.

I love a good mystery. I am a big fan of mystery and drama shows on TV and movies and voraciously read all of James Patterson’s books and similar mystery stories.  I do not think that I would spend billions (trillions?) of dollars on it though and that is what we are embarking on with the global warming mystery.

If you are reading this site then you are probably interested, concerned, or worried about predictions of the future regarding global warming. The reasonable method of predicting the future is to understand the present and the past and make some inference on how current trends will be affected into the future. This prediction for global warming is done with computers and I have repeatedly ranted on this site that our capability of developing these models is sub-standard.

This article is a case in point.  It doesn’t prove that global warming is not happening. It also doesn’t prove that global warming is not being caused by humans. It does show that we don’t understand what is going on and that lack of understanding is critical to a plan of change. If we don’t know what is going on, how in the world can we know what to change?

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren’t quite understanding what their robots are telling them. [Editor's note: This is a very small number of robots so conclusions based on this data set are not very conclusive.]

---

…Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

---

…80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can….

---

…Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

---

“There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant,” Willis says….

---

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it’s also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

---

“Unfortunately, we don’t have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they’ve been playing during this period,” Trenberth says.

This is an excellent article on this mystery.  Please take a moment to click through and read it all. 

Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.

Question 2: If CO2 were linked to temperature increase wouldn’t that mean that temperatures would have steadily increased from the start of the Industrial Revolution to today?  If that’s the case, why was there a cooling period from the 1940s to the 1970s?

First, lets remember that there is no such thing as “steady” when it comes to the temperature or the weather.  The only things that steadily change are typically when we measure human influenced elements like the increase in CO2 that we discussed in the first question.

It is reasonable to assume that average temperature (in the inefficient manner that we record it) will fluctuate to new lows in any given increasing trend.  Weather is almost a perfect example of chaos theory so variations are expected but not always predicted.  That said, a period of 3 decades cannot be considered an outlying piece of data when considering our current data set of temperatures. This time period is often discussed by skeptics and was in the  film “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (as a point of clarification – I never saw this film but only read about it).

However, as important as this conversation on the drop in temperature may be, it is important point out that this drop was from an unusual high peak that occurred around 1940.  The average temperature had risen fairly dramatically from about 1900 to 1940 and when something moves dramatically one direction it is bound to rebound the other direction (unless it reaches a tipping point when chaos occurs).

So if we look at the temperature record more closely, we see that the temperature really didn’t drop from 1940 to 1970 but rather dropped rapidly from about 1940 to about 1950 and then slowly increased for the next 2 decades or so.  If it wasn’t for the rapid increase from about 1930 to 1940, the rise in temperature would have been quite steady.

So why did the temperature rise before 1940 and drop so quickly after 1940.  Unfortunately, this turns into a weather discussion more than a climate discussion with such a small timeframe.  Just like 2007 was reportedly very mild and 2008 appears to be quite cold, we cannot let the localized weather influence climatic discussions.  Several months ago, I chastised Laurie David for playing this card and I think it is poor taste for either side of the argument to engage in.

The most common theories on these changes are:

• Sun activity
• Volcano eruptions
• Man made pollution
• Divine intervention
• Random fluctuation

Sun – The sunspot activity went through a down cycle at about the same time that the temperature dropped after 1940.  This cannot account for the entire change though since this cycle occurs ever 11 years.  It may have been a contributing factor combined with other events though.

Volcanoes – while probably not a significant factor as early as 1950, there were several volcano eruptions which added aerosols to the atmosphere and cooled the earth for a year or so. The most discussed volcano in the 30 year time period was Mt. Agung in 1963.

Pollution – The early 40s was a time of unprecedented increase in factory output.  This was the time of the second World War and goods were being manufactured at an amazing pace. This production spilled tons of aerosols into the atmosphere which, theoretically, would have resulted in a cooling.

Divine intervention – I am not going to give a lot of credence to this argument but there were quite a few people at that time that attributed the very rough winters as a divine deterrent to Germany’s aggressive plans. While I would never propose this as a scientific argument, I would be remiss if I discussed this period of time and didn’t mention it.  Sadly, many of this generation have passed on now, but it was a common belief at the time that the weather was fighting Nazi Germany.  Out of respect for a generation that sacrificed greatly, I mention it here.

Random – my personal feeling on a change that occurs in this short of time is that it is a chaotic mix of a large number of factors and that it is noise in the general discussion of climate. The average temperature increased about .2 degrees C in about 10 years and then promptly reversed itself in the next decade. I am very confident that if we had accurate global records for the last 500 years we would see the same occurrence many times.  It is only because our data sets are so small that this 20 year spike looks so powerful.

So as a short answer to the question, the temperature didn’t really drop from 1940 to 1970 as this is taking data out of context. The temperature actually increased from 1930 to 1970. This begins to get at the question that Brittany never asked but Pat Sajak did: What is the perfect temperature?

Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.

More studies and more contradictory conclusions! I feel like a broken record sometimes in this discussion of global warming and causality. As soon as one scientist puts out a hypothesis, another puts out a contradictory or modifying hypothesis. Perhaps the key thing to understand is that these aren’t facts but conclusions that have been reached by individuals.

A hypothesis (according to Dictionary.com) is:

a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

The key point here is that it is not a fact.  It is a proposition.  An item to be discussed.

So which is it?  Did global warming cause the Antarctic ice shelf to collapse or did oceanic, glacial, and atmospheric factors have an influence?  I don’t know and I think the point of a “hypothesis” is to have a discussion on the subject.  You can see an image of this “collapse” here.

With apologies to Nobel laureate, Al Gore, I think the case is not closed on this discussion. In fact, I think we need more discussion.

Global warming was not the only factor leading to the 2002 collapse of a 500 billion tonne major Antarctic ice shelf, two Welsh scientists said scientists have claimed adding that glaciological and atmospheric factors were also involved.

---

In a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology, the findings refute the common belief that the collapse of ice shelf in Antarctica was a sudden response to climate change. The ice shelf had been in distress for decades, scientists now say. They also add that the shelf was riddled with cracks and fault lines and weakened by sea currents beneath.

You can read the entire news article here.

Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.

This story has been floating around the media for some time and I suppose it is time that I discuss it as well. It wouldn’t be such a big deal except that Mr. Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States and Nobel prize winner, declared the debate over and that there was a consensus among scientists. Of course, the first thing that happens with that kind of grandiose statement is the nay-sayers raise their hands REAL HIGH!

That is part of what makes this discussion so interesting (and so frustrating). Seemingly intelligent people with such strong and diverse opinions that are arguing so strenuously. As with most bi-polar discussions, the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.

Obviously the stakes are high. If global warming is caused by humans then it may cause trillions in damages and untold loss of life.  If global warming is not happening or is not influenced greatly by humans, then it is a waste of huge amount of resources that may go to better and more predictable causes (Bjorn Lomborg speaks on this repeatedly and you can read more here although not everyone agrees with Mr. Lomborg).

I find it disingenuous that Mr. Gore’s spokesperson immediately threw mud at the scientists implying that they were bribed to make their statements. Even if an oil company funds some research, that does not make the research false. Especially since we know that others are funding research that tries to prove global warming. Scientists need funding to do their work. We hope that this funding doesn’t obscure their work and the scientific community would condemn anyone that was blatantly falsifying evidence.

Perhaps this mudslinging is part of the reason that Dr. Paldor states that some scientists are fearful to voice their skepticism on this subject.  This is a shame and does not lend to an informed opinion by public.

My overall advice to everyone is to not take extreme views on this subject.  Just yesterday, I wrote about a new study showing that one of the infallible predictions of global warming (that hurricanes will increase) may not be true and evidence points to a reduction in hurricanes. We simply do not know what is going to happen based on our current understanding of the climate.  If you want to stay informed, subscribe to the feed of this site and I will do my best to give you a balanced perspective.  You can also sign up to have these articles emailed to you.

More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.

---

The scientists … cast doubt on the “scientific consensus” that man-made global warming imperils the planet.

---

The endless claims of a ‘consensus’ about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day…

---

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp. Exxon Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.

---

…environmental scientist David W. Schnare of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said he was skeptical because “conclusions about the cause of the apparent warming stand on the shoulders of incredibly uncertain data and models. … As a policy matter, one has to be less willing to take extreme actions when data are highly uncertain.”

---

“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” atmospheric scientist Nathan Paldor, professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

You can read the entire article here.

Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.

I usually put the title of the article that I am referencing in the title of my post but in this case the title resides in a technical journal and it is so boring that I elected to write my own.  For the purposes of this discussion, I am referencing “Climate Control Requires a Dam at the Strait of Gibraltar” which was published by the American Geophysical Union on July 8, 1997 by the now Professor Emeritus Dr. R. G. Johnson.

The scientific article suggests that if the Mediterranean Sea continues to increase in salinity, it will eventually cause warm water to flow to the Labrador Sea (off the coast of Newfoundland and Greenland) and cooling of the Nordic Seas (east of Greenland).  This warm water increases the humidity of the area which causes glaciers to form and causes Northern Europe to begin to cool. This appears to be the way that the last major ice age was triggered.

The difference now is that the increase in salinity of the Mediterranean Sea has been accelerated by the damming of the Nile River. Since the majority of the fresh water from the Nile is no longer reaching the Mediterranean, the Sea is getting more saline.  Compounding this may any increase in evaporation due to higher temperatures caused by global warming, which would further accelerate the tipping point of the Mediterranean Sea.

This hypothesis is far from proven but it does point to the complexity of the worlds climates. It also points out that Man may be influencing the world in a way that we do not understand and therefore we must be careful to not rush into a “fix” that could cause more harm or be ineffective but costly.

If the Mediterranean Sea continues to increase in salinity, shifting climatic patterns throughout the world may cause high-latitude areas in Canada to glaciate within the next century. The Mediterranean is starved of freshwater by human activities: most of the annual flow of the Nile River is now used for irrigation and no longer enters the sea. The sea surface evaporation losses are also increasing as the surface warms due to rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Consequently, the Mediterranean hydrologic deficit is steadily increasing. The deficit is the difference between the larger amount of water lost by evaporation and the smaller amount received from rainfall and river inputs. The difference is made up by a two-way exchange of water with the Atlantic at Gibraltar. Barring a significant change in regional atmospheric circulation, these two human modifications of the environment will cause the salinity of the Mediterranean to increase for some time as fossil fuels are consumed.

---

Although it is commonly thought that the last ice age began in Canada when diminishing Milankovitch summer insolation cooled the climate, circulation changes that increased moisture advection to ice sheets were probably more important. Frequent storms moving into Baffin Island and other areas in the presently arid Canadian subarctic more likely caused the ice age.

---

The upwelling apparently behaves like a fluidic switch that warmed the Labrador Sea and caused Canadian ice sheet growth while cooling the Nordic Seas and northern Europe. In this conceptual model of glacial initiation, the switching is controlled by the hydrologic deficit of the Mediterranean and the resulting outflow. Thus the hydrologic deficit is a critical link in a chain of circulation and climatic factors that began with low insolation, weak African monsoons, and drought in the headwaters of the Nile and culminated with new ice-sheet growth in Baffin Island and other regions in northern Canada.

---

---

If all the Nile flow entered the Mediterranean, the hydrologic deficit would be approximately 31,000 m3 s-1, estimated from Mediterranean outflow and inflow volumes and salinities at Gibraltar, river discharges, and an assumed steady state. A larger hydrologic deficit due to the loss of Nile River discharge is the main difference between today and 120,000 years B.P. in the chain of factors in [the flow diagram above].

---

CO2 warming would probably trigger a new ice age by increasing Mediterranean evaporation losses, independently of Nile discharge. If CO2 warming increases the sea surface temperature by 2°C, as predicted when atmospheric CO2 doubles in the next 70 years, the increase in the hydrologic deficit of 14%, as estimated from the ratio of future/present vapor pressures at the sea surfaces, would exceed the effect of Nile loss. The combined CO2 warming and Nile loss might increase the hydrologic deficit to 23%. New ice sheet growth and a much colder Europe would then become extremely likely, and CO2 concentrations will continue to rise.

You can read the rest of this article here.

Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.

You can read Part 1 of 5 here.
You can read Part 2 of 5 here.
You can read Part 3 of 5 here.
You can read Part 4 of 5 here.

So how did SPPI fair? Personally, I wish they would have been a bit more conservative in their claims. Several times they dinged Mr. Gore twice (or three times) for the same basic error. I tend to write this off as being over-zealous and perhaps trying to get a bigger number for the headline.

In some cases, Mr. Gore made the correct point but used the wrong story or example to illustrate his point. In other cases, I simply couldn’t find any reason to say Mr. Gore was wrong.

Overall, I think that the Science and Public Policy Institute found 20-22 errors in “An Inconvenient Truth”. There are several cases above where I gave them credit for pointing out the error but they gave the wrong reason, in my opinion.

So why did the Institute pile on and come up with 35? I don’t know. I know that as an organization they are against the entire argument for human induced global warming so their extreme stance probably tainted their thinking. I think they could have made just as strong of an argument against the movie with 20 rock solid issues rather than push it over 30 and make people question their motives.

A similar question could be asked of Mr. Gore and his producers. Why did they put out a film with at least 20 half truths and exaggerations? Once again, I don’t know. Similarly, they probably had an argument to be made and simply sticking with the facts was not good enough.

I am reminded of my old high school English teacher, Mr. Jordan. For my senior year (which my kids will say was during the last great ice age) we had to do a slide documentary of issues in our community. My buddy and I wanted to do it on the effects of addiction and wanted to show “staged” scenes to drive home the points. Mr. Jordan correctly scolded us and told us to never fabricate a falsehood just to make a correct point. If we couldn’t say that X causes Y, it didn’t belong in a documentary and instead was an entertainment piece. Mr. Gore discusses his childhood learning in the movie, perhaps he should have had Mr. Jordan for English.

Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the here.Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.

Technorati Tags: global+warming , an+inconvenient+truth , science+publich+policy+institute

You can read Part 1 of 5 here.
You can read Part 2 of 5 here.
You can read Part 3 of 5 here.
You can read Part 5 of 5 here.

ERROR 27 – Shame on Mr. Gore for citing this example! He is trying to link malaria with global warming. There were many malaria outbreaks in Nairobi prior to human induced global warming could be a factor. Mr. Gore’s statements here are pure sham and is probably the biggest reason that I dislike this film as a documentary.

ERROR 28 – This is the same as with ERROR 27. The causality is simply not proven and is only meant to incite reaction.

ERROR 29 – This is the same as ERROR 28. While Mr. Gore was incorrect in his assertions, SPPI is piling on by itemizing every single sentence as a stand-alone fact.

ERROR 30 – I have to give this one to Mr. Gore. The Supreme Court has ruled CO2 as a pollutant; therefore, it is a pollutant. Arguing about it after the fact is a waste of time.

ERROR 31 – Mr. Gore gets this one as well. There was a heat wave that killed thousands of people. Was it caused by global warming? Mr. Gore doesn’t say that it was which means he was playing with the truth a bit but in this case he is still telling the truth.

ERROR 32 – This is spin. Saying that a change is good is short sighted. We don’t know what chaos theory explosion will occur by any change.

ERROR 33 – I give this one to SPPI. AIT is filled with images that show the wrong thing.

ERROR 34 – I can’t find any reference to AIT saying anything regarding the Thames barrier. I am relying on the unofficial transcripts on this as I don’t want to watch the entire movie again just to find this reference.

ERROR 35 – I can’t find this statement by Mr. Gore in the movie. Obviously, it isn’t true as many scientists have questioned global warming and even those people that agree with much of what Mr. Gore claims have problems with some of this movie. However, since I can’t find it in the movie, I need to call it spin.

Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the here.Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.

COMMENTS ARE CURRENTLY TURNED OFF. Comments are now on.

Technorati Tags: global+warming , an+inconvenient+truth , science+publich+policy+institute

You can read Part 1 of 5 here.
You can read Part 2 of 5 here.
You can read Part 4 of 5 here.
You can read Part 5 of 5 here.

ERROR 18 – I can’t find evidence for SPPI’s statement that the Arctic has increased  decreased in temperature 1 deg C in the last 60 years. SPPI falls victim here to the common Gore affliction of pointing out individual instances of information (ice bound ships) and assuming that this is conclusive data. I have called AIT out on this and I need to do the same with SPPI. Unless they can point to a reference for the temperature increase, I need to call this one spin.

ERROR 19 – Sorry, SPPI, this one is spin. NASA mapped the ice and it is adding in some places and subtracting in others but the balance is going down.

ERROR 20 – This one is tough. Gore definitely screws up saying that 40% of the world’s population gets their water from glacial melt. This isn’t true. I can’t find any evidence that snow melt is not decreasing as SPPI claims but since we are judging AIT, we have to give this one to SPPI.

ERROR 21 – There is no question that the glaciers in Peru are receding but as I wrote on this site before, the argument that it is caused by human caused global warming is very tenuous.

ERROR 22 – There is no question that glaciers have been shrinking for some time. Saying that this is caused by humans is very tenuous.

ERROR 23 – Gore definitely takes advantage of human suffering in the film and blames the Sahara on human caused global warming. He makes a poor argument here and this is where he also talks about Lake Chad so in essence this error is the same as 6. This is an example of double dipping so we can’t really say that SPPI was correct in both instances.

ERROR 24 – SPPI has definitely tried to spin this one. Gore was specifically talking about the Larsen ice shelf and it absolutely did recede dramatically in a short amount of time. Yes, much of Antarctica is getting colder but Gore’s facts were correct.

ERROR 25 – I cannot find evidence of where Mr. Gore says that half a dozen ice shelves the size of Rhode Island have broken up. Since I can’t find where it was said, I can’t say that AIT is wrong. I have to mark this as spin for SPPI. I am relying on the unofficial transcripts on this as I don’t want to watch the entire movie again just to find this reference.

ERROR 26 – There is no doubt that the ice shelf at Larsen was larger in history. There is also no doubt that it has changed shape dramatically over the years. I have to give this one to SPPI not because of what they said but because the shelf was so large in 1995. Global warming didn’t just start happening in the last 12 years so I have to call Mr. Gore on this reference since he is blaming global warming on the entire phenomenon. Rather, many scientists attribute this change to Arctic Oscillation and Mr. Gore doesn’t bother to mention this as a possibility.

Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the here.Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.

COMMENTS ARE CURRENTLY TURNED OFF. Comments are now on.

Technorati Tags: global+warming , an+inconvenient+truth , science+publich+policy+institute

You can read Part 1 of 5 here.
You can read Part 3 of 5 here.
You can read Part 4 of 5 here.
You can read Part 5 of 5 here.

ERROR 10 – Actually, SPPI isn’t tough enough on AIT on this one. Mr. Gore says that 350ppm of CO2 is all that keeps a mile of ice off of the top of Cleveland, Detroit, and New York. The last time that happened was 2 million years ago during the Pleistocene era and Mr. Gore’s data doesn’t extend that far back so therefore he is making an unsubstantiated claim.

ERROR 11 – SPPI is correct that Caterina was caused by a cold weather phenomenon that created a situation similar to the warm weather hurricanes of the Atlantic. There is little evidence that global warming caused this to happen although since it is only one data point, it is difficult to make any interpretations. Gore was at least misleading by implying that global warming had something to do with this.

ERROR 12 – This is a bit of a spin. We have less data on typhoon activity than hurricane activity due to the lack of records and the lack of satellite coverage. According to comments by Science magazine, their has been an increase in typhoons but that increase is not statistically significant since the solid data only goes back 30 or 40 years. No inference on the number of typhoons can be made because we haven’t gathered enough data to establish a baseline.

ERROR 13 – SPPI appears to be correct in this one but Mr. Gore is referencing popular scientific belief based on climate models. It is difficult to ding AIT on this one and I have to say that SPPI may be spinning this issue a bit. The SPPI answer is that it hasn’t happened yet and Mr. Gore was saying it would happen in the future. We have a hard time predicting the future which I have written on before (here and here).

ERROR 14 – I was tempted to call this one a tie but since SPPI is calling out AIT, AIT should win ties. It is very subjective to discuss insurance losses increasing since there are so many different variables involved (population growth, population at the site of the disaster, cost of materials, inflation, etc.). If anything, Mr. Gore should not have mentioned it since it is so subjective but the data that he presented appears to be correct. SPPI’s data appears to be correct as well but does refute Mr. Gore’s data. This may be a case where statistics don’t lie but (you can fill in the rest of the old saying)! SPPI is spinning this one.

ERROR 15 – It did flood in Mumbai and the consequences were terrible. However, Mr. Gore didn’t make his case that global warming caused it and SPPI is correct that there doesn’t appear to be any change in the amount of rainfall in that area. In fact, the data is quite good having come from 306 monitoring stations for over a hundred years and a simple plot and linear regression shows that rainfall is actually decreasing in India.

ERROR 16 – Both are wrong. When the measuring device involved is constantly evolving, it is extremely tenuous to make any hard predictions based on history. One can try to factor out bias caused by better detection devices but this is only an approximation. Also, once again, we are in a situation where hard evidence is extremely small and therefore we simply do not have enough data to draw a conclusion. While I gave the tie to AIT above, I need to give this one to SPPI, AIT does not make a concrete argument that increased global warming will bring on more tornadoes when there are several studies that show that it is the cooling in off El-Nino years that the number of tornadoes increases.

ERROR 17 – This one is difficult since the climate models are still evolving. Most of the warming of the ocean due to the sun’s radiance occurs closer to the equator and then that heat is eventually transported to the poles in the form of current. Also, since the angle of incidence on Arctic waters is so low compared to equatorial waters, it’s influence is much less. However, Gore’s statement that the polar ocean absorbs 90% of the light that hits it is false, as far as I can tell. Though it will absorb more light than if it was covered by ice so the blanket statement that the sun would heat up the Arctic is true. SPPI is not totally correct in its explanation but Gore definitely exaggerated this claim.

Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the here.Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.

COMMENTS ARE CURRENTLY TURNED OFF. Comments are now on.

Technorati Tags: global+warming , an+inconvenient+truth , science+publich+policy+institute