Manmade Co2 Impact  One Skeptics View   Feb 15 08
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Manmade Co2 Impact One Skeptics View Feb 15 08

on

  • 3,893 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,893
Views on SlideShare
3,893
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
31
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Manmade Co2 Impact  One Skeptics View   Feb 15 08 Manmade Co2 Impact One Skeptics View Feb 15 08 Presentation Transcript

  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW ( MarkS ) Recent Publication CREDITS: My Primary Reference (excerpted liberally) for this material is: “ Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat”, by Roy W. Spencer, URL: www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm updated Jan 12, 2008. Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology at the U. of Wisconsin. He is a principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.   Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology and others.
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW (MarkS) Primary Reference: Roy Spencer, op cit
    • TOPICS:
      • SOME KEY QUESTIONS
      • GLOBAL WARMING BASICS
      • EARTH’S TEMPERATURE HISTORY
      • - - SOME ISSUES
      • GREENHOUSE EFFECTS
      • THE ROLE OF H2O & PRECIPITATION SYSTEMS
      • SOME UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS
      • SUMMARY
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW
    • SOME KEY QUESTIONS:
    • IS ATMOSPHERIC CO2 AN OBVIOUS THREAT TO
    • OUR ENVIRONMENT ?
    • “ GREENHOUSE” EFFECT:
    • WHAT IS THE ROLE OF CO2 vs H20 ?
    • GLOBAL WARMING:
    • A “RUNAWAY” PHENOMENON or SIMPLY
    • A REFLECTION OF INADEQUATE SCIENTIFIC
    • UNDERSTANDING?
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW (MarkS) Primary Reference: Roy Spencer, op cit
    • TOPICS:
      • SOME KEY QUESTIONS
      • GLOBAL WARMING BASICS
      • EARTH’S TEMPERATURE HISTORY
      • - - SOME ISSUES
      • GREENHOUSE EFFECTS
      • THE ROLE OF H2O & PRECIPITATION SYSTEMS
      • SOME UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS
      • SUMMARY
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW WARMING OVER THE LAST CENTURY There is little doubt that globally averaged temperatures are unusually warm today (at this writing, 2008). While a majority of climate researchers believe that this warmth is mostly (or completely) due to the activities of mankind, this is as much a statement of faith as it is of science. For in order to come to such a conclusion, we would need to know how much of the temperature increase we've seen since the 1800's is natural. “ There has not yet been a single peer-reviewed scientific study which  has ruled out natural climate variability as the cause of most of our recent warmth. . ” .. Roy Spencer
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW AN ALTERNATE EXPLANATION FOR GLOBAL WARMING Several scientists have developed quite good correlations of Earth’s temperature with the variability of incoming radiated heat energy from the sun. These data stem from the natural variability inherent in the sun’s own internal processes and are then reflected in the variable warmth received by our planet. Since the sun’s radiation is the principal source of all our daily and seasonal energy, it would not be surprising to find it has a powerful influence on longer-term weather-related trends. Moreover, historical observations illustrate clearly that the sun exhibits fluctuations on the scale of decades, and centuries. The two charts following expand further on this alternate explanation.
  • A Reference: J. Lean, and D. Rind, 1998, “Climate Forcing by Changing Solar Radiation”, Journal of Climate, 1, 3069-3094
  • A researcher at Russia's Moscow's Shirshov Institute of Oceanography says global warming has peaked — and the planet is now headed for a cooling period that will last through the end of the century. Oleg Sorokhtin, fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, writes in an article for the Russian news and information agency that a cold spell will set in by 2012. He believes an even colder period will begin as solar activity reaches a minimum in 2041 — and that it will last 50 to 60 years. Sorokhtin says warming and cooling are entirely natural processes — independent of human activity. He says the current warming trend is due to changes in things like solar activity, ocean currents, and salinity fluctuations in Arctic waters. Meanwhile, British weather experts say 2008 will be the coolest year since 2000 because of a drop in sea surface temperatures off the western coast of South America — known as La Nina. THE HEAT IS OFF -- Boston Globe, Jan 6th, 2008
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW (MarkS) Primary Reference: Roy Spencer, op cit
    • TOPICS:
      • SOME KEY QUESTIONS
      • GLOBAL WARMING BASICS
      • EARTH’S TEMPERATURE HISTORY
      • - - SOME ISSUES
      • GREENHOUSE EFFECTS
      • THE ROLE OF H2O & PRECIPITATION SYSTEMS
      • SOME UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS
      • SUMMARY
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW SOME HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE DATA – 100 Yrs page 1 of 2 The warming up until 1940 (chart) represents the end of a multi-century cool period, the "Little Ice Age". This warming must have been natural because mankind had not yet emitted substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Then, the slight cooling between 1940 and the 1970's occurred in spite of rapid increases in manmade greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, fairly steady warming has occurred since the 1970's. This recent warming plays a central role in current fears of a climate catastrophe. NOTE THE SCALE OF CHANGE IN THE ABOVE CHART – tenths of a degree C.
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW SOME HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE DATA – 100 Yrs page 2 of 2 There is some controversy over whether the upward temperature trend seen in the chart still contains some spurious warming from the “urban heat island” effect, which is due to a replacement of natural vegetation with manmade structures (buildings, parking lots, etc.) around official thermometer sites. These “heat island” and other spurious effects add uncertainty to accurate extraction of small data effects ( tenths of a oC) such as being examined here. [See next 2 charts for more details. ]
  • SOME COMPUTATIONAL ISSUES ref: “Global Warming: Truth or Dare?”, Denis G. Rancourt, February, 2007. Temp station in airport area.
  • Urban Heat Effect – 2 nd Example Acronyms: US Historical Climate Network Automated Surface Observation Stations
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW SOME HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE DATA – 1000 Yrs page 1 of 2 You might have heard claims in the news that we are warmer now than anytime in the last 1,000 years . This claim was based upon the "Hockey Stick" temperature curve (see next Fig.) which used temperature 'proxies', mostly tree rings, to reconstruct a multi-century temperature record. That claim lost much of its support, however, when a National Academy of Science review panel concluded in 2006 that the “Hockey Stick” study used faulty statistical techniques. The most that can be said with any confidence is that the Earth is warmer now than anytime in the last 400 years. Note that this is a good thing, since most of those 400 years occurred during the Little Ice Age.
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW SOME HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE DATA – 1000 Yrs page 2 of 2 CORRECTED “HOCKEY STICK” DATA Chart: The Mann et al. (1998) proxy (mostly tree ring) reconstruction of global temperature over the last 1,000 years is believed to have erroneously minimized the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period, MWP and Little Ice Age, LIA. MWP LIA The upper curve (bold) corrects the earlier, erroneous data.
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW SOME HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE DATA – 1000 Yrs page 2 of 2 THE CRITICAL POINT HERE: THE EARTH IS NOT NOW ADVANCING INTO HITHERTO UNCHARTED TEMPERATURE REALMS. WE’VE BEEN THERE BEFORE. AND, LONG BEFORE ANY MAN-MADE CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING. MWP LIA
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW SOME HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE DATA – 1000 Yrs page 3/ of 3 A more recent study has averaged 2,000 years of temperature estimates from a total of 18 previously-published temperature proxy datasets. The resulting temperature record is shown in the Fig. No tree ring datasets were used by the author, (himself a tree growth expert) , because he believes that those datasets are too contaminated by rainfall variations and other problems. To that reconstruction, was added the thermometer-based dataset from the UK Met Office and University of East Anglia, covering the period 1850 to 2007.
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW SOME HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE DATA – 1000 Yrs page 2 of 2 In further support of the view that today's warmth is not unprecedented, is the historical fact that Vikings arriving in Greenland, established farms, until the cooling trend caused them to quit. Thus, we see that substantial natural variations in climate can, and do, occur -- which should be of no great surprise. “ So, is it possible that much of the warming we have seen since the 1970's is due to natural processes that we do not yet fully understand? I believe so. To believe that all of today's warmth can be blamed on man-made pollution is a statement of faith that assumes the role of natural variations in the climate system is small or nonexistent. ” .. Roy Spencer
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW (MarkS) Primary Reference: Roy Spencer, op cit
    • TOPICS:
      • SOME KEY QUESTIONS
      • GLOBAL WARMING BASICS
      • EARTH’S TEMPERATURE HISTORY
      • - - SOME ISSUES
      • GREENHOUSE EFFECTS
      • THE ROLE OF H2O & PRECIPITATION SYSTEMS
      • SOME UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS
      • SUMMARY
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW THE EARTH’S NATURAL GREENHOUSE EFFECT page 1 of 2 The theory that mankind is causing recent global warming is based upon the fact that our greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide) are causing a very small enhancement (about 1%) of the Earth's NATURAL 'greenhouse effect'. The greenhouse effect refers to the trapping of infrared (heat) radiation by water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other minor greenhouse gases (see Figure). You can think of the greenhouse effect as a sort of 'blanket' -- a radiative blanket. The Earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect is a “base” to which is added the calculated effects of a “man-made greenhouse” increment. The next chart further discusses natural vs man-made “greenhouse’ effects.
  • GREENHOUSE EFFECT: GOOD? BAD? – Habitability (over 100 yrs) ref: “ Global Warming: Truth or Dare?”, Denis G. Rancourt, February, 2007. http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/search/label/global%20warming HARMFUL GREENHOUSE EFFECT ? ?
  • KEEPING CO2 PRESENCE IN PERSPECTIVE This “box” represents 100,000 air molecules; each square represents 100 molecules This expanded size of one box illustrates the 38 natural molecules of CO2 in every 100,000 molecules of air THIS SINGLE MOLECULE OF CO2 represents the added CO2 due to global pollution over 5 years. The role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect is relatively small, since it is a 'trace gas' -- only 38 out of every 100,000 molecules of air are CO2 . It takes 5 years of human CO2 emissions to add 1 molecule of CO2 to every 100,000 molecules of air. See Chart. MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW Sketch Ref: current author
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW MANKIND’S ADDITION TO THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT page 1 of 2 The most common explanation for global warming goes like this: Mankind's addition of CO2 to the atmosphere disrupts the Earth's radiative energy balance (see Figure) by reducing Earth’s ability to radiatively cool to outer space. Energy balance refers to the theory that all of the Earth's absorbed sunlight energy input is balanced by an equal amount of infrared radiation that the Earth outputs back to outer space. It is estimated that this input and output, averaged over the whole Earth over several years, is naturally maintained at a value of around 235 Watts per square meter (W/m 2 ). Our radiative energy balance is fundamental to understanding global warming theory, which says that man's greenhouse gas emissions is disrupting that approximate 235 W/m 2 balance between energy input & output.
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW MANKIND’S ADDITION TO THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT page 1 of 2 So, mankind's emissions of greenhouse gases are believed to have disrupted that balance. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it is estimated that the normal infrared cooling rate of 235 W/m 2 has been reduced by about 1.6 W/m 2 (see Chart). This is the current explanation of the theory of manmade global warming. How do we know there is such a radiative imbalance? In reality, we don't. The Earth-orbiting instruments for measuring the Earth's radiative components are not quite accurate to measure the small radiative imbalance that is presumed to exist.
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW MANKIND’S ADDITION TO THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT page 1 of 2 So, You might also be surprised to find out that the direct effect of this imbalance from mankind's greenhouse gas emissions on global temperatures is quite small: If everything else in the climate system remained the same, a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (possibly occurring late in this century) would cause little more than 1 deg. F of surface warming. Do we really believe that such a small influence will have catastrophic effects? Obviously, a 1 deg. F warming by late in this century would cause little concern - if that was the whole story. The problem is that everything else probably doesn't remain the same. The atmosphere will undoubtedly respond in some way to the extra CO2 in terms of changes in clouds, water vapor, precipitation etc.; THE BIG QUESTION IS, HOW?
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW THE ISSUE OF FEEDBACK DYNAMICS page 1 of 2 Almost all of the scientific uncertainty about the size of man-made global warming is related to how the climate system will respond to the small (1 deg. F) warming tendency. The atmosphere could dampen the warming tendency through 'negative feedbacks'-- for instance by increasing low-level cloudiness. Or, it could amplify the warming tendency through 'positive feedbacks', for instance by increasing the water vapor content of the atmosphere (our main greenhouse gas), or by increasing high-altitude cloudiness.
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW THE ISSUE OF FEEDBACK DYNAMICS page 1 of 2
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW SIMPLIFIED SCHEMATIC ON ENERGY BALANCES Earth’s Surface Atmosphere Greenhouse blanket Baseline GH Gas Level Increased GH Gas Level Surface temp [1] [2] [3] [4] Sketch Ref: current author [0]
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW THE ISSUE OF FEEDBACK DYNAMICS page 1 of 2 Almost all computerized climate models portray positive feedbacks, amplifying the initial CO2-only warming by anywhere from a little bit, to a frightening amount (over 10 deg. F by 2100). This is viewed by many as a crucial uncertainty in the analyses. So, you can see it is critical for scientists to determine the validity of this climate system sensitivity (how the atmosphere will respond) to the radiative forcing from the extra greenhouse gases we are putting into the atmosphere. The interactions themselves are numerous and not well understood. See simplified sketch on next chart.
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW EARTH’S WARMING RESPONSE TO ADDED CO2 IS NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD, NOR WELL MODELED TODAY. . BUT THESE DYNAMICS MAY SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT WHETHER MAN-MADE GHG’s ARE SELF-LIMITING, AS ARE NATURAL GHG’s. THE MANY INTERACTIONS ARE QUITE COMPLEX Atmosphere Greenhouse Blanket Precipitation H2O Vapor / Hi Clouds H2O Vapor / Lo Clouds Evaporation Earth’s Surface Solar Input Temp. Sketch Ref: current author
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW (MarkS) Primary Reference: Roy Spencer, op cit
    • TOPICS:
      • SOME KEY QUESTIONS
      • GLOBAL WARMING BASICS
      • EARTH’S TEMPERATURE HISTORY
      • - - SOME ISSUES
      • GREENHOUSE EFFECTS
      • THE ROLE OF H2O & PRECIPITATION SYSTEMS
      • SOME UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS
      • SUMMARY
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW CLIMATE SYSTEM SENSITIVITY page 1 of 2 The net effect of these CO2 feedbacks and many others, all together, determines what is called the 'climate sensitivity'. This sensitivity quantifies how much surface warming would result from, say, a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus, to be able to predict how much warming there will be, what we really need to know are the characteristics of all the negative and positive feedbacks that exist in the climate system. INCREASED HIGH LEVEL CLOUDS DECREASED LOW LEVEL CLOUDS HIGHER H2O VAPOR AN INCREASE IN CO2 CAUSES INCREASED TEMPS, IN TURN POSSIBLY CAUSING: POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF SEVERAL (EXAMPLE) FEEDBACK MECHANISMS
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW CLIMATE SYSTEM SENSITIVITY page 1 of 2 It would be very helpful if we could do a laboratory experiment to determine how the Earth will respond to mankind's addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere - but we can't. There is only one 'experiment' going on, and we are all part of it. If we can't do a laboratory experiment, another way to estimate climate sensitivity would be to find some previous, comparable example of climate change. E.g., there are pretty good estimates of how much the Earth cooled after the major eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 (see Figure). The millions of tons of sulfur dioxide that were injected into the stratosphere by Mt. Pinatubo spread around the Northern Hemisphere, reducing incoming sunlight by as much as 2% to 4%. The resulting cooling effects lasted two or three years.
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW CLIMATE SYSTEM SENSITIVITY page 1 of 2 So, are there any good examples of infrared (greenhouse) climate forcings from the past? NO.. PROBABLY NOT. WHICH IS WHY THE NEXT QUESTION BECOMES VERY IMPORTANT: WHY IS THE EXISTING GREENHOUSE EFFECT MAINTAINED AT ITS CURRENT STRENGTH? The atmosphere could hold much more water vapor than it does -- which would result in a warmer climate -- but instead, much of the depth of the troposphere is usually at a fairly low relative humidity . Oh, we can build climate models and tune them to replicate the average amount of greenhouse effect we see in nature, but these won’t be accurate until we at least understand the processes that limit the greenhouse effect to its current value.
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW PRECIPITATION SYSTEMS - NATURES AIR CONDITIONER page 1 of 2 It is well known that precipitation is an important process in the atmosphere. Besides being necessary for life on Earth, all of the rain and snow that falls to the ground represents heat that has been removed from the Earth's surface during the evaporation of water. On average, all of the water evaporated from the surface must at some point condense and fall back to the surface as precipitation. The heat that is released during that condensation is deposited in the middle and upper troposphere when the water vapor condenses into clouds, some of which then produce precipitation that falls to the surface. On a Global scale, this heat interaction represents a lot of energy.
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW CLIMATE SYSTEM SENSITIVITY page 1 of 2 The air in our atmosphere is continuously being recycled through precipitation systems (see Figure), on a time scale of days to weeks. Winds pick up water vapor that has been evaporated from the surface, and then transport this vapor to precipitation systems. Those systems then remove some of that vapor in the form of rain or snow. This qualitative view is well known and understood by climate researchers; quantitative understanding is more limited.
  •  
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW SOME UNRESOLVED ISSUES page 1 of 2 “ Climate modelers and researchers generally believe that an increase in the greenhouse effect from manmade greenhouse gases causes a warming effect that is similar to that from an increase in sunlight. I believe that this is incorrect. ” “ I predict that further research will reveal some other cause for most of the warming we have experienced since the 1970's -- for instance, a change in some feature of the sun's activity; or, a small change in cloudiness resulting from a small change in the general circulation of the atmosphere (such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, 'PDO'). ” “ I believe that it is the inadequate handling of precipitation systems -- specifically, how they adjust atmospheric moisture contents during changes in temperature -- that is the reason for climate model predictions of excessive warming from increasing greenhouse gas emissions. To believe otherwise is to have faith that climate models are sufficiently advanced to contain all of the important processes that control the Earth's NATURAL greenhouse effect. ” .. Dr. Roy W. Spencer
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW SOME UNRESOLVED ISSUES page 1 of 2 The figure shows recent warming, but that warming certainly would not be characterized as 'gradual'. Considering that the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and the warming from the 1997-98 El Nino event were not part of any underlying long-term trend, we might interpret that globally-averaged temperatures were flat from 1990 until 2000, then there was a brief warming until about 2002, after which temperatures have once again remained flat. Note that the longer temperatures remain flat, the greater the warming that will be required to put us back 'on track' to match the climate model projections used by the U.N.'s IPCC. THE COMING YEARS SHOULD BE INTERESTING.
  • MR. GORE IS CREATING A RELIGION OF SCIENCE: “ The good news is we know what to do. The good news is, we have everything we need now to respond to the challenge of global warming. We have all the technologies we need, more are being developed, and as they become available and become more affordable when produced in scale, they will make it easier to respond. But we should not wait, we cannot wait, we must not wait. ” AL GORE, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005 SOME UNRESOLVED ISSUES page 1 of 2
  • Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., in an editorial (April 2006) for The Wall St. Journal: "To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate Science one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.” These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen, even if the models were right, as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming ." WHAT SOME SCIENTISTS SAY – (April 2006)
  • Patrick J. Michaels, professor of Natural Resources, Virginia Tech, State Climatologist for Virginia: "In climate science, we only have two things: data (the past) and models or hypotheses (the future). The data show that warming since the mid-1970s is consistent with what one would expect from a carbon dioxide-related greenhouse effect. The ensemble behavior of our models is that, once this warming is initiated, it tends to take place at a constant (rather than ever-increasing) rate. This has been so for the last three decades.  " Consequently we know, with considerable confidence, the warming for the policy-foreseeable future, is about 0.85 degrees Celsius, per half-century.  This is near the low end of projections made by the United Nations. However, there is no known suite of technologies that can affect this rate significantly, so the proper policy is to invest in the future rather than to waste money today in a futile attempt to significantly reduce warming ." WHAT SOME SCIENTISTS SAY (June 2006)
  • HOPEFULLY, THE PENDULUM IS STARTING TO SWING BACK TOWARDS SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY: U.S. SENATE REPORT: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 ”, December 20, 2007 This report is in the spirit of enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot who reportedly said, "Skepticism is the first step towards truth." Ref: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report 
  • Surely among the various unresolved issues is a rational basis for a policy to move forward. In part this is a fallout of the disputed evidence of whether “Global Warming” is indeed a critical problem”. Dwight Eisenhower used to say, he could solve many problems by expanding their scope. My own logic says, here’s a possible use of “Ike’s” philosophy. The problems of Global Warming (GW) and America’s Energy Independence (EI) have many energy-related aspects in common. So here’s the proposal: develop those technologies and programs ( of which there should be many) that have benefits to both the EI and GW problems. But we need also acknowledge that the EI problem is a real and near-term danger to our Nation, and enjoys widespread support. Whereas the GW problem MIGHT be a problem, has some support, but also invites serious skepticism. Moreover, our use of energy has significantly helped America’s progess and development. Blindly cutting energy use is not a solution. Deploying better Technology is. This method of moving forward is discussed further in the next 3 slides. UNRESOLVED: A POLICY FOR MOVING FORWARD:
    • BUT : The U.S., with less than 5% of global population, produces 28.3%* of global GDP, including:
    • Agricultural products and research (we feed people)
    • Medical advances on every front (we heal people)
    • Global investment (we fund people)
    • Defense of democracy (we free people)
    • Manufacture of autos & planes (we move people)
    • Consumer products (we fulfill people)
    • Without our energy use (with its
    • CO2 emissions) the world would be
    • poorer, sicker, hungrier, and
    • less free.
    * 2004 World total = $ 41.2B U.S. total = $ 11.7B World Development Indicators, World Bank A POLICY FOR MOVING FORWARD: “ The United States is responsible for more greenhouse gas pollution than South America, Africa, the Middle East, Australia, Japan, and Asia—all put together.” Al Gore’s AIT, pp. 250-251)
  • MOVING FORWARD: POLICY CRITERIA – NOTIONAL DEPICTION
    • We need to seek technology solutions that reflect our National priorities:
    • REDUCING OUR OIL USE, BUT APPLYING TECHNOLOGY TO RESTRAIN THE ADDED COST TO THE ECONOMY (since this is a policy goal that we must achieve)
    • REDUCE CARBON USE IF POSSIBLE BUT NOT AT A COST TO THE ECONOMY (since this is a desirable, but not mandatory, policy goal ).
    • The charts illustrate (notionally) a way of evaluating policy approaches to seek the best path forward.
  • A WAY FORWARD - - MY OWN CONCLUSIONS: POLICY RESPONSE SPECTRUM DO NOTHING NOW DO ALL WE CAN NOW TAKE SELECTIVE ACTION ** ERR ON SIDE OF CAUTION
    • CONTINUE RELEVANT
    • PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH
    • DENOUNCE HYSTERICAL
    • ADVOCACY
    • APPLY TECHNOLOGY TO SOLVE
    ** ACTION SELECTION CRITERIA : ACHIEVE BOTH ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING AVOIDANCE
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW (MarkS)
  • MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING - - ONE SKEPTIC’S VIEW SUMMARY page 1 of 2
    • This overall problem is clearly quite complicated and I think Dr. Spencer has done an admirable job laying out the technical status of the issue. Given the complexity of the materials presented, accordingly so is formulating some conclusions from the data provided here. But, as a citizen, I think it’s necessary to try, and I have done so. I’ve broken my summary thoughts into 3 categories on the next 3 charts:
    • CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE ORIGINAL GLOBAL WARMING QUESTIONS OF CHART #4
    • CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE POLITICAL TAINTING OF SCIENCE
    • CONCLUSIONS REGARDING A PATH FORWARD
  • 1. CONCLUSIONS RE THE ORIGINAL GLOBAL WARMING QUESTIONS OF CHART #4 SUMMARY
      • CLIMATE THREAT IS VERY FAR FROM OBVIOUS.
        • Yes, temperatures in last decade or so have risen. But it is very unclear that any of this is beyond the norms of natural variations that have occurred for many thousands of years.
        • Moreover, it is very unclear that the current temperature rise will continue into the foreseeable future or whether this is largely a result of natural variation in solar radiation input level to the Earth.
      • THE ROLE OF CO2 AS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT CAUSE OF TEMPERATURE RISE IS ALSO QUITE FAR FROM OBVIOUS.
        • Man-made contribution to the Greenhouse” effect is currently only 1-2% of the Natural “Greenhouse” effect that keeps this planet inhabitable.
        • The contribution of CO2 to the total Greenhouse loading seems highly suspect. By concentration, and by direct participation in climate processes, it is certainly a minor player. To have a large impact, it must be proven that it has leverage on water vapor which is much more dominant. Such leverage is, today, not reasonably provable to many trained scientists given today’s level of technology.
  • 2. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE POLITICAL TAINTING OF SCIENCE
      • The current politicization of the Global Warming debate is a grave injustice both to our Scientists and to our Policy makers.
      • Striking out on “A Mr. Fix-the-Planet-Now” path on the basis of such weak science, will lead to: unnecessary burdensome costs, dis-incentivizing regulation and wasteful misdirection.
      • Being in a great rush to do the wrong thing is the sign of “Snake Oil Salesmen”, not responsible Scientists or Policymakers. Moreover it’s a sign of lemming-like stupidity.
      • We must cease trying to curtail the scientific debate by falsely calling it a “fully scientifically resolved” issue. This is clearly counter to the visible reality.
    • We must fund further, organized research into some of the issues raised by Dr. Spencer and others.
  • 3. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING A PATH FORWARD
      • From a policy viewpoint, I would advocate and support the following Objective and Practice.
      • OBJECTIVE: Our Nation is currently at economic and military risk due to our dependence on fossil fuels. Some of the solutions to this issue also may also be judged to have have spinoff towards a cleaner environment. Our National effort should be focused on policies that meet both criteria. So, as a minimum, the benefit of energy independence will be a fruitful product.
      • PRACTICE:
            • We must seek a path that allows us to retain the health, economic and political benefits that our 100 year use of inexpensive energy has enabled. Turning back to a path of energy scarcity is a recipe for living in a cold, dark place with sickness and shorter lifespans.
            • We must educate the public and marshal the political will to organize an orderly, scientifically valid Program to achieve the objective.
            • We must expend the funds required and we must assure that all scientists are free to openly report their work and speak their mind.
  • THE END