Category Archive:

James Temple from SF Chron, A Case for Global Warming

0

From SF Chronicle, July 21, 2013, “No Global Warming Hasn’t Stopped and Here’s Why”

I’m not inclined to this view, but to be fair, here it is.

More analysis to follow…

 

Print Friendly
Posted in: Climate Change

Continue Reading

Obama’s Global Warming Claims, and only the crickets chirped…

0

John Tamny’s piece in Forbes, July 19, 2013: “Senator Barbara Boxer’s Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming”

I think such comments by Mr. Obama, and others before him such as Mr. Gore, do more damage to the scientific case for climate change by such hyperbole, if not outright misinformation.

 

Print Friendly
Posted in: Climate Change

Continue Reading

Global Warming Slowdown: The View from Space, Dr. Roy Spencer

0

Global Warming Slowdown: The View from Space,  April 16, 2013 blog by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Since the slowdown in surface warming over the last 15 years has been a popular topic recently, I thought I would show results for the lower tropospheric temperature (LT) compared to climate models calculated over the same atmospheric layers the satellites sense…

Many of my CC friends want to castigate arguments from skeptical sources to the apocalyptical mainstream as not “scientific”–how do they explain away Dr. Spencer?

 

Print Friendly
Posted in: Climate Change

Continue Reading

The Climate’s Alright, Marlo Lewis, Jr.

0

From Competitive Enterprise Institute, June 5, 2013.

Quoting from Lewis article,

There is much more. In 2006-2007, commentators like Al Gore, Joseph Romm, and Fred Pearce popularized scary climate-change impact scenarios, such as ice-sheet  disintegration and catastrophic sea-level rise, dramatic increases in  extreme weather, and climate-destabilizing releases of methane from  melting permafrost. Recent studies undercut the credibility of such  predictions. Here’s a short list:

King et al. (2012): The rate of Antarctic ice loss is not accelerating and translates to less than one inch of sea-level rise per century.

Faezeh et al. (2013):  Greenland’s four main outlet glaciers are projected to contribute 0.7  to 1.1 inches to sea-level rise by 2200 under a mid-range warming  scenario (2.8°C by 2100) and 1.1 to 1.9 inches under a high-end warming  scenario (4.5°C by 2100).

Weinkle et al. (2012):  There is no trend in the strength or frequency of land-falling  hurricanes in the world’s five main hurricane basins during the past 50  to 70 years.

Bouwer (2011):  There is no trend in hurricane-related damages since 1900 once  economic-loss data are adjusted for changes in population, wealth, and  the consumer-price index.

NOAA: There is no trend since 1950 in the frequency of strong (F3 to F5) U.S. tornadoes.

National Climate Data Center: There is no trend since 1900 in U.S. soil moisture as measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index.

Hirsch and Ryberg (2011): There is no trend in U.S. flood magnitudes over the past 85 years.

Schultz (2011):  Even under the most extreme climatic scenario tested, permafrost thaw  in the Siberian shelf will not exceed 10 meters in depth by 2100 or 50  meters by the turn of the next millennium, whereas the bulk of methane  stores are trapped roughly 200 meters below the sea floor.

Kessler et al. (2011):  Microbes digested the methane released during the 2010 BP Deepwater  Horizon oil spill, indicating that any warming-induced “large-scale  releases of methane from hydrate in the deep ocean are likely to be met  by a similarly rapid methanotrophic response.”

Goklany (2009):  Global deaths and death rates related to extreme weather have declined  by 93 percent and 98 percent, respectively, since the 1920s.

Granted, climate-alarm persists. The main reason is that climate risk is easily confused with climate-change risk.  Due to their sheer magnitude and terror, natural catastrophes have an  almost supernatural aspect. People are innately prone to imagine that  natural disasters have non-natural causes. Thus, each time disaster  strikes, pundits — especially those with scientific credentials — can  plausibly blame fossil fuels and declare “it’s worse than we thought.”

But  the best available science does not support such claims. Far from being  worse than predicted, the climate outlook is better than we have long  been told. For this reason, too, policymakers should remove  self-inflicted constraints on the development and export of North  American energy.

 

Marlo Lewis, Jr. is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where he writes on global warming, energy policy, and other public policy issues. Prior to joining CEI in April 2002, he served as Director of External Relations at the Reason Foundation in Los Angeles, California. During the 106th Congress, Marlo served as Staff Director of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs.

His interests include the science, economics, and politics of global warming policy; the precautionary principle; environmentalism and religion; and the moral basis of free enterprise. Marlo has been published in The Washington Times, Investors Business Daily, TechCentralStation, National Review, and Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy. He has appeared on various television and radio programs, and his ideas have been featured in radio commentary by Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy.

Before joining CEI for his first tenure with the organization in 1993, Marlo served as Research Director for the grassroots organization, Citizens Against Government Waste. Earlier, he was a Staff Consultant to the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade, a Special Assistant at the State Department Bureau of Inter-American Affairs and Bureau of International Organization Affairs, and a Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science at Claremont McKenna College. He holds a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University and a B.A. in Political Science from Claremont McKenna College.

Print Friendly
Posted in: Climate Change

Continue Reading

Could Global Warming Slow Sea Level Rise?, by S. Fred Singer

0

From the American Thinker, June 6, 2013

Key Points:

  • Four IPCC reports (1990, 1996, 2001 and 2007) indicated vastly different assessments of SLR (Sea Level Rise) projections
  • Recent data provides support for the hypothesis that “the observed global SLR since 1900 is reasonably independent of the observed temperature rise.”
  • “Can Global Warming (GW) really lower sea level rise?  It all depends on the time-scale:  Yes, if GW lasts only for some decades or less. No, if warmer temperatures persist for millennia.”

 

S.  Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of  the Science & Environmental Policy Project.  His specialty is  atmospheric and space physics.   An expert in remote sensing and  satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite  Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee  on Oceans & Atmosphere.  He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland  Institute and the Independent Institute.  He co-authored the NY Times  best-seller “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years.”  In 2007, he  founded and has since chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on  Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See www.NIPCCreport.org].   For recent writings see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and  also Google Scholar.

 

 

 

 

Print Friendly
Posted in: Climate Change

Continue Reading

Global Cooling is Here, Peter Ferrara

0

From Peter Ferrara’s Forbes Op/Ed, May 26, 2013.…Key points:

  • The first River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1607, at the leading edge of the Little Ice Age, and the last such fair was held in 1814…as the Little Ice Age phased out during the middle to late 19th century.
  • The Little Ice Age…has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots.
  • The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age.
  • …ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years.
  • The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period.
  • …that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, …even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period.
  • …because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.
  • German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years–
  • Christopher Booker explained in the Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013, ‘Here in Britain, …we had our fifth freezing winter in a row,…’
  • Booker adds, ‘Last week it was reported that 3,318 places in the USA had recorded their lowest temperatures for this time of year since records began.
  • Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming.
  • Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes.
  • Booker again, ‘Has there ever in history been such an almighty disconnect between observable reality and the delusions of a political class that is quite impervious to any rational discussion?’

My contention has always been, why the “chicken little” stampede to Government management of the world economy?  There are dissenting opinions; science is not all on one side, contrary to Mr. Gore’s assertions.  I was educated to believe that true scientists actually invited peer review and dissenting opinions.  Dummy me.

 

 

Print Friendly
Posted in: Climate Change

Continue Reading

The Implications of Lower Climate Sensitivity, Matt Ridley

0

Published May 20, 2013, “Global warming will probably be a net benefit for several decades.”

There is little doubt that the damage being done by climate-change policies currently exceeds the damage being done by climate change, and will for server decades yet.

The harm done by policy falls disproportionately on the poor.

Ridley refers to a new study by Oxford scientists which lower the projections of temperature changes over the next 50 years.

…given the advance of nuclear and solar technology, there is now a good chance we will have decarbonized the economy before any net harm has been done.

 

 

 

 

 

Print Friendly
Posted in: Climate Change

Continue Reading

Time to Chill Out on Global Warming, by Charles L. Hopper

0

This article was published on January 17, 2013, on the Hoover Institution Journal, called Defining Ideas, www.definingideas.org; Charles L. Hooper is president of Objective Insights, a company that consults for pharmaceutical and biotech companies, and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution.

This extract I found most interesting and compelling.

“…consider the significance of the Vikings in Greenland.  Erik the Red, the legendary Viking, was exiled from Iceland and sailed to Greenland in 982 AD, where he found birch trees and hills blanketed in green grass. From 985 to 1408, the Vikings had vibrant farming settlements on Greenland. However, if you go there today, you won’t see any farms or even any Viking kids running around; you will see ruins.  Why did the Vikings leave Greenland?  It turns out that the Viking settlements coincided with the Medieval Warm Period and ended with the Little Ice Age, which caused the Vikings to leave Greenland’s deteriorating fields.

If the Vikings were able to farm Greenland a thousand years ago but would not be able to today, we can assume that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the climate today.  The scientific studies support this conclusion.  Over 120 published studies have formed a conclusion about the Medieval Warm Period: approximately 10 of those studies say it was cooler than today, 20 say it was equal to today, and 90 say it was warmer than today.  Of the 110 studies that quantified their results, the conclusion was that the Medieval Warm Period was, on average, about 0.5 degrees Celsius warmer than today.

Withe these results, today’s warm temperatures can be seen in the context of regular, long-term fluctuations of earth’s temperatures.  More importantly, these results appear to exonerate carbon dioxide emission.  During medieval times, the human population was just 6 percent of its current level and industrialization would not occur for almost a millennium…Something else must be driving changes in the climate because anthropogenic carbon emissions were not a factor when temperatures reached a peak hundreds of years ago.”

The full article is worth reading.

Print Friendly
Posted in: Climate Change

Continue Reading

A Fact Check of the Facts…thanks to Scientometrics

0

From Dec 24, 2012 Reason article by Ronald Bailey, “Half the Facts You Know Are Probably Wrong.”  Mr. Bailey cites a new book by Samuel Arbesman, “The Half-Life of Facts: Why Everything We Know Has an Expiration Date.”  Interesting points,

  • Scientometrics is the science of measuring and analyzing science.
  • Scientific knowledge has been growing steadily at a rate of 4.7 percent annually for the last three centuries.
  • With the consistent growth rate of knowledge, it should not be surprising that many facts people learned in school have been overturned with new knowledge, and the relevant question is, at what rate do former facts disappear?
  • In one study of a specific field of medical knowledge, Arbesman found a half life of 45 years for former facts to disappear.
  • Facts are being manufactured all the time, and many of them turn out to be wrong–experimental results need to be replicated by other researchers to gain weight as a fact.
  • In 2011, a study in “Nature” magazine reported that a team of researchers over 10 years was able to reproduce the results of only six out of 53 landmark papers in preclinical cancer research.
  • In 2005, the physician and statistician John Ioannides published “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”, citing reasons such as studies that are too small and that financial and non-financial conflicts of interest are common.
  • Ioannides concluded that “for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
  • Another reason for the factual decay is that people cling to selected facts, and persist in only adding facts to their personal store of knowledge that jibe with what they already know, aka “confirmation bias.”

My conclusion?  We should be open to new knowledge all the time, and be loathe to anoint new information as fact.  Furthermore we should have a little more humility about our own set of selected facts by which we choose to live.

 

Print Friendly
Posted in: My Musings, Reason

Continue Reading

Matt Ridley: Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change, Wall Street Journal

1

From December 19, 2012 Wall Street Journal article.  My favorite excerpt:

The big question is this: Will the lead authors of the relevant chapter of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report acknowledge that the best observational evidence no longer supports the IPCC’s existing 2 degrees C - 4.5 degrees C “likely” range for climate sensitivity?  Unfortunately, this seems unlikely–given the organization’s record of replacing evidence-based policy-making with policy-based evidence-making, as well as the reluctance of academic scientists to accept that what they have been maintaining for many years is wrong.

Print Friendly
Posted in: Reason

Continue Reading