Fellow Coloradans
In spite of continued warm-mongering by Al Gore, the UN, the Denver Post, and Governor Ritter, Nature continues not to cooperate. Warming? Here's the latest Winter (Dec 2007 - Feb 2008) temperature data from the National Climate Data Center:
The 1901-2000 average Winter temperature in Colorado is 25.4 F; last year's was 23.1 F. It ranks as the 21st warmest (21st from the bottom) Winter in 113 years (1896 - 2008). Winter 2006-2007 was a little warmer, but still below average.
The temperature in the Southwest Region thisWinter was 32.4 F, instead of the 1901-2000 average of 33.4, ranking 37th (from the bottom). Overall, the US Winter temperature was equal to the 1901 - 2000 average, 33.1 F, 54th warmest.
Data is available online from NCDC
No doubt everyone is aware of the 120% of normal snowfall in the mountains. Global warming? Nonsense.
The world temperature from January 2007 to January 2008 took a nosedive as well. Here's world temperature, according to NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). The scientist at GISS who produces this stuff is Dr. James Hanson, who started the "global warming crisis" in testimony before a Senate committee chaired by Al Gore.
The important chart is the bottom right plot, showing monthly temperatures of 2007 and 2008. They are plotted in comparison with temperatures from 2005, the (previous) warmest year. 2007 was expected to assume that title; instead, 2007 became much colder than normal as the months went on. By January 2008, world temperature had fallen to 0.6 Celsius below "normal". During the 20th Century, world temperature rose about 0.7 degrees Celsius; between January 2007 and January 2008, world temperature FELL 0.6 Celsius. Global warming? Nonsense.
Let's focus on what's known, and serious, about Global Warming. What's known, and has been known for 70+ years, is the major change in Earth's global temperature that happens every 100,000 years. It was predicted in the 1930's by a Serb mathematician, Milutin Milankovitch. It's the cycle of warming and cooling, by more than 10 degrees Celsius, over thousands of years, caused by slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun - as predicted by Milankovitch. Any reasonable encyclopedia, whether on-line or printed, includes an explanation of the Milankovitch Cycle.
(The figure above is from United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm, presented in "A Primer on CO2 and Climate" by Howard C. Hayden, www/energyadvocate.com. Note that the present (1950) is on the right, and that temperatures in the last 10,000 years have been higher than now.)
Never heard of it before? Well, if you saw Mr. Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, you saw Mr. Gore standing in front of a large-scale projection of the Milankovitch Cycle, as measured in ice cores from Antarctica. You also heard Mr. Gore imply that carbon dioxide causes those temperature changes. That's simply a gross lie. The temperature changes happen before changes in carbon dioxide, by an average of 800 years. The Milankovitch Cycle is explained by astronomy, not carbon dioxide, which was not part of Milankovitch's calculations. That Milankovitch could predict the temperature changes we see in the ice cores - 50 years before we had the ice cores - demonstrates their independence of carbon dioxide.
Then why does carbon dioxide "correlate" (as Mr. Gore says) so well with temperature? The oceans are a major repository of (dissolved) carbon dioxide. When the oceans warm, they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; when the oceans cool, they absorb carbon dioxide. Like a glass of soda warming on the kitchen table, and losing its "fizz" (its carbonation).
Mr. Gore went on to lie again, even more boldly, by ascribing the magnitude of the Milankovitch temperature changes, about 12 Celsius, to carbon dioxide. He then claimed increased carbon dioxide - which actually RESULTS from astronomical warming - will cause another 10 or 12 Celsius change. This is circular reasoning - or circular lying. The unfortunate truth is that, for most of human existence - 80% of the Milankovitch Cycle - Earth has been much colder (i.e., 10 C) than it is now. The warm Interglacial periods, such as the one we're in, are short (~ 12,000 years), and transitory. What's next? Not warming. Take another look at the graph; what goes up, comes down. We're nearing the downward slope.
Why is it usually so cold? As a result of continental drift, Antarctica and the Northern Hemisphere continents cut off oceanic (warm) currents from the poles. 200 million years ago, the continents were in the tropics, ocean currents circulated freely over the poles, and lush vegetation grew everywhere (creating the coal beds we now mine for fossil fuel). That was then.
Geologists, astronomers, and most meteorologists - including all climatologists - have been aware of the Milankovitch predictions for decades. Since the advent of electronic computers (poor Milankovitch worked out the numbers by hand), the calculations have been repeated. (e.g., Imbrie & Imbrie, "Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations", Science v.207:29, Feb 1980). The bad news is that, in spite of Mr. Gore's blatant hijacking of astronomy for claims of catastrophic warming, the truth is the opposite. Earth is nearing the end of our warm Interglacial period - which subsumes all of civilized history. In a few thousand years, global temperature will be back in a Glacial Age, for another 100,000 years. Twenty thousand years ago, the site of Chicago was covered by ice a mile thick. It's only a matter of time. Fortunately, it's a matter of a LOT of time - unlike the idiotic editorials in The Denver Post, calling on "...world leaders [to ] respond to the crisis while there's still time." [24 November, 2007] Pure nonsense.
If Mr. Gore is lying, and the temperature changes he presented are due to astronomical variations in Earth's orbit, why has he been allowed to get away with it for so long? Politicians - especially Democratic politicians - find the fear of global warming to be a convenient tool to control the economy, and people's lives. Our media are primarily rsponsible, by presenting a single (Al Gore's) point of view.
More on the science page.
The average temperatures in Denver during the coldest part of the year, mid-December to mid-January - are 43 F high and 15 F low. When (not if) the Glacial Age returns, the highs and lows will be 23F and -5 F. Ready for that?
You may well wonder what's happening in the short term - a few lifetimes or so. Since the late 1950's, measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, have shown a slow increase of the miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (currently about 0.038% of the atmosphere). In comparison, water vapor (H2O), the major greenhouse gas, is about 2 - 4% of the atmosphere, or 100 times as much as CO2.
Since 1900, the global temperature has warmed about 0.75 degrees C (1.3 Fahrenheit), net. (See the graph of 5 year averages, the red line in the graph below.) During the 20th Century, temperatures have BOTH warmed AND cooled, although the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose continuously. It's hard to believe that CO2 causes warming, since temperature went both UP and DOWN while CO2 increased continuously. [Figure below from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; google "GISTEMP" and go to the Graphs link. See Fig. D.]
Between 1932 and 1980, temperature decreased, in spite of the booming industrial activity after World War 2. The common belief among climatologists - and repeated in the national media - was that we were going into a New Ice Age:
"... the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." [TIME, 24 July 1974]
These are the warmest single years in American history:
1934 (1.24C), 1998 (1.24C)
2006 (1.15C), 1921 (1.13C), 1931 (1.08C)
1999 (0.94C), 1953 (0.90C), 1990 (0.88C), 1938 (0.85C), 1939, 2007 (0.84C)
Most of the controversy over "the warmest year" is silly; as you can see, many differ by hundredths of a degree Celsius, far less than the margin of error in the measurements (0.1 C). Likewise, the rate of change (measured by the pentads, the five-year averages) is greatest between 1918 and 1932, more than 1.0 C over 15 years. Recent years are no warmer than earlier years; the rate of temperature change is less than it was before WW2.
In any case, trivial changes or not, you can't forecast the future from past statistics. A "trend line" imposed on 127 years of temperature statistics (1880 - 2007) predicts absolutely NOTHING about the temperature in 2008, 2009, 2010.....
The anomalous temperature decrease from 1932 to 1980, while CO2 increased steadily, further demonstrates that carbon dioxide does NOT control temperature. It also illustrates how little our media know about it, and what lengths they'll go to for hyping their product. The media - the Denver Post, national television networks, TIME, NEWSWEEK - regularly exaggerate the small amount of natural warming into a "crisis."
See our media for other examples.
Climatologists were so concerned about a "harbinger of another ice age" because they know about the Milankovitch Cycle, which - as we saw above - Gore lied about.
Global warming and cooling, by a few degres, have taken place hundreds of times in the past, long before human industrial activity. The warmest period in our Interglacial Period was about 8,000 - 4,000 years ago, called the Climatic Optimum. Two warm periods are recorded in human history, during the Roman Republic and Empire (200 BC - 400 AD) and during the Medieval Warm Period (900 AD - 1300 AD), when Europe's cathedrals were built and the Norse settled Greenland. Others are recorded in archaeological and ice-core records. [You can see them in the Interglacial Period of the Ice Core record above.] The cycle period (1 warm, 1 cold) is about 1500 years. [See "Unstoppable Global Warming" by Singer and Avery in the
references section for details.]
The two warm periods mentioned above were long before human industrial activity, when there were few humans. Likewise, the Russian Academy of Sciences (July, 2004) recommended against the Kyoto Protocol, pointing out that changing temperatures (warming and cooling) are much better correlated with solar activity than with CO2 content.
We know solar activity decreased during the Little Ice Age, because we have records of sunspots, starting in the 1600's. Between 1645 and 1710 there were few or no sunspots, a period known to astronomers as the "Maunder Minimum." That corresponds to the coldest part of "The Little Ice Age." The Little Ice Age was a time of misery, famine, sickness and belief in "witchcraft" as the cause. On the other hand - if you like to look on the bright side - trees grew so slowly that their wood was very dense and hard. Antonio Stradivari used such wood to craft his violins; shipbuilders used it for ships like "Old Ironsides."
Let's examine what scientists who study global warming say, and what limits they put on the magnitude of past and future warming. Then you can decide on whether the problem is serious enough to take drastic action - as demanded by Mr. Gore and other politicians - and whether we know enough about it to be sure we're doing the right thing.
One of my former professors at Wisconsin, Reid Bryson, recently offered his opinion on "manmade global warming." Prof. Bryson is acknowledged as THE founder of modern climatology, the study of climate and climate change. A considered statement from an authority like Prof Bryson is impossible to refute. Bryson knows the facts and the theory as well as anyone in the world.
“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past”....
World's leading climatologist gives his opinion.
You can read Professor Bryson's opinion for yourself. He believes moderate global warming is taking place - as it has in the past. He doesn't believe humans are causing it. So much for the media claim that "all scientists agree global warming is a man-made crisis." Incidentally, the former Colorado State Climatologist, Prof. Roger Pielke, doesn't believe it either. Neither does a foremost scientist at MIT, Prof. Richard Lindzen. Nor does the head of the National Hurricane Research.....oh, never mind. People who tell you there's a "consensus" - as if science is settled by consensus - are liars like Mr. Gore.
If you would like to examine for yourself the most recent analysis of climate change, you can download it. It's the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) from the Fourth Assessment Review (FAR), published in February 2007 by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It's a small file, about 1.25 MB, or 18 pages. It's available on-line
Summary for Politicians .
Working Group 1 If you want to see the scientific papers referenced by the Summary for Policy Makers, they are also available online from NCAR (the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder). (About 1000 pages.) You'll find the science is not as one-sided as the Media try to tell you.
I don't completely believe the IPCC, for reasons I'll explain in a minute. But the SPM is at least based on real science (Working Group 1), and it gives numbers - not vague exaggerations - that you can examine for yourself.
For example, look at Table SPM-1 on page 7. It tells you the observed rate of sea-level rise is between 1.3 and 2.3 millimeters per year. In a century, that's 130 mm to 230 mm - or between 5.1 and 9.1 inches. That's the rate at which sea level has been rising for the last 8,000 years, since we got out of the Ice Age.
Compare that with Mr. Gore's claim that within our lifetimes Manhattan will be submerged under 20 FEET of rising ocean. The SPM points out it would take millenia to melt the ice caps enough to raise sea level that much. That's an example of Mr. Gore's ridiculous exaggeration. Later in the SPM (Table SPM-3), forecast models predict a sea-level rise of about 32 centimeters, or 12 inches. Obviously, Mr. Gore's claim is totally unscientific.
Much of the SPM is based on output from numerical models. Numerical models are only as good as the understanding of physics incorporated into the computer code. Unfortunately, that's not very good. See Dr. Roger A. Pielke's recent weblog
on climate models for more discussion of models.
Extremists blame global warming on carbon dioxide, which they cite as "the major greenhouse gas." Not even close. The major greenhouse gas is plain old water vapor.
Let's assume carbon dioxide really did cause the warming of the 20th Century - a whole 1 degree Fahrenheit. Know how much water vapor contributes to greenhouse warming? 60 degrees Fahrenheit! If we didn't have water vapor in our atmosphere, the earth would be virtually uninhabitable - around 0 Fahrenheit on average. Water vapor is 60 times more important than carbon dioxide in greenhouse warming - and it's not caused by humans. See
Greenhouse gas physics
for a more complete explanation.
Compare 7 inches of measured sea level rise per century (according to the SPM) with the lead 2007 Earth Day article in the Denver Post (Perspective: "On Earth Day, make a promise") which claims we "...threaten to catastrophically alter the Earth's climate." "Let's do something about global warming. Now, while we still can."
WHILE WE STILL CAN? That's an example of the lunatic exaggeration at the Post. The article never explains what the threat is; it offers not a single quantitative statement of the magnitude of the threat; but it demands we "...do something ...now...while we still can."
If these authors were appointed Dictators, and implemented the Kyoto Treaty immediately, would it "do something"? No. The change resulting from Kyoto is not even measurable.
See our media for other examples.
The remedy proposed by left-wing politicians - the Kyoto Treaty - won't stop the warming. It will just destroy our economy. Not my opinion, but that of the (non-partisan) Congressional Budget Office.
The Kyoto Treaty would cost America billions of dollars and millions of jobs - which would outsource to countries like China and India, which are exempt from Kyoto, and the other 175 countries that are exempt. Think we have a problem with "outsourcing" now?
The Kyoto Treaty
If Kyoto were implemented, it would reduce "global warming" by 0.07 degrees Celsius, or 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit, by 2050.
Again, that's not my opinion; it's the opinion of scientists who try to predict climate change, using computer models. Of course, the European Union doesn't intend to actually sacrifice in order to reduce carbon emissions - they intend to buy "carbon credits" from Russia, a "developing country." (Just like Al Gore buys "carbon credits" for his Nashville mansion.) The European Union - which signed the Kyoto Treaty - is not meeting its emission reduction goals. Why don't these hypocrites just do what they tell us to do?
China - exempt from the Kyoto Protocol - has passed the United States this year (2007) in greenhouse gas emissions, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
As I said, I don't entirely believe the authors of the SPM, since they're controlled by European (i.e., socialist) politicians.
See the real IPCC
for more information. As that page explains, the IPCC, in their previous (2001) report on climate change, lied to us. Scientists don't lie to us - and people who lie to us aren't scientists.
I'm tired of exaggerations by politicians, and especially by the media. But you don't have to take my word for it; there are plenty of books, videos, and websites where you can investigate for yourself. Feel free to check the
scientific references ...that give a realistic perspective on man-made global warming
It's up to us, fellow citizens, to tell the politicians to match carbon dioxide reductions and "alternative energies" - which will have an impact on our economy - with the impact "global warming" will have on our environment. The impact of warming has been, and will be, small. Let's be sure the impact on our economy, our health, and our way of life, is appropriately small as well.
Unfortunately, many of the politicians - Governor Ritter, Senator Salazar, Senator McCain among them - are already pushing legislation to "save us from the global warming crisis." Governor Ritter, in 2007, pushed through legislation requiring IREA to generate 10% of its energy from "renewable" sources (and, for some reason, hydroelectric power - the cheapest, most renewable source - doesn't count.)
Senator Salazar is on the Senate Energy Committee. They recently passed a bill to increase required automobile gasoline mileage efficiency. NOT to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling. NOT to explore for American oil reserves on the Continental Shelf. NOT to make it easier to license a new refinery. NOT increase nuclear power generation. Thank you SO MUCH, Senator Salazar.
Senator McCain is a co-sponsor of the Lieberman proposal to implement the Kyoto Treaty. Billions of dollars wasted, for no benefit.
In other words, well-meaning, ignorant, ambitious politicians are planning to "help" us.
"Do you really want the government to help you? "
Public Insight Network - "Going Green" Colorado Public Radio is beginning a new approach to coverage of Colorado news; one of the topics for which they solicit OUR opinion is support for "environmentalism." It's up to you to decide what that means. Hit the link to go to KCFR; when you get there, click on PUBLIC INSIGHT on the masthead. There's a questionnaire to fill out. Hope you'll tell them you support conserving our resources, and the beauty of our country - but not socialists from Boulder or nuts like Al Gore.
Hi -
Did you want to make a comment? or ask a question?
Comments will NOT be published, either to commend or disparage anyone. I'd appreciate informed feedback; obviously, polite commentary will get a more reasoned response than remarks on my personal ancestry (Scots-Irish) or personal habits (none of yr business). Seriously, I've had thoughtful comments that caused me to change the content on this website. You're welcome to tell me when I'm wrong.
Rev. EarthDay 2007
Then why does carbon dioxide "correlate" (as Mr. Gore says) so well with temperature? The oceans are a major repository of (dissolved) carbon dioxide. When the oceans warm, they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; when the oceans cool, they absorb carbon dioxide. Like a glass of soda warming on the kitchen table, and losing its "fizz" (its carbonation).
Mr. Gore went on to lie again, even more boldly, by ascribing the magnitude of the Milankovitch temperature changes, about 12 Celsius, to carbon dioxide. He then claimed increased carbon dioxide - which actually RESULTS from astronomical warming - will cause another 10 or 12 Celsius change. This is circular reasoning - or circular lying. The unfortunate truth is that, for most of human existence - 80% of the Milankovitch Cycle - Earth has been much colder (i.e., 10 C) than it is now. The warm Interglacial periods, such as the one we're in, are short (~ 12,000 years), and transitory. What's next? Not warming. Take another look at the graph; what goes up, comes down. We're nearing the downward slope.
Why is it usually so cold? As a result of continental drift, Antarctica and the Northern Hemisphere continents cut off oceanic (warm) currents from the poles. 200 million years ago, the continents were in the tropics, ocean currents circulated freely over the poles, and lush vegetation grew everywhere (creating the coal beds we now mine for fossil fuel). That was then.
Geologists, astronomers, and most meteorologists - including all climatologists - have been aware of the Milankovitch predictions for decades. Since the advent of electronic computers (poor Milankovitch worked out the numbers by hand), the calculations have been repeated. (e.g., Imbrie & Imbrie, "Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations", Science v.207:29, Feb 1980). The bad news is that, in spite of Mr. Gore's blatant hijacking of astronomy for claims of catastrophic warming, the truth is the opposite. Earth is nearing the end of our warm Interglacial period - which subsumes all of civilized history. In a few thousand years, global temperature will be back in a Glacial Age, for another 100,000 years. Twenty thousand years ago, the site of Chicago was covered by ice a mile thick. It's only a matter of time. Fortunately, it's a matter of a LOT of time - unlike the idiotic editorials in The Denver Post, calling on "...world leaders [to ] respond to the crisis while there's still time." [24 November, 2007] Pure nonsense.
If Mr. Gore is lying, and the temperature changes he presented are due to astronomical variations in Earth's orbit, why has he been allowed to get away with it for so long? Politicians - especially Democratic politicians - find the fear of global warming to be a convenient tool to control the economy, and people's lives. Our media are primarily rsponsible, by presenting a single (Al Gore's) point of view.
More on the science page.
The average temperatures in Denver during the coldest part of the year, mid-December to mid-January - are 43 F high and 15 F low. When (not if) the Glacial Age returns, the highs and lows will be 23F and -5 F. Ready for that?
You may well wonder what's happening in the short term - a few lifetimes or so. Since the late 1950's, measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, have shown a slow increase of the miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (currently about 0.038% of the atmosphere). In comparison, water vapor (H2O), the major greenhouse gas, is about 2 - 4% of the atmosphere, or 100 times as much as CO2.
Since 1900, the global temperature has warmed about 0.75 degrees C (1.3 Fahrenheit), net. (See the graph of 5 year averages, the red line in the graph below.) During the 20th Century, temperatures have BOTH warmed AND cooled, although the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose continuously. It's hard to believe that CO2 causes warming, since temperature went both UP and DOWN while CO2 increased continuously. [Figure below from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; google "GISTEMP" and go to the Graphs link. See Fig. D.]
Between 1932 and 1980, temperature decreased, in spite of the booming industrial activity after World War 2. The common belief among climatologists - and repeated in the national media - was that we were going into a New Ice Age:
"... the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." [TIME, 24 July 1974]
These are the warmest single years in American history:
1934 (1.24C), 1998 (1.24C)
2006 (1.15C), 1921 (1.13C), 1931 (1.08C)
1999 (0.94C), 1953 (0.90C), 1990 (0.88C), 1938 (0.85C), 1939, 2007 (0.84C)
Most of the controversy over "the warmest year" is silly; as you can see, many differ by hundredths of a degree Celsius, far less than the margin of error in the measurements (0.1 C). Likewise, the rate of change (measured by the pentads, the five-year averages) is greatest between 1918 and 1932, more than 1.0 C over 15 years. Recent years are no warmer than earlier years; the rate of temperature change is less than it was before WW2.
In any case, trivial changes or not, you can't forecast the future from past statistics. A "trend line" imposed on 127 years of temperature statistics (1880 - 2007) predicts absolutely NOTHING about the temperature in 2008, 2009, 2010.....
The anomalous temperature decrease from 1932 to 1980, while CO2 increased steadily, further demonstrates that carbon dioxide does NOT control temperature. It also illustrates how little our media know about it, and what lengths they'll go to for hyping their product. The media - the Denver Post, national television networks, TIME, NEWSWEEK - regularly exaggerate the small amount of natural warming into a "crisis."
See our media for other examples.
Climatologists were so concerned about a "harbinger of another ice age" because they know about the Milankovitch Cycle, which - as we saw above - Gore lied about.
Global warming and cooling, by a few degres, have taken place hundreds of times in the past, long before human industrial activity. The warmest period in our Interglacial Period was about 8,000 - 4,000 years ago, called the Climatic Optimum. Two warm periods are recorded in human history, during the Roman Republic and Empire (200 BC - 400 AD) and during the Medieval Warm Period (900 AD - 1300 AD), when Europe's cathedrals were built and the Norse settled Greenland. Others are recorded in archaeological and ice-core records. [You can see them in the Interglacial Period of the Ice Core record above.] The cycle period (1 warm, 1 cold) is about 1500 years. [See "Unstoppable Global Warming" by Singer and Avery in the
references section for details.]
The two warm periods mentioned above were long before human industrial activity, when there were few humans. Likewise, the Russian Academy of Sciences (July, 2004) recommended against the Kyoto Protocol, pointing out that changing temperatures (warming and cooling) are much better correlated with solar activity than with CO2 content.
We know solar activity decreased during the Little Ice Age, because we have records of sunspots, starting in the 1600's. Between 1645 and 1710 there were few or no sunspots, a period known to astronomers as the "Maunder Minimum." That corresponds to the coldest part of "The Little Ice Age." The Little Ice Age was a time of misery, famine, sickness and belief in "witchcraft" as the cause. On the other hand - if you like to look on the bright side - trees grew so slowly that their wood was very dense and hard. Antonio Stradivari used such wood to craft his violins; shipbuilders used it for ships like "Old Ironsides."
Let's examine what scientists who study global warming say, and what limits they put on the magnitude of past and future warming. Then you can decide on whether the problem is serious enough to take drastic action - as demanded by Mr. Gore and other politicians - and whether we know enough about it to be sure we're doing the right thing. One of my former professors at Wisconsin, Reid Bryson, recently offered his opinion on "manmade global warming." Prof. Bryson is acknowledged as THE founder of modern climatology, the study of climate and climate change. A considered statement from an authority like Prof Bryson is impossible to refute. Bryson knows the facts and the theory as well as anyone in the world.
“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past”....
If you would like to examine for yourself the most recent analysis of climate change, you can download it. It's the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) from the Fourth Assessment Review (FAR), published in February 2007 by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It's a small file, about 1.25 MB, or 18 pages. It's available on-line
Summary for Politicians .
Working Group 1 If you want to see the scientific papers referenced by the Summary for Policy Makers, they are also available online from NCAR (the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder). (About 1000 pages.) You'll find the science is not as one-sided as the Media try to tell you.
I don't completely believe the IPCC, for reasons I'll explain in a minute. But the SPM is at least based on real science (Working Group 1), and it gives numbers - not vague exaggerations - that you can examine for yourself.
For example, look at Table SPM-1 on page 7. It tells you the observed rate of sea-level rise is between 1.3 and 2.3 millimeters per year. In a century, that's 130 mm to 230 mm - or between 5.1 and 9.1 inches. That's the rate at which sea level has been rising for the last 8,000 years, since we got out of the Ice Age.
Compare that with Mr. Gore's claim that within our lifetimes Manhattan will be submerged under 20 FEET of rising ocean. The SPM points out it would take millenia to melt the ice caps enough to raise sea level that much. That's an example of Mr. Gore's ridiculous exaggeration. Later in the SPM (Table SPM-3), forecast models predict a sea-level rise of about 32 centimeters, or 12 inches. Obviously, Mr. Gore's claim is totally unscientific.
Much of the SPM is based on output from numerical models. Numerical models are only as good as the understanding of physics incorporated into the computer code. Unfortunately, that's not very good. See Dr. Roger A. Pielke's recent weblog
on climate models for more discussion of models.
Extremists blame global warming on carbon dioxide, which they cite as "the major greenhouse gas." Not even close. The major greenhouse gas is plain old water vapor.
Let's assume carbon dioxide really did cause the warming of the 20th Century - a whole 1 degree Fahrenheit. Know how much water vapor contributes to greenhouse warming? 60 degrees Fahrenheit! If we didn't have water vapor in our atmosphere, the earth would be virtually uninhabitable - around 0 Fahrenheit on average. Water vapor is 60 times more important than carbon dioxide in greenhouse warming - and it's not caused by humans. See
Greenhouse gas physics
for a more complete explanation.
Compare 7 inches of measured sea level rise per century (according to the SPM) with the lead 2007 Earth Day article in the Denver Post (Perspective: "On Earth Day, make a promise") which claims we "...threaten to catastrophically alter the Earth's climate." "Let's do something about global warming. Now, while we still can."
WHILE WE STILL CAN? That's an example of the lunatic exaggeration at the Post. The article never explains what the threat is; it offers not a single quantitative statement of the magnitude of the threat; but it demands we "...do something ...now...while we still can."
If these authors were appointed Dictators, and implemented the Kyoto Treaty immediately, would it "do something"? No. The change resulting from Kyoto is not even measurable.
See our media for other examples.
The remedy proposed by left-wing politicians - the Kyoto Treaty - won't stop the warming. It will just destroy our economy. Not my opinion, but that of the (non-partisan) Congressional Budget Office.
The Kyoto Treaty would cost America billions of dollars and millions of jobs - which would outsource to countries like China and India, which are exempt from Kyoto, and the other 175 countries that are exempt. Think we have a problem with "outsourcing" now?
The Kyoto Treaty
If Kyoto were implemented, it would reduce "global warming" by 0.07 degrees Celsius, or 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit, by 2050.
Again, that's not my opinion; it's the opinion of scientists who try to predict climate change, using computer models. Of course, the European Union doesn't intend to actually sacrifice in order to reduce carbon emissions - they intend to buy "carbon credits" from Russia, a "developing country." (Just like Al Gore buys "carbon credits" for his Nashville mansion.) The European Union - which signed the Kyoto Treaty - is not meeting its emission reduction goals. Why don't these hypocrites just do what they tell us to do?
China - exempt from the Kyoto Protocol - has passed the United States this year (2007) in greenhouse gas emissions, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
As I said, I don't entirely believe the authors of the SPM, since they're controlled by European (i.e., socialist) politicians.
See the real IPCC
for more information. As that page explains, the IPCC, in their previous (2001) report on climate change, lied to us. Scientists don't lie to us - and people who lie to us aren't scientists.
I'm tired of exaggerations by politicians, and especially by the media. But you don't have to take my word for it; there are plenty of books, videos, and websites where you can investigate for yourself. Feel free to check the
scientific references ...that give a realistic perspective on man-made global warming It's up to us, fellow citizens, to tell the politicians to match carbon dioxide reductions and "alternative energies" - which will have an impact on our economy - with the impact "global warming" will have on our environment. The impact of warming has been, and will be, small. Let's be sure the impact on our economy, our health, and our way of life, is appropriately small as well.
Unfortunately, many of the politicians - Governor Ritter, Senator Salazar, Senator McCain among them - are already pushing legislation to "save us from the global warming crisis." Governor Ritter, in 2007, pushed through legislation requiring IREA to generate 10% of its energy from "renewable" sources (and, for some reason, hydroelectric power - the cheapest, most renewable source - doesn't count.)
Senator Salazar is on the Senate Energy Committee. They recently passed a bill to increase required automobile gasoline mileage efficiency. NOT to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling. NOT to explore for American oil reserves on the Continental Shelf. NOT to make it easier to license a new refinery. NOT increase nuclear power generation. Thank you SO MUCH, Senator Salazar.
Senator McCain is a co-sponsor of the Lieberman proposal to implement the Kyoto Treaty. Billions of dollars wasted, for no benefit.
In other words, well-meaning, ignorant, ambitious politicians are planning to "help" us.
"Do you really want the government to help you? "
Hi - Did you want to make a comment? or ask a question? Comments will NOT be published, either to commend or disparage anyone. I'd appreciate informed feedback; obviously, polite commentary will get a more reasoned response than remarks on my personal ancestry (Scots-Irish) or personal habits (none of yr business). Seriously, I've had thoughtful comments that caused me to change the content on this website. You're welcome to tell me when I'm wrong.
World's leading climatologist gives his opinion.
You can read Professor Bryson's opinion for yourself. He believes moderate global warming is taking place - as it has in the past. He doesn't believe humans are causing it. So much for the media claim that "all scientists agree global warming is a man-made crisis." Incidentally, the former Colorado State Climatologist, Prof. Roger Pielke, doesn't believe it either. Neither does a foremost scientist at MIT, Prof. Richard Lindzen. Nor does the head of the National Hurricane Research.....oh, never mind. People who tell you there's a "consensus" - as if science is settled by consensus - are liars like Mr. Gore.
Public Insight Network - "Going Green" Colorado Public Radio is beginning a new approach to coverage of Colorado news; one of the topics for which they solicit OUR opinion is support for "environmentalism." It's up to you to decide what that means. Hit the link to go to KCFR; when you get there, click on PUBLIC INSIGHT on the masthead. There's a questionnaire to fill out. Hope you'll tell them you support conserving our resources, and the beauty of our country - but not socialists from Boulder or nuts like Al Gore.
Rev. EarthDay 2007