Global Climate Update and Global Warming Odds and Ends; Cooler Air Set To Move Into Ohio Valley

Polar Bear Practicing In Case Forecast Was True

Polar Bear Practicing In Case Forecast Was True

The forecast is pretty much on track. Front comes through on Tuesday. Late Monday night with some rain showers and perhaps some rumbles of thunder but, generally, not much to write home about. Perhaps a quarter of an inch or so…its the first general rain we’ve had for some time and anything you get will be welcome and the last real chance for some time to come. The only real changes are that we feel like that an upper level disturbance rotating around the main storm center will bring some clouds on Wednesday and the clouds on Tuesday will erode in the afternoon before we get some cloud cover back on Wednesday with perhaps some light showers. Otherwise, we will go from above average temperatures to well below seasonal averages for the balance of the week before we warm up into the weekend.

August 2008 Climate Map

August 2008 Climate Map

Global Warming Odds and Ends: Here are some items that I have been storing up for a day when it was rather boring in the weather department and boring on the history front. First is the global climate conditions for July. It was one of the rare occurences in many months that the global temperatures have been warmer than the 20 year average. Note that June was globally cooler than average and that La Nina was reported to have been waning. Here is a post regarding previous months. Here’s the July report:

UAH July

Here’s the August preliminary global climate report. August was slightly colder globally. There was almost an equal split between the northern and southern hemispheres.

UAH August Global Climate Report

Arctic Ice Began Growing Again 09.12.08

Arctic Ice Began Growing Again 09.12.08

If you recall, at the beginning of the summer, we had all sorts of articles warning of the polar ice caps melting away and the risk of Santa Claus having his home end up in the frigid ocean waters. We had visions of polar bears swimming endlessly. At the time, I pointed out that the writers trumpeted a headline that suggested such doom. Yet, if you read down many paragraphs into the article, then you find that the probability of the headline becoming fact was not as high as suggested. In fact, the amount of sea-ice was actually a little greater than at the same time the previous year. Late this summer, I found a similar article. This one said that the sea ice at the poles were the second smallest in recorded history, which goes back to those ancient days of 1979. That is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it was that the amount of sea ice had grown over the previous summer and then asked the open-ended question as to whether this was a trend or an anomaly. They could have had the headline “Arctic Sea Ice Increases by 9 Percent” Or they could have said “Arctic Sea Ice increases to 1.7 million square miles!” But no…instead it says that this years sea ice came close to the lowest total ever.

In any event, THIS ARTICLE shows a far cry from the fear of Santa swimming with his reindeer and certainly indicates a bit of editorializing on the part of the headline writer, if not the AP writer, who seems to be nameless.

IPCC Hockey Stick vs True Graph

IPCC Hockey Stick vs True Graph

Much has been made about the IPCC report and it is being used as gospel regarding the last word on Global Warming. Mr. Gore has suggested it means that the debate is over. However, I have been reading many articles by learned folks who take issue with the IPCC Report. One of the things that they question is the Hockey Stick Graph (see previous post), which the IPCC subsequently admitted was not correct and quietly changed it to something that at least is closer to what the data suggested, which was a big warm up back in the times of the Vikings living in Greenland. Also, it reflected somewhat the time that is commonly known as the mini-ice age which was partly resposible for the immigration of Europeans to North America.

Another problem is that they have with report is that they used work by people who did not go through peer-review. Typically, before data can be used as evidence in an academic work, it must go through a review process by other academians to test the views presented. Most of the time, the citations would have been previously published after which they would have gone through more peer review. Apparently, much of the key parts of the IPCC report did not go through the process. Further, the guys who were drawing the conclusions were also some of the same guys who wrote the evidence that was never reviewed by anyone. You might call that a stacked deck.

Here is a letter from members of the US House of Representatives questioning the IPCC Methodology and asking for explanations. Congressional Letter to IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri asking for some explanation.

If that is not enough….

Here is a letter from scholars asking the same chairman, Dr. Pachauri, to “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.” Pretty tough.

Here is the letter calling on the IPCC to make yet another admission of error.


Now. earlier this year the head of the Associated Press, Ron Fournier, said he wanted the writers to abandon the just-the-facts approach to writing news and instead encouraged first person accounts and to include the writer’s personal emotions.(Here’s a related opinion piece) In my journalism class, that would have gotten an “F”. Where are you Griff Singer when we need you? I’ve noticed a whole lot of editorializing of late, even more than usual, especially in the area of headlines and how stories are written. This is very true with the reporting of Global Warming. I’ve cited another example here on this post. I would also suggest that the open letters that I’ve included here questioning the IPCC report may have been reported, but were probably buried whereas the actual IPCC report was brought out at the top of newspapers and tv broadcasts. Yes, people have questioned the report that Mr. Gore claims is settled science, but not too many people know that its been questioned or by whom. I wonder how many people know that the infamous hockey stick graph was quietly replaced after enough people complained of its inaccuracy? I wonder how many Americans would be on board the current climate bandwagon if Mr. Gore’s movie had revealed that data that may not have been reviewed and that those writing the conclusions were the same people who wrote the non-reviewed data were the very same people? All I am advocating is pure, straight truth. I question whether or not that is possible to achieve when those orchestrating the report is a necessarily political body such as the United Nations. This subject needs to be put solely into the academic arena and out of the hands of politicians, or politician turned film-makers.


4 Responses

  1. That’s more like it, Mr. Symon! I’m pretty sure that those who are members of the Al Gore Church of Global Warming will take issue with this post. However, I am glad to have your learned opionion and supporting evidence on this subject. Unfortunately though too many of our politicians both in the U.S. and worldwide have drunk the man-made global warming Kool-Aid. I’m afraid that there won’t be any turning back now since it is so ingrained in people’s minds–especially those of our children. I remember a few months ago I was talking to my 12-year-old daughter about some real doubts about man-made global warming. She looked at me like I was a stark, raving lunatic for suggesting such a thing. (Sigh). Maybe the recent bad news in the economy will be an excuse for the politicians to delay the more extreme measures that some are proposing to “stop man-made global warming”. If they are delayed and we have a few cold winters then maybe it will all quietly go away. We can hope–otherwise I’m afraid that global warming is here to stay whether it’s real or not!

  2. What I am all about is honesty. When you glob on a bunch of hooey, then you may obscure lots of facts that need to come out. For instance, I’m reading Thomas Friedman’s Hot, Flat and Crowded. Its a good book. But, it has some stuff in it about Katrina being a result of Global Warming. That’s bogus. So, when someone reads that, they may dismiss everything else which would be wrong because he makes many points that are quite shocking. Mainly it has to do with a planet that has more people than the resources can support. With an increasing population and with a larger percentage of that population taking on attributes of the American lifestyle, the resources become even more taxed. While I remain skeptical that man is causing all of this global warming, the question arises as to whether pragmatically we really can do anything about it. Then, if we can, should we? Would resources be better utilized fighting poverty and disease? I dunno. But I am reaching the conclusion that the global warming debate is a good thing in that it is pushing the US toward cleaner, renewable, domestic energy. It’s not going to happen overnight and some of the solutions may create more problems than they solve (see ethanol). But, if it is possible to become cleaner and more self reliant, that would aid in national security. So, you may see the end result achieved from two differnet vantage points. One is from those who think we are saving the world and the other is from a national security standpoint. One obstacle is that money doesn’t provide solutions all the time. Sometimes ideas run into stubborn laws of physics and those cannot be overcome by increased funding or protests or elections.

  3. I agree with you, Mr. Symon, in that I hope that all of this focus on a greener world does move us to cleaner, sustainable energy. I would love to see the U.S. become less dependent on foreign oil and improve our environment, of course. These are desirable outcomes but I would also be very, very happy to stop sending our money to subsidize people who are working to undermine our way of life…Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Putin come to mind.

    What I am disturbed by though is all of this fruitless energy that is being spent to combat carbon emissions. When you start having to calculate the carbon footprint of your home, business and candy bar and spend money to pump carbon emissions underground (what a crock!) to stop global warming that’s where I get off the bus. Unfortunately, all of this money and time is spent to combat something that is tenuous at best and only really results in making us less competitive in the global economy. Meanwhile the unregulated, no OSHA, no EPA, Indian and Chinese economies laugh at us and “eat out lunch”. This is what disturbs me. We are already at a huge disadvantage because of our higher labor costs and regulatory burden: We don’t really need to waste time combating something that will only make us even less competitive in the world economy and probably not help the environment one iota.

    I saw a review of “Hot, Flat and Crowded” in The Week magazine. You think it’s a good read, huh? I might check it out if you think it’s worthwhile. Of course, I am suspicious of anyone breaking out that “old saw” of world overpopulation. This has lead to de-population in Europe and would have had the same result in the U.S. had it not been for our burgeoning neighbors down south supplementing our population.

  4. So far, I think that its a good book in that it raises many good issues. But, I have a number of problems with many of his points regarding the absolutes about Global Warming. If find his argument in this area to be lacking in full disclosure and rather arrogant. But, his other points are well worth considering and he has further convinced me that it is in the interest of the United States to become cleaner and more self sufficient. I’m pessimisstic that it will do any good regarding climate change but from a naitonal security standpoint, it is vital. I’m not finished yet but what he seems to fail to recognize is that Americans have a problem, as you have expressed, with a solution that involves such a huge transfer of power and wealth to such a political body as the United Nations. I would have to put myself in the camp with the global warmers regarding the goal. But I question the method of how we get there and the motivations of those who are pushing that direction. I also wonder why these folks are not more concerned about water pollution and water availability. That is a more pressing, potentially more catastrophic situation than has been addressed in the media, in my view.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: