New Bill to Implement Clinton-Gore Agenda; DOT Wants Global Warming Cash; EU Agrees on Global Warming Plan

by William Yeatman on May 19, 1999

in Politics

New Bill to Implement Clinton-Gore Agenda

Just when it looked like the Clinton Administrations global warming agenda was nearly buried, some Republican lawmakers have begun to rehabilitate it. The “early action for credit” bill introduced by Senators Chafee, Leiberman and Mack would, if passed, grease the skids for eventual ratification of the defunct Kyoto Protocol, and a bill introduced by Senators Murkowski and Hagel legitimizes the “need” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Now Representative Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) has introduced a bill, the Energy Efficient Affordable Home Act of 1999 (H.R. 1358) that would implement a part of Clintons rejected Climate Change Initiative. The bill would give a $2,000 tax credit for energy-efficient homes. To qualify for the tax credit a home would have to be 30 percent more energy efficient than required under the International Energy Conservation Code.

The bill has the support of the National Association of Home Builders, the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, the Edison Electric Institute and other industry groups that would benefit financially from this corporate subsidy, as well as environmental and public interest groups (e-FFICIENCY News, May 11, 1999).

DOT Wants Global Warming Cash

Not to be outdone by its fellow federal agencies, the Department of Transportation announced on May 3 that it will create a $1 million “center for global climate change and environmental forecasting,” to study greenhouse gas emissions. The new program would do scientific research, and assess new technologies and alternative fuels. Transportation Secretary Rodney E. Slater noted that the agency would work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. “Im just pleased that we in Transportation will not be taking a back seat on the issue of the environment,” said Slater.

According to the Washington Post (May 2, 1999), the new center “will study new technologies to achieve higher fuel efficiency, tax credits for fuel-efficient cars, changes in travel behavior, transportation planning as a part of community development, and other methods of addressing global warming.” Slater also announced that federal transportation experts would be made available to communities to help design projects as well as teach local officials and citizens how to acquire federal funds for transportation projects.

EU Agrees on Global Warming Plan

After long and contentious negotiations the European Union members finally came to an agreement on a common strategy to fight global warming. An early proposal would have restricted the use of flexible mechanisms, such as emission trading, to make sure that countries achieve most of their emission reductions through domestic actions.

Netherlands and Sweden had both rejected the plan asking for looser restrictions. But according to a German spokesman, “the Dutch and Swedish problem seems to be solved. The negotiating position will be adopted along with a special declaration noting their special problems” (Reuters, May 10, 1999).

Tornadoes not Linked to Global Warming; Is Indias Heat Wave More Evidence of Global Warming?

by William Yeatman on May 19, 1999

in Science

Tornadoes not Linked to Global Warming

Like night follows day, global warming activists will blame the recent killer tornadoes in the Midwest on global warming. Scientists, however, dont see such a link. According to Eugene Takle, a professor of atmospheric science at Iowa State University, “We havent seen an increase (in tornadoes) as yet.” There has been “a lot more property damage,” says Takle. “Many of the deadliest tornado years on record occurred in the 1950s and 1960s,” according to the Kansas City Star (May 5, 1999). “In 1953, for example, 150 persons died in Texas in May; on May 25, 1955, 81 died in Kansas.”

The key to preventing tornado deaths and property damage is “building better structures; locating structures out of areas prone to disaster; and acting on improved storm warnings.”

Is Indias Heat Wave More Evidence of Global Warming?

At least one scientist, Dr. M. Lal from the Centre for Atmospheric Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology, is claiming that Indias current heat wave “is a signal to global warming.” He claims that last year was the hottest in the century in India and he predicts it will continue this year. S.C. Gupta, Director of Delhi Meteorological Office says that this is no different than past heat waves. Gupta argues that other severe heat waves have occurred in the past, such as the heat waves in 1941, 1958, 1973, and 1994.

According to Gupta, India always experiences extraordinarily high temperatures this time of year. Those temperatures are moderated, however, by western disturbances low pressure weather patterns that originate in the Mediterranean and move across Pakistan and into India that bring relief. Heat waves occur when these western disturbances are fewer in frequency. That is what has occurred this year, says Gupta. This year is nothing unusual (The Hindu, May 4, 1999).

Etc.

  • The World Resources Institute has announced that it will reduce its emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by October 2001 in accordance with the U.S. target under the Kyoto Protocol. It also pledges to cut emissions to zero or better by 2005. It is not yet clear whether these actions will have a positive or negative impact on the broader U.S. economy.

  • A prominent corporate executive has confessed his ecological sins and denounced his own company. Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface, a manufacturer of carpet tile, and co-chair of the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development, told a gathering of industry CEOs that “I had a revelation about what industry is doing to our planet. I stood convicted as a plunderer of the earth.” He also said, “In the future people like me will go to jail” (Fortune, May 24, 1999).

  • Now that science has confirmed that parasites, not man, are responsible for deformed frogs (New York Times, April 30, 1999), get ready for the next manmade frog catastrophe. The culprit? You guessed it, manmade global warming. Already a major newspaper has claimed that global warming is causing drier conditions in Costa Rica, threatening frogs with extinction (Washington Post, April 15, 1999).

Announcements

  • The Cooler Heads is sponsoring a science briefing for congressional staff and media on May 28. The briefing will feature Dave Malmquist of the Bermuda Biological Station for Research, who will discuss “Climate Change and Sea Level Rise.” More details to come.

  • The transcript from the latest Cooler Heads science briefing for congressional staff and media is now available on the internet at www.cei.org. The presentation by Dr. Keith Idso is entitled, The Ecological Benefits of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels. Other briefing transcripts are also available on the website.

Insurance Industry off the Global Warming Bandwagon; Slower CO2 Emission Growth in 1997

by William Yeatman on May 5, 1999

in Blog

Insurance Industry off the Global Warming Bandwagon

In the past, global warming activists have counted the insurance industry as an ally in their anti-energy crusade. Claims that manmade global warming might increase weather-related calamities have caused concern amongst property and casualty insurers who feared that a significant increase in hurricane activity, for instance, would expose their companies to financial risk.

A new report by the American Insurance Association, however, downplays these fears. The report points out that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found “little evidence that a general warming would result in an increase in the frequency and severity of hurricanes.” It further argued that “much of the research seems to indicate that global warming would not increase the frequency of hurricanes and might even suppress hurricane development.”

AIA cites William Gray, a pre-eminent expert on hurricanes at Colorado State University, who argues that hurricane activity is influenced by “other oceanic and weather patterns that tend to run in 20-30 year cycles,” not global warming. The real problem regarding hurricane activity, says the report, is “the tremendous growth in population, homes, commercial development in the most hurricane-prone regions of the United States, especially Florida and other states along the Southeast and Gulf coasts.” For example, Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties in Florida now have a greater combined population than all coastal counties from South Texas to Virginia during the 1930s.

The report lists the lines of insurance and the impact of weather on claim experience. Lines with moderate or significant exposure include Homeowners, Commercial Multi-Peril Non-Liability, Allied, Inland Marine, Farmowners, and Ocean Marine. These lines only account for less than 20 percent of industry premiums. The rest have little or no exposure to weather events. The report notes that hurricanes can “endanger the solvency of a significant number of insurers,” but says the report, “weather events that are cited as more likely consequences of climate change do not imply levels of loss that could threaten industry solvency.”

Moreover, global warming could mitigate winter storm and freeze losses, which is a significant weather exposure for the industry. “Four of the property-casualty insurance industrys largest 20 natural catastrophes as defined by insured dollar losses have been winter storm events,” says the report. “Higher winter temperatures in the U.S. and Canada could help to lower the frequency and severity of cold outbreaks that cause massive winter storm and freeze losses.”

Finally, the report expresses confidence in the ability of the insurance industry to adjust to any changes that may occur. In the event of increased weather related losses the industry would have the ability to adjust premiums. The greatest obstacle to rapid adjustments to changing conditions is the “heavily regulated” nature of the industry. “Adjustments are subject to state review and occasionally, to intense political debate,” notes the report. However, solvency of the industry is one of the primary responsibilities of regulators, and “insurers and regulators would have to respond” to changes in loss trends. The report can be found at www.aiadc.org.

Slower CO2 Emission Growth in 1997

According to the Energy Information Administration, worldwide carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels grew by only 1.2 percent in 1997 compared to 2.8 percent in 1996. “Carbon dioxide emissions grew more slowly in 1997 than in 1996 because of the actual decline in consumption of natural gas and the slower growth in the consumption of coal and petroleum,” said the EIA (Daily Report for Executives, April 21, 1999).

More on the Costs of Kyoto

by William Yeatman on May 5, 1999

in Blog

Hearings held on April 23 by the House Government Reform subcommittee featured estimates of the costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol. Mary Novak, an economic forecaster with Wefa Inc. said the sharp reductions in energy use would cause home heating and electricity costs to skyrocket from 56 to 70 percent by 2010. Household incomes would drop by $2,728 and the costs of food, medical care, and housing would increase by up to 14 percent. “All workers face a slowing in their real wage growth,” with low-income workers suffering the most.

Joyce Prinner, principal of Standard & Poors DRI, told Congress that if the U.S. succeeds in getting Europe to engage in low-cost reductions (emission trading), consumer energy prices would rise by about 9 percent and about 500,000 jobs would be lost. Resistance to emission trading, however, would force the U.S. to reduce emission on its own leading to an increase of energy prices of 24 to 36 percent and a loss of 1.6 million jobs.

John Passacantando, exectuive director of Ozone Action, said the Kyoto Protocol, “will be a boon for the U.S.” because it will spur innovation in clean technologies. Passacantando says that “For the last 30 years, America has passed and enforced the best health and environmental laws in the world. We have built our economy in harmony with a cleaner environment. We have an economy that is the envy of the world” (The Washington Times, April 24, 1998)

Fingerprints Vanish in Analysis of 11 Climate Models; Continental U.S. Getting Cooler

by William Yeatman on May 5, 1999

in Science

Fingerprints Vanish in Analysis of 11 Climate Models

Global warming predictions are based on detection studies that use Coupled Global Climate Models (CGCMs) to find a human fingerprint in the climate system. Climate modelers attempt to imitate the natural variations of the climate system and then add manmade greenhouse gases to see how global temperatures respond.

A new study in the Journal of Climate (February 1999) throws doubt on the validity of these types of studies. According to the author Tim Barnett, of the Climate Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, modelers “have taken their estimates of natural variability from long control runs of CGCMs. This would be a valid procedure if the internally generated variability in the models was a realistic estimate of natural variability. Whether this is true or not is at the moment uncertain.”

Barnett sets out to see if model variability is realistic by comparing natural climate variability to the temperature variability in 11 different models, run for 100 model years. He finds that “differences of a factor of 2 or more are common for even the best behaved models.” He also states that “there is no model that consistently agrees well with the observations.”

Even more damning is the finding that it is difficult to distinguish “natural” model runs from those with anthropogenic forcing. Barnetts analysis shows that “CGCMs can, without any anthropogenic forcing, produce patterns that resemble those expected from anthropogenic causes. This, in turn, will make it more difficult to apply a fingerprint strategy to detect anthropogenic signal since the natural variability estimated from CGCMs and used in the detection scheme looks like the anthropogenic signal itself.”

Continental U.S. Getting Cooler

Green activists have been have been trying to convince the American public that global warming is underway by highlighting warmer temperatures and remaining silent when temperatures are on the cooler side. Much has been done to give the impression that things are heating up. A new study conducted by researchers at the Climate Prediction Center (CPC), a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has found that the continental United States has become cooler, one-thirtieth of a degree per decade, since 1941, although the finding is probably not statistically significant.

The study also finds that nearly the entire U.S. has become significantly wetter, by nine-tenths of an inch more rainfall per decade since 1966. Each month has become wetter over the same period, with the fall becoming much wetter. The study confirms what has been found by several past studies, but it also contradicts others. According to David Easterling, principal scientists at the National Climatic Data Center, an NCDC study shows a cooling only in the Southeast United States. The NCDC study also covers a longer time span going back to 1900.

But, according to Rich Tinker, a co-author of the CPC study, argues that his research has been used by the CPC to devise “this years winter and spring predictions. They have been the most accurate on record (Omaha World-Herald, April 20, 1999).”

Etc.

  • According to AAP Newsfeed (April 22, 1999), “renowned U.S. scientist on climate change (weve never heard of him, Eds.),” Professor Richard Turco called for global environmental regulations in a speech delivered on April 22. Turco argued that technology is out of control saying that “it is growing at such a pace, we have a problem in maintaining control over itwe either have to evolve with the technology or were going to be simply overtaken and swamped by it.”

The solution to the problem, according to Turco is to “develop global regulations and global environmental laws to control technology and its implementation.”

  • John Wellner with the Toronto Environmental Alliance describes his Earth Day experiences in the April 27, 1999 issue of The Toronto Star. Wellner and his colleagues decided to hand out “informative traffic tickets” to cars entering the Toronto City Hall parking garage.” They greeted each car with a friendly “Happy Earth Day!”

Wellner was appalled at the reception he received. “Some drivers were friendly, albeit a little sheepish, but the majority were far from civil. Non-traditional environmental greetings like, Get out of my way! usually with a traditional expletive and, sometimes, succinctly, just the expletive were plentifulI guess they were late for their morning coffee, or something.”

Heres an alternative explanation. Maybe people are sick and tired of sanctimonious environmentalists telling them how to live their lives.

Announcements

  • The Cooler Heads is sponsoring a science briefing for congressional staff and media on May 28. The briefing will feature Dave Malmquist of the Bermuda Biological Station for Research, who will discuss “Climate Change and Sea Level Rise.” Further details will be forthcoming.

Senate Bill Would Spend $2 Billion to Prevent Global Warming; Green Imperialism in Asia

by William Yeatman on May 5, 1999

in Politics

Senate Bill Would Spend $2 Billion to Prevent Global Warming

On April 27 Senators Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), introduced a bill (S. 882) that would create a $2 billion, 10 year research and development program to reduce greenhouse gases. The funds would support a public-private research effort funneling new subsidies into the energy industry.

Murkowski, who opposes the Kyoto Protocol, claims that the bill “represents a long-term technology based, global alternative.” He also said it would “leverage American ingenuity in the marketplace to develop new technology that can be exported and deployed around the world.” Murkowski also told reporters, “We anticipate a great deal of support from industry.” There is little reason to believe that this R&D program would be any more successful than previous failed programs.

The bill would also create the Office of Global Climate Change within the Department of Energy, to be headed by an assistant secretary. Hagels defense of the bill, highlighted one of its main weaknesses. He said, according to the BNA Daily Environment Report (April 28, 1999), “this change would centralize accountability and responsibility for climate change policy within the executive branch.”

The bill would also expand Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which allows companies to voluntarily report greenhouse gas emission reductions, to include new categories such as agricultural activities, forest products, grasslands and drylands management and iron fertilization of the oceans to enhance carbon dioxide absorption rates.

The Global Climate Coalition, an industry group opposed to Kyoto said, “if this or any other proposal allows the United States to move forward on recognizing and encouraging voluntary actions without any potential linkages to the Kyoto albatross, it should be widely accepted.” A coalition of 11 environmental groups expressed satisfaction that Murkowski and Hagel “have finally acknowledged that global warming is a serious problem,” but that the bill is “a dangerous diversion from real solutions to global warming.”

Other co-sponsors include Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Rod Grams (R-Minn.), Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.).

Green Imperialism in Asia

The Philippines has struggled to escape the grinding poverty that has plagued its people for decades. Although it hasnt been altogether successful, there are signs that the Filipinos economic health is improving. The use of fossil fuels has always been essential to economic growth due to their relative abundance. Though many see this as a positive, radical Greens oppose increased use of fossil fuel in the Third World. Currently Greenpeace is lobbying the Filipino government reject “fossil fuel-based technologies to increase energy production,” and to create a clean air act, according to the Deutsche Presse-Agentur (April 19, 1999).

Greenpeace is alarmed that the Philippines and other Asian nations are heavily investing in coal-powered development programs. According to Athena Ronquillo Ballesteros, climate campaigner for Greenpeace International, “We have to stop using the atmosphere as a giant watebasket for gases like carbon dioxide that cause global warming.” She also said, “In order to seriously reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere and thus prevent or slow down dangerous climate change, we need to start thinking about independence from fossil-based technologies.”

Greenpeace is urging the Filipino government to “serve as a model in proactive environmental advocacy” for the Southeast Asian governments. “We are calling on the leadership of the country to heed our call for a clean air act as well as create a healthy environment for renewable and energy-efficient power producers,” said Greenpeace.

Greening Earth Society to EPA: Put Your Great Lakes Study On Ice

by William Yeatman on April 26, 1999

in Science

(Arlington, VA April 27, 1999) In a special report to Greening Earth Society, science advisor Robert C. Balling, Jr., reviews data concerning ice coverage on the Great Lakes. Balling, who is director of the Arizona State University Office of Climatology, finds that, over the course of 31 years, the number of days with “some ice coverage” has increased at a statistically significant rate. This finding is contrary to predictions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-sponsored research summarized by EPAs Joel Smith in 1991 and which found a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would “reduce ice cover by 1 to 2 months.”

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operates nineteen ice-observation stations on the Great Lakes shoreline within the United States. Three are on the south shore of Lake Superior, four on the western shore of Lake Michigan, five on the western shore of Lake Huron, five on the southern shore of Lake Erie, and two are on the southern shore of Lake Ontario. Although some of the stations were operational in the 1950s, virtually all of have been in operation since 1967. During the Great Lakes ice season spanning November to April, observers record the number of days ice is visible on the water and the number of days solid ice covers the entire field of view.

Assembling the data into monthly summaries, Balling computed the number of days in the ice season when any ice is visible and the percentage with total ice coverage. The seasonal data were averaged for all 19 stations and show an average of 41 percent of the days with some visible ice and 24 percent with ice covering the entire view. While there is no trend in the percentage of days with total ice coverage, the number of days with some ice coverage has increased from 35 percent in the 1960s to a mean value of over 45 percent within the last decade.

“Once again we find that the predictions from the numerical models of climate are not supported by the empirical data,” Balling writes. “Scientists predict a decrease in Great Lakes ice and the historical record shows an increase. Many may choose to believe the theoretical predictions of the models, but in this case (and in many other cases) the facts get in the way. The captain of the Titanic had a little problem with ice, and his ship sunk. Could the same happen to the global warming juggernaut?”

Click Here to review the study.

Green Activists Criticize Gore’s Environmental Record; EU Should Wage “Public Awareness Campaign”; Greens Target Stanford Endowm

by William Yeatman on April 21, 1999

in Politics

Green Activists Criticize Gore’s Environmental Record

If Al Gore wants to become the next president of the United States he must have the support of the Greens. A recent letter signed by the heads of the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Izaak Walton League, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S. Public Interest Research Group and World Wildlife Fund indicates that support may not be forthcoming.

These groups accused Gore and President Clinton of failing to keep their promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which they call “global warming pollution.” The letter expressed “deep disappointment with the lack of an administration proposal to require significant reductions in global warming pollution. We are particularly frustrated,” continues the letter, “that the administration has not sought meaningful emission reductions from either power plants or passenger vehicles.”

The administration calls these accusations unfair. Todd Stern, White House climate change coordinator, said, “Despite strong resistance in Congress, this administration is moving aggressively on both the domestic and international fronts to meet the challenge of global warming. We believe our common-sense strategy will achieve the necessary emissions reductions while maintaining strong economic growth.” The Greens are not persuaded, however, accusing Gore of repeatedly breaking promises, failing to even take steps to meet the goals of the 1992 Rio Climate Treaty which would stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels (Washington Post, April 14, 1999).

EU Should Wage “Public Awareness Campaign”

The European Union has generally been seen as eager to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But a report from the European Consultative Forum on the Environment and Sustainable Development, an advisory body to the EU, claims that there is little public support for such measures. “Very little has been done to inform and convince,” said the Forum. “Unless this is remedied by a large-scale public awareness campaign, planned with intelligence and sensitivity, efforts to combat climate change will not succeed.”

The Forum also argued that the poorer countries in the EU must be “convinced that the climate change problem exists, and that it is not a fabrication of unknown power centers for equally unknown purposes.” Consumers must be targeted since one-third of total emissions that they claim contribute to global warming comes from end consumption and another third from transport. Without public support the EU will fail to reach its greenhouse gas reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol, says the report.

Greens Target Stanford Endowment to Fight Global Warming

The activist group Ozone Action has launched a campaign to shame Stanford University into using its investment clout a $4.7 billion endowment to pressure large corporations to alter their environmental practices. According to SF Weekly (April 7, 1999), Ozone Action is recruiting Stanford students and faculty to its cause of forcing Stanford to use “their shareholder clout by prodding corporations particularly oil companies into improving their environmental performance.”

Ozone Action particularly wants Stanford to target companies who belong to the Global Climate Coalition, an industry lobbying group that opposes the Kyoto Protocol. It claims that GCC is waging a multimillion-dollar “misinformation campaign” to discredit the scientific consensus about global warming. If Stanford cannot convince these corporations to change their ways, then, says Ozone Action, they should divest stock in these companies.

Possible Mechanism for the Solar/Warming Link; El Nio Reduces Global Warming; What do Scientists Think About Global Warming?

by William Yeatman on April 21, 1999

in Science

Possible Mechanism for the Solar/Warming Link

Many scientists believe that the solar cycle plays an important role in climate change. Their beliefs are bolstered by data that show a strong correlation between solar activity and changes in the earths climate. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to discover the mechanism that is responsible for this correlation. Several mechanisms have been suggested. “Cosmic ray influence on clouds has been proposed; others have suggested that the variability reflects other influences such as volcanoes or internal climate oscillations. Another proposed mechanism is amplification of solar variability via stratospheric or thermospheric changes,” according to a new study in Science (April 9, 1999).

The new study, however, suggests that changes in ozone concentrations that are affected by changes in solar cycle irradiance may be the mechanism scientists are looking for. The researchers used a global circulation model in which they added interactive stratospheric chemistry. They found that increases in solar radiation cause greater ozone production that enhances the greenhouse effect, further heating the stratosphere. Atmospheric circulation moves the heat into the lower layer known as the troposphere, warming the earths climate.

El Nio Reduces Global Warming

According to a study in Nature (April 8, 1999), the Pacific Ocean releases less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere during El Nio events that may help slow down global warming. Researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that during the period from 1991 to 1994, when El Nio was present, 30 to 80 percent less carbon dioxide escaped the Pacific Ocean than normal.

What do Scientists Think About Global Warming? 

There has been lots of talk about scientific consensus surrounding the issue of global warming, and debate about whether a consensus exists or not. There have been several petitions and surveys conducted to try to understand the state of scientific opinion about global warming. A new study published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (March 1999) surveyed 412 scientists from Germany, Canada and the United States who are connected in some way to climate science.

The scientists were asked to rate how well ocean circulation computer models and atmospheric models handled various “physical elements of the climate system.” All of the scientists agreed that there are limitations to computer modeling, and they were very skeptical about the ability of atmospheric models to deal with clouds and precipitation. Overall, the scientists leaned towards optimism about the ability of models to adequately deal with the different processes in the climate system.

The scientists were also asked about the predictive ability of climate models for 1, 10 and 100-year forecasts. According to the study, “the mean of the entire sample…for the ability to make reasonable predictions of interannual variability tends to indicate that scientists feel that reasonable prediction is not yet a possibility.” It is interesting that the German scientists were more confident in the ability of climate models to handle climatic phenomena as well as predict future climate change.

Regardless of the general pessimism of the ability of model to forecast future climate change “there is some agreement that global warming is a process already underway but that there is a greater tendency to agree that it is a prospect for the future.” The authors, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch of the Institute of Hydrophysics, GKSS Research Center, Geesthacht, Germany, conclude the “this incompatibility between the state of knowledge and the calls for action suggests that, to some degree at least, scientific advice is a product of both scientific knowledge and normative judgement, suggesting a socioscientific construction of the climate change issue.”

Chimera of Global Warming

by William Yeatman on April 12, 1999

in Science

(This article originally appeared in the Washington Times.)

Ten years ago the Alps endured a virtually snowless winter. Environmentalists blamed global warming. A Swiss lobbying group, Alp Action, wrote in 1991 that global warming would put an end to winter sports in the Alps by 2025.

This year the Alps have had their greatest snowfall in 40 years, according to very preliminary data. Greenpeace has blamed global warming.

How in the world can that be? Is it possible to blame global warming for every weather anomaly, even if two consecutive events are of opposite sign?

Can such a claim have “scientific” justification?

If one regards the United Nations as an authority on such things, the answer, unfortunately, is yes. Global warmers, thanks to the good offices of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, can blame any weather event on pernicious economic prosperity and resultant greenhouse gas emissions.

The most recent IPCC summary on climate change was published three years ago. IPCC purports to be the “consensus of scientists” but in fact is a group of individuals hand-picked by their respective governments. Does anyone really expect Al Gore to send me to represent the United States at one of those meetings? (Thank you, no, I have been to one and that was enough.)

Absent my sage advice, here’s what the United Nations wrote in 1995: “Warmer temperatures will lead to . . . prospects for more severe droughts and/or floods in some places and less severe droughts and/or floods in others.”

As a punishment for not cleaning out the cat box, you might ask your kid to diagram this sentence. Rather than strain the graphics of this word processor, we’ll simply parse it. What the IPCC is saying is that global warming will cause in “some places” and/or “others”:

– More intense wet periods.
– More intense dry periods.
– More intense wet and dry periods.
– Less intense wet periods.
– Less intense dry periods.
– And less intense wet and dry periods.

So, according to the “consensus of scientists,” it’s OK to blame a flood, or, if you’re in the mountains, a flood of snow, on global warming. It’s also OK to blame a drought or a snowless Alp on global warming.

It’s even OK to blame weather that is more normal than normal (“less intense wet and dry periods”) on global warming.

The IPCC statement, which cannot be proved wrong, is a cynical attempt to allow anyone to blame anything on global warming. As Julius Wroblewski of Vancouver, Canada, wrote to me, this logic “represents a descent into the swamp of the non-falsifiable hypothesis. This is not a term of praise. Falsifiability is the internal logic in a theory that allows a logical test to see if it is right or wrong.”

A non-falsifiable theory is one for which no test can be devised, and the U.N. statement fits the bill perfectly. There is simply no observable weather or climate that does not meet its criteria, except one: absolutely no change in the climate, meaning no change in the average weather or the variability around that average.

Every climatologist on the planet knows that is impossible. Climate has to change because the sun is an inconstant star and the Earth is a nonuniform medium whose primary surface constituent, water, is very near its freezing point. Freezing (or unfreezing) water makes the planet whiter (or darker), which affects the degree to which it reflects the sun’s warming rays. A flicker of the sun, therefore, ensures climate change.

A hot young climatologist named Robert Mann, writing in Geophysical Research Letters, recently provided a powerful demonstration of this phenomenon. Using long-term records from tree rings and ice cores, he concluded that the planet was on a 900-year cooling streak between 1000 and 1900. Then we warmed up almost twice as much as we had cooled, but at least half of that warming was caused by our inconsistent sun. Two NASA scientists recently demonstrated that the sun has been warming throughout the last 400 years. As a result, if the last decade weren’t among the warmest in the last millennium, something would have been wrong with the basic theory of climate: The sun warms the Earth.

That doesn’t mean we haven’t supplied a bit of greenhouse warming, too. But greenhouse warming behaves differently than pure solar warming: It occurs largely in the coldest air masses of winter.

That’s a far cry from the United Nation’s nonsense about “some places” and “others” experiencing more unusual, less unusual or unusually usual weather. And it has nothing to do with avalanches or snowless winters, either.

Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and science adviser to the Greening Earth Society in Arlington.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →