This winter is the Stalingrad in the ‘Climate War’
This winter is the Stalingrad in the ‘Climate War’.
Tag: environmentalism
EPA takes over Texas pollution permits
Power grab! The EPA has taken from Texas regulators the permitting process for air quality on major industrial facilities.
Avoiding the facts in the climate debate
Yesterday the New York Times published a long article by Justin Gillis describing the work of Charles Keeling, the scientist who first measured the increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. The article is very much worth reading, as it does a generally reasonable and detailed job of giving the history, background, and importance of Keeling’s research.
Unfortunately, the flaws of Gillis’s article illustrate the difficulty of debating climate change science, or maybe any political issue, in our times. Though Gillis does make an effort to give the skeptical scientists their fair due, he is so convinced they are wrong that his article in the end fails to address the basic areas of disagreement on which the entire climate debate today hinges. In fact, by avoiding some of the debate’s most basic issues, Gillis ends up creating barriers which make an honest analysis of the issues impossible.
That this seems to happen in almost all political debates today is distressing, at the least. How can we honestly face our problems if we refuse to face all the facts on which those problems hang?
Let’s consider the specific areas where Gillis’s demonstrates a large blind spot:
1. One of the fundamental facts that throws a wrench in all global warming theories is the fact, recognized by all climate scientists, that in all past global warming events, the Earth’s climate warmed before the levels of carbon dioxide rose. In other words, an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere did not cause global warming. Instead, the warming encouraged the increase in carbon dioxide.
An honest appraisal of the science of climate change would always recognize this puzzling but very significant data point. Gillis, however, fails to mention it. Nor is Gillis alone in this failure. Almost all global warming advocates as well as their willing helpers in the press routinely ignore this important detail. Yet, that climate scientists can’t explain this fact is one of primary reasons many are skeptical of the disaster scenarios put forth by global warming advocates.
As I say, an honest discussion of this subject would always recognize this point.
2. As his primary evidence that the Earth is now warming from the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, Gillis has this to say:
In 2007, a body appointed by the United Nations declared that the scientific evidence that the earth was warming had become unequivocal, and it added that humans were almost certainly the main cause. Mr. Gore and the panel jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize.
This “body” is of course the IPCC. That Gillis is strangely reluctant to actually name this organization in his article suggests he knows its reputation is seriously damaged. Rather than face this fact and deal with it, however, he prefers to ignore it, and in the process help his readers avoid this fact as well.
Yet, the IPCC reports have known problems. They contain some fundamental factual errors, as well as citing as evidence numerous press releases from environmental advocacy groups, hardly a reliable source of information. This is not to say that the IPCC reports should be dismissed wholesale, but for Gillis to depend on them as his sole source of proof of global warming without recognizing these problems is not only inappropriate, it discredits everything he writes. It also suggests that he relies more on the prestige of the organization who issued the report, rather than the science behind it. His further reference to Al Gore and the Nobel prize is further evidence of this reliance on authority.
Once again, an honest appraisal of the present state of the global warming debate would gladly face all these facts, and describe them for the reader.
3. Gillis makes the unfortunate decision to call anyone who questions the science of global warming a “contrarian.” The use of this denigrating term, comparable to the use of the term “denier”, suggests that Gillis has a closed mind about the subject, and has no interest in finding out anything about the skeptical view.
An honest appraisal of the debate, however, would avoid these kinds of loaded terms. It is perfectly fine to note the weaknesses of the skeptical position. It is not acceptable to use ad hominem attacks to discredit them.
All in all, the three examples above encompass all of the basic problems we face in almost all our political debates today:
- First, the refusal to face some inconvenient facts.
- Second, the willingness to rely on authority or prestige, rather than the facts themselves.
- And third, the willingness to use ad hominem attacks to discredit anyone who disagrees with you.
Until we stop doing these foolish things, we will find it impossible to discuss or solve our problems reasonably, and with good will.
Eight former park superintendents are pressing the U.S. and Canadian governments to expand government control over lands adjacent to Glacier National Park in Montana and Waterton Lakes National Park.
Power grab! Eight former park superintendents are pressing the U.S. and Canadian governments to expand government control over lands adjacent to Glacier National Park in Montana and Waterton Lakes National Park.
Automakers suing EPA over higher ethanol mix gas
Good intentions strikes again! Automakers are suing the EPA over its decision to allow a higher ethanol mixture in gasoline. Key quote:
Automakers say they are worried the EPA decision would eventually lead to motorists unknowingly filling up their older cars and trucks with E15 and hurting their engines. The problem could be exacerbated if E15 fuels are cheaper than more conventional blends, prompting owners of older vehicles to use the fuel despite the potential engine problems.
Electricity from wind plant so expensive no one will buy it
The electricity produced from a proposed wind plant will be so expensive the company can’t find customers. They do have one customer, however, but one wonders why:
In its 15-year deal, National Grid agreed to pay 18.7 cents per kilowatt hour for Cape Wind power beginning in 2013, with a 3.5 percent annual increase. The starting price is twice what National Grid pays today for power from fossil fuels, and regulators say the contract will add about 1.7 percent to its residential customers’ bills.
Read the whole article. It explains a lot about the failures of renewable energy, and how the efforts of the government and environmentalists to force it on us is misguided and downright foolish.
EPA regulations to go into effect says court
Two stories on the recent attempts of the EPA under the Obama administrions to create new climate regulations. First, a federal appeals court decided Friday not to block the new EPA climate regulations. Second, the war between Texas and the EPA over the EPA’s effort to regulate Texas industry continues unabated.
8 Observations From The Cancun Climate Conference
Eight observations from the Cancun climate conference. I like this quote the best:
“The enterprise is pompously and risibly dedicated in equal parts to wealth redistribution and self-perpetuation, as a platform for, and along the way, engaging in visceral anti-Americanism.”
Read the whole thing. Very entertaining, in a depressing sort of way.
Cancun blog
Want to follow the Cancun climate summit come to an end, for good or ill, on this its final day? Check out this blog.
NASA Satellite Sees An Early Meteorological Winter In US Midwest
NASA satellite sees an early meteorological winter in the American midwest.
I know this is weather, not climate, but according to the repeated claims of global warming scientists for the past decade, cold winters like this should no longer be happening. But they are, which means there must be holes in their science!
Clouding the climate picture
Two seemingly conflicting research papers, both focusing on how the formation of clouds might affect, or be affected by, global temperatures, actually end up combining to show that the world’s climate models can’t be trusted. In other words the basic science of predicting climate change remains seriously flawed.
At issue in both papers is how much and under what circumstances clouds help to warm or cool the planet. Do they reflect solar energy back into space or hold it within the atmosphere like a blanket – and by how much? The answer is crucial to determining where global temperatures will be heading in this century – and what if any policies the world’s governments should be adopting to deal with the situation.
The latest research, appearing this week in the journal Science, is the work of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University. In it he examines the weather-satellite databases covering atmospheric conditions over the past 10 years, looking for discernible patterns where changes in temperature have resulted in changes in cloud cover, or vice versa.
In particular, Dessler chooses El Niño and La Niña events in the Pacific Ocean. El Niño, which occurs every three to seven years, is accompanied by an enormous finger of warm water extending eastward along the tropical Pacific, all the way to South America and first appearing around year end. La Niña, which also erupts periodically, produces the opposite effect – a large zone of colder-than-normal water stretching across the Pacific. Both events tend to attract attention, because they usually generate severe weather affecting large areas of North and South America and elsewhere.
El Niño and La Niña are ideal subjects for climate researchers. They both develop quickly and produce, respectively, recognizable spikes and troughs in temperatures. For example, scientists studying the relationship of clouds to temperature can observe changes in cloud cover over the Pacific that precede, coincide with, and follow El Niño and La Niña and then use those changes to estimate how cloud cover affects or is affected by air temperature.
As Dessler describes in the Science paper, he did find evidence of what he calls a small positive feedback, meaning that clouds may prevent some solar heat from radiating into space, thereby warming the planet. He also doesn’t rule out the possibility of a small negative feedback, but says it probably isn’t large enough to overcome other factors contributing to warming.
But Dessler includes several assertions in his text that completely debunk the idea that climate science is “settled,” as asserted by former Vice President Al Gore and a host of others. For example, early on in the paper, Dessler acknowledges that “the most complex and least understood” of climate-feedback mechanisms is cloud feedback. And later on, he admits that “what we really want to determine is the cloud feedback in response to long-term climate change. Unfortunately, it may be decades before a direct measurement is possible.”
The earlier paper, published in the summer of 2010 in the Journal of Geophysical Research, by Roy Spencer and William Braswell of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, goes much farther in challenging the cloud-temperature link. The global warming community has tried for years to discredit Spencer’s work and to brand him as a “denier,” partly because for more than a decade he has produced findings that call into question the reliability of the host of earthbound instruments used to collect global temperature data.
Such accusations have been entirely unfair, because even Spencer, in his eminently readable and informative blog, has asserted from time to time that he isn’t sure whether the climate is changing and human activity is responsible. What gets him into trouble with the conventional wisdom is his emphasis on what’s wrong with current climate science and what remains unknown – and though it’s a short list, it’s formidable:
- “Everyone agrees that the net effect of clouds is to cool the climate system on average. But the climate models suggest that the cloud feedback response to the addition of [carbon dioxide] to our current climate system will be just the opposite, with cloud changes acting to amplify the warming.” [Ed. To put it more simply, clouds cool the climate, except when they are used in global warming climate models.]
- “While we know that evaporation increases with temperature, we don’t know very much about how the efficiency of precipitation systems changes with temperature.”
- “There [is] a variety of processes … which can in turn alter the balance between evaporation and precipitation, which will then cause warming or cooling as a result of the humidity change – rather than the other way around.”
[Ed. Concerning the second and third quotes: Since water vapor in the atmosphere is by far the most powerful greenhouse gas, far more important than carbon dioxide, not understanding its detailed relationship with temperature means no model can do a reliable job of predicting the climate.]
In their paper Spencer and Braswell likewise look at the relationship between clouds and temperature. In an extremely detailed and – even to climate researchers – dense examination of the same satellite database, the two authors present an argument that separates the phenomenon of cloud formation from anything relating to temperature changes. As Spencer comments in his blog, regarding the feedback data, “even the experts in the field apparently did not understand them.”
But even interested lay readers can glean the gist of Spencer and Braswell’s findings simply by looking at the graphs they present, which contain jumbles of data points suggesting a complete disconnect between cloud formation and temperatures. This is a strong indication that we don’t know which is the cause and which is the effect, though most climate researchers assume temperature is the cause and clouds are the effect. At best, the researchers conclude, there’s evidence for a slight negative feedback – clouds causing cooling when temperatures rise – but overall there appears to be no link between the two phenomena over long periods.
“I cannot remember a climate issue of which I have ever been so certain,” as Spencer wrote about this finding on his blog.
The debate over the cloud-temperature link is bound to go on, but these two papers should make one thing clear: Until the connection between cloud formation and temperature is established or debunked once and for all, the models being used to predict future climate cannot be trusted. So perhaps when the new Congress looks at climate-related issues its members might want to consider them in this context.
top NASA scientist says that all global warming models are too gloomy
The uncertainty of science! A top NASA scientist says that the models used by global warming scientists are far too gloomy, leaving out the cooling effects of increased plant production in a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere. Key quote:
It now appears, however, that the previous/current state of climate science may simply have been wrong and that there’s really no need to get in an immediate flap. If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming.