My 100th entry – some other views on Global Warming

number_100.png

I figured for my 100th entry, I’d make it a big

one. Especially in light of the fact that a recent

editorial in the ChicoBeat

said that I’m completely wrong. Now if I’m wrong, and I see compelling and undisputable evidence

(not models or projections) that man made CO2 is the culprit and nothing else,

I’ll be happy to stand up in the middle of city plaza and announce "I was

wrong".I expect I’ll know the answer by about January to March 2018, when its expected that solar cycle 24 will be over, and temperatures on earth are postulated to drop. The year end world climate summaries will be published then. Assuming I’m still around, I’ll likely sound off in City Plaza one way or another. By then we’ll have some shade.

In the meantime, tell me how I’m doing. I don’t

hear from a lot of you whom I know are reading. Sound off, good or bad.

What I thought I’d do this time around is post some news and opinions that

aren’t mine related to the subject. These come from science and technology blogs,

forums, and newsletters that I subscribe to.

First let’s start with this headline that’s

been circulating for the past few days:

"This winter is the warmest on record

worldwide."

That’s from a press release from NOAA

and there are many new articles about it with essentially the same

headline. Here’s one from The Weather Channel,

Worldwide winter warmest on record

Here is the original

press release from

NOAA and their title says: "NOAA

SAYS U.S. WINTER TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE" and that’s followed by the subtitle "Global

December-February Temperature Warmest on Record"

Hmmm. I have

to wonder. Which is it? and WHY do they essentially cancel each other out? No

worries though, the press will go with the more sensational headline, which is

exactly what AP did.

And here’s what the report said about the USA:

"The

winter temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data)

was 33.6 degrees F (0.9 degrees C). The 20th century average is 33.0 degrees F

(0.6 degrees C). Statewide temperatures were warmer than average from Florida to

Maine and from Michigan to Montana. Cooler-than-average temperatures occurred in

the southern Plains and areas of the Southwest."

and this:

"The combined

global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest on record in

February, but a record warm January helped push the winter (December-February)

to its highest value since records began in 1880 (1.30 degrees F/0.72 degrees C

above the 20th century mean). El Niño conditions contributed to the season’s

record warmth, but the episode rapidly weakened in February, as ocean

temperatures in the central equatorial Pacific cooled more than 0.5 degrees

F/0.3 degrees C and were near average for the month."

But, but, its THE

WARMEST WINTER ON RECORD ! We must do something scream the news stories and

blogs. Never mind El Nino is listed as the cause.

some comments:

From Slashdot:

"The [news stories] are an excellent example of such unscientific hype. Linking

last winter to global warming is pure speculation that does nothing to promote

rational discussion about global warming. A mild winter might indeed be a result

of global warming or it could be just a peak in some other climatic cycle that

we don’t fully understand. Here in New Zealand, we have just had a very cool

summer, following on from a very cool winter. Where’s some of that global

warming stuff? Could have used it at the beach!

To think that we (as a human race) have a very good understanding of long-term

climatic processes is just arrogance. We have models which we are always

refining, but they will always just be speculation. We look back mockingly at

how ignorant some scientists were 40 years ago (eg. during the 1960s many/most

geologists did not accept tectonic plate theory). It is silly to think that

people forty years from now won’t be doing the same about us. That should be

particularly true of climatic modelling. There is no robust equation for

climate. People essentially just sit down and tweak the models until they get

the results they expect, then use them to generate best case and worst case

analysis. That folks, is hardly science."

From

Huffington Post:

In the New BBC

special regarding global warming, one very great point is made.

A man gets in his car and turns on the engine and ponders his effect on the

climate of the earth while completely ignoring the giant nuclear fireball

thousands of times the size of the earth a mere eight light-minutes away.

No one denies that the earth is getting warmer, we just disagree as to the

cause.

 

From Canada

Free Press:

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer

personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my

personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose

not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where

free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged,

academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my

lawyer

defined as libelous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say

what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that

universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This

becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from

governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

From Riehl World View:

Gore Funding Plan For "A New World Order"

If your employer began paying you 80 cents on the dollar, but, not to worry,

the other 20 cents was going to support "good causes", thereby giving you value

instead of capital, would you be pleased?

If not, you won’t like what Al Gore has been quietly planning along with his

Global Warming initiative. He and others are working to achieve that very thing

and to bring it about in a manner which doesn’t give you a vote in which values

your dollars end up supporting.

 

From Michael Crichton’s Website:

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory

that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and

celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished

philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is

reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high

school classrooms.

I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to

prominence a century ago.

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston

Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and

Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it

included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret

Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford

University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and

hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the

Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was

built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard,

Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis

was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American

Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if

Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding

the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were

shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant.

But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually

pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in

the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to

the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and

its history is so dreadful —- and, to those who were caught up in it, so

embarrassing —- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should

be well known to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.

For those who don’t know:

eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. The purported goals have variously been to create healthier, more intelligent people, save society’s resources, and lessen human suffering. Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral and is based on, or is itself, pseudoscience.

 

See any similarities

or relevance? Ok, flame away folks…

 

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “My 100th entry – some other views on Global Warming

  1. No flames here, Anthony. I am absolutely STUNNED at how much the press jumps all over anything regarding climate change. The whole “warmest winter on record” thing is just silly. Yet, the press jumps all over it and screams to the heavens. It is very similar to the whole airline thing. This week, a storm caused several airlines to cancel flights in the northeast. What did Fox News (fair and balanced, YEAH RIGHT!) have to say about it? “Jet Blue cancels huge amounts of flights again!” Ok, I paraphrased, but that is exactly that they did. They jumped all over Jet Blue as if they were the only airline cancelling flights. All because of the snafu last month when Jet Blue left passengers on a plane for several hours. I know you used to work for KHSL, but I, personally, have a major dislike for the mainstream media.
    Anyway, back on topic. Climate change is real. Can’t deny it. Is it happening because I drive an SUV with a V8 (I admit it, I drive an SUV that gets 15MPG. Go ahead, hate me)? Is it because the sun is spewing huge amounts of radiation? Is it because our planet mechanics work in cycles? I honestly don’t know. But ya know what? No one else can claim that they KNOW either.

  2. I watched Barry Maguire sing “The Eve of Destruction” on Public T.V. recently and was amazed at the silliness of some of the lyrics when they pertain to today’s “flapping flags of projections” that many psuedo-scientists and politicians seem to wave from the heights of their attained positions in our nation’s prominity.
    I can only say that they are envious of Barry Maguire’s Place as a Prophet of Doom.
    I would assume that a Doctor of any science would not be influenced by emotion and The Media’s general longing for the Sixties Era when all was an effort in Drama and Irresponsibility.

  3. Outstanding Mr. Watts! Many thanks for the info and links. Sadly, “The Great Global Warming Swindle” will probably never get the attention that Al Gore’s convenient lie did.

  4. Hi Anthony,
    I wanted to chime in here with my opinion on all this…First of all I want to let you know that I really appreciate your tone, patience and humor in regards to your blogs…I think that you do a great job….
    I do disagree with you in that I believe that humans absolutely have an influence on the climate and the relatively recent increase we are experiencing….However, I think studies demonstrate that co2 has been overblown in regards to the only anthropogenic source of warming that we should concern ourselves with….I think it is clear that other sources of warming, both anthropogenic and natural have not been given enough attention by the media and the IPCC…
    Sources such as: (with a few studies)
    A. Land Use (Deforestation, irrigation, agriculture, etc..)
    -Kueppers, L. M., M. A. Snyder, and L. C. Sloan. 2007. Irrigation cooling effect: Regional climate forcing by land-use change, Geophysical Research Letters
    – Pielke Sr., R.A., 2005: Land use and climate change. Science, 310, 1625-1626
    – Feddema et al. 2005: The importance of land-cover change in simulating future climates., 310, 1674-1678
    – Pielke Sr., R.A., J.O. Adegoke, T.N. Chase, C.H. Marshall, T. Matsui, and D. Niyogi, 2007: A new paradigm for assessing the role of agriculture in the climate system and in climate change. Agric. Forest Meteor., Special Issue, 132, 234-254.
    B. Effect of Aerosols
    – Huang, Y., W. L. Chameides, and R. E. Dickinson (2007), Direct and indirect effects of anthropogenic aerosols on regional precipitation over east Asia, J. Geophys. Res.
    – Matsui, T., H. Masunaga, R.A. Pielke Sr., and W-K. Tao, 2004: Impact of aerosols and atmospheric thermodynamics on cloud properties within the climate system. Geophys. Res. Letts., 31,
    – NASA Study Links “Smog” to Arctic Warming— http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/troposphere_ozone.html
    C. Methane emissions
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Shindell_etal_1.pdf
    D Urban Heat Islands
    -Zhou, L., Dickinson, R.E., Tian, Y., Fang, J., Li, Q., Kaufmann, R.K., Tucker, C.J. and Myneni, R.B. 2004. Evidence for a significant urbanization effect on climate in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 9540-9544
    Jáuregui, E. 2005. Possible impact of urbanization on the thermal climate of some large cities in Mexico. Atmosfera,18, 249-252
    Bohm, R. 1998. Urban bias in temperature time series – A case study for the city of Vienna, Austria. Climatic Change, 38, 113-128
    Then we go and look into the solar influence, and it seems clear that the contribution of solar is a factor (one of many factors):
    -Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33..The abstract states,
    We study the role of solar forcing on global surface temperature during four periods of the industrial era (1900–2000, 1900–1950, 1950–2000 and 1980–2000) by using a sun-climate coupling model based on four scale-dependent empirical climate sensitive parameters to solar variations. We use two alternative total solar irradiance satellite composites, ACRIM and PMOD, and a total solar irradiance proxy reconstruction. We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted. ”
    So, it seems to me that
    1. There appears to be a variety of factors that are causing this global increase in temperature, most anthropogenic and some natural.
    2. The idea that only dropping co2 levels is the magic bullet in stopping global warming seems misguided.
    3. We must look at a variety of human induced factors and also natural factors in determining the proper course of action into dealing with this problem and I don’t see that being done at this time!
    Sorry for the long post, thanks for your time!
    Matt

  5. Hello Matt,
    Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed comments. I couldn’t agree more. There are many, many factors involved. With so many factors, it makes computer models unreliable since not all variables can be understood or properly quantified. There are local and global processes at work.
    But maybe you missed some previous posts related to these other processes. I do admit, I’ve focused a bit much on CO2, but its the “squeaky wheel” of the moment.
    For example, related to land use, I covered irrigation – and its effect on central valley temperatures here:
    http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/02/irrigation_most_likely_to_blam.html
    And I have covered methane, CFC’s and aerosols:
    http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2006/11/greenhouse_gas_stablizes_on_it_1.html
    And a few others like urban heat islands, and instrumentation bias:
    http://www.globalwarmingindex.com/gwi_essay1.htm
    You are spot on when you say: “We must look at a variety of human induced factors and also natural factors in determining the proper course of action …and thats not being done at this time”

  6. Yes, I did watch The Great Global Warming Swindle. I knew I was actually listening to scientists that understand the scientific method. The global warming hysteria is merely a political scam much as was the global cooling scam of 20 or 30 years ago. Or our brief but embarrassing bout with eugenics before that.
    There is a principle at work here – I’m just at the tip of the iceberg on this so far. The development and maintenance of the mass hysteria that today causes the furtherance of the global warming myth is the same sort of intellectual blindness/foolishness/ignorance that caused and maintained the dark ages hundreds of years ago. We’ll not enter another “dark ages”, of course, but I’m just saying the thinking is the same.
    The reformation brought us out of the dark ages, and the tremendous science and the scientific method so closely associated with the reformation still continues, having brought us to our current modern age. Turn your back on the truths revealed through the reformation (here, the scientific method, part of which is intellectual honesty) and just see what you’re left with! It seems to me it’s simply the masses blindly following well-packaged and well-delivered lies.
    I think there is a lot more to be said about this. I believe the principle is correct but it will take someone a lot smarter than I am to really develop the thought as it should be developed………
    Cam Lynn
    Brookings, OR

  7. [[ “NOAA
    SAYS U.S. WINTER TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE” and that’s followed by the subtitle “Global
    December-February Temperature Warmest on Record”
    Hmmm. I have
    to wonder. Which is it?]]
    Are you serious? It’s both the warmest winter globally and an average winter for the U.S.
    As for headlines, you rarely see “Stock Market Has Perfectly Average Month” or
    “Plane Lands Without Incident, Passengers Retrieve Luggage.”

Comments are closed.