[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] Global Warming and Ecology

To: RFI@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] Global Warming and Ecology
From: "W6YN Don Milbury" <w6yn@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 03:10:18 GMT
List-post: <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
Scientific research has made a decisive turn away from dubious warnings of 
climate catastrophes and toward a much different thesis, that the modern 
warming is moderate and not man-made.

First, NASA acknowledged it had accidentally inflated its official record of 
surface temperatures in the U.S. beginning with the year 2000. The revised data 
show 1998 falling to second place behind 1934 as the warmest year, followed by 
1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, and 1953. Four of the top 10 years on record are now 
from the 1930s, before human emissions could have been responsible, while only 
three of the top 10 (1998, 2006, 1999) are from the past 10 years.

New data are also emerging that the temperature record should be adjusted even 
further downward. Meteorologist Anthony Watts has launched an effort to 
photograph the 1,221 "most reliable" surface temperature stations in the U.S. 
to see if land use changes over the years may be contaminating their records. 
Images of the stations he's photographed so far (available at 
www.surfacestations.org) show many cases where the stations seem to be 
reporting warming caused by nearby buildings, parking lots, or heat-generating 

The surface temperature record in the U.S. was thought to be the most accurate 
of all the nations in the world. If that record is unreliable, how reliable is 
the global temperature record?

The new official temperature trend in the U.S. since the 1930s shows a warming 
so small it is within the admitted range of error of the instrument record. In 
other words, there's been no warming trend in the U.S. that could be attributed 
to human greenhouse gas emissions. How many people know that?

Further adjustments in response to Watts' work and the findings of other 
scientists who believe the "urban heat island effect" has been underestimated 
may show the U.S. cooled in the past half-century. Wouldn't that be funny? But 
more seriously, how credible, then, are claims of significant global warming, 
which are based on even more poorly maintained temperature stations in Russia 
and various Third World countries? They, too, will need to be adjusted downward.

Also in August,2007 research published in the American Geophysical Union's 
Geophysical Research Letters online edition by Roy Spencer, a principal 
research scientist in the University of Alabama - Huntsville's Earth System 
Science Center, and coauthors again confirmed the existence of a natural 
climatic heat vent at the equator. The phenomenon, first identified in 2001 by 
Richard Lindzen at MIT and a NASA research team, acts like a "natural 
thermostat," releasing heat into space whenever temperatures rise above a 
certain level.

The supposedly sophisticated global climate models don't have any code written 
for a natural heat vent. Their response to the discovery since 2001 has been to 
pretend the climatic heat vent doesn't exist (despite NASA's call at the time 
for the modeler community to take the development seriously). After August 
2007, they can't pretend any longer.

The proven existence of a natural heat vent at the equator would flat-out end 
the debate over global warming. It would explain why observed warming during 
the past half-century is less than half as much as the computer models predict. 
It would reveal a climate system more dynamic than previously thought, one able 
to breathe in man's considerable carbon dioxide emissions and exhale some part 
of it into space.

You probably haven't read about any of these scientific discoveries in your 
daily newspapers. The media, with some notable exceptions, have largely ignored 
these latest developments, focusing instead on the recently released 
policymaker's summary of the fourth report of the UN-sponsored 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It proclaims, incongruously, that 
there is near-certainty that the cause of the modern warming is human.

But it's odd, isn't it, that the executive summary of a "scientific" report 
would be released three months before part one of the complete report was 
finished? (The other parts haven't even been released yet.) Or that its 
supporters freely admit the summary document was edited by a small group of 
government officials to make it agree with their political agendas?

The latest IPCC report isn't just unreliable, it's wrong. As S. Fred Singer 
noted in a letter published in the September 2006 issue of Geotimes, a U.S. 
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) report, published in April 2006, shows a 
global warming pattern (in latitude and altitude) that differs dramatically 
from the pattern calculated by state-of-the-art greenhouse models. In other 
words, the observed and theoretical "fingerprints" don't match. Singer says we 
can therefore state with confidence that the human contribution to current 
warming is not significant and outweighed by natural climate variability.

The science has clearly turned away from dubious theories and predictions of 
climate catastrophe. The "skeptics," pilloried just a few months ago by a cover 
story in Newsweek and countless "news" stories written by uninformed and 
gullible reporters, have been vindicated. It should be a happy ending.

It remains to be seen, however, whether the world's anti-capitalist 
policymakers will take note and stop their stampede toward passing expensive 
and damaging laws to address a nonexistent problem. Global warming may no 
longer be a problem, but laws and taxes passed in its name may be with us for a 
long time.

73,  Don,  W6YN

-- Mike Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu> wrote:
Jim Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:13:47 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
>> There is no UNDISPUTED evidence that global warming is the result
>> of human activities.
> Those doing the disputing don't have science on their side. I see 
> those doing the disputing as coming from one or more of the 
> following places:
Yoiks Jim, talk about the wrong attributes! I never said that nor would 
I ever.

The greenhouse effect is based on scientific facts that are able to be 
experimentally proven at the high school level. Anyone arguing against 
that might as well tilt at Ohms law while they are at it..

That certain gases have an effect upon atmospheric heat retention is 
also a fact involved in the greenhouse effect.

We've been pumping some of those gases into the atmosphere, increasing 
their percentages of the atmosphere to levels that should  have a 
measurable effect. It appears that this is happening, and your note 
about looking at other areas of the world is well taken. The growing 
season in Canada has been extended by several weeks ( I don't have the 
report in front of me, so I can't note the exact amount) But in any 
event, the most effects will of course be felt at the fringes, even more 
so at first.

That being said, I am perfectly willing to say that global warming is 
utter bunkum. But what I need is some solid scientific evidence, not 
political axe-grinding. Let's see some solid evidence of the reasons why 
some scientific facts do not play out in real life, with the mechanisms 
that defeat the heat retention afforded by increased greenhouse gas 
percentage in the atmosphere. I also need a good explanations that what 
appears to be global warming is something else. Every attempt I have 
seen at debunking originates from funding sources or groups who would 
profit from people believing that Global warming is a hoax.

Like I say, I'm open, but not to politically based arguments.

    - 73 de Mike KB3EIA

RFI mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>