Global Warming "Facts"
Nothing lies like facts. As I’ve written regarding education vouchers, it’s proving extremely difficult to get the debate focused on correct financial numbers. And that involves simple accounting.
Take a truly complex scientific issue, like global warming, turn it into a political football, and getting at the truth becomes almost impossible. A few weeks ago, I was taken to task for stating that more research is needed before we draw hard conclusions on human-induced global warming.
Since then, NASA has come to my defense. (I still have a few connections in Houston.). Republished data shows that even the most basic data in this debate, if you want to call it that, have been in error. Though the last decade clearly has been hot, it turns out that it has not been off-the-charts hot, relative to other periods, as previously advertised.
Contrary to previously-accepted fact, 1998 was not the hottest year in at least a millennium. Turns out, it wasn’t the hottest year in the last century. That would be 1934. The actual – revised – facts now show that 5 of the hottest 10 years of the past century preceded World War II.
Do the revised numbers prove that human-induced global warming is a fraud? Nope.
Do the numbers show we shouldn’t worry about reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Nope.
But, the revised numbers absolutely show that people should take a deep breath and give science some room to study various hypotheses regarding this important issue.
Take a truly complex scientific issue, like global warming, turn it into a political football, and getting at the truth becomes almost impossible. A few weeks ago, I was taken to task for stating that more research is needed before we draw hard conclusions on human-induced global warming.
Since then, NASA has come to my defense. (I still have a few connections in Houston.). Republished data shows that even the most basic data in this debate, if you want to call it that, have been in error. Though the last decade clearly has been hot, it turns out that it has not been off-the-charts hot, relative to other periods, as previously advertised.
Contrary to previously-accepted fact, 1998 was not the hottest year in at least a millennium. Turns out, it wasn’t the hottest year in the last century. That would be 1934. The actual – revised – facts now show that 5 of the hottest 10 years of the past century preceded World War II.
Do the revised numbers prove that human-induced global warming is a fraud? Nope.
Do the numbers show we shouldn’t worry about reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Nope.
But, the revised numbers absolutely show that people should take a deep breath and give science some room to study various hypotheses regarding this important issue.
posted by steve u. at 8/15/2007
Subscribe
13 Comments:
Another red herring argument, designed to rationalize the Utah Republican majority's nearly criminal neglect of our state's health. There is one major fact about the global warming debate: no one debates the dirty air, water, and land created by greenhouse gases. If we are not the worst air quality in the nation, we are close to it. And YOU say we need to stop and think about what to do. It is obvious: better public transit, fewer coal plants, carbon sequestration, tax incentives for renewable energy, more walkable and bikeable cities, etc. Instead of taking action on things that WILL clean our air and MAY (credible scientists say will) slow global warming, you continue in sloth. And don't worry, if Washington county doesn't THINK about growth better, you will breath the same or worse dirty air we currently breathe up North.
DD,
Read my next to last paragraph and get that ALL CAPS button checked. It seems to be sticking.
My argument is that we need better science and less ALL CAPS on the issue.
Davis, I think you're reacting based on a false perception. Steve's not saying that we shouldn't be cleaning up the air. What he is saying is that the data behind man-made global warming isn't as definitive as our mass consciousness wants to think it is. I doubt you'd find anyone in favor of dirty power, polluted air and filthy streams.
U and Jesse: What I was saying is that U and other Republicans continue to trot out the global warming red herring, saying we should not truly, aggressively invest in renewable energy because the science is not there. I see the hesitation from people like Roger Barrus, Lyle Hillyard (http://utahsitevisit.com/townmeeting/2007/08/air-quality-issues.html), Aaron Tilton (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=1638807), and especially the short-sightedness of this Senate Site post (http://senatesite.com/blog/2007/07/fire-on-mountain.html), using global warming and green-baiting as excuses to avoid doing anything about pollution. I hope you can impress your colleagues to take action regardless of what global warming science proves, but your track record indicates you would rather focus on other things than clean air, water, and land.
As a side note, I am not particularly happy with the Democratic leadership's unwillingness to take on this issue either. They seem to be hopelessly conflicted, unable to reconcile the need to invest in cleaner energy with the constituencies they represent.
Well, if they really say that, they're wrong. What really irritates the crap out of me is that liberal types think they have to worry us with things that couldn't possibly be happening in order to get us to think it's important to clean up the air. I've got news for you: WE DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CLEAN UP THE AIR. (Sorry, my caps lock button got stuck, too.)
It just dawned on me: man made global warming alarmists are a lot like parents who say stuff like, "if you don't clean up your room, I'll ground you for a year!!!" and then wonder why normal people don't take them seriously.
Rep. U,
Given that the atmosphere is a global commons, why should global warming even be considered in the realm of policy making for states?
If there is a problem, the solutions will come by international treaty. So why are local and state governments even considering taking on this problem?
Davis Didjeridu, your list of things the Republicans aren't doing actually has some they have done. An expanded renewable energy tax credit was reenacted this session. Incidentally, a huge wind farm is going in outside of Beaver in large part because of that legislation.) Public transit funding has grown and new light rail and commuter rail spurs are being built.
As far as walkable communities, many new, forward-thinking communities are being built by private developers. Legislative committees have studied and are working on assisting with cleaner carbon technologies and carbon sequestration.
This stuff is all happening in Utah, in the legislature, and it's happening without people launching these kinds of attacks. Instead, policy makers who care are rolling up their sleeves and working on policies that don't depend on resolving unresolvable issues and being yelled at by whichever side of the unresolvable issue loses.
Tom,
Air is very much a state concern. The way we regulate clean air in the U.S. is through the federal clean air act, with most states having "delegated" status to actually run the program.
International cooperation is important, but on environmental issues such cooperation is often an excuse to gang up on the U.S.
Greenhouse gases are typically water vapor (the most significant one), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (both in natural gas and given off by living plants, animal digestion, as well as decaying vegetable matter). A special class of greenhouse gases was created when the Montreal Protocol, intended to "fight the ozone hole", resulted in the ban of refrigerants containing chlorine. The UN IPCC (the official body that puts out reports every few years on climate change) has stated that the substitute refrigerants are such potent greenhouse gases that they alone are absorbing 2 to 3 times as much heat as the Kyoto Protocol was supposed to cut out. IN other words, the Montreal Protocol has already rendered the Kyoto Protocol ineffective.
Please note that these greenhouse gases are by definition NOT the opaque air pollutants that make the sky look brown over the Wasatch Front. In fact, another IPCC report a few years ago noted that particles from sulfur in coal had actually been pointed to as shading the earth, having a cooling effect. Some scientists have proposed that this cooling effect is so potent that it overwhelmed the warming effect of CO2 emissions during the period from the actual century high temperatures of 1934, which cooling continued until about 1976, when temperatures started to rise again, taking until 1998 to get close to the 19345 peak temperature. The scientists who make this proposal point to the institution of air pollution regulations in the 1970s as the turning point in decreasing sulfur pollution, first for health purposes and then to prevent so-called "acid rain", as being the cause of the end of cooling and the rise in temperatures.
In other words, the two largest and most direct contributors to global warming are due to air pollution controls, which had unexpected side effects that are exacerbating warming.
The real irony is that neither acid rain nor the ozone hole were more than minor issues, without any real threat to the health of people or the environment.
Given the efficacy of sulfates to overwhelm the warming effects of greenhouse gases (back in 1975 scientists thought we were descending into an ice age), some scientists have actually proposed that the most cost effective way to counteract global warming is to loft particulates into the stratosphere. It is likely a lot cheaper than the various proposals to cut down on creating CO2 by decreasing production of cheap energy.
CO2 is NOT an "air pollutant" in the sense that carbon monoxide and particulates are. It is a trace element in the atmosphere. All animals (including people) generate high concentrations of it when they breathe. All carbon in plants and trees (including the food we eat) comes from this thin reservoir of CO2 in the atmosphere! All the carbon in carbohydrates was taken from the air by plants. Thus, CO2 is literally the basis of all life on earth. When we add a marginal amount to the atmosphere, we are adding the stuff that plants and animals are made of. It is the source of carbon that rains into the oceans and allows calcium carbonate to be turned into the shells of marine creatures and coral reefs.
While it is independently a good idea to conserve energy, and find and exploit all possible sources of it (including nuclear), we should not get so fixated on carbon dioxide that we do the same kind of stupid thing that was done with acid rain and the ozone hole, and create new problems that are bigger than the old ones! Frankly, if environmentalists are skeptical of human technology, and assert that the earth's ecosystem is incredibly complex and interrelated, they ought to be just as skeptical of ideas to screw around with processes that actually support production of the CO2 that is vital to life.
After all, CO2 is generated by natural fires, by decay of dead matter, by respiration of animals, fish and insects, by certain plant metabolic processes, by volcanic eruptions (Mt. Pinatubo) and other geologic processes (Yellowstone and natural carbonated springs like Evian's source). It is taken OUT of the atmosphere by plant photosynthesis and rainfall that takes it into the oceans, where it is fixed into chemical compounds and eventually subducts under continential shelves to be released again through volcanoes (like the Yellowstone caldera). The burning of fossil fuels is at the margin of this natural recycling of carbon.
The proposals to "sequester" carbon are based on this natural cycle. One proposal that has been tested successfully is to fertilize parts of the ocean that lack a single nutrient, like iron, thus causing blooms of algae that can potentially suck in ALL of the CO2 that mankind generates. Another really cheap way to stop CO2 growth.
The fact is that the UN IPCC reports have been getting progressively more limited in predicting effects of global warming over the next century. Thus, potential sea level rise is predicted to be between 7 and 22 centimeters, less than 10 inches, by 2100! That is already within the normal rise in sea level that has been occurring since measurements were taken, due to the continuing melting of the ice created during the ice ages. Compared to storm surges and earthquake generated tsunamis of 20 feet or higher, they are negligible. If your beachfront property is secure against those disasters, a rise fo 10 inches in 100 years is not going to be a problem. If you are NOT secure against those disasters, a slow rise of 1 inch per decade is not going to make a difference.
Like sea level, the actual forecasts, based on computer models, are that the main effects from warming will NOT occur until at least 50 years from now! That means that NOTHING we do right now is going to make any perceptible difference in global temperatures for the next 50 years. Given that lack of benefit to us or our children, and the inability to even tell whether we are making a difference, the prudent and scientific thing to do would be to continue to study the issue rather than launch any wrenching policies that would coerce people into doing something that allegedly is for the benefit of people 50 to 100 years from now, whiole we KNOW with certainty that diverting our resources and (literally) energy into what could be a wild goose chase WILL have serious negative consequences for our children and grandchildren.
Frankly, there are much more immediate issues that threaten human health and the environment in much more dire terms than global warming ever is supposed to. We could pour trillions down the drain of that issue and get back bupkus, while other people are dying in the here and now. For example, fighting AIDS is a much more urgent priority for millions in Africa and other countries. Fighting Muslim extremism is important to make sure that our children benefit from the other things we do, rather than just the children of Osama bin Laden.
Just imagine: What if we had the technology of 1907 and were asked to "fight global warming". Anything we did would result in terrible poverty as we refused to allow enough energy to be generated to make life easier for the masses. Even so, why should be bankrupt ourselves NOW in order to provide a speculative benefit to people 50 years from now who, we rationally expect, will be much more wealthy in material, knowledge and technology than we are. For example, if we get back to the moon, it is possible we could collect Helium 3 that will allow us to make real fusion generators that will generate all the energy we need without increasing CO2 emissions! By definition, anything we do in 2007 to fight global warming is going to look stupid to people in 50 and 100 years from now. Why should be devote our resources to do stupid things to benefit people who are going to have the smart techniques in the future?
Additionally, a side note of the correction in temperatures report is that the hottest year within the last decade was 1998--9 years ago! If we were getting warmer, it should be 2006! But 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 have been COOLER than 1998. Does that suggest a trend? This is in spite of the fact that little has been done to cut down on CO2 emissions, and in fact China is building a new major IPP size coal burning generating plant every week! Temperatures in the US are NOT rising! Maybe that should tell us we should calm down a little and think this through before we make major changes in our law that give WINDFALL PROFITS to certain major international corporations! Remember that ENRON, the friends of mankind, were pushing the Clinton Administration to impose a CO2 cap-and-trade system in America that would let ENRON make billions of dollars as we all started paying them for the use of the air we breathe.
Raymond Takashi Swenson
Yes, Raymond, it's the corporations we have to fear.
Those damn environmentally-concerned, only-making-decisions-that-better-humanity corporations.
How can we put a stop to their selfless civil service?!
C'mon people. This is not an economic conspiracy to take over the world markets.
It is simply the fact that glaciers, forests are disappearing, while deserts grow several feet every year. Regardless of temperature measurements (a favorite argument of Global Warming opponents), the ecology is changing drastically (and that is what led to the initial studies that give us the quagmire of data we have to argue about today).
There is no doubt that the change is occuring, the only doubt is to what, exactly, is the direct cause.
Is doing nothing a risk we should take? I completely agree with Steve's original post here. More work should be done to understand (even as a supporter of Global Warming prevention initiatives, I would like to see that is we do get off our behinds and act, we act correctly and effectively), but as to this comment previous to mine, it is this type of tripe that poisons the intelligent debate.
Let's all take a breather, grow up, and decide, like adults, how to proceed. We're an ingenious race, I doubt all hope is lost. We are also too smart to sit back and do nothing.
Hi Steve,
Let me offer some quotes from a book I recently read (The politically correct guide to global warming)
1. On pollution--"Between 1970 and 1999, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants decreased 31%"(EPA)--(This while miles traveled increased 140% and pop. climbed 33%.
2."Historically, atmospheric CO2 typically increases after warming begins, not before."
3."Global average temperature is probably about 0.6 celsius or 1 degree Fahrenheit higher than a century ago."
3. "Glaciers are also advancing all over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors."
4. "New Zealand and Austrailia have no sea level rise at all and in some cases see instead, a drop.
5. "Storms are cyclical and that said, are not more frequent or more severe than in the past."
6.Humans are responsible for about 5% of Nitrous Oxide emissions, 18% of Methane emissions, 3% of CO2 emissions and 66% of CFC emissions.
7. There is actual "general agreement that Kyoto Protocol will do nothing detectable to stop whatever warming would happen."
8. In a survey of climate scientists in 1996 only 9.4% or respondants "strongly agree" that climate change is mostly the result of antropogenic (human) sources.
9."Science is skepticism" and we have every reason to be skeptical of those who propose the massive controls advocated by the global warming crowd.
I could easily list 20 or more quotes from this one book but you get the point. Read the book! God bless.
This has got to be one of the most concise well written blogs on this subject I've seen. Brief, to the point and obviously from a free thinking individual that hasn't been duped by the end of the earth lunatics. Although I believe that the world is warming I think it is a natural cycle of everything on God's green earth. This article almost makes me want to move to Utah if you have represenitives like Steve U here.
The facts are that global warming is likely not ocurring. As more evidence is found, almost on a daily basis, I am one that has come completely full circle against the irrational beliefs that global warming is real.
It is now shown that Greenland has not been losing as much ice as was previously thought and that any ice losses there have been have been going on for well over 150 years.
The facts that temperature data in the upper atmosphere has shown no changes at all sheds light on the evidence that temperature collecting data on the ground is suspect.
I have read the reports and seen pictures of remote temperatue data collecting stations that were in urban areas next to black topped parking lots, next to buildings and in areas where the stations were subjected to idle air currents due to buildings, trees and other obstacles.
The interesting thing is that the models that have been made to predict global warming use way too many assumptions. In fact, the data that is used is only 50% reliable to predict anything, so it is quite evident that those that support and want to prove global warming will skew the "guess work" data to arrive at an outcome that supports their claims.
There are many reputable scientists that have come forward against the global warming claim because they sat back, took a deep breath and logically looked at reputable sources of data.
Concerns about global warming doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at alternative forms of energy...I'm all for that,just because it makes good sense. We all want cleaner air, water and land.
Ethanol is the buzz word in the midwest and all over the country, but here is one energy source that was rushed into the public at our expense that is already proving disasterous to the economy, air quality and our food sources, since corn products are used in hundreds of products. The return on the energy of corn is 5:3 vs the production cost; however, I don't know if I really believe that either, since numerous production plants have now been found to be puluting rivers and soil with some of the by-products.
Sit back, take a deep breath and look at the data in a concious, deliberate and logical manner before jumping to conclusions.
Post a Comment
<< Home