William Yeatman

Historical climate data that had previously been thought to exhibit a slight warming trend has come under fire in another newly published scientific srticle (see story in the last issue on the McKitrick and Michaels paper). The United States Historical Climatology Networks (USHCN) temperature database, the most widely used and highly respected database available for regional scale analysis in the U. S., has been shown to have significant biases toward higher temperatures that have apparently been overlooked in years past. This finding is evident despite the fact that the dataset had been previously adjusted for a variety of temperature discrepancies, ranging from missing temperature data to the transition from mercurial to electronic sensing equipment. Scientists Robert C. Balling Jr. and Shouraseni Sen Roy found in their recent study published in the Geophysical Research Letters (May 1, 2004) that the USHCN temperature data is considerably upward biased.

Using spatial entropy to estimate disorder in the pattern of temperature changes across the 1,221 USHCN climate monitoring stations, Balling and Roy found that some “questionable warming signals” existed at some stations. Spatial entropy is a measure of disorder or dissimilarity of the distribution of the USHCNs weather stations.

Continuing, “Stepwise multiple regression analyses were conducted with latitude, latitude squared, longitude, longitude squared, and elevation aspotential independent variables in explaining spatial variance in the temperature change values.” They found all of the independent variables to be highly significant with regards to the temperature increase, meaning that some bias must exist within the dataset.

The authors explained their results. “We find that over the (USHCN) network, the spatial entropy levels are significantly and positively related to the observed temperature trends suggesting that stations most unlike their neighbors in terms of temperature change tend to have a higher temperature trend than their neighbors.” Balling and Roy added, “One could conclude that the network still contains unproven warming signals possibly related to lingering urbanizations effects.”

They concluded the article by explaining, “While the developers of the United States Historical Climatology Network have made substantial efforts to eliminate effects of time of observation biases, changes in measuring equipment, station relocations, and urbanization, our results suggest that the adjusted records continue to contain any number of contaminants that increase the temperature trend (warm) at some stations.”

Despite terrible reviews, the global cooling disaster movie, The Day After Tomorrow, is proving a hit at the box office. The movie failed to capture the #1 spot at the box office over the Memorial Day weekend, losing out to Shrek 2. Nevertheless, it managed to take in $86 million over the period and had ticket sales of $133 million by June 7, although it will probably soon be overtaken in revenue terms by the new Harry Potter movie. The Day After Tomorrow has proved to be even more of a hit overseas, drawing in $185 million offshore. This includes $28 million in the UK, $18 million in Germany, and $12 million in Mexico. Fox Pictures head of distribution Bruce Snyder explained the movies popularity to internet site Box Office Mojo: “Its good, popcorn, summer escapist fare. It’s a thrill ride and ends in a positive way.” 

Canada could be the next country to put national interest above rhetoric in repudiating the Kyoto Protocol. The leader of the Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, told the Canadian Press (June 9) that he would scrap the implementation of the Kyoto procedures and instead introduce a bill aimed at reducing air pollution by 2010. He said, “Kyoto is never going to be passed and I think we’d be better to spend our time on realistic pollution control measures.”

The measures Harper would introduce instead would focus on genuine pollutants rather than carbon dioxide, but there are few details on the extent of the planned legislation. Canadian environmentalists have reacted with outrage to the suggestion, with the Sierra Club taking the ultimate step of ejecting him from its “eco-Olympics” in protest.

Current polls (Bloomberg News, June 9) show the Conservative Partys surprising revival, with a 37 percent to 34 percent lead over the Liberal Party (there are appreciable third party votes in Canada). It is unlikely with the current polling numbers, however, that the Conservatives will hold a majority of seats in the 308-member House of Commons. Canadas federal elections are scheduled for June 28.

Dr. James J. O’Brien
Climatologist for the State of Florida
Dr. O Brien is the Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor of Meteorology & Oceanography and Director of Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida. He was appointed as State of Florida Climatologist in 1999.

<

Dr. James J. O’Brien
Climatologist for the State of Florida
Dr. O Brien is the Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor of Meteorology & Oceanography and Director of Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida. He was appointed as State of Florida Climatologist in 1999.

Full Biography 

 

Moderator: Welcome to the globalwarming.org live chat. We are now taking early questions for Dr. O’Brien.  Please keep your questions scientific in nature, as Dr. O’Brien is a climatologist, not a politician.  And once we get underway, please remember to  REFRESH THE PAGE to see the questions and answers as the hour progresses.

Moderator: Okay, here we go.  Marlo in Washington asks a two-part question –
* Is a storm powerful enough to suck stratospheric air down to ground level theoretically possible?
*  Is there any evidence in the paleoclimate record that something like that has happened before? In the movie, the Dennis Quaid character mentions that, in Russia, wooly mammoths have been found frozen in ice with vegetation still in their mouths. The mammoths appear to have been flash frozen. Is TDAT’s scenario a plausible explanation of how that might have happened?

Dr. O’Brien responds: Great questions.

I am not an expert on paleo climate, but I understand the oceans.  Even now, stratospheric air extends into the upper troposphere in a big midlatitude storm.  But this air never reaches the ground.  When air is forced to sink. it must warm up adiabatically.  the rate is about 1 degree F / 1000 ft.  Don’t hold me to the exact number.  In this mode, I can’t look it up.

All of us have felt down drafts from thunderstorms which are cool air, but the air has warmed maybe 30 or 40 in its descent from the upper troposohere.

<

Dr. James J. O’Brien
Climatologist for the State of Florida
Dr. O Brien is the Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor of Meteorology & Oceanography and Director of Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida. He was appointed as State of Florida Climatologist in 1999.

Full Biography 

 

Moderator: Welcome to the globalwarming.org live chat. We are now taking early questions for Dr. O’Brien.  Please keep your questions scientific in nature, as Dr. O’Brien is a climatologist, not a politician.  And once we get underway, please remember to  REFRESH THE PAGE to see the questions and answers as the hour progresses.

Dr. James J. O’Brien
Climatologist for the State of Florida
Dr. O Brien is the Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor of Meteorology & Oceanography and Director of Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida. He was appointed as State of Florida Climatologist in 1999.

Full Biography

Moderator: Welcome to the globalwarming.org live chat. We are now taking early questions for Dr. O’Brien. Please keep your questions scientific in nature, as Dr. O’Brien is a climatologist, not a politician. And once we get underway, please remember to REFRESH THE PAGE to see the questions and answers as the hour progresses.

Moderator: Okay, here we go. Marlo in Washington asks a two-part question –

* Is a storm powerful enough to suck stratospheric air down to ground level theoretically possible?

* Is there any evidence in the paleoclimate record that something like that has happened before? In the movie, the Dennis Quaid character mentions that, in Russia, wooly mammoths have been found frozen in ice with vegetation still in their mouths. The mammoths appear to have been flash frozen. Is TDAT’s scenario a plausible explanation of how that might have happened?

Dr. O’Brien responds: Great questions.

I am not an expert on paleo climate, but I understand the oceans. Even now, stratospheric air extends into the upper troposphere in a big midlatitude storm. But this air never reaches the ground. When air is forced to sink. it must warm up adiabatically. the rate is about 1 degree F / 1000 ft. Don’t hold me to the exact number. In this mode, I can’t look it up.

All of us have felt down drafts from thunderstorms which are cool air, but the air has warmed maybe 30 or 40 in its descent from the upper troposohere.

I can’t comment on previous Ice Ages, but maybe the animals were too stubborn to quit eating!

Moderator: Randy in Poland asks a more general global warming two-part question:

* If global warming is human-induced in significant part, why is the South Pole getting colder?

* And, how can CO2 levels be the cause of warming when they have been even higher in the past than today and higher in Ice Ages?

Dr. O’Brien responds: I will try to answer your questions…

Yes, CO2 levels have been higher in the past, and it is true that they provide a delay of heat radiated out to space. In my opinion, the Earth’s climate system of air, water and ice and land, may react to the extra heat held in by CO2 in ways different than warming the biosphere.

In the Southeast U.S. all the urban stations are warming up, but the rural stations are cooling down. The rate is 2-3 degrees F in a hundred years.

The reason for the cooling is the land use change from swamps to agriculture. All the moisture from the wetlands helps reduce the radiation of heat on clear winter days.

The global warming persons would say yours and mine are only local effects. The heating of the cities is due to concete, asphalt, cars, people, etc. It is not due to CO2.

We need to remove the heat island effects from our temperature records.

Moderator: Jim in Virginia asks –
Is it really possible that polar ice caps could melt enough to cause a “desalinization tipping point” that would significantly alter oceanic currents, as in the movie? If so, how would the oceanic currents be altered and what would the effects be on the rest of the climate?

Dr. O’Brien responds: It is possible that lots of rains and melting could cap the Greenland and Gin Seas and reduce the sinking of cold water. Could it stop it? I don’t think so.

We have had periods of changes in salinity in the past 50 years which have modified the climate of the ocean in the North Atlantic which in turn really affected the climate of Europe and eastern North America. But nbot anything like the movie. The best scientists say that “rapid climate change’ like this would take 50 to 100 years.

Moderator: Erik at Johns Hopkins asks –
In the movie, the temperature in the North Atlantic Current off Greenland dropped 13 degrees (Celsius, I guess). What is the temperature normally, and what would happen if if it dropped this much?

Dr. O’Brien turns the floor over to a colleague: This is one of my recent Ph.D. students, who knows the answers better than me, Eric.

Eric: I have seen the ocean drop 8 degrees C or 15 F in a week, but this was due to upwelling of cold water from below where the normal surface temperatures were 26 C. This was in the equatorial Pacific. In the North Atlantic this can’t happen because the top to bottom temperature is only a few degrees.

And the air cannot remove the hear fast wnough. if you start to cool water by evaporation, fog will form and insulate the continuing evaporation.

Moderator: Chris in Virginia asks –
Assuming that global warming is occuring will we ever be able to estimate how much is natural variation and how much is due to human activities?

Dr. O’Brien responds: Nice question. Of course any variation in the sun will be felt in our climate. I am not an expert on solar variations. Recently however, I read that pollution from increasing pollution was reflecting sunlight and reducing short wave energy (light) from reaching the ground and ocean and turning into longwave energy (heat).

I would guess this would lead to global cooling! It is certainly a complicated issue.

Moderator: Frances in Maryland asks –
We’ve heard in the past about the strong effects El Nino has on weather events. What’s the story with El Nino now? Is anything significant happening?

Dr. O’Brien responds: Now I really like this question!

El Nino has always occured. We have records from peru since 1500 and earlier from corals from the Galapagos.

El Nino occurs on average every four years. there is also La Nina which means cold water off Ecuador.

El nino will be back again, but probably next winter. there have been times when it went away for 10 years or so.

Keep in mind El Nino is a good dude for the U.S. El Nino kills Atlantic hurricanes! It brings rain to the Southeast which suppresses wildfires, particularly in Florida. El Nino causes bad climate in many parts of the world, but for the U.S. it is mostly good.

Moderator: Drammach asks –
Doesn’t much of the Global warming we are experiencing have to do with Solar activities rather than human activities..?

Dr. O’Brien responds: Nice question. of course any variation in the sun will be felt in our climate. I am not an expert on solar variations. recently however I read that pollution from increasing pollution was reflecting sunlight and reducing short wave energy ( light) from reaching the ground and ocean and turning into longwave energy ( heat).

I would guess this would lead to global cooling! It is certainly a complicated issue.

Moderator: Mary in Louisiana wonders –
Early in the movie, the change in the ocean currents causes a big hailstorm in Japan, snow in India and devastating supertornados in Los Angeles. Are any of those scenarios close to reality?

Dr. O’Brien responds: This is hollywood!!

The hailstones are too big to stay upstairs long enough to grow this large. Every now and then in our west there is a freak storm that produces a big piece of ice. It is made up of the combination of many hailstones.

I would guess that we have had really enough severe storms in the United States and other lands that would have produced these big stones if it was possible! There is plenty of snow in northern INDIA. It is possible to have a snowstorm in central INDIA. Hey it has even snowed in ORLANDO and where I live in TALLAHASSEE.

I believe I have read that tornadoes have been seen in every state in the US. but they are near impossible in southern California.

Moderator: Dan asks –
Since the Earth has a natural greenhouse effect, which is necessary to keep the earth from freezing, and the warming itself may be the natural progression of Earth evolution, but if not, has the possibility of Global warming being caused by the removal of Fossil fuels from the earth’s crust ever been considered? Fossil fuels could be a natural insulator between the earth\’s crust and the extremely hot core and with this insulation being depleted couldn’t the warming be coming from below rather than above?

Dr. O’Brien Responds: Great question Dan

Again not my field. but geophysicists have measured heat flow from the earth for a long time. when we have volcanoes on land they give off a lot of heat but only in a local region . There real danger to the climate comes if lots of ash is pushed up into the stratosphere where it can insulate us from the sun and cause what is called ”nuclear winter.” There are a lot of volcanoes under the ocean and many rifts in the plates through which boiling lave oozes. ( I like that word!). The effect is almost never seen at the top of the ocean where we sail and swim. the high specific heat of seawater easily absorbs the heat locally.

Moderator: Carl in Colorado asks –

The movie had three of those “superstorms” starting up at once near the North Pole and then moving southward. How likely is that to happen after the temperature in the North Atlantic changes? Is even one likely?

Dr. O’Brien Responds: Don’t know. But lets ask MOTHER NATURE.

When we have a monstrous hurricane in the Atlantic, we dont have a big sister in the Pacific. When we have a monster typhoon in the Pacific we dont get a category 4 or 5 in Atlantic. There can be several storms in one basin at a time. This is due to very unstable circumstances that breeds a pack of storms one after another.

Moderator: Marian asks –
When I was taking geology, there was a considerable amount of speculation regarding the long-term effects of global warming. The immediate agreed on effects seem to be an increase of heated water at the top of the oceans and an increase in melting of the ice caps which will affect water levels around the globe. I’ve also heard it suggested that the increase of fresh water from the melting ice caps into the worlds oceans might change the deep water currents that move throughout the world which would affect temperatures further.Have any of these theories been studied in-depth and is there any way to lessen or halt their progression? Is it reversable?

Is there any way that global warming has a historical basis (beyond El Nino/La Nina or volcanic activity)?

Dr. O’Brien Responds: If there is substantial global warming, I would guess the ocean will warm up and some glacial ice and floating ice will melt. There are many scare stories about sea level rise. Here is the best truth!

Everyone who estimates sea level rise from tide gauge stations gets the same answer about 2.1 mm /year . This is about 10 inches in 100 years. recently scientists have looked at altimeters which measure sea level everywhere and have found 14 inches sea rise in a hundred years. the difference is NOT global warming but a better measurement.

All the scientists who have looked for acceleration of sea level rise have not found any. much of the observed sea level rise is due to crustal rebound from the ice ages.

Other examples, New Orleans is sinking because they messed up their wetlands so sea level is rising in New Orleans. There are many other examples there are the theories you mention. They have not been measured in depth.

Moderator: Thank you all for participating, and thanks to Dr. O’Brien. This concludes our online chat. Check our website for the next one.

The “Copenhagen Consensus” of some of the world’s leading economists has decided that climate change ranks at the bottom of ten great global challenges facing mankind and that the costs of several proposals to limit greenhouse emissions would outweigh the benefits.  The Copenhagen Consensus was organized by Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical  Environmentalist.    

The project was described on its web site as follows: “The goal of the Copenhagen Consensus project was to set priorities among a series of proposals for confronting ten great global challenges. These challenges, selected from a wider set of issues identified by the United Nations, are: civil conflicts; climate change; communicable diseases; education; financial stability; governance; hunger and malnutrition; migration; trade reform; and water and sanitation.

“A panel of economic experts, comprising eight of the world’s most distinguished economists, was invited to consider these issues. The members were Jagdish Bhagwati of Columbia University, Robert Fogel of the University of Chicago (Nobel laureate), Bruno Frey of the University of Zurich, Justin Yifu Lin of Peking University, Douglass North of Washington University in St Louis (Nobel laureate), Thomas Schelling of the University of Maryland, Vernon Smith of George Mason University (Nobel laureate), and Nancy Stokey of the University of Chicago.”

On climate change, the panel considered a paper by William R. Cline of the Center for Global Development and of the Institute for International Economics, which suggested that the benefits of action now on climate change would outweigh the costs by $166 trillion to $94 trillion. However, the only way the paper was able to achieve such a benefit to cost ratio was by using an unusually low discount rate for the benefits of 1.5 percent.  The panel rejected this economically nonsensical assumption.

In fact, the panel ranked all three suggestions for action-an “optimal carbon tax,” a “value-at-risk carbon tax”, and the Kyoto Protocol-as bad investments.  The final report summarized:

“The panel looked at three proposals, including the Kyoto Protocol, for dealing with climate change by reducing emissions of carbon. The expert panel regarded all three proposals as having costs that were likely to exceed the benefits. The panel recognized that global warming must be addressed, but agreed that approaches based on too abrupt a shift toward lower emissions of carbon are needlessly expensive. “

The Consensus ranked four projects as representing good value for money. They were: new programs to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS; reducing the prevalence of iron-deficiency anemia by means of food supplements; reducing multilateral and unilateral tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers, together with the elimination of agricultural subsidies; and the control and treatment of malaria.

Roger Pielke, Jr., of the University of Colorado posted the following generic news story about global warming on his Prometheus weblog on May 17:

“Instructions to editor: Please repeat the below every 3-4 weeks ad infinitum.

“This week the journal [Science/Nature] published a study by a team of scientists led by a [university/government lab/international group] [challenging/confirming] that the earth is warming. The new study looks at [temperature/sea level/the arctic] and finds evidence of trends that [support/challenge] the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Scientist [A, B, C], a [participant in, reviewer of] the study observed that the study, [“should bring to a close debate over global warming,” “provides irrefutable evidence that global warming is [real/overstated] today,” “demonstrates the value of climate science”]. Scientist [D, E, F], who has long been [critical/supportive] of the theory of global warming rebutted that the study, [“underscores that changes in [temperature/sea level/the arctic] will likely be [modest/significant],” “ignores considerable literature inconvenient to their central hypothesis,” “commits a basic mistake”]. Scientist [A, B, C or D, E, F] has been criticized by [advocacy groups, reporters, scientific colleagues] for receiving funding from [industry groups, conservative think tanks]. It is unclear what the study means for U.S. participation the Kyoto Protocol, which the Bush Administration has refused to participate in. All agreed that more research is necessary.”

We are glad to report editors are following his advice.  Pielke’s web site may be found at: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/.

On May 14, shortly before President Putin’s announcement (see Politics section above), the Russian Academy of Sciences issued a report that disputed the scientific basis of the Kyoto Protocol and argued that it would be economically harmful to Russia.  The summary of scientific opinion noted the “absence of scientific substantiation of the Kyoto Protocol and its low effectiveness for reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as is envisaged by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,” and stated, “The requirements of the Kyoto Protocol are of a discriminatory character, and its mechanisms involve economic risks for Russia.”

Yuri Izrael, the distinguished climatologist who authored the summary, which was presented at a general meeting of the Academy, said, “The protocol is ineffective for attaining the goal set by it-the stabilization of the ecological situation and the world economy.”  At the same time, Interfax news agency reported that the Academy is still  formulating its stance on the protocol, with the Academy President Yuri Osipov saying, “Scientists have studied every aspect of this problem and will formulate their stance in the future, taking into account all the negative and positive consequences the protocol’s possible ratification may have for Russia.”

Professor Oleg Sorokhtin from the RAS’s Institute of Oceanography was quoted by TASS as saying that, “The Kyoto Protocol is not needed at all, as even considerable emissions of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have almost no effect on the Earth’s temperature but contribute to agricultural productivity and to the restoration of forest resources.”

Nature magazine (May 27) dismissed this breach in the so-called scientific consensus on global warming by saying that “science in Russia.has been hijacked by the politics and economics of energy investment and emission reductions,” but stopped short of calling for Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, to discipline Izrael, a vice-chairman of the IPCC.  (TASS, May 18, Interfax, May 19).