.png)
Leaders at G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy on July 8, 2009. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)
There are so many things wrong with making promises about the weather, I don't even know where to begin. The recent meeting of the G-8 industrial nations included environmental issues. The group promised to prevent the global temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius. They did not make any firm short-term goals, but plan on cutting carbon emissions 80% by the year 2050. As astonishing of a task that would be, guaranteeing the weather is a little arrogant and very dangerous. Trust me when I say dangerous. I am a TV forecaster with a science degree, and I know that the atmosphere is a chaotic system. We don't know everything. My colleagues and I take enough ridicule with daily or weekly thundershower forecasts, so how can a 40-decade forecast be done with a straight face? Besides, how much do you trust the seven day forecast?
Another problem with this claim is that there is some proof that the planet has been cooling for much of the past decade. Perhaps the G-8 leaders will try to take credit for the cooling in the near future, but according to some sources, the planet stopped warming in 1998 and has shown distinct cooling this decade.
Where is the proof? It is from satellite data, as seen here. The solid line at 0.0C is used to show how much temperatures have deviated from average between 1979 and 1998 (deviations are shown by the blue line). The measurements from June 2009 show that globally averaged temperatures have cooled back to that set average.
This data was collected by Dr. Roy Spenser, former NASA climatologist and currently Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He, along with Dr. John Christy, received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.
They pieced together the temperature data from a total of eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites over the years. As of 2008, our most stable instrument for this monitoring is the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. According to Spenser, "The decadal numbers are +.12C, but the trend has been down since 2000."
A recent article from ICECAP's Dr. Joe D'Aleo points out that this past June was the 15th coolest since 1979, according to collected satellite data. You can read more about this cool June in my recent story, Poor pour chilly New York has some claiming global cooling. Other sources are a bit more robust and try to have a little fun. Check out the break down of this data in the slide show below from the website Algorelied.com. They point out the global cooling trend since the movie An Inconvenient Truth was debuted. Many others have pointed to The Gore Effect, which occurs when unusually cool weather coincides with a climate change event such as a speech or protest.
Of course, the AGW group may see this data as one-sided. So it's only fair to compare the data that they refer to. In the slide show below, I have posted a graph of Global Surface Temperature Anomalies from the National Climatic Data Center and NOAA. It does show a distinct increase in temperature since 1979. However, the chart goes back to 1880, during which time the number of thermometers in use and the ocean data were much less prominent. How can that be scientifically consistent? Other disputes regarding the so-called warming trend come from the reliability of the weather stations currently being used. According to surfacestations.org, 89% of weather stations in use are not up to NOAA standards and are influenced by artificial heat sources. A few demonstrations are in the slide show below.
So what are we to believe? One set of data shows warming, another set shows cooling. If we are basing changes in arctic sea ice on satellite data, then I believe we should use the same satellites and time frame (since 1979) to identify temperature patterns. I contend that this is too short of a time-frame to be scientifically relevant to climate, but it is all we have. If we stick to those standards, then it is clear that the planet is cooling. So will the G-8 claim credit? Should we be aggressive with policies based on potentially flawed data? I presented both sides here, and I know that there will be critics. All I ask is that the legitimate data be taken at face value. The planet is cooling, and that was not part of the Global Warming Theory...at least not until this past winter when some scientists back-peddled and said the planet may cool for up to 30 years before warming again. Is it fair to keep changing the details, or is it better to say that we don't know everything? Predicting the weather a few days out is hard enough, but a few decades... can that be done with a true promise from the government?
Comments
Channel 2 has a 2 degree guarantee. If the G-8 hits the mark, will we all get a Norm Bobble Head?
#2 "The planet is cooling, and that was not part of the Global Warming Theory...at least not until this past winter when some scientists back-peddled and said the planet may cool for up to 30 years before warming again. Is it fair to keep changing the details, or is it better to say that we don't know everything?"
Two things Tony. (A) Why do you use assassin language like "back-peddling" instead of praising the AWG community when they refine their message as they understand this complicated global system better? (B) IPCC folks do say we don't know everything. They scream for more research dollars. Their reports do say "based on what we know so far we think XYZ" which inherently implies that we might have more to learn. You make 'em sound like shifty-eyed sneaks.
#1 "...we should use the same satellites and time frame (since 1979) to identify temperature patterns. I contend that this is too short of a time-frame to be scientifically relevant to climate, but it is all we have."
"All we have" is pure hogwash. In addition to satellite measurements we have numerous proxies for temperature going back much longer, including (a) tree rings, (b) ice layers, (c) isotopic changes in sediments, (d) layers of calcium carbonate on coral reefs. I will agree, of course, that we are still figuring out how to precisely understand the signals in such records. But we have a *LOT* more than a mere 30 year satellite record.
So, say you contract an apparently fatal but hitherto unknown disease. Are you saying you want the docs to withhold treatment until your killer is 100% perfectly understood, or would you want 'em to do all that they could ASAP even in the absence of perfect knowledge?
Steve #1- Sure we have more. All the ice core data has proven that CO2 goes up 400-800 years AFTER the planet has warmed. Sure humans have added CO2 since the Industrial Revolution, but climate history shows that it does not drive temperature but rather follows temperature.
AGW ignores dramatic warming in the past such as the medieval warm period. When will those scientists talk about natural cycles. Maybe the shift in the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) will prove that as we enter this cool period. Or the recent abnormally quite sun spot activity.
I have been reading these posts and comments and understand that Tony wants to clean up pollution. He has made that clear. He just wants the warming issue to be clear. There are many other reasons and ways to clean up the air. There are many other reasons to develop renewable energy sources. But going down this road of AWG is like blowing a snowstorm. The 'experts' will lose the public's approval.
Go Clean. Go a little Green. Just don't Go CRAZY in the process.
Today (July 10) is the anniversary of the hottest temperature every recorded in Baltimore. It was 107 F in 1936. No one claimed global warming then, but I am sure they would if it happened today. Funny thing is that we have not even hit 100F for 3 years, and yet to see 90F this summer. Sure it's a cool pattern we are in now, and many will dismiss it as such. But when we hit the 90s in April- it was reported by many as Global Warming. Does that seem fair?
By the way, the air is pretty clear. We have had only a handful of Code Red Ozone Alert Days in the past few years. That has to count for something too.
Justin and all - I think we all agree that the media's presentation of these issues is frequently a big problem.
ClimateRealist says: "All the ice core data has proven that CO2 goes up 400-800 years AFTER the planet has warmed."
If PROVEN means 100% certain, then that's baloney because we are still learning about the complicated spiderweb of carbon uptake, carbon release, and which signal from the ice cores reflects sunspots, which is earth tilt, and which reflects green house gas. The consequences of waiting until we have it perfect are too great to ignore, and that's why many folk want strong action ASAP. And Tony? Tony is more interested in getting good copy by bashing climate scientists than in advocating clean technology, because that's how he spends his time on these topics, despite his innocent protestations to the contrary. Of course, that could change whenever he wants it to,:)
Tony said: "This past June was the 15th coolest since 1979, according to collected satellite data"
Why did you not also mention that the familiar 11-year cycle in sunspots has been at the lowest low since 1913 for a couple years? Common sense suggests that the cool June resulted from a convergence of numerous factors, including lower solar output partially offset by the known heat-trapping effects of increased greenhouse gases. If so, then what should we expect when solar output rebounds, assuming it does rebound, to more familiar levels?
Steve...if the IPCC is as moderate as you claim, then why are they releasing statements and studies to the media that use phrases like "there is a 90% likelihood that the global temperature will go up by X amount and the sea levels will rise by X amount". When they use strong language like that, the media reports it as FACT. I know this because I have gone through many battles over the reporting of those numbers in my own newsroom.
Let me state this as clearly as I can one more time: I am ALL for the green movement, but I would hope that we could get the public to move to action with out it being based in fear. Fear is not a good platform for ANY decision making. The proposed environmental solutions being presented right now are based on the assumption that we are on the brink of an environmental crisis. If you take that context, then it's justified. It is my humble opinion that we are NOT in an eminent environmental crisis. The climate is too complex to make those kinds of statements. So yes, I would love to see us cleaning up the atmosphere and finding alternative fuel sources...there are a million valid reasons to do these things. However, it is my hope that we could pitch these actions to the public without making them believe the sky is falling.
We agree that carelessness, illiteracy, or the desire to make good copy drives the media to do a lousy job reporting what most climate scientists say. Understandable frustration aside, that is not the fault of the scientists yet you seem to want to bash scientists. For example, you do not accurately paraphrase science-speak. You left out the phrase "based on these results". An admission of less-than-perfect-knowledge is inherent and implied in science-speak. They learn more, then refine their conclusions. That's part of science. Its a blurry line when a hypothesis or projection can be considered gospel FACT. Media jumps the gun all the time. Please reconsider the focus of your frustration, and let's work to educate the public about the business of science. Meanwhile, out of curiousity, do you publish advocacy of clean energy for non-climatological reasons? That would also be a worthy thing to do, instead of bashing scientists for doing their job and speaking their speak.
By the way, Tony.... You bash scientists for stating FACTS when its usually the media that does that. Then you go commit that very sin, releasing an article with a headline stating a FACT.... (paraprasing) "it-is-absolutely-positively-without-the-slightest-doubt-already-cooling-so-we-have-no-longterm-problem-and-we-will-not-be-surprised-to-find-that-we-really-do-have-a-problem-when-solar-activity-returns-to-more-normal-levels-from-its-current-100-year-low"
Sheesh. Talk about taking a small data point and using it to turn one's predetermined opinion into a hat-hanging factual conclusion, while not even *mentioning* highly relevant and indisputable contemporary observations!
If you can refute the IPCC go publish in peer review press.
The global cooling idea is ridiculous. A single data point is being used to claim a cooling trend. This is totally unscientific. The fact that a single data point has reached the average is not proof that a cooling trend exists. Given the amount of fluctuation in the data a short term trend is not meaningful based on the history of the data.
In my opinion, someone who makes such a claim is either ignorant, has a bias that prevents him from understanding elementary data analysis in this case, or is trying to fool the public.
Eric, Steve and the rest... Spit out your Kool Aid! The Global Warming Theory did not have any interim recovery of ice let alone some global cooling. There are many flawed surface stations, so the reliable satellites do hold a lot of credit. As for the single point- how about comparing past records. How about the hot decade of the 1930s followed by 3 decades of leveling or cooling? Don't even quote sulfur particulates as the cause. That argument is wrong. How about the medieval warm period followed by the mini ice age around the time of our nation's birth. The long trend has had us warming before the industrial revolution from natural causes. Or should I refer you to the string of feedback mechanisms. The planet is a balance of systems, which compensate for external and internal forces. Every warming period in the past- was natural and followed by a longer cooling period. If you read Tony's other posts, there are very credible scientists he mentions who are skeptics as well.
On their Saturday morning show, David Wright did a story on the cool summer, and then turned to the visiting morning weather girl and asked her if this was Global Warming. COME ON? I thought is was crazy this winter that record snow was blamed on GW in parts of the country, but a cool summer as well? The weather girl did respond with, "That is a loaded question", but did not provide much more. Low sun spots, El Nino, the reversal of the Pacific Oscillation all come in to play, and prove the power of external forces.
Perhaps David Wright was playing to the ignorant uniformed public, but do not legitimize cooling as global warming. That is going to cause even more people to leave the cause. The truth will be evident much sooner than we all expected. The winters of the 60s and 70s will be relived again! At least the summer utility bills and reduced emissions as a result can make everyone happy.
ABC Critic: Try "global climate CHANGE". I agree with Tony that climate is very complex. If we heat one place, another might get colder. For example, if for any reason a warm ocean current stops passing by some arctic island, as far as that island goes, for at least a while that island will probably seem colder than usual, even if the rest of the place gets warmer *overall*. It's complex. Your analysis of any given observation will be much more accurate when viewed as a strand of the spider web, rather than asking if it jives with an all-or-nothing notion of warming vs. an all-or-nothing notion of cooling.
First, Google "Lake Effect".
Next, ponder what happens if the arctic is increasingly ice-free going into winter.
Common sense suggests that increasing amounts of moisture will be picked up by air masses and deposited as heavier precip events somewhere else, and from those places' point of view, it may seem cooler and wetter, even if the ice free acrtic was the result of a warmer globe overall. It's inaccurate to keep saying "global warming" or "global cooling" instead of "global climate change".
Steve- I agree that Climate change is more appropriate, and the accepted science lingo....but the media is still hung on Global Warming.
Secondly- I live in western NY and know all about Lake Effect. In 2002 we had our first real snow the week of XMas and 82" in BUF the last week of the year. Sure that was off of an ice free lake Erie, but a balance of heat and redistribution of energy in the feedback mechanism.
I suggest you google Earth, global circulation, and 3 Cell Model. The arctic is in it's own separate circulation most of the time. An ice free arctic will not generate more snow in the mid latitudes. If anything, it would weaken the polar jet with less temp gradient. You lost credibility points with that. What is more important to our winters is early snow build up in Canada to support cold air masses. And that has been increasing in recent years. Not climate change, just another part of the natural cycle that has been documented and repeating for centuries.
ABC Critic, if you agree that the correct term is "climate change" why don't you use it? As you point out, there are too many interlocking components of the climate system for anyone to responsibly speak as though EVERYTHING will warm or EVERYTHING will cool under reasonable theories for the next 100 years. As one place experiences what to that place seems warmer or drier, due to the quivering spider web of interconnected parts (some of which you added to my scenario), another place may be wetter and colder than what it is used to. The issue we're discussing is climate CHANGE. Thanks for supporting my argument, and please speak correctly or perpetuate illiteracy.
Isn't there something in the Bible about a guy who built a boat because he knew of a coming flood that would devistate the world, and that everyone just laughed at him?
We are witnessing this biblical tale play out on the modern stage. A tale that some will argue never actually happened, but that it did or did not happen doesn't really matter anyway.
Wasn't the story of Noah intended to teach us a lesson about listening to the right people anyway?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!