1
The Great Global Warming Debate:
Hype vs. Science
By Neil DeRosa
The Political Reality
Most people are convinced global warming is real. The few scientists standing up against
the din created by the drumbeaters of this belief are being drowned out by the
orchestrated roar of public opinion. Since the dissenters cannot be silenced, the attempt is
made to marginalize them. Thus they are rarely seen or heard from in the popular media.
When they are referred to at all they are called “deniers,” and compared to Holocaust
deniers. Only the well-read and well-informed are even aware of their existence, but
luckily, there is a growing remnant of this demographic group of independent thinkers in
our society largely owing to the fact that some leading public figures of the political
Right are dissenters. One prominent dissenting scientist is Patrick Michaels, a
climatologist from the University of Virginia, who has set the stage in four books on the
subject by granting the premise of the advocates of anthropogenic, or human caused
global warming, but minimizing the degree or magnitude of the problem. He rejects the
“Cassandra” attitude of proponents that the earth is rapidly heating up resulting in
catastrophic consequences, and challenges their continuing stream of misinformation. His
position is simple—and modest: in addition to natural causes, climate change is to some
degree caused by human industrial activity, predominantly the burning of “fossil fuels.”
But for Michaels, the effects are predictable into the near future, will be mild, and will
most likely be beneficial to life on earth, including humans. In Michaels’ methodology
moreover, the science and the politics are interrelated and inseparable, so that discussing
the one without the other seems impractical.
One might be better served here nevertheless by concentrating on the science and
ignoring the political implications, but in the present subject under discussion the science
very often becomes confused and entangled with the respective political ideologies
whether we like it or not. The Right accuses the Left of making a power grab of the
world’s economies. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
(IPCC) is one of the key means to that end; as is Al Gore, the former Vice President
turned guru of human caused global warming who was awarded the Nobel Peace prize
for his notoriety, advocacy, and passion if not for his adherence to sound principles of
science. Then there is the Kyoto Protocol’s attempt to strangle the economy of the United
States by mandating drastic reductions in carbon emissions. Advocates on the Left accuse
the far outnumbered dissenters of being in the pay of Big Oil, and threatening the very
future of the planet. Meanwhile, virtually all of the billions in tax-funded governmental
research grants go to the advocates on the Left. This is no way to run a scientific debate,
but it often happens.
The IPCC—a quasi-scientific organization
NASA scientist James Hanson, who is often credited with being the founder of the
current global warming “movement” in America, has recently tuned down his rhetoric
and scaled back his original catastrophic predictions from the 1980s; but his attitude
toward science has not changed. As he explained in the on-line journal, Natural Science:
2
Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public
and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now,
however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate…scenarios consistent with
what is realistic under current conditions (Michaels, 2004, 20).
Hanson now makes predictions which are more in accord with actual data, but still
exaggerated and inaccurate. Most of the advocates in the movement he helped to start,
however, are not so constrained. Many of these can be found in that seat of antiAmerican propaganda of long standing, funded and housed by the American taxpayer on
the shores of the East River in NYC; namely the United Nations. The UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC), has been in the forefront of this
assault on climate science for years, in a thinly veiled attack on free market capitalism
and its epicenter, the United States of America.
Projections of future warming are dependant on the quantity of greenhouse gases
produced by industrial activity. For many years, the unchallenged “authority” on these
concentrations has been the IPCC (Michaels, 2004, 21). Much of the misinformation and
hyperbole later published by advocacy groups and news outlets was first expressed in the
form of “scientific assessments” by this supposedly scientific body. But the IPCC is as
much a collection of government bureaucrats, ideologues, and other advocates who are
not science specialist, as it is of real scientists. These are people with political agendas
rather than scientific ones. The bonafide scientists who do belong but who disagree with
its “assessments,” are often reviled, misrepresented, and ignored. And when they try to
disassociate themselves from the IPCC, they are not allowed to remove their names from
its member list (Durkin, 2007). Papers by these scientists contending that global warming
may not be all that it is cracked up to be are met with extreme scrutiny in the peer review
process (Michaels, 2000, 197) and outright hostility from global warming advocates.
In science, the peer review process is supposed to guard against inaccuracies and
misrepresentations, not to mention the travesty of ideological pronouncements disguised
as science, but at the IPCC the process often works in reverse. Michaels gives an example
from the 1996 Assessment, which concerns satellite measurements of temperatures
(discussed below). These global measurements had shown (up to that time) no warming
trend since they were begun in 1976. This data was very important because it was
inconsistent with much of the local ground temperature record for the same time period,
which did show temperature increases, but could be inaccurate for a number of reasons. It
was also at odds with most of the hype by global warming activists. The satellite data was
left out of the all-important “Policymakers Summary” of the Assessment, which is
supposed to reflect a consensus of the scientists making up the IPCC. Yet all opposing or
cautionary opinions were ignored and left out of the “Summary.”
Another blatant example of the IPCC’s unscientific approach concerns their so-called
“storylines,” which are various possible projections of future carbon dioxide emissions.
In essence, these projections range from high emissions due to predicted rapid economic
and population growth around the world to much lower emission estimates, with several
gradations in between. Over the next hundred years, according to the GCMs, this would
3
result in global temperature increases ranging from 2.5°F to 10.4°F. The problem is that
the IPCC assigned no degree of probability to either of these two extremes or to the
values in between when the data would require otherwise, meaning that any estimate
from the mildest increase in temperature to the most extreme was seen as equally likely.
Steve Schneider, a climatologist from Stanford University showed that the lower estimate
has a much higher probability of being correct; and moreover, that the IPCC knew that all
along. “Yet they’ve let a hysterical environmental and popular press run with apocalyptic
scenarios touting the huge 10.4°F warming” (Michaels, 2004, 25).
Both the climate models (GCMs) and the IPCC assume that greenhouse gases will
increase exponentially, (so that on a graph the ever increasing slope resembles a “hockey
stick”). This stems from several assumptions, the most important being the assumption
that world populations will continue to increase exponentially, and that every country
strives for, and will achieve, the level of industrialization we are familiar with in the
Western nations. But these assumptions are almost certainly wrong. For one thing,
population growth has dropped off dramatically in recent years, even reaching negative
growth in Russia and some Western European nations. Another factor militating against
the exponential growth scenario is that carbon emission levels have already tapered off
due mainly to changing technologies. According to Michaels these assumptions for future
exponential growth haven’t been right for 30 years, yet the climate modelers and the
IPCC continue to use them (Michaels, 2004, 28).
Melting Icecaps and Glaciers
Much of the information publicized by global warming advocates is really
misinformation and hyperbole, or as it is characterized here, “hype.” In order for the
reader to get an idea of the way this program of dissemination of disinformation works,
some examples of this hype are presented along with the counter arguments of the
paradigm challengers, here designated as “reality.” If this methodology is thereby
considered to be biased, so be it. At the very least it may inform the reader of the nature
of the paradigm debate.
Certain politicians, being proficient in areas widely divorced from science and other
factual matters, are less than knowledgeable about the subject under discussion. When
championing the global warming issue, they reveal themselves as classic cases of
hysteria, fear mongering, the worst type of pandering, and ignorance of the facts. Here’s
one example out of many of this brand of hype, spoken by the illustrious Senator Byrd:
The Floods are more frequent. The droughts are more severe…The ice masses at the
two poles are diminishing. They are melting. The seas grow higher.
It should be noted that this and other politicians did not invent these outrageous ideas.
They get them from the mainstream press, from university press releases, and from the
IPCC. Here are some other examples of this brand of hype from sources that should know
better:
The icecap atop Mount Kilimanjaro…will disappear in less than 15 years. (New York
Times, 2001)
4
These unique bodies of ice will disappear in the next two decades. (Ohio State
University press release, 2002)
Reality: Kilimanjaro has been losing its ice cap at least since the beginning of the 20th
century. It lost around half of the total amount recorded in the first half of the last
century, before greenhouse gases from industrialization began to accumulate significantly
in the atmosphere. Since it is always cold enough to form ice caps atop mountains of this
height, (19, 340 feet), the key impediment to forming glaciers is not temperature but lack
of precipitation, which at that altitude means lack of snowfall. The geological record
shows that Kilimanjaro was much warmer from 4,000 to 11,000 years ago, yet its glacier
was much larger then because the region was also much wetter (Michaels, 2004, 36). In
any event, this mountain is likely to retain its snow cap indefinitely, and the glacier may
again grow when higher rainfall levels return. The same reasoning holds true for other
glaciated mountains and ranges that have been hyped as losing their snowcaps and
glaciers, such as in the Rockies, and the Peruvian Andes. According to Michaels, it would
take a global warming of 20°F to raise temperatures above freezing at 15,000’ elevation.
There isn’t a single climate model that calls for this degree of warming and melting,
especially on mountains exceeding 20,000 feet, of which there are many. But this does
not prevent Ohio State University climatologist Lonnie Thompson from predicting that:
Many of the world’s icecaps will disappear in the next 15 years (Michaels, 2004, 40).
It’s not just mountain snowcaps that are hyped with predictions of their imminent
disappearance. It’s also, believe it or not, the very polar icecaps and the major glaciers
that dominate the higher latitudes that are said to be in rapid meltdown:
The North Pole is Melting…the last time scientists can be certain that the pole was
awash in water was more than 50 million years ago (New York Times, 2000)
Reality: This Times story was based on observations of two passengers on a cruise ship,
(one was a member of the IPCC, the other a dinosaur specialist). It was a Russian
icebreaker which found itself sailing at 90°N latitude in open water. But any scientist at
the UN’s IPCC could have told them that there was nothing unusual in this. The record
shows that current temperatures at the pole are not at all unusual when compared to those
of the last century. “The current warm spell is no different—in length, magnitude, or
effect—than what the high latitudes saw long before people could have changed the
climate very much” (Michaels, 2004, 43). The truth is that open water is common at high
latitudes at the end of summer. One temperature record even shows a decline at latitudes
of 70°N and higher since 1940 (Michaels, 2004, 44).
.
Arctic Ice is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say. The melting of Greenland glaciers
and Arctic Ocean sea ice this summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists
reported today. (New York Times, 2002)
Reality: This article and a similar Sunday Edition special in the Los Angeles Times said
the shrinking glaciers fit in with the trend since the late 1970s and general predictions on
5
global warming. But this press coverage ignored an important study on glaciers in the
South Polar Region including Greenland, which tells a very different story. There are
records of Arctic temperature and ice cover that go back to the 1870s and show that the
current situation is not at all unusual. Moreover, the high-latitude temperature levels in
the 1930s and 40s were warmer than in recent decades. With regard to sea ice, “the
analysis indicates that long term trends are small and generally insignificant” (Polykov, et
al. 2002; Michaels, 2004, 43).
New data from submarines indicate that there…has been about a 40 percent decline in
Arctic sea-ice thickness in summer, (in recent years). Third Assessment Report, UN
IPCC, (parenthesis added).
Reality: This oft-quoted passage is incorrect and was known to be incorrect before the
Assessment was published (Michaels, 2004, 51). Other studies showed that ice thickness
is more affected by wind than by air temperature, and moreover that areas of thinning
were occurring at the same time as other areas where the ice was thickening. At the
present rate of overall “thinning,” calculated to be around 0.15 inch per year (Krabil, et
al.2000), it would take about 800,000 years to melt; but not to worry, we are bound to
have two or three ice ages before then (Michaels, 2004, 58).
Dying Polar Bears and Penguins
Nongovernmental organizations and environmental advocacy groups such as Greenpeace
and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have led the charge in hyping the dangers of global
warming to the natural flora and fauna, especially the popular and beloved creatures of
the polar regions such as polar bears and penguins. An example of the WWF’s distortion
of the polar bear story is reported by Michaels:
Its 2002 report, Polar Bears at Risk, claims that these furry creatures currently face
major difficulties as a result of human-induced global warming…WWF states that 46
percent of (22,000 polar bears in different populations) are stable, 17 percent in decline,
14 percent increasing, and 23 percent in “unknown” status (Michaels, 2004, 95;
parenthesis added).
Aside from the minor point that WWF’s numbers don’t add up to 100 percent, the report
disregards a study by Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans that the possible
impact of global warming on indigenous life in the Arctic seas appears to be minor. Also
contrary to the hype, in areas such as the Baffin Bay region, where temperatures are in
decline, the polar bear population is also in decline. Where the temperature is increasing
between Siberia and Alaska, the bear populations have risen. “When the facts are
examined, the relationship between polar bear populations and temperature is the
opposite of what the WWF says it is” (Michaels, 2004, 95-96).
A 2001 article in the scientific journal, Nature, “Emperor Penguins and Climate Change,”
hypes the plight of the penguins in Antarctica. The authors of that paper offer evidence
that the number of breeding pairs in the penguin colony in Terre Adelie, Antarctica, show
a sharp decline, but by their own data, there is no evidence of any warming or cooling.
6
“Given the paper’s title, how many readers would get the impression that the authors
uncovered no relationship between penguins and climate?” This is yet another illustration
that in this field, as in other fields where science has become politicized, the peer review
process works in reverse.
Michaels points out that the decline in penguin populations in some areas, which is real,
can not be attributed to climate change. Penguins, like polar bears, and many other types
of wildlife, can adapt to a wide range of temperature and climate change. The real culprit
is almost certainly “ecotourism,” whereby large gaggles of tourists visiting the penguin
rookeries and buzzing them with airplanes, disturb the tranquility and natural life cycles
of these creatures, who for tens of millions of years in their evolutionary history have
seen nothing bigger than an albatross, and are accustomed to hearing only the natural
sounds of wind, sea, and indigenous wildlife (Michaels, 2004, 96).
Tropical Diseases Migrate North and Urban Heat Indexes Rise—They Say
Simple common sense would seem to indicate that as global temperatures rise, tropical
diseases must spread and heat related deaths must increase—but does it? One of the
purposes of dispassionate science is to provide us with reality checks on speculation and
guesses, by studying objective facts. One would hope this is the case; unfortunately
scientists such as Harvard’s P. Epstein, perhaps enticed by bigger grants or motivated by
other agendas, often behave otherwise:
Insects are bringing illnesses like malaria and dengue to higher altitudes in Africa,
Asia, and Latin America…continued global warming will cause the spread of these
diseases and also encephalitis and yellow fever to higher latitudes (Michaels, 2004,
179).
Oxford’s S. Hay investigated this hypothesis and found it to be flawed. Something else
was responsible for the spread of malaria. Since malaria can be spread by mosquitoes in
rainy climates whenever average temperatures exceed around 60°F, something other than
excessively high temperatures must be responsible. Hay studied four East African cities
where recent malaria increases were observed; but only one, Kabale, Uganda, showed an
increase in the number of months where average temperatures were conducive to the
spread of malaria, and that occurred in the 1960s (Michaels, 2004, 180).
So why were malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases increasing? There are several
contributing factors. The most significant are: population growth and increased
urbanization in cities with poor sanitation, lack of potable water, increased resistance to
antimalarial drugs, war and civil strife (which exacerbates already poor sanitation and
nutrition), mosquitoes’ resistance to insecticides, and lack of screens and air conditioning.
Advocates of the global warming disease spread hypothesis, especially those who are
medical science specialists, should know these risk factors, as they are basic to
epidemiology.
We in the northern industrialized countries are not immune to the ravages of death by
global warming either:
7
On a warmer planet, intense heat waves alone are by 2050 likely to result in increases
in death by cardiac and respiratory ills of several thousand a year—especially in the
urban areas and among the elderly and very young (Wall Street Journal, 1999;
Michaels, 2004, 187).
Hype such as this, along with the IPCC’s prediction that heat-related deaths will double
by 2020, and the Canadian Climate Center’s model that “heat indexes” (apparent
temperatures based on how hot we feel as humidity rises) will rise 25°F by the year 2100,
are enough to get any politician’s attention. But is it true? Michaels assures us that it is
certain that the Canadian prediction is wrong. The physics makes it unsupportable.
Extremely high average temperatures are exclusive to dessert climates. As humidity rises
it takes more energy to evaporate water, and that (in a nutshell) is why tropical rainforests
rarely rise above 90°F. Such extreme heat indexes are unlikely, Michaels quips, short of
paving over the Gulf of Mexico (Michaels, 2004, 188-89).
Whether or not the earth as a whole is getting warmer, there is no doubt that because of
the “urban effect” most cities have warmed 1°C to 2°C. Bricks and paved roads retain
heat, ventilating winds are impeded, and internal heat is generated by industrial, and other
general activities of civilization. But are people dying because of it? Michaels and R.
Davis studied the mortality records of 28 U.S. cities, comparing them with temperature
increases between 1964 and 1998. They found that contrary to the IPCC’s prediction,
heat-related deaths declined with temperature rise. The decline was most pronounced in
the more modern cities of the southwest, and least pronounced in the older cities of the
northeast, and Seattle, which showed a small increase. Aside from human adaptability in
general, the determining factor seems to be air conditioning (Michaels, 2004, 192-93).
Seattle city dwellers like Parisians, who live where it is usually cool have yet to take up
air conditioning as a general rule, but in the southwest it is essential.
Other Scientists Challenge the Global Warming Hypothesis
Patrick Michaels is not the only scientist working to stem the political tidal wave of the
human-induced global warming theory. He is merely one of its more outspoken critics,
and one who has given us a body of work that is readily accessible to the interested nonspecialist. Other challengers with equally impressive credentials have done much to add
to the detailed and well researched counter-hypotheses. In a recent collection of essays on
this subject called Shattered Consensus, (Michaels, et al., 2005), several of these
scientists weigh in on the mainstream paradigm. This collection includes:
• A discussion by Robert Balling Jr. of observed temperatures vs. model predictions,
revealing the models to be less than accurate.
• Critiques by Randall S. Cerveny and David R. Legates of the theory that global
warming will result in more extreme whether, more rainfall, longer droughts, and more
climate disasters. The record indicates this is not the case.
8
• The predictive efficacy of El Niño and related phenomena, by Oliver W. Fraueneld. Are
changes in such effects linked to global warming as has been suggested? The evidence
indicates otherwise.
• Does global warming portend dire consequences for human health? The facts are
contraindicated; by Robert E. Davis.
• Are general circulation models (GCMs) predictive of the effects of carbon dioxide
induced greenhouse enhancement on global warming? GCMs presently lack the precision
to say. They also reflect poor observational capability, and low accuracy; by Eric S.
Posmentier and Willie Soon.
The next sections offer a more in-depth look at some other contributions included in this
collection of essays.
The “Trick of the Stick”
McIntyre and McKitrick challenge the Mann “Hockey Stick” Climate Index
This is the theory based on a paper by Mann, et al. in the journal, Nature in 1998, which
says that northern hemisphere temperatures have been relatively constant since around
1400AD, and then suddenly, in recent decades, began to rise sharply in an unprecedented
way giving rise to the appearance of a “hockey stick” on a graph (Michaels, et al., 2005,
20). Their research was expanded in 1999 to include data from the past 1000 years. The
theory is based on the paleo-climatic record from various sources. The IPCC utilized the
Mann “hockey stick” theory, and incorporated it in its 2001 Assessment Report. The
theory was then widely reported in the media as “settled science,” and became “gospel”
among environmentalist activists, (McIntyre and McKitrick in, Michaels, et al., 2005,
21).
Steven McIntyre a businessman with a flare for getting at the unvarnished truth, polished
his dormant mathematical skills and put the famous Mann “Hockey Stick” theory of
global warming to the test by giving it the type of thorough scrutiny and “due diligence”
common in the business world. McIntyre found Mann’s work to be flawed in many
respects and began to say so in an internet forum called “climatesceptics,” where he
caught the eye of several like-minded scientists. One of them, Ross McKitrick, a PhD in
environmental economics and a first-rate statistician, agreed to collaborate with McIntyre
on the project of attempting to duplicate Mann’s results working from its principal
components (PCs) or raw data. The first outcome of their dual effort was that they found
Mann to be secretive and duplicitous, and steadfast in his refusal to cooperate with them
in any way.
One of the principles of the peer review process is that the author of any scientific paper
must be willing and able to divulge his sources, and to produce any data used in the
original research so that referees can judge its validity, and also so that other scientists
can reproduce the same or very similar results. Indeed, this is a basic precept of the
scientific method. But in a climate of politicized science, the opposite is often the case.
Mann refused all cooperation and then dissembled to observers about his actions. The
9
scientific journal, Nature at first gave the outward appearance of professionalism and
forthrightness, but in the end, it too proved to share Mann’s attitude.
Nevertheless McIntyre and McKitrick eventually unraveled this particular web of
prevarication that had become (and still is) part of mainstream global warming science
lore. Following are some key points revealed as a result of their investigation: (McIntyre
and McKitrick in, Michaels, et al., 2005, 27-48).
• The original famous “hockey stick” graph of Mann, et al. called MBH98, was, because
of missing and incorrectly skewed data, fraught with errors. “The extent of errors and
defects in the MBH98 data means that the indexes computed from it are unreliable and
cannot be used for comparisons between current climate and that of past centuries”
• In the aftermath of McIntyre and McKitrick’s rebuttal paper, known as “MM03,”
published in the journal, Environment and Energy, the resulting publicity forced Mann to
reveal previously undisclosed information. The new information allowed McIntyre and
McKitrick to nail down exactly how Mann’s hockey-stick had been constructed.
• By and large the general response of readers was to acknowledge that MM03 was a
legitimate critique of the hockey-stick results.
• The “smoking gun” seemed to be a certain section of data from the North American
climate record, called NOAMER PC1, and had to do with the way this data was
inadvertently (or purposefully) weighted so as to skew the data in such a way that the
results of the statistical analysis showed a sharp increase in temperatures in recent years.
When in reality, (if the analysis had been done legitimately and correctly), there was no
significant increase—and there were other irregularities of this kind. McKitrick describes
how this was done in one important instance.
In the NOAMER roster for the AD1400 step, the most heavily weighted site is Sheep
Mountain Calif. Sheep Mountain has a hockey-stick shape and Mann’s algorithm gives
it a whopping 390 times the weight in the PC1 of the least weighted series, Mayberry
Slough, Ark., (which shows no trend toward increasing temperatures) (McIntyre and
McKitrick in, Michaels, et al., 2005, 37, parenthesis added).
In other words, the reason for Mann’s famous hockey-stick is that some series (some
specific sets of data) randomly show an upward trend while most others do not. The
“trick of the stick” is to heavily weight the data containing a hockey-stick curve and
minimize or ignore the data without it, which is why all the well-known warm and cold
spells from the time period studied are missing. This of course is illegitimate, and
unscientific, not to mention downright fraudulent (if done knowingly), but that is what
happens when politics and science meet.
A Sample Graph of the Variable Temperature Record
Source: Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. 2003. “Corrections to the Mann et. al
(1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series; Energy
and Environment, Vol. 14, N.6. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf
10
Is the CO2 Greenhouse Hypothesis Falsified by the Tropospheric Record?
An examination by John Christy of the bulk atmosphere record
From 1900 to 2000, the northern hemisphere trended up around .6°C, while the Southern
hemisphere went up slightly less at .4°C (Michaels and Balling 2000, 78-79). After the
cooling trend which lasted from around 1945 to 1978, global surface temperatures again
trended up ~.6°C from the 1978 low, while greenhouse gases increased during both of
these periods. As we have seen, although there were still many holes in the theory, the
upward trends in themselves have been used as compelling arguments for anthropogenic
global warming theory, albeit that the direct physical mechanism or cause was still in
question. One of the main suppositions of the enhanced greenhouse gases / global
warming hypothesis is that the lower atmosphere, specifically the troposphere from the
surface to around 10 mi. (16 km), should retain the heat of infrared radiation, which is
absorbed by greenhouse gases and reflected back toward the surface. Therefore, the
troposphere should heat up unambiguously and significantly whenever an enhanced
greenhouse effect from increased atmospheric accumulations of CO2 and other
greenhouse gases is in play. A typical model predicts a rate of tropospheric warming that
is 1.1 to 1.3 times the rate of surface warming (Christy in, Michaels et al., 2005, 93). But
one key problem with this model is that this doesn’t seem to be happening.
As Michaels points out, (Michaels and Balling 2000, 80-81; Michaels 2005 et al., 6),
John Christy of the University of Alabama and Roy Spencer of NASA, and others have
been monitoring weathering balloon and satellite records of tropospheric temperatures for
a number of years, and the surprising fact is that during the period corresponding to the
most recent global surface temperature increases, the troposphere has revealed almost no
11
warning. Only the heat of the1998 El Niño working its way into space allowed a slight
increase of .05°C; absent that, the record would have showed no trend.
In his own contribution to Shattered Consensus, (Christy in, Michaels et al., 2005, 72101), Christy summarizes in some detail the results of his and others’ work in monitoring
and recording tropospheric and lower stratospheric temperatures. The first efforts in this
area, beginning with the aviation era and used for many years hence, was through
weather balloons equipped with an instrument called a radiosonde with which wind
speed, temperature, relative humidity, air pressure, and altitude were measured. This
effort was at first crude with many mistakes made, but over the years the errors were
eliminated one by one, resulting in radiosonde data that is quite reliable, and acceptable
to the scientific community. Thus climatologists were able to compile a record of global
and regional atmospheric temperatures beginning in 1958.
Since 1978, polar orbiting satellites monitored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) were put into use utilizing a passive microwave radiometer.
This measures atmospheric oxygen at several frequencies. Each frequency measures a
layer of atmosphere corresponding to a specific atmospheric pressure level (measured in
millibars) at the corresponding altitude. The microwave emissions are largely dependent
on atmospheric temperatures and are thus, after the appropriate calibrations, suitable as a
reliable temperature record of the troposphere. Moreover, several international research
institutes and universities have done simultaneous monitoring, so that their various results
can be compared with the other research teams and analyzed, and also compared with the
weather balloon data; with anomalies and errors corrected and effectively eliminated.
This means that the record of tropospheric temperatures is essentially unassailable, and
moreover, that this information is critically important to the entire global warming
debate. But as noted above, it was left out of the Policy Makers’ Summary of an IPCC
report, and it is ignored by the mainstream media or global warming advocates, thus
underscoring the fact that the controversy is more political than scientific.
Regarding scientific questions of interest, several arise: First, is there a proposed physical
reason for the disparity between the greenhouse model and the actual record? Christy
suggests one possible answer when he writes, “It is the action of significant turbulence
and the changing phases of water vapor that create immense complexity in the
troposphere that lead to uncertainty there” (Christy in, Michaels et al., 2005, 90). In other
words clouds, and the complex systems of weather, whatever their ultimate causes,
complicate the naïve greenhouse theory to such an extent that we can say with some
confidence that the presently existing model is flawed. This is one possible answer and
there are others. Another question is whether or not the surface temperature record is
accurate. This problem cannot be simply answered in the negative by citing the “urban
effect” mentioned above, because the sea surface temperatures (SST) also show an
increase. Another question is whether greenhouse forced increases, (which are conceded,
albeit at lower levels, by Michaels and many other researchers who question the
mainstream theory), will be strong enough to overpower the natural cycles that have
always driven climate change. Or will the current enhanced greenhouse effect pale by
12
comparison when we look at the long and short term climate record? We will look at
these cycles briefly in the next section, and in more detail in the next chapter.
Sunspots and Terrestrial Temperature Cycles
Sallie Baliunas points to solar irradiance variation as a factor in the global warming
In a technical and cautiously worded article on the long and short term effects of the sun
on the earth’s temperature trends, astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, PhD, of the HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics, describes some aspects of the emerging science of
solar variability and its effects on planetary environments and temperatures. For example,
she points out that,
Eddy (1976) noted that the low sunspot era of the seventeenth century known as the
Maunder Minimum coincided with low solar activity inferred from radiocarbon records
and sightings of aurorae, as well as a cold period during the Little Ice Age, then
primarily defined for Central and Western Europe (Baliunas in, Michaels, et al., 2005,
224).
As this passage captures one of the main points of the Baliunas essay, it was cited first.
Does this then imply that sunspots are the “key” which explains the constantly varying
temperatures of the earth including the modern warm period of “global warming?” The
short answer is that although the jury is still out on that verdict, the theory of solar
forcings on the earth’s climate looks compelling as a major factor.
In more recent studies, correlations between terrestrial temperature change and solar
magnetic variations (sunspots) have been found. In simulation experiments, for example,
Soon, et al., (2003) have shown that “total solar irradiance extrapolated back in time
explains about half the temperature variance of the twentieth century’s globally averaged
instrumental surface record.” Particularly well correlated is the temperature increase in
first half of the twentieth century. However, other studies indicate that solar variances
may not be the only influence on earth’s climate over time ranges of decades or centuries
(Baliunas in, Michaels, et al., 2005, 225-26).
This of course leaves an opening for some human induced global warming, but probably
to a much smaller extent than is normally indicated by advocates. Figure 1 shows the
relationship of the magnetic cycle to land temperature change (Baliunas and Soon, 1997).
As can be readily seen in fig. 1, the correlation between the earth’s temperature cycles
and solar variation is unmistakable, although incomplete.
13
Sunspot activity resulting
in solar irradiance and
terrestrial temperature
variance occurs in irregular
periodicities. Decadal
sunspot cycles were first
discovered by H. Schwabe
(1843). This finding was
refined over the years until
astronomer G.H. Hale,
inventor of the
spectrograph, discovered
(1908) that sunspots
consist of arched magnetic
fields, and reveal an 11
year cycle of activity
(Baliunas in, Michaels, et
al., 2005, 214). These
fluctuations of activity
affect the sun’s energy
output, and hence to some extent the earth’s temperature as well. In addition to decadal
cycles, radioisotope records in ice cores, tree rings, and lake bottom cores indicate solar
irradiance periodicities of ~400, ~200, ~100, and ~10 years (Baliunas in, Michaels, et al.,
2005, 228; Baliunas and Soon, 1997). Multi-millennial scale periodicities have also been
found by others. These have been related to so-called Milankovitch cycles, also known as
the astronomical theory, to be discussed in the next chapter.
Do solar and astronomical variations then definitely affect terrestrial temperatures?
Baliunas strikes a note of cautious optimism with which we close this segment:
At present the web of correlations, speculation, and hope, is spun with silken strands
too tenuous to be held in place while the central force provided by convergence of knots
at the core of the web—physical explanation—is missing. However, the recent
scientific literature has been rapidly developing information on solar and other exoterrestrial influences…on environmental parameters (Baliunas in, Michaels, et al.,
2005, 232).
Margaret Thatcher Opens Pandora’s Box
An excellent documentary film which aired recently on British TV, “The Global
Warming Swindle,” places the blame for the current paradigm of human caused global
warming on, of all people, the arch-conservative, Margaret Thatcher. In the 1980s, then
Prime Minister Thatcher needed a political crusade or cause capable of launching and
sustaining her plan to develop nuclear power generating plants in the United Kingdom.
Accordingly, she latched onto the new theory of possible global temperature increases
due to an enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from carbon dioxide emissions from
“smokestack industries.” She thereby let the “cat out of the bag” by unleashing a radical
“environmental” movement peopled by activists whose ideology was the polar opposite
14
of hers. To cap off this irony, she was only partially successful in promoting “nonpolluting” nuclear power, which was opposed by the same environmentalists for a host of
other reasons (Durkin, 2007).
The film does a competent job of debunking the global warming myth by using many of
the arguments mentioned above. But in some ways it goes much further. Scientists
interviewed unequivocally asserted that CO2 induced greenhouse theory is fatally flawed
and falsified by the paleoclimate record. CO2 does not lead the temperature increases in
the geological record; instead it follows each increase by several hundred years, thus
presenting a “causality problem.” The main reason given is that the earth’s oceans are so
large that it takes that long for the exchange of CO2 to take place. The real cause of
global temperature fluctuations is the sun; i.e., solar variability as briefly described
above. There is of course much more in this highly recommended film, and it should be
shown to students and the general public in any “fair and balanced” presentation on the
subject.
Conclusion
What will falsify the present anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? A 20-40 year
cooling trend consistent with variable sunspot activity cycle would serve as a start.
Although a short-term downturn would not be enough to falsify anthropogenic global
warming if the longer term global temperatures continued to rise above historical norms
and a physical mechanism was established beyond a doubt. If solar irradiation theory is
correct, the earth is due for a “correction” some time soon; indeed it may have already
begun. But in a climate of politicized science good correlations and even sound physical
theory may not be enough. Regarding the long-term Milankovitch cycles of the earth’s
orbits, which are thought to be responsible for ice ages and interglacial periods, that
factor may take somewhat longer to verify or falsify as reality checks go, as will be
discussed in the next chapter.
References
Baliunas, Sallie and Willie Soon. 1997. “Solar Variability and Global Climatic Change.”
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/g_warming/solar.html
Durkin, Martin. 2007. The Great Global Warming Swindle. (DVD). A WAGtv
production for Channel Four (UK). http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/
Krabil, et al. 2000. “Greenland ice sheet: High elevation balance and peripheral
thinning.” Science 289: 428-30
Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Third Edition, The University
of Chicago Press, 1962, 1970, 1996
Michaels, Patrick. J. 1992. Sound and Fury. CATO Institute, Washington, D. C.
——. 2004. Meltdown: the Predictable distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
Politicians, and the Media. CATO Institute, Washington, D. C.
15
Michaels, Patrick, and Robert Balling, Jr. 2000. The Satanic Gases. CATO Institute.
Michaels, Patrick, ed. 2005. Shattered Consensus: the True State of Global Warming.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Lanham, Maryland
Michaels, Patrick, et al. World Climate Report. For a continuing source of recent studies
that challenge the mainstream hypothesis. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
Muller, Richard and Gordon MacDonald, 1997. “Glacial Cycles and Astronomical
Forcing.” http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/sciencespectra.htm
New York Times article, 2000. “Ages-Old Icecap at North Pole Is Now Liquid, Scientists
Find.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CEFDE133EF93AA2575BC0A9669
C8B63&scp=1&sq=North+Pole+is+Melting+2000&st=nyt
New York Times article, 2001. “Glacier Loss Seen as Clear Sign of Human Role in
Global Warming.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/19/science/19MELT.html?ex=1204520400&en=130ee
8e56bc45b2f&ei=5070
New York Times article, 2002. “Temperatures Are Likely to Go From Warm to
Warmer.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E1D7143FF932A05751C1A9649C
8B63&scp=8&sq=arctic+ice+is+melting+2002&st=nyt
Ohio State University Press Release, 2002. “African ice core analysis reveals catastrophic
droughts, shrinking ice fields and civilization shifts”
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/kilicores.htm
Polyakov, I., et al, 2002. Trends and Variations in Arctic Climate Systems. EOS:
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 83, 547-548.
http://www.stichtingklimaat.nl/de_leugen_regeert.htm