A guest post by John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, and Chief Meteorologist of KUSI-TV in San Diego.
( Note from Anthony: I know John from way back. He’s a true pioneer in meteorology. I shared a table with him and Joe D’Aleo at the ICCC in New York in March, and I was there when you made his now famous challenge to Al Gore. I agree with John wholeheartedly when he says “do your good work” and “but don’t use scare tactics”. )
Thank you for your dedication to protecting our environment. Clean air and clean water are essential to preserving life on planet Earth. Protecting all species and natural lands and forests are admirable priorities. Recycling and a green lifestyle are wonderful. Making the environment the most important thing in your life is a good thing, not a problem. I support you.
But we do have a problem. You have vigorously embraced the Global Warming predictions of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are using the warning of uncontrollable warming and a resulting environmental calamity to campaign for elimination of fossil fuels. Your environmentally conscious friends in politics and in the media have united with you to create a barrage of news reports, documentaries, TV feature reports, movies, books, concerts and protest events to build support for your goals. The war against fossil fuels has become a massive scare campaign that is giving children nightmares.
Here’s what’s wrong with that: the science is not valid. There is no Global Warming underway and the science on which the computer projections of weather chaos are based is wrong. Dead wrong.
I know many scientists are part of your movement and they have tried hard to give your uncontrollable climate change panic a scientific basis. The UN Climate Change Panel has a large staff, a big budget, a headquarters in Geneva and a strong champion in Al Gore to lead the charge. And thousands of well-intentioned politicians and the media of the world have supported your movement. It must seem to you that there can be no doubt: fossil fuels are destroying the environment and will lead to uncontrollable global warming unless we act now. With all that powerful support for your anti-fossil fuel movement, and with the worthy goal of saving the planet from the disastrous consequences of runaway Global Warming, how can you fail?
Here’s how: The science behind your global warming scare is bad and no anthropogenic global warming is happening. Dissenting scientists have now produced convincing evidence that the cornerstone of your scientific argument, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide forcing a rapid, irreversible rise in temperature, is invalid. All of the various “signs of global warming” you have so widely publicized have been proven wrong. They are normal variations in climate that result mostly from the cycles of the Sun. As the Sun cycle has changed in the last three or four years, they have reversed themselves. Arctic ice melting and polar bears dying, shrinkage of glaciers and the rise of ocean levels, increased intensity and number of hurricanes and intensified droughts have all been touted as signs of global warming. They are not. They are part of this natural variation in climate. The intensified hurricane claim never happened. Katrina was an isolated, random event. The droughts are part of the natural cycle and are reversing at this time. Glaciers are stabilizing. The Arctic ice cap is already back to normal.
Here is what I am suggesting you do. Campaign for your environmental goals on the basis of their own merit. Let go of the global warming frenzy before it leaves you discredited and embarrassed. Stop screaming, “The sky is falling.” It is not.
Do your good work. Devote your lives to our environment. In many ways you will succeed. We are all grateful for your love of the planet. But, don’t use scare tactics.
Most of all I urge you not to become extremists. And, may I encourage you to live your lives in a loving way, love your fellow human beings and our wonderful advanced standard of living and way of life as much as you love the Earth.
My very best regards,
John Coleman
P.s. – If you will read my briefs on the science that debunks the global warming frenzy and follow the links there, you will begin to realize the folly of Global Warming.
Go to ICECAP.us for a starter.JC
Linda (18:27:28) wrote:
“I was just wondering why no one is blogging a response to the following news story that just came out”
That’s because Mr Coleman is not being completely honest with you when he says “The Arctic ice cap is already back to normal.”
It is important to remember that the area covered by “sea ice” is by definition only 15% or more covered by ice. Much of this year’s covered area is much thinner than previous years and is expected to melt more quickly than normal.
See:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/040708.html
http://ccar.colorado.edu/arifs/forecasts.html
Kind of makes you wonder about some of his other unsubstantiated but less easy to verify claims doesn’t it?
The real question is whether or not the Arctic sea ice will reach a new record low this summer. It’s too close to call I would say.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/uoca-crf043008.php
More info.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I would be interested to see where the rest of you that are more optimistic than I about the state of the arctic sea ice coverage get your info.
Arch
Arch, from Aqua, Argos, and the UAH and RSS satellites. The globe is cooling and Arctic Ice will return, as Antarctic ice has. The north is more dependent upon wind and currents for the resulting sea ice extent and thus is not as good an absolute thermometer as is the south, but it will come along until we start warming again. The question I have is why did we get the Arctic melting we did last summer. Was it the last gasp of the flipping PDO?
==================================
Realist wrote:
“If global warming were real, then why would GW believers be pushing ethanol production from food, when science shows ethanol production actually increases GWG emissions?”
All the folks I know that are concerns about AGW are very against ethanol production from food crops for the reasons you mention. The people behind it are the farm lobby, the Administration and folks that are poorly informed.
Arch
Arch: “That’s because Mr Coleman is not being completely honest with you when he says “The Arctic ice cap is already back to normal.”
“It is important to remember that the area covered by “sea ice” is by definition only 15% or more covered by ice. Much of this year’s covered area is much thinner than previous years and is expected to melt more quickly than normal.”
“I would be interested to see where the rest of you that are more optimistic than I about the state of the arctic sea ice coverage get your info.”
I like this source from the University of Illinois (hardly a conservative source).
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
The fact that is that there was significantly more north pole surface sea ice this past winter than the past five years…
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
after reaching a minimum amount last summer, this is pretty strong evidence of returning to normal, although it make take a few years to thicken back up.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
However as a seasonally adjusted “normal”, this past winter was less that about .25 million sq km less than average total ice for the peak of winter.
What is interesting is just how was made up in just one year at the north pole (which corresponds to the now prolonged solar minimum).
But also looking at the south polar ice….
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
We went from slightly below average, to almost 2 million sq kmabove average in less than a year, and reached the all time (at least since satellite data) record high ice coverage during this past SH winter.
Summer is just ending there, and already there is still about 1.5 million sq km more ice than exactly 1 year ago today.
An if we look at combined North & South polar ice…
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
we are just above average for right now after reaching being about 3 million sq. km below average approx 1 year ago.
So when Mr. Coleman says the polar ice caps are back to normal, the real data confirms he is right.
Realist,
Even Greenpeace is down on food produced ethanol.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/ethanol-is-not-the-answer-sto
Arch
Dell,
Thanks for the reply.
I guess you are more of an optimist than I because I don’t see that much encouraging news at crysphere today. You seem to be banking on the Arctic ice thickening up when it has not shown much of a recent tendency to do that. I think I look at longer periods than you do
I am aware of the Antarctic sea ice situation. It is encouraging indeed. I have read 2 different theories on why it may be happening (despite GW) but I admit both of them are somewhat tenuous.
BTW, Mr. Coleman may have intended to say “polar ice caps” but he didn’t. He specified “The Arctic ice cap is already back to normal.” Because of its anomalous thinness that he seems to conveniently ignore I would still contend that he is being disingenuous.
Arch
Which still required unsubstantiated alarmism.
Seems to be a real slugfest taking place here on Ice melt.
I think the Arctic could very well see a record melt this summer. It is awfully thin. And when the Arctic climate warms, ice melts – weird huh? But that doesn’t say anything about what causes it.
Concerning Antarctica, here the warmists are dead wrong. It aint thin, hasn’t been thinning, and is now near record levels. Weird how things freeze when it gets colder, aint it? What has caused that?
Now if all the warmists have left as evidence of AGW is one melting ice cap, then they are in a heap of trouble. All other major indicators and cycles, and even a German report from an alarmist institute appearing in Nature, basically say the global warming circus can go on vacation for the next 20 years or so.
@Arch
Gore has also invested heavily in the production of ethanol.
He certainly has been cashing in big time.
People are starving, but look who is laughing going to the bank.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/05/when-will-media-expose-gores-ethanol-investments
Kim (sorry I skipped over your response),
As I mentioned to Dell I seem to look at longer trends than you folks seem to. I admit that the trends do turn around eventually but even long term trends are littered with short term anomalous peaks and valleys. The PDO is a relatively short term phenomenon. I’m not sure why it’s reversal would make much of a difference in the big picture(?)
I would content that because of the dominant circumpolar winds that encircle and isolate the S. pole it may not be a very good “absolute thermometer” either, particularly due to it’s unique loss of the GHG ozone which may (or may not) be contributing to it’s recent coolness.
Last year’s very anomalous Arctic warmth likely will not be repeated this year. It remains to be seen however if the longer term trend is reversing, and the ice loss can recover.
Arch
Kim,
In reading more about the PDO I see there is a longer term component to it than I was previously aware of. Indeed it’s reversal could be significant.
Arch
Swampie: If you read Mark Twain’s “Life on the Mississippi,” written more than a hundred years ago, you will find he mentions Orange Groves on the outskirts of Natchez, Mississippi.
I didn’t notice any such thing on my last visit to Natchez a few years ago!
“And who will post “Jennifer Francis is wrong!” and hold her personally accountable for her remarks? ”
wrongpredictions.com?
Sorry Dead Guy Next To The Gold, there’s no evidence of net Ozone loss year to year at the South pole or anywhere else it’s measured. Check the NOAA graphs for yourself.
Why is it that all the big notable climate realists are old-school … Bob Carter, Don Easterbrook, many others, the majority of whom late-career & post-retirement researchers and a good many of whom formerly ascribed to the warming-only hypothesis.
Could it be they know the score in publish-or-perish & have seen it all before, the <a href=”http://www.google.com/search?q=information+cascade” information cascades, the competitive feedback that buries simple, sensible falsifications – like how it is that Pinatubo’s coolth had only two years’ residual but a bulk of warming could supposedly hide in a 20-year long temporal pipeline somewhere?
It’d be darn interesting to see a sociological study on this one.
Thanks, Rod! I thought there may have been other references to the southern citrus groves out there but couldn’t remember where I had read them for the life of me.
Arch
“I guess you are more of an optimist than I because I don’t see that much encouraging news at crysphere today. You seem to be banking on the Arctic ice thickening up when it has not shown much of a recent tendency to do that. I think I look at longer periods than you do.”
Even your previous pro-AGW link says the Artic reached 96% of normal ice. However they spin it to fit the AGW agenda. Try looking at real stats without the spin.
“I am aware of the Antarctic sea ice situation. It is encouraging indeed. I have read 2 different theories on why it may be happening (despite GW) but I admit both of them are somewhat tenuous.”
Since CO2 is basically the same at both poles, demonstrates that whatever is happening at the North Pole, isn’t happening at the South. In looking at the past 30 years of satellite data, it seems to be a Ying-Yang thing going on at the poles, and overall a balance. Whenever the North is low, the South is high, and vice-versa.
What is indeed telling about the south pole, is that there was nearly 2 million Sq Km above average, and the only news story we saw about it on major media was the 160 sq mile chunk of ice that broke off. Definately shows the media bias in what is really happening.
“BTW, Mr. Coleman may have intended to say “polar ice caps” but he didn’t. He specified “The Arctic ice cap is already back to normal.” Because of its anomalous thinness that he seems to conveniently ignore I would still contend that he is being disingenuous.”
But as your link stated, the North pole reached 96% of normal. A small 4% variance from average isn’t statistically that much, so indeed I would say his claim is accurate.
Another question I have is why no one seems to be tying the extremely successful disinformation program the KGB managed to dessiminate into the western scientific community. This program has successfully hamstrung US energy progress by demonizing nuclear power and industry, fearmongering doomsday theories like AGW, the Atomic Clock and US Nuclear weapons and anti-missile defenses and the results of these efforts to damage the US economically.
IMO, it’s indisputable that the Greens have been co-opted by the “former” Communist like Gorbie, the Academic/MSM Left and the other profiteers of destruction.
Jeff Alberts,
“Which still required unsubstantiated alarmism.”
Just so we clarify what alarmism we are talking about the POTUS pushed increasing ethanol production on the basis of increasing our “energy independence”. I don’t recall him being very concerned about GHGs. I’m not sure I would use the term “unsubstantiated” here.
I never said the ozone hole had expanded recently. Are you claiming that Antarctic cooling is new?
BTW, you blew my cover. 😉
Pierre Gosselin,
I’m not sure why you would consider this a slug fest, I didn’t come here for a fight and most folks here seem fairly civil; few ad homs and until now the immature rhetorical questions have been kept to a minimum. I’ve been in much worse.
Actually if you had read the letter in Nature I think (hope) you would realize how poorly your description fits it. You can read the abstract here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html
At least Gore is up front about it. I see where Gore also advocates investing in shale oil/tar sands. I find this even more disappointing due to their huge carbon footprint but I suppose that goes to show that he is not out to destroy the fossil fuel industry. The whole energy sector is hot and will continue to be.
It’s funny how so many folks claim that the greens have been co-opted by capitalists while others like El Vaquerro claim the commies run the show. LOL
Dell,
While I agree with you that 4% is of little statistical significance, I will mention again that sea ice coverage is far from the whole story. To ignore thickness is disingenuous when trying to present an accurate picture of the situation. Indeed it is Coleman who is presenting the spin in this case to support the anti-AGW agenda. As you say; even the source I used presented the 96% data. Which source do you think is more accurate: the one that gives more of the whole story or one that just exaggerates the facts he likes and neglects to mention the ones he doesn’t?
“Since CO2 is basically the same at both poles, demonstrates that whatever is happening at the North Pole, isn’t happening at the South. In looking at the past 30 years of satellite data, it seems to be a Ying-Yang thing going on at the poles, and overall a balance. Whenever the North is low, the South is high, and vice-versa.”
Indeed this is true to some extent and appears to have been true prehistorically also as supported by several kinds of evidence, yet the global climate has warmed and cooled. So why do you consider the S. pole to be a superior short term global thermal indicator again?
Oops, those darn italics escaped again!
Arch:
“To ignore thickness is disingenuous when trying to present an accurate picture of the situation.”
Agree that thickness is more a sign of long term. We are in the first year of solar minimum, and cooling trends. While it may take years for thinkness to develope, the fact is that ice has increased the past year.
“Indeed it is Coleman who is presenting the spin in this case to support the anti-AGW agenda. As you say; even the source I used presented the 96% data. Which source do you think is more accurate: the one that gives more of the whole story or one that just exaggerates the facts he likes and neglects to mention the ones he doesn’t? ”
I prefer the real data, and not a spin.
“Indeed this is true to some extent and appears to have been true prehistorically also as supported by several kinds of evidence, yet the global climate has warmed and cooled. So why do you consider the S. pole to be a superior short term global thermal indicator again?”
I consider the balance of the two to be a better long term indicator than either. Again there seems to be a natural pattern that when the North pole decreases in ice, the south pole increases, and vice versa. To rephrase your question aimed at the the AGW propaganda alarmists, “So why do you consider the N. [as opposed to the S.] pole to be a superior short term global thermal indicator again?”
The fact is that the AGW alarmists have focused solely on the N. Pole to emphasize their position and totally ignoring and/or making excuses as to why the south pole is at an all time high.
“Even your previous pro-AGW link says the Artic reached 96% of normal ice. However they spin it to fit the AGW agenda. Try looking at real stats without the spin.”
Normal????? Normal for what, the last 30 years? How can anyone claim that 30 years out of a 4 billion year history tells us what is normal. I recall an article on this blog or over at junkscience.com about the early 1900’s Arctic having so little ice that ships were able to sail through the Northwest passage. Perhaps we should take our “average sea ice” calculations back that far.