Science

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), compared Bjrn Lomborg, Danish statistician and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, to Adolf Hitler in an interview with Jyllandsposten, a leading Danish newspaper (Apr. 21).

 Pachauri said, What is the difference between Lomborg’s view of humanity and Hitler’s?  You cannot treat people like cattle.  You must respect the diversity of cultures on earth.  Lomborg thinks of people like numbers.  He thinks it would be cheaper just to evacuate people from the Maldives, rather than trying to prevent world sea levels from rising so that island groups like the Maldives or Tuvalu just disappear into the sea.  But where’s the respect for people in that?  People have a right to live and die in the place where their forefathers have lived and died.  If you were to accept Lomborgs way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing.  (English translation published on the internet by DR Nyheder)  

 The Skeptical Environmentalists longest chapter is devoted to global warming.  In it, Lomborg accepts the IPCCs scientific assessment reports as the basis of his analysis.  What Pachauri apparently objects to is that Lomborg concludes that the Kyoto Protocol would do almost nothing to reduce the rate of global warming, but at enormous expense.  For a fraction of the costs of Kyoto, many pressing environmental problems afflicting poor countries could be addressed.

 In searching for other resemblances between Lomborg and Hitler, it is to be noted that both are vegetarians, although Pachauri may be as well.  Unlike Hitler or Pachauri, Lomborg has been awarded the Julian Simon Prize by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, so in that respect it could be concluded that Pachauri has more in common with Hitler than does Lomborg.

 This is not the first time Pachauri has launched an ad hominem attack on his critics since becoming chairman of the IPCC.  In December in Milan at the ninth Conference of the Parties to the U. N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Pachauri sent out a press release attacking the motives and affiliations of Ian Castles, former chief statistician of the Australian government, and David Henderson, former chief economist of the OECD.  Castles and Henderson have pointed out that the storylines used to produce IPCCs predictions of future warming are based on ludicrously improbable economic assumptions.

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia and state climatologist of Virginia, has questioned the credibility of Nature magazine.  In an article in the April 8 issue the technique of regional climate modeling is dismissed as an unreliable exercise to assess and predict climate changes on small land areas such as the lower 48 states (only 2 percent of the planet). 

 Nevertheless, another article in the same issue uses this defective technique of regional climate modeling to conclude that, The Greenland ice-sheet (covering 0.4 percent of the planet) is likely to be eliminated by anthropogenic climate change unless much more substantial emission reductions are made than those envisaged by the IPCC. 

 In response to these contradictions, Michaels states that, Nature published an alarming and completely misleading article predicting the melting of the entire Greenland ice cap in 1,000 yearsusing a regional climate projection.  He continues, If the models are no good over the U.S., theyre worse over Greenland.  This is nothing but tragic, junk science, published by what is (formerly?) the most prestigious science periodical in the world.  (Washington Times, Apr. 27). 

Following on from the comments by MITs Carl Wunsch that the Gulf Stream is safe as long as the wind blows and the Earth turns, several other scientists have used the pages of Science magazine (Apr. 16) to pour scorn on the conceit behind the forthcoming movie, The Day After Tomorrow.  The movie is predicated on the idea that unchecked global warming will cause an abrupt climate shift that will cause a new ice age in the United States.

 

Canadian scientists Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria and Claude Hillaire-Marcel of the Universit de Quebec Montreal tackled the subject in a Perspectives article entitled, Global Warming and the Next Ice Age.  They pointed out that the view of global warming causing an ice age prevails in the popular press despite a relatively solid understanding of glacial inception and growth.

 

The scientists review of the literature concluded that, It is certainly true that if the AMO [Atlantic Meriodonal Oscillation] were to become inactive, substantial short-term cooling would result in western Europe, especially during the winter.  However, it is important to emphasize that not a single coupled model assessed by the 2001 IPCC Working Group I on Climate Change Science (4) predicted a collapse in the AMO during the 21st century.  Even in those models where the AMO was found to weaken during the 21st century, there would still be warming over Europe due to the radiative forcing associated with increased levels of greenhouse gases.

 

Pointing out that models that do show AMO collapse are not flux-adjusted like newer models, they conclude, Even the recent observations of freshening in the North Atlantic (a reduction of salinity due to the addition of freshwater) appear to be consistent with the projections of perhaps the most sophisticated nonflux adjusted model.  Ironically, this model suggests that such freshening is associated with an increased AMO (16).  This same model proposes that it is only Labrador Sea Water formation that is susceptible to collapse in response to global warming.

 

In light of the paleoclimate record and our understanding of the contemporary climate system, it is safe to say that global warming will not lead to the onset of a new ice age.  These same records suggest that it is highly unlikely that global warming will lead to a widespread collapse of the AMOdespite the appealing possibility raised in two recent studiesalthough it is possible that deep convection in the Labrador Sea will cease.  Such an event would have much more minor consequences on the climate downstream over Europe.

 

In the same issue, pioneering oceanographer Wallace Broecker dismisses the recent report rejected by the Pentagon that is predicated on a similar scenario.  He comments in his letter, Exaggerated scenarios serve only to intensify the existing polarization over global warming.

National Center for Policy Analysis

 

Congressional Briefing

Global Warming

What Do We Really Know vs. What We Are Told

 

Thursday, April 22, 2004, 10am – 11:30am

Room SD-406, Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C.

 

Few issues generate more debate or emotion from activists than global warming. This Earth Day, the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) examines whether fears of human-induced climate change are based on sound science and what impact proposed solutions will have on the climate and the economy.

  • Is the science behind global warming fears sound or shaky?

  • How has the issue been distorted by scientists, politicians and the media?

  • What impact will the Kyoto Protocol or McCain-Lieberman have on the climate and/or the economy?

  • What steps are states taking to combat climate change? Will it work, and at what cost?
  • Come hear leading scientists and policy analysts set the record straight about the reality of climate change.

    Speakers include:

     

    David Legates

    Director of the Center of Climatology

    University of Delaware

    Adjunct Scholar, NCPA

     

    Myron Ebell

    Director, International Environmental Policy

    Competitive Enterprise Institute

     

    Pat Michaels

    Professor of Environmental Sciences,

    University of Virginia

    Senior Fellow, CATO Institute

     

    Alexandra Liddy Bourne

    Director, Energy, Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture Task Force, American Legislative Exchange Council

    Adjunct Scholar, NCPA

                   For more information or to RSVP, please contact Matt Moore or Anna Frederick; 

    Phone: 202-628-6671; Email: mmoore@ncpa.org  Visit us online at www.ncpa.org

    Leading Canadian and U.S. climatologists are taking issue with “exaggerated” reports, including one recent study commissioned by the Pentagon, that say global warming could suddenly plunge the world into an ice age.

    It is simply not going to happen, say the scientists, who are rejecting the widely disseminated theory that rapidly melting polar ice and glaciers could so upset circulation in the Atlantic Ocean that it will trigger rapid global cooling within a decade.

    […]Columbia University climatologist Wallace Broecker, in a letter in today’s Science, says the report, which has been generating headlines around the world, makes gross exaggerations.

    He also believes the science behind the scenario is seriously flawed.

    […]

    There has been much alarmist speculation recently that global warming could trigger the collapse of the Gulf Stream.  Carl Wunsch, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, sent a letter to Nature magazine (published in the April 8 issue) stating that such a trigger effect is nearly impossible.

    Wunsch wrote that, The Gulf Streams existence is a consequence of the large-scale wind system over the North Atlantic Ocean, and of the nature of fluid motion on a rotating planet.  The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earths rotation, or both.  He added, The occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream any time soon within tens of millions of years has a probability of little more than zero.  

    The British Governments Sustainable Development Commission is worried that the United Kingdom will not be able to meet its Kyoto targets because its economy is behaving in too American a fashion.  The Commission, chaired by former Green Party head Jonathan Porritt, frets in a report to Prime Minister Tony Blair released April 14 that, American-style patterns of growth in aviation, road transport and fuel use are wholly unsustainable and will damage the quality of life of present and future generations.

    Mr. Porritt remarked that, while economic growth has been faster in the UK than any other European country, this is accompanied by much greater inequality in income, and a long-hours, high-pressure employment culture more characteristic of American society.  The report calls on the UK government to use taxation to affect the price of energy and fuel and calls for ministers to adopt more “joined up” thinking over the next five to 10 years.  (Daily Telegraph, Apr. 14)

    Following the questions raised by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick over the quality of the data employed by Dr. Michael Mann of the University of Virginia in compiling his now infamous hockey stick graph, Manns interpretations of proxy temperature data are now coming under fire from within the community of paleoclimatologists.

    In 2002, Esper et al. published in Science magazine a temperature record for the Northern Hemisphere over the past 1000 years that looked quite unlike the hockey stick.  Both the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age were clearly evident.  In the March 23 edition of Eos, Esper and other colleagues examine why this should be so.  According to the Greening Earth Society, Esper basically eliminates all the possibilities except the technique used to process tree-ring data sets the primary information relied on to construct early portions of the temperature reconstructions.

    The problem with tree rings appears to be that their variations reflect more than year-to-year climate differences (temperature and/or precipitation). As the trees age, tree-ring production changes and introduces a spurious trend in the tree-ring series. This aging effect differs among tree species, as well as within species, depending on the trees growing conditions (soil type, elevation, slope aspect, etc.). It becomes difficult to separate trends due to aging from those due to climate.

    Although various research groups use different techniques to account for this problem, the absence of ground truth (true temperature) makes it impossible to ascertain whose technique is best. Esper uses a method aimed at retaining long-period (greater than a century or so) variations in the tree-ring records, whereas Mann uses a method that virtually eliminates all long-term variation.  Esper concludes, Higher-frequency [decadal] climate variations are generally better understood than lower-frequency variations.

    Meanwhile, David S. Chapman, Marshall G. Bartlett, and Robert N. Harris of the University of Utah, published in the April 7 edition of Geophysical Research Letters an examination of how Manns imputation of temperatures from boreholes contradicts their work.  Mann argues that borehole records of ground surface temperature (GST) do not accurately reflect surface air temperature (SAT) because of the effects of snowfall.  Chapman et al., however, have found that (1) GST tracks SAT extremely well at time scales that are appropriate for climate change considerations.  (2) Snow cover can either warm or cool the ground relative to a no snow case and need not lead to any bias. (3) Finally, our observations have not revealed any physical process that would explain the supposed preconditioning of GST by a prior season SAT.

    In describing the differences between their work and Manns, Chapman et al. use surprisingly strong language for a scientific paper.  They describe three of Manns conclusions as misleading, and his end-point analysis as erroneous and just bad science.

    The invaluable www.co2science.org, run by Drs. Sherwood, Craig, and Keith Idso, draws attention this month to two important articles on the reality behind the supposed spread of tropical diseases in a warmer world.

    First, Reiter et al. (in Emerging Infectious Diseases 9) examine the response of dengue fever in a significant outbreak in Laredo, Texas and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico in 1999. As co2science.org summarizes, they learned that, “The incidence of recent cases, indicated by immunoglobulin M antibody serosurvey, was higher in Nuevo Laredo [16.0% vs. 1.3%], although the vector, Aedes aegypti, was more abundant in Laredo [91% vs. 37%].  Reiter et al. additionally determined that environmental factors that affect contact with mosquitoes, such as air-conditioning and human behavior, appear to account for this paradox.  They found, for example, that the proportion of dengue infections attributable to lack of air-conditioning in Nuevo Laredo [where only 2% of the homes had central air-conditioning compared to 36% of the homes in Laredo] was 55%, which means that 55% of the cases of dengue in Nuevo Laredo would not have occurred if all households there had had air-conditioning.”

    Co2science.org summarizes, “Reiter et al. correctly conclude, for example, that if the current warming trend in world climates continues, air-conditioning may become even more prevalent in the United States, in which case, the probability of dengue transmission [there] is likely to decrease [our italics].  And if the economy of Mexico continues to grow (which it will, if its citizens are allowed to freely utilize fossil fuels), the use of air-conditioners will likely gain momentum south of the border, which would lead to even greater decreases in the occurrence of dengue there.

    “Clearly, the development of wealth, which currently is dependent on the availability of fossil-fuel-derived energy, will lead to greater decreases in mosquito-borne diseases than any change or stasis of climate ever would.”

    The other article, Small et al. (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100), looks at the impact of climate change on malaria transmission in Africa. According to the Idsos, the researchers “determined that malaria transmission suitability did indeed increase because of climate change in specific locations of limited extent; but in Southern Mozambique, which was the only region for which climatic suitability consistently increased, the cause of the increase was increased precipitation, while areas where the climate became less suitable for malaria transmission had all experienced decreased rainfall.  In fact, Small et al. say that climate warming, expressed as a systematic temperature increase over the 85-year period, does not appear to be responsible for an increase in malaria suitability over any [our italics] region in Africa.”

    Using the NASA Ecosystem Demography model to trace the evolution of vegetation distribution in the US over the past 300 years, researchers at Princeton University have confirmed that land use changes have significantly affected the US climate.

    According to the NASA press release, “The researchers found land cover changes produced a significant cooling effect of more than one degree Fahrenheit in parts of the Great Plains and Midwest as agriculture expanded and replaced grasslands. Farmlands tend to create lower temperatures through increased evaporation. A warming effect was found along the Atlantic coast where croplands replaced forests.

    “Compared to forests, croplands are less efficient in transpiration; a daytime process where water evaporates from leaves during photosynthesis and cools the air. A slight warming effect was also observed across the Southwest, where woodlands replaced some deserts.

    “The study found land cover changes could impact local precipitation, but not as significantly as they affect temperature. The relatively strong cooling over the central U.S. has probably weakened the temperature difference between land and the Gulf of Mexico, slowing the northern movement of weather systems and resulting in enhanced rainfall across Texas. Consequently, the air masses reaching the Central Lowlands region, including Illinois and Indiana, are drier, causing rainfall reductions.”

    Lead researcher N. J. Roy said, “It is important to understand the effects of changing land cover, because it can mitigate or exacerbate greenhouse warming. In the U.S. over the past 100 years, it seems to be offsetting greenhouse warming. The opposite is probably true in most other parts of the world. This finding has also been supported in previous research.”