2004

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).

The Lancet’s June issue contains a letter from eight leading authorities that criticizes two articles published in The Lancet last December that claim there is a strong link between the spread of malaria and increasing temperatures.  The lead author of the letter is Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris.  Dr. Reiter gave a Cooler Heads Coalition briefing on the issue on May 3 on Capitol Hill.

The letter, titled “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy”, takes issue with a model created by Frank C. Tanser that links the spread of malaria to global warming and an accompanying commentary by Simon Hales and Alistair Woodward.  These two articles received much publicity at the ninth Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC at Milan in December.

In addition to several specific criticisms, the letter argues that these errors could have been avoided if the Tanser, Hales, and Woodward had been familiar with the voluminous literature on the subject.  The letter concludes, “We urge those involved to pay closer attention to the complexities of this challenging subject.

The other scientists who authored the critique are: Christopher J. Thomas of the University of Durham; Peter M. Atkinson of the University of Southampton; Simon I. Hay, a Wellcome Trust research fellow; Sarah E. Randolph of Oxford University; David J. Rogers of Oxford University; G. Dennis Shanks of the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine; Robert W. Snow of Oxford University; and Andrew Spielman of the Harvard University School of Public Health.

In a new article published in Climate Research, Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph and Patrick J. Michaels of the University of Virginia have found, through statistical analysis, that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s temperature data contains a net warming bias due to socioeconomic effects that were not removed properly from the IPCC’s records. 

In the article, entitled “A test of correlations for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data,” McKitrick and Michaels obtained monthly surface temperature records from 1979 to 2000 from 218 individual stations in 93 countries.  They regressed this temperature data with regards to local climate, as well as indicators of local economic activity (such as income, GDP growth rates, and coal use) and data quality.  The authors found that the spatial pattern of trends is shown to be significantly correlated with non-climatic factors such as economic activity and various sociopolitical effects.  The process was repeated on the corresponding IPCC gridded data.  Despite the IPCC’s attempt to remove these non-climatic variables, McKitrick and Michaels found that similar correlations do exist and that the IPCC’s data was biased in favor of global warming.

The article explained that, “[The apparent climate biases] reflect the influence of many things, including a complex blend of local economic and social factors.  Some of these exert an indirect influence on local temperatures but have nothing to do with the global climate, while others have nothing to do with temperature at all but instead affect data quality control.”  Controlling for the non-climatic variables would result in a “noticeably lower” temperature change, McKitrick and Michaels observed.

Moreover, “Attempts to identify the magnitude of a global ‘greenhouse’ climate signal on surface data without properly removing the extraneous biases risks exaggerating the perceived influence of atmospheric CO2 levels.”

The article concluded, “The results of this study support the hypothesis that published temperature data are contaminated with non-climatic influences that add up to a net warming bias, and that efforts should be made to properly quantify these effects.”

Yomiuri Shimbun reported on May 17 that, “According to an estimate by the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions produced as a result of Japan’s consumption of energy in fiscal 2010 will increase by 5 percent over fiscal 1990 levels, despite anticipated progress in the nation’s campaign against global warming.”

The figures came from a report submitted to the Advisory Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, an advisory body to the economy, trade and industry minister.

The newspaper continued: “The latest report on energy supply-and-demand projections through fiscal 2030 was made taking into account the nation’s recent demographic, economic, and social changes, as well as potential technological advancements.  It revised projections made in a previous report, which said the country would see no growth in CO2 emissions in fiscal 2010.

“According to the latest report, Japan’s energy demand will reach its peak in fiscal 2021, after which it will decline. CO2 emissions are predicted to begin decreasing in the late 2010s. The report attributes all this to a projected reduction in the nation’s population and technological and other advancements in industry.

“But in fiscal 2010, the CO2 figure is projected to still be rising, meaning that it will exceed the 6 percent reduction promised by Japan under the Kyoto Protocol.  The projections state that the amount of CO2 emissions from the civilian and transportation sectors will increase 20 percent from fiscal 1990 levels, canceling out the predicted 7 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from the industrial sector.

“Recent changes in nuclear power plant construction plans are also bound to adversely affect the campaign against global warming. Initially, the government said it expected electric power companies to build 10 to 13 new plants by the end of fiscal 2010. However, it later lowered that number to four.”

Former Vice President Al Gore and the George Soros-funded Move On campaign have joined forces once again to claim that the fantasy disaster movie “The Day After Tomorrow” makes a significant contribution to the public debate on global warming.  In a speech at a Move On-organized event in New York City on May 25, Gore contrasted the “honest fiction” of the movie to the “Bush White House story about global warming.”  Apparently, for Gore fictions are honest when they scare people into doing what he considers to be the right thing.

The movie opened worldwide on May 28.  It might have been better for Mr. Gore if had waited to read the reviews, which ranged from poor to abysmal.

Richard Roeper, of Ebert and Roeper, had the most pointed words for the movement: “Memo to all the environmental activists who are relying on ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ to serve as a wake-up call about global warming: You might want to see the movie first.  It’s really quite silly.  Citing ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ as a cautionary tale about global warming makes about as much sense as pointing to ‘Independence Day’ as proof we need to build an interplanetary defense system, because you never know when slimy, super-smart aliens will attack.

“Scientists and climatologists should relax as well.  This film isn’t going to send the public into a panic attack any more than ‘Finding Nemo’ convinced us that talking clown fish swim the seas.”

A. O. Scott in the New York Times (May 27) called it “a two-hour $125 million disaster” and went on to write that, “.if the film is meant to prod anxieties about ecological catastrophe and to encourage political action in response, it seems unlikely to succeed. Not because the events it depicts seem implausible, but because they seem like no big deal.”

The Boston Globe’s Wesley Morris (May 28) also panned the movie: “There’s hail in Japan, snow in New Delhi, and, hey, a twister just ate the Hollywood sign!  Now that’s entertainment-for about 20 minutes.  The other hour and 40 feel like the most expensive PowerPoint presentation ever made.”

After calling it “so very bad,” David Edelstein in Slate considered the potential political impact: “Is it possible that ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ is a plot to make environmental activists look as wacko as anti-environmentalists always claim they are?  Al Gore stepped right into this one, didn’t he?”