News

The UK Telegraph is reporting that several prominent scientists whose work and opinions were included in the recent documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (see review) have received threats from environmentalists - many threatening their lives (h/t Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters):

Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been “hijacked” by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

Many alarmists like to use the “why would we lie about anthropogenic global warming” claim and Ball hits the nail on the head of one of many reasons why:

“Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor.

These tactics are nothing new in the world of science:

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”

Einstein is but one who wouldn’t receive funding… the same could be said for many other great scientists who were shunned for their against-the-grain work. Ball, Calder, and many others deserve a place in history along the lines of many other great “skeptics”: Galileo, Copernicus, Hutton, and Darwin.

Technorati Tags: Global Warming, Climate Change, Al Gore, Global Warming Deniers

 

Finally, a well-sourced, scientific rebuttal to the mainstream media’s portrayal of global warming, not to mention their embrace of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”: The Great Global Warming Swindle.

This documentary that aired on British television this past week has now been made available via Google Videos. You will not be able to view it on a dial-up connection, but those with broadband will have no problem. Click here for the full screen Google Video version.

[Edit 03/22/07: Google Video link above doesn't work - click here for a list of functional video links]

This is a welcome film debunking the popular viewpoint, including explaining the evidence that the Earth’s climate is always changing and there is less than convincing evidence that the climate is driven significantly by CO2 concentrations. Furthermore, volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all human-made sources put together. Should we plug them up?

The Sun Drives Climate Change

The current warming trend has been ongoing since long before our introduction of CO2-emitting vehicles…not to mention, the four decade span in the middle-20th century during which global temperatures dropped - the same period when the automobile ownership hit record levels year after year. For just a sampling of the data made available in this documentary, let’s examine the correlation between solar activity and the global temperature variations. The last century is the single period during which we have the most reliable temperature data (direct measurements) and when the CO2 concentration is graphed with temperature variation on Earth, the correlation is weak - particularly during the cooling period from the 1940s through the 1970s. For a stronger correlation, solar activity can be lined up (source):

Who’s presenting this information - another politician? Nope - not this one. This documentary is composed primarily of interviews and discussions with meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, and climatologists from around the world. Many of those interviewed are contributors to the UN’s now infamous series of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports - the most recent of which makes the unjustified claim of an “unequivocal” connection between anthropogenic greenhouse gas production and global climate change.

Says Who?

But you thought the IPCC report was a consensus view of anthropogenic climate change, you say? Not so fast. Many of those listed as authors are far from in agreement on this issue - as they express in their own words in this documentary.

For more on scientists with the contrarian viewpoint, check out this list of 89 climate experts (pdf) - professors, climatologists, and the like - who disagree with the supposed consensus view of anthropogenic climate change, as made available in this newsbusters.org thread. (The list includes a professor from my alma mater, Dr. Al Pekarek).

___________________

Update (03/11/07 6:45am CDT) A reader just sent me this link to purchase a DVD copy of the documentary from the television station that aired it.

Technorati Tags: The Great Global Warming Swindle, Global Warming, Climate Change, Video

(Scroll to bottom for Updates)

It’s like a game…which mainstream media outlet will jump on the global warming alarmist bandwagon next?

Sports Illustrated is publishing a cover story regarding the implications of climate change on the sports world. But they aren’t just discussing climate change - they’re going after “environmental crisis” that is created by humans. What about natural causes for climate change? Nah - no mention of those. What about the impossibility of meaningful prediction? That’s just a minor detail not worthy of mentioning. No - those aren’t important…instead, they lean on many of the tired, token doom-and-gloom catch phrases:

If we continue to spew greenhouse gases as we are, the Earth could become five degrees warmer this century. The last time Earth was that warm, three million years ago, sea level stood 80 feet higher than it does now.

Humans are accelerating global warming …

Decrease the burning of fossil fuels…

and my personal favorite:

Every organism on the planet is already feeling its impact.

After the usual rant, including the warnings about how disastrous the Earth will be by 2100, they get specific, giving an example that is entirely at odds with published, refereed research. Sports Illustrated says:

Tropical storms become more powerful over a warmer Gulf, turning a category 4 storm, for example, into a category 5, like Katrina, which transformed the symbol of sports in New Orleans, the Superdome, into an image of epic disaster

Yet, reports to the contrary have been available for over a year. In mid-2006, National Geographic Magazine published an article questioning the global warming and hurricane intensity link:

An expert with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is questioning the connection between climate change and the appearance of more intense hurricanes in recent years. Historical data on hurricanes is too crude to determine long-term trends in intensity, says Christopher Landsea, a science and operations officer with NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida.

And in late 2005, NOAA attributed the strength of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season (the one that included Katrina) to “naturally-occuring climate variability“:

There is consensus among NOAA hurricane researchers and forecasters that recent increases in hurricane activity are primarily the result of natural fluctuations in the tropical climate system known as the tropical multi-decadal signal. The tropical climate patterns now favoring very active hurricane seasons are similar to those seen in the late 1920s to the late 1960s.

More concisely (NOAA):

No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.

In fact, the article goes on to cite specific, anecdotal events (those of us in the meteorology field refer to this as “weather”) rather than long term trends (also known as “climate”). A primary rule in the climate change discussion is that single, isolated events can not be deemed evidence as long-term change.

So remind me again what qualifications the Sports Illustrated staff has when it comes to climatology?

___________________________

Update (03/08/07 1:25pm CST):

The author of the Sports Illustrated cover story apparently (assuming there is just one Alexander Wolff employed by AOL Time Warner - the parent company of Sports Illustrated) has been a generous contributor to Howard Dean and the DNC. A search for the individual “Wolff, Alexander” on OpenSecrets.org yields 6 results over the last several election cycles: A $500 donation to Howard Dean in addition to a total of $1120 in campaign contributions directly to the DNC. (h/t “Trailer” commenting on this NewsBusters thread)

Update (03/09/07 6:25am CST):

Welcome Rush Listeners and JunkScience readers! Be sure to subscribe with our site to receive updates when new posts are logged regarding climate change and the media (no spam, no selling of email addresses, etc… ) and as always, feel free to leave comments on individual posts - I welcome the dialogue.

Technorati Tags: Global Warming, Climate Change, Sports Illustrated

It appears as though solar variability is gaining some mainstream media attention in being cited as a likely impetus for terrestrial climate change. But for confirmation of this, scientists have now begun to look beyond the Earth to other areas of our solar system. Most recently, research on the climate of Mars has confirmed warming that appears to be mirroring that of the Earth. Is my SUV destroying the climate of Mars too? As published by National Geographic, (Mars melt hints at solar, not human, cause for warming, scientist says) recent work citing solar variability as a primary cause of climate change here on Earth is gaining traction:

“Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

As an aside, it should be noted that warming on mars is nothing new - it has been observed for years and Nasa has been gathering ever-increasingly detailed data from the martian poles via the Mars Global Surveyor:

And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars’ south pole have shrunk from the previous year’s size, suggesting a climate change in progress.

Abdussamatov is not alone in citing solar variability - fluctuating energy output from the sun - as a major factor in the Earth’s climate. Just last month, research published in NewScientist Online explores evidence of a relationship between solar variability and the ice age cycles on Earth (Sun’s fickle heart may leave us cold). Work completed by George Ehrlich of Geoge Mason University concludes:

There’s a dimmer switch inside the sun that causes its brightness to rise and fall on timescales of around 100,000 years - exactly the same period as between ice ages on Earth. So says a physicist who has created a computer model of our star’s core…

The article discusses many of the oscillations that control the temperature of the sun’s surface:

Ehrlich’s model shows that whilst most of these oscillations cancel each other out, some reinforce one another and become long-lived temperature variations. The favoured frequencies allow the sun’s core temperature to oscillate around its average temperature of 13.6 million kelvin in cycles lasting either 100,000 or 41,000 years. Ehrlich says that random interactions within the sun’s magnetic field could flip the fluctuations from one cycle length to the other.

These two timescales are instantly recognisable to anyone familiar with Earth’s ice ages: for the past million years, ice ages have occurred roughly every 100,000 years. Before that, they occurred roughly every 41,000 years.

For details, check out the full text of Ehrlich’s research. While recent work has explored a correlation between solar variability and terrestrial climate cycles, none have explored the potential mechanism until now, writes Ehrlich in his abstract:

A theory is described based on resonant thermal diffusion waves in the sun that appears to explain many details of the paleotemperature record for the last 5.3 million years. These include the observed periodicities, the relative strengths of each observed cycle, and the sudden emergence in time for the 100 thousand year cycle. Other prior work suggesting a link between terrestrial paleoclimate and solar luminosity variations has not provided any specific mechanism. The particular mechanism described here has been demonstrated empirically, although not previously invoked in the solar context.

As mentioned in a 2005 Duke University publication, the sun’s role in global warming is likely underestimated:

At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.

Work published in Science Magazine in 2001 (Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene) cites specific influences of solar variability on the climate of the North Atlantic:

Surface winds and surface ocean hydrography in the subpolar North Atlantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output through the entire Holocene.

Bond et al. confirm the likelyhood that the particular influence on the North Atlantic may have been transmitted globally:

The surface hydrographic changes may have affected production of North Atlantic Deep Water, potentially providing an additional mechanism for amplifying the solar signals and transmitting them globally.

Given that the sun has a profound impact on the climate of the globe, it naturally follows that any solar variability to influence the Earth’s climate in one location will have its affects felt throughout the globe.

• Another Global Warming Skeptic Rebuked (February 27, 2007)
• Global Warming Alarmists: Time out (Feburary 4, 2007)
• Silencing the Skeptics (January 19, 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