About.com describes an “urban legend” as an apocryphal (of questionable authenticity), secondhand story, told as true and just plausible enough to be believed, about some horrific… series of events...it’s likely to be framed as a cautionary tale. Whether factual or not, an urban legend is meant to be believed. In lieu of evidence, however, the teller of an urban legend is apt to rely on skillful storytelling and reference to putatively trustworthy sources.
I contend that the belief in human-caused global warming as a dangerous event, either now or in the future, has most of the characteristics of an urban legend. Like other urban legends, it is based upon an element of truth. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, and since greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere, more CO2 can be expected, at least theoretically, to result in some level of warming.
But skillful storytelling has elevated the danger from a theoretical one to one of near-certainty. The actual scientific basis for the plausible hypothesis that humans could be responsible for most recent warming is contained in the cautious scientific language of many scientific papers. Unfortunately, most of the uncertainties and caveats are then minimized with artfully designed prose contained in the Summary for Policymakers (SP) portion of the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This Summary was clearly meant to instill maximum alarm from a minimum amount of direct evidence.
Next, politicians seized upon the SP, further simplifying and extrapolating its claims to the level of a “climate crisis”. Other politicians embellished the tale even more by claiming they “saw” global warming in Greenland as if it was a sighting of Sasquatch, or that they felt it when they fly in airplanes.
Just as the tales of marauding colonies of alligators living in New York City sewers are based upon some kernel of truth, so too is the science behind anthropogenic global warming. But there is a big difference between reports of people finding pet alligators that have escaped their owners, versus city workers having their limbs torn off by roving colonies of subterranean monsters.
In the case of global warming, the “putatively trustworthy sources” would be the consensus of the world’s scientists. The scientific consensus, after all, says that global warming is...is what? Is happening? Is severe? Is manmade? Is going to burn the Earth up if we do not act? It turns out that those who claim consensus either do not explicitly state what that consensus is about, or they make up something that supports their preconceived notions.
If the consensus is that the presence of humans on Earth has some influence on the climate system, then I would have to even include myself in that consensus. After all, the same thing can be said of the presence of trees on Earth, and hopefully we have at least the same rights as trees do. But too often the consensus is some vague, fill-in-the-blank, implied assumption where the definition of “climate change” includes the phrase “humans are evil”.
It is a peculiar development that scientific truth is now decided through voting. A relatively recent survey of 77 climate scientists who do climate research found that 97.4% agreed that humans have a “significant” effect on climate. But the way the survey question was phrased borders on meaninglessness. To a scientist, “significant” often means non-zero. The survey results would have been quite different if the question was “Do you believe that natural cycles in the climate system have been sufficiently researched to exclude them as a potential cause of most of our recent warming?”
And it is also a good bet that 100% of those scientists surveyed were funded by the government only after they submitted research proposals which implicitly or explicitly stated they believed in anthropogenic global warming to begin with. If you submit a research proposal to look for alternative explanations for global warming (say, natural climate cycles), it is virtually guaranteed you will not get funded. Is it any wonder that scientists who are required to accept the current scientific orthodoxy in order to receive continued funding, then later agree with that orthodoxy when surveyed? Well, duh.
In my experience, the public has the mistaken impression that a lot of climate research has gone into the search for alternative explanations for warming. They are astounded when I tell them that virtually no research has been performed into the possibility that warming is just part of a natural cycle generated within the climate system itself.
Too often the consensus is implied to be that global warming is so serious that we must do something now in the form of public policy to avert global catastrophe. What? You don’t believe that there are alligators in New York City sewer system? How can you be so unconcerned about the welfare of city workers that have to risk their lives by going down there every day? What are you, some kind of Holocaust-denying, Neanderthal flat-Earther?
It makes complete sense that in this modern era of scientific advances and inventions that we would so readily embrace a compelling tale of global catastrophe resulting from our own excesses. It’s not a new genre of storytelling, of course, as there were many B-movies in the 1950s whose horror themes were influenced by scientists’ development of the atomic bomb.
Our modern equivalent is the 2004 movie, “Day After Tomorrow”, in which all kinds of physically impossible climatic events occur in a matter of days. In one scene, super-cold stratospheric air descends to the Earth’s surface, instantly freezing everything in its path. The meteorological truth, however, is just the opposite. If you were to bring stratospheric air down to the surface, heating by compression would make it warmer than the surrounding air, not colder.
I’m sure it is just coincidence that “Day After Tomorrow” was directed by Roland Emmerich, who also directed the 1996 movie “Independence Day,” in which an alien invasion nearly exterminates humanity. After all, what’s the difference? Aliens purposely killing off humans, or humans accidentally killing off humans? Either way, we all die.
But a global warming catastrophe is so much more believable. After all, climate change does happen, right? So why not claim that ALL climate change is now the result of human activity? And while we are at it, let’s re-write climate history so that we get rid of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice age, with a new ingenious hockey stick-shaped reconstruction of past temperatures that makes it look like climate never changed until the 20th Century? How cool would that be?
The IPCC thought it was way cool...until it was debunked, after which it was quietly downgraded in the IPCC reports from the poster child for anthropogenic global warming, to one possible interpretation of past climate.
And let’s even go further and suppose that the climate system is so precariously balanced that our injection of a little bit of that evil plant food, carbon dioxide, pushes our world over the edge, past all kinds of imaginary tipping points, with the Greenland ice sheet melting away, and swarms of earthquakes being the price of our indiscretions.
In December, hundreds of bureaucrats from around the world will once again assemble, this time in Copenhagen, in their attempts to forge a new international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. And as has been the case with every other UN meeting of its type, the participants simply assume that the urban legend is true. Indeed, these politicians and governmental representatives need it to be true. Their careers and political power now depend upon it.
And the fact that they hold their meetings in all of the best tourist destinations in the world, enjoying the finest exotic foods, suggests that they do not expect to ever have to be personally inconvenienced by whatever restrictions they try to impose on the rest of humanity.
If you present these people with evidence that the global warming crisis might well be a false alarm, you are rewarded with hostility and insults, rather than expressions of relief. The same can be said for most lay believers of the urban legend. I say “most” because I once encountered a true believer who said he hoped my research into the possibility that climate change is mostly natural will eventually be proved correct.
Unfortunately, just as we are irresistibly drawn to disasters - either real ones on the evening news, or ones we pay to watch in movie theaters - the urban legend of a climate crisis will persist, being believed by those whose politics and worldviews depend upon it. Only when they finally realize what a new treaty will cost them in loss of freedoms and standard of living will those who oppose our continuing use of carbon-based energy begin to lose their religion.
See post here.
The inter-ministerial committee on carcinogenic materials has decided to issue a warning on the use of energy-saving fluorescent lamps because of the risk of skin cancer due to the radiation they emit.
The committee, which advises the Health Ministry, prepared a warning that was recently relayed to the Department of Public Health at the ministry. It calls on Israelis to keep reasonable distance from the spiral-shaped compact fluorescent lamps if exposure to them is longer than one hour per day.
The committee explained that its warning is based on the fact that the lightbulbs emit ultraviolet (UV) rays similar to those of the sun, and therefore increase the risk of skin cancer. According to the recommendation, the lamps should be affixed to ceilings at a distance of more than 30 centimeters from the room’s occupants, and should not be used as permanent lighting on desks or walls close to a person’s body, and in rooms where the residents spend many hours of the day.
Moreover, the recommendation is to install fluorescent lamps with a lampshade. Research has shown that a cover surrounding the lamp absorbs part of the emitted UV.
The warning was adopted following reports from Britain about the risks posed by the lamps. A position paper issued by the British Health Protection Agency a year ago stated that the bulbs may emit UV rays that under certain conditions may expose people to higher amounts of radiation than the recommended level.
The British agency also called on the European Union to consider limiting the distribution of these lamps, whose popularity has increased because of their significantly lower electricity consumption. The same agency did stress, however, that it does not recommend an absolute ban of these bulbs in homes, saying that according to the tests it conducted, the amount of UV radiation emitted from a lamp onto a surface two centimeters away is similar to that emitted by the sun on a hot summer day.
Research carried out in Israel has shown that radiation from the lamps also increases the risk of breast and prostate cancers. Research by the University of Haifa’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, published two years ago, concluded that in Israeli towns whose streets are lit with fluorescent lamps there are more breast cancer cases.
In response to this report the Health Ministry said that the committee’s recommendation was presented and is now being discussed. See more here.
See here why LEDs are a smarter alternative to flourescent bulbs which contain toxic mercury in addition to emitting UV light and here how congress will prevent you from using incandescent bulbs in the future despite the mercury and other risks with their forced flourescent alternative.
Update: See the story about the snowstorm as it moved to Wyoming and Colorado here. The storm was heaviest October storm in Denver in at least a decade. Boulder had over 20” and Black Hawk over 40”. See here how up to 4 feet fell in the mountain foothills near Denver.
The October 28 Seattle Times included the following two articles, Early Season Storm Sweeps Dust, Snow Across West, in the link here ,
and Storm Dumps Snow on Rockies, Plains, More Forecast, in the link here. These two articles illustrate the same early season cold weather and heavy snow conditions shown in the Scottsbluff, Nebraska photo, courtesy of Gordon Fulks.
Note see also this story today.
In contrast to these cold weather articles, the October 28 Seattle Times also included another article suggesting that global temperatures will be about 7 degrees warmer by the end of the 21st century. Turmoil from Climate Change Poses Security Risks, in the link here, includes the following statements,
“At the current increasing rate of global carbon dioxide pollution, average world temperatures at the end of this century will likely be about 7 degrees higher than at the end of the 20th century, and seas would be expected to rise by as much as 2 feet, according to a consensus of scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The security implications of global warming were center stage Wednesday at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, one of a series of sessions in advance of voting on the climate bill, possibly as early as next week.”
UN Leader Hopes US Will Act Soon on Global Warming, in the October 26 Seattle Times link here, begins as follows,
“Just six weeks before a key meeting on climate change, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Monday he’s hopeful the U.S. Senate will pass a significant bill to limit carbon emissions. With deep divisions in Congress on how to deal with climate change, a bill is not likely before the end of the year. However, Ban told a news conference he still thinks the U.S. can come up with an ambitious measure that will encourage other nations to act on carbon emissions.”
It appears that the deep divisions in Congress on dealing with climate change have encouraged the writing of the article above suggesting that a consensus of scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that global temperatures will be about 7 degrees warmer by the end of the 21st century unless “global carbon dioxide pollution” is reduced. These exaggerated temperature increase predictions are even larger than those on page 17 of Impacts of Climate Change on Washington’s Economy,
“Scientists expect the Pacific Northwest to continue to warm approximately 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit each decade over the next several decades, a rate of warming more than three times faster than the warming experienced during the twentieth century.” Impacts of Climate Change on Washington’s Economy was produced in 2006 by the Climate Leadership Initiative at the University of Oregon for the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development and the Washington Department of Ecology.
It is worth noting that, in spite of the exaggerated temperature increase predictions above, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center indicates that annual temperatures in the contiguous United States trended downward at a rate of 0.78 degrees F per decade from 1998 to 2008 and that annual temperatures in Washington trended downward at a rate of 1.09 degrees F per decade from 1998 to 2008.
Despite a consensus among scientists on the use of ocean heat as a robust measure for anthropogenic global warming (AGW), air temperature continues to be employed as the icon of global climate projections. In a recent AP article by Seth Borenstein, “Statisticians reject global cooling”, the Associated Press “gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.”
A lot of mercury and red alcohol has been spilled over the last several years dissecting the reliability of near-surface temperature measurements. The controversy has spawned high profile blogs dedicated to the scrutiny of surface station reliability and the analysis of climate statistics . The exercise has proven to be fruitful in many cases, discovering systemic weaknesses in the network of surface stations, exposing sloppy calculations, and raising legitimate questions about the algorithms used to adjust raw data. Though satellite air temperature measurements do not suffer from these limitations, our observations extend back only 30 years.
The use of air temperature as an index of global warmth has weak scientific support, except, perhaps, on a multi-decadal or century time-scale. Climate scientists agree that 80% - 90% of the heat in earth’s climate system is stored in the oceans. For any given area on the ocean’s surface, the upper 2.6 meters of water has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it! Air temperature may not register accumulated ocean heat from year to year. Since this heat is not always at the ocean’s surface, there may be long lags in air temperature response time. But eventually, as the ocean heats or cools, air temperature is sure to follow. Accordingly, the findings represented in Borenstein’s article are no surprise and do little to support or damage the case for AGW.
Hype generated by scientists and activists over short-term changes in global air temperature (up or down) has diverted us from the real question: Is heat accumulating in the world’s oceans? Many climate scientists, including those at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the British Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change, are being rather disingenuous in their use of air temperature. They advocate ocean heat as a climate metric in research articles (including AR4 - the most recent IPCC report), but then use air temperature as a metric when discussing AGW with the public. Presumably, from a marketing perspective, the man on the street cannot connect with “Joules of accumulated heat” absorbed by the ocean.
So what does ocean heat tell us about the progress of global warming? That’s the elephant in the living room that proponents of AGW aren’t talking about - at least not lately. Writing in 2005, NASA scientists James Hansen, Josh Willis, Gavin Schmidt, et. al. suggested that their model projections of global warming had been verified by a solid decade of increasing ocean heat (1993 to 2003). This was regarded as confirmation of the AGW hypothesis (see “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications”, Science, 3 June 2005, 1431-35).
But by mid-2003 warming ceased rather abruptly and, by all appearances, not one Joule of energy has been added to the ocean for over 6 years. According to some analysts there has been a slight cooling, even as CO2 levels continue to rise. Advocates of AGW have dismissed this as natural variability. But the implications are clear. If the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis may be false.
The current trend also raises some pointed questions. If climate change is now dominated by CO2 induced warming, what mechanism is responsible for the current cessation of warming? The immediate cause is well known: The periodic cooling and warming of ocean waters called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). But the underlying causes of the PDO itself are not well understood, which is also true for much of the variability in our climate system.
If we cannot explain the causes behind natural variability, then how can we project future climate trends? Moreover, how can we be sure that the prior warming trend was anthropogenic rather than natural? After all, we cannot eliminate from consideration causes we do not understand. Borenstein’s article proceeds on the assumption that if there is warming, it must be anthropogenic, and it must be from CO2. The question of attribution - the most difficult scientific question of all - is never raised.
At the very least, the flattening of ocean heat over the last 6 years should raise cautionary flags and provoke a re-examination of climate model projections. If CO2 induced warming is so easily overwhelmed by natural variability, then perhaps the threat of “runaway warming” and climate “tipping points” has been overstated. Despite the sophistication of our efforts, perhaps our ignorance exceeds our knowledge.
Unfortunately, climate scientists who continue to hide behind the metric of air temperature are dodging the hard questions. Repeated efforts to confront them on the issue of ocean heat have met with silence (see Roger Pielke’s article here). Now that heat accumulation has stopped (and maybe even reversed), the tables have turned. The same criterion used to confirm Anthropogenic Global Warming, is now challenging its legitimacy. See full post with citations here.
Bill DiPuccio was a weather forecaster and instructor for the U.S. Navy, and a Meteorological/Radiosonde Technician for the National Weather Service. More recently, he served as head of the science department for St. Nicholas Orthodox School in Akron, Ohio (closed in 2006). He continues to write science curriculum, publish articles, and conduct science camps.
The current meeting in Copenhagen is anticipated to produce a follow-on to the Kyoto “global warming” treaty (a treaty to which few, if any, signers were able to meet their obligations). The U.S. was wise enough to not endorse that treaty (it failed overwhelmingly in the U.S. Senate). Had Kyoto provisions been adhered to, after 100 years there would be little measurable impact on climate, even according to those who support the flawed human-caused global warming theory.
Now we have the follow-on to Kyoto being fabricated in Copenhagen. There are provisions in the draft treaty that seek to overrule the U.S. Constitution and seek to create a world-wide authority with significant power to enforce treaty provisions. Adoption by the U.S. of this proposed treaty would be disastrous on many levels.
In an effort to build opposition in the U.S. Senate to any proposed treaty based on the deeply flawed “science” of human-caused global warming, Lord Monckton of Brenchley (Christopher Monckton), who is an outstanding spokesman against the flawed global warming theory (and former advisor to Margaret Thatcher), has created an “Instrument of Repudiation” document which he is asking U.S. citizens to endorse. I have created the web pages to enable this process online. I urge each of you to go online here and follow the links to read and endorse this “Instrument of Repudiation.” Thanks for all you can do to help stop this proposed monstrosity!
By Janet Albrechtsen, Wall Street Journal
We can only hope that world leaders will do nothing more than enjoy a pleasant bicycle ride around the charming streets of Copenhagen come December. For if they actually manage to wring out an agreement based on the current draft text of the Copenhagen climate-change treaty, the world is in for some nasty surprises. Draft text, you say? If you haven’t heard about it, that’s because none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have bothered to tell us what the drafters have already cobbled together for leaders to consider. And neither have the media.
Enter Lord Christopher Monckton. The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, earlier this month that made quite a splash. For the first time, the public heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15, that comprise the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - a rough draft of what could be signed come December.
So far there have been more than a million hits on the YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational “government” on a scale the world has never before seen.
The “scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention” that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a “government.” The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an “adaptation debt” to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that “by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year].”
And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for “a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties.” Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.
To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as “alternatives” and “options” that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty.
Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend found an obscure U.N. Web site and searched through several layers of hyperlinks before discovering a document that isn’t even called the draft “treaty.” Instead, it’s labelled a “Note by the Secretariat.”
Interviewed by broadcaster Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said “this is the first time I’ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a ‘government.’ But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening.” He added: “The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that’s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do.”
Critics have admonished Lord Monckton for his colorful language. He has certainly been vigorous. In his expose of the draft Copenhagen treaty in St. Paul, he warned Americans that “in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever.” Yet his critics fail to deal with the substance of what he says.
Ask yourself this question: Given that our political leaders spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change and the need for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After all, the final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What exactly are they hiding? Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know something of their plans.
Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General’s Climate Change Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with the U.S. Congress yet to pass a climate-change bill, a global climate-change treaty is now an unlikely outcome in Copenhagen. Let’s hope he is right. And thank you, America.
Ms. Albrechtsen is a columnist for the Australian.
