February 2007

The state of Delaware has rebuked their state climatologist, attempting to distance themselves (or at least the Governor is) from their “state climatologist” over disagreements in the state’s official stance on global warming. Not only are they attempting to distance themselves, they are attempting to remove his title as “state climatologist”:

WILMINGTON, Del. — Gov. Ruth Ann Minner has directed Delaware’s state climatologist to stop using his title in public statements on climate change, citing a clash of views on global warming and confusion over the position’s ties to the administration.

Minner, who made the directive in a letter, described the move as a way to “clarify” the role of David R. Legates, a prominent skeptic of views that human activities are warming the planet and triggering climate shifts. “Your views on climate change, as I understand them, are not aligned with those of my administration,” Minner wrote.

The governor attempts to place blame on the “confusion” of the title and rather than simply making the title more official, the decision was made to drop the title all together (emphasis mine):

“In light of my position and due to the confusion surrounding your role with the state, I am directing you to offer any future statements on this or other public policy matters only on behalf of yourself or the University of Delaware,” Minner wrote, “and not as state climatologist.”

Legates, who could not be reached Wednesday, has not returned phone calls since The News Journal published articles about his position on climate change. His title was accepted by the American Association of State Climatologists and the National Climatic Data Center, and acknowledged by Minner and the university’s provost in 2005. But Legates received no appointment or state money to support his office at the University of Delaware, where he is also a professor of geography. His position as climatologist carries no state authority.

Legates also served as an unpaid “adjunct scholar” with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and had a paper published by that group arguing that science “does not support” claims of drastic warming or human influence on weather or climate shifts. He has previously referred to global warming arguments as “climate alarmism.”

So in summary, the state climatologist - the one with the science degree(s) - has been rebuked for his views on science. For some readers, this is probably beginning to sound a little familiar. This the second of such occurrences, mirroring the January dismissal of Oregon’s state climatologist who also disagreed with the governor on climate change issues, stating simply:

“There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don’t believe that’s true.” He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen.

Which of these governors has formal education in meteorology or climatology? This is an incredibly dangerous precident that deserves more attention that it has received.

See previous:

• Silencing the Skeptics (January 19, 2007)
• Global Warming Alarmists: Time out (Feburary 4, 2007)

Following the recent (and very normal even for January) tornadoes in the southeast US, the media seems to be recycling the oft-repeated claim that human-induced global warming is increasing the threat of tornadoes, most recently, the tornadoes in Florida this past week (the Guardian):

In a dramatic illustration of stronger storms, at least 14 people were killed as severe thunderstorms and at least one tornado flattened homes and a church in Florida today.

Does the claim of a correlation (not to mention causation) between global warming and the threat posed by tornadoes carry any water? After the tragic May, 2003 outbreaks, Patrick Michaels, a climatologist who focuses his work on climate change, published a piece (Tornado Spin) directly disputing this claim. Michaels quoted an editorial cartoon that stated “These super powerful tornadoes are the kind of storm we’re likely to see more of with global climate change.” That cartoon was just one of many in a long string of unsubstantiated claims that deserves analysis.

Even more recently, Roger Edwards, a highly-respected meteorologist who focuses on severe weather and is formerly based out of the Storm Prediction Center wrote a guest post on Earth & Sky entitled Will Global Warming Cause More Tornadoes? His expert answer: we don’t know.

As of this writing, no scientific studies solidly relate climatic global temperature trends to tornadoes. I don’t expect any such results in the near future either, because tornadoes are too small, short-lived, hard to measure and count, and too dependent on day to day, even minute to minute weather conditions.

Edwards makes the case that the combination of many factors is working against any attempt to correlate tornado frequency with global warming. Among them, the dynamics of tornado formation (that are still not well understood), the scale differences (spacial and temporal) between average global temperatures and phenomena as minute as tornadoes is simply impossible to compare, and finally; tornado frequency data is tenuous, at best.

Before you can even attempt a thorough analysis of the correlation between global climate (specifically, temperatures) and tornado frequency, you must take stock of the available data. It is widely accepted that tornado frequency statistics data must be taken with a grain of salt. As the population of the country has grown, so has the reporting of tornadoes. Let’s face it - many of the tornadoes that likely went completely unreported (likely even unseen) in the heart of tornado alley (rural regions of the plains) are statistically much more likely to be spotted and reported in 2007 than they were in 1970 or 1930 or 1500. First, a look at the raw numbers:

If one hopes to complete a statistical analysis of the torando frequency data shown above, one must at least attempt to normalize the data for population metrics, much the way economic figures are often normalized for inflation or crime data is normalized for population changes over time. Of the numerous, ambiguous claims made in the mainstream media regarding tornadoes and global warming, never have I found any that claim to have normalized the tornado frequency data for population trends (Found one? Email me!). Without such normalization, how can the analysis be robust, how can it carry any validity?

Raw data on Tornadoes by Year 1950-1998 (SPC) does indeed show a statistically significant increase, but how much of that can be attributed to the increase in overall population? How many of the tornadoes reported in recent years would have only been spotted by a stray cow or windmill? How do we account for the undeniable impact of an increase in telephone service, cell phones (from under 10 million in 1990 to over 150 million in 2005!), media coverage, the ease of storm reporting (much of which is imperfect), the growing storm spotter network, computer-assisted reporting, not to mention the booming tornado chaser community, ad infinitum?

So maybe it isn’t tornado frequency that we can sound the alarms on, but tornado severity? Nope, that doesn’t work either. Even without normalizing for population changes (which would only act to lower the slope of any trend), (particularly, the frequency of violent (F3-F5) tornadoes) shows a statistically significant decline over recent decades (The full tornado climatology data is available through the NCDC Tornado Climatology Page):

So where does this leave us? Right back where we started: we simply cannot draw any trends between global warming and tornado frequency or severity. Edwards hit the nail on the head: There simply does not exist enough data to draw any scientifically sound conclusions. This does not play well with those who have an agenda to promote via global warming alarmism. To that end, I doubt Edwards’ expert opinion (which is bolstered by many others) will be disputed, if not cleanly ignored by the mainstream media, as exemplified in the opening quote of this post.

02/21/07: Crossposted to Newsbusters

In a recent column entitled Live with Climate Change published in USA Today, Patrick Michaels has urged those getting overwhelmed by the flood of media attention being given to the new IPCC report on Climate Change to take a time out. Michaels’ has taken on the global warming alarmists with a welcome degree of civility and most importantly: logic. Not only is the dire “10 years until the end fo the world” claim being repeated the world over (actually, by Al Gore’s clock, we’re down to less than 9 years left…) a weak attention-grabbing stunt by the alarmists, it simply is not supported by research, as Michaels notes:

Fortunately, we have more time than the alarmists suggest. The warming path of the planet falls at the lowest end of today’s U.N. projections. In aggregate, our computer models tell us that once warming is established, it tends to take place at a constant, not an increasing, rate. Reassuringly, the rate has been remarkably constant, at 0.324 degrees F per decade, since warming began around 1975. The notion that we must do “something in 10 years,” repeated by a small but vocal band of extremists, enjoys virtually no support in the truly peer reviewed scientific literature.

And as much as Time magazine and other mainstream media outlets are pushing it, the debate is not over - this issue is not “case closed.” Attention is at least shifting away from the disaster of the Kyoto Protocol though: Michaels’ analysis supports earlier claims that the Kyoto Protocol is nothing but an economic disaster:

However, actually “doing something” about warming is a daunting endeavor. The journal Geophysical Research Letters estimated in 1997 that if every nation on Earth lived up to the United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol on global warming, it would prevent no more than 0.126 degrees F of warming every 50 years. Global temperature varies by more than that from year to year, so that’s not even enough to measure. Climatically, Kyoto would do nothing.

A main reason I support and respect Michaels’ views on climate change is because they are so realistic. Alarmists like to label Michaels and others as “global warming skeptics” when many are nothing of the sort. Michaels (and myself) are in no way claiming that global warming does not exist (the Earth is likely warming slightly, at least in the near term)…the dispute comes in the manufactured, unsupported, falsely-quantified claims painting a causation between global warming and human activities. Michaels closes with what must be the most concise, logical, and practical analysis of climate change that I’ve read in quite some time:

Rather than burning our capital now for no environmental gain (did someone say “ethanol?”), let’s encourage economic development so people can invest and profit in our more efficient future. People who invested in automobile companies that developed hybrid technology have been rewarded handsomely in the past few years, and there’s no reason to think environmental speculators won’t be rewarded in the future, too.

Read more about Michaels’ work from the Cato Institute. I’m eager to read a follow-up to his great analysis of the mainstream media’s handling of global warming entitled Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.

Headline: Global Warming sees polar bears stranded on melting ice…

They cling precariously to the top of what is left of the ice floe, their fragile grip the perfect symbol of the tragedy of global warming.

Not so fast. In what has become emblematic of the mainstream media coverage of the issue of climate change, the story is not as it seems…and one need only read a couple paragraphs in to realize as much (emphasis mine):

Captured on film by Canadian environmentalists, the pair of polar bears look stranded on chunks of broken ice.

Although the magnificent creatures are well adapted to the water, and can swim scores of miles to solid land, the distance is getting ever greater as the Arctic ice diminishes.

“Swimming 100 miles is not a big deal for a polar bear, especially a fat one,” said Dr Ian Stirling of the Canadian Wildlife Service.

“They just kind of float along and kick…

 

So they don’t even bury the facts. They run a scam of a headline, yet counter it within the opening lines of the story. That headline couldn’t be meant to simply grab attention; grab readers (read: revenue). No, it couldn’t be that.

But that’s not all.  A little digging around online finds that this photo isn’t even recent, nor is the current caption running beneath it on yahoo!.  Check out Riehl World View:  The Polar Bear Photo They Won’t Show You for a thorough debunking of the #1 Yahoo! picture…the caption that appeared on the photo when it ran 3 years ago was a bit different than the current caption (above):

But what’s this? Scroll down and you’ll see the same picture was first published with a credit to another person on the trip and the caption made it clear what was really going on (emphasis added).

Mother polar bear and cub on interesting ice sculpture carved by waves. photo © Amanda Byrd.

Why am I not suprised?  I wonder how many millions of people saw that photo this weekend and thought it was of some poor bears stranded on a small chunk of ice that remained from a large ice shelf that had been melted away by my SUV global warming.