Reposted With Permission From The New American

Hot and Cold Running Alarmism

by Gary Benoit

The threat of catastrophic climatic change is nothing new. For example, the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek darkly warned: "There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now.... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."

Laying out the Evidence

by Dr. Arthur B. Robinson

Man’s political, social, technological, economical, biological, and meteorological environments are continuously being altered throughout the world. Much of our time is spent in efforts to promote those changes that are beneficial to us personally and to mankind generally. While many aspects of our environment are within our control, some are largely beyond our control, among them our planet’s weather.

Twenty years ago, environmental doomsayers claimed that one activity of man has been substantially affecting global climate: the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for the generation of electric power, transportation, and other technological purposes. Supposedly, this burning was causing "global cooling," which would result in severe weather disruptions and other harmful changes. Now these same eco-alarmists are claiming that this burning is instead causing "global warming" — which (they claim) will result in severe weather disruptions and other harmful effects. Supposedly this warming results from a greenhouse effect brought on by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. This increased carbon dioxide, they complain, comes from the burning of hydrocarbons.

The politics of global warming have become so intense that some "experts" are blaming virtually every sort of environmental fluctuation on this warming — even though such changes are an ordinary part of our usual meteorological environment. Moreover, the promoters of global warming are now calling for reductions in world hydrocarbon use by as much as 20 percent when, according to the U. S. Department of Energy, the demand for hydrocarbons is expected to rise by more than 50 percent over the next 20 years (largely as a result of economic development in Asia, Africa, and other regions). The proposed reduction would leave humanity with approximately half of its needs for hydrocarbons unfulfilled; reduce the human carrying capacity of the earth and thereby cause many deaths; diminish economic well-being throughout the world; and permit the rise of a powerful worldwide political and military bureaucracy to enforce hydrocarbon rationing.

Energy is the currency of technological progress; thus, global controls on hydrocarbons (of which the world has current reserves sufficient for our needs for more than the next 1,000 years) would mean global controls on the technology that provides food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, and most other essential items. The resulting political, economic, and sociological changes — including a marked diminution of human freedom and rising world tensions as people everywhere are deprived of their daily needs — would have a dramatic effect on even the most modest of Western lifestyles. But such a devastating course for all mankind is not inevitable, particularly if good and honest people know the truth concerning these "global warming" claims.

Scientists have been carefully measuring the earth’s temperature for many years, utilizing increasingly sophisticated methods. They have also developed ways of measuring temperatures far back into the past by studying the remains of biological, geological, and chemical processes. Figure 1, for example, shows ocean surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea (a region in the Atlantic Ocean) as measured by isotope ratios in the remains of tiny marine organisms that live near the surface and build up as sediment on the sea bottom after they die. (See L. D. Kegwin, Science 274, 1504-1508, 1996.) Figure 1 shows this record for 3,000 years. Recent temperatures determined by direct measurement are labeled "Station S" and are placed in perspective by the graph. It is seen that the earth has been warming gradually over the last 300 years as it recovers from an unusually cool period that is known as the "Little Ice Age." Temperatures are still far below those that prevailed during much of the last three millennia — including the warmer period during the Middle Ages about 1,000 years ago, when world weather was milder and more ideal than it is today.

Figure 2 shows more detail of this recent warming period from direct measurements of surface temperature in the Northern Hemisphere during the past 250 years. These are given by the red line and the temperature scale on the right. Superimposed upon the temperature record in this figure are measurements of the sun’s magnetic activity during this same time period shown by the blue line and the scale on the left. The close correlation between these two curves strongly suggests that the recent three century temperature rise from the Little Ice Age — and the variations within that rise — are the result of fluctuations in solar activity. The sun is a little hotter and the earth is a little warmer. When the sun cools, the earth cools, also. (See S. Baliunas and W. Soon, Sky and Telescope, December 1996.)

For a more contemporary reference, Figure 3 shows average annual temperatures in the U.S. during the past 100 years. Notice that temperatures rose during the first half of the 20th century, then decreased somewhat, and are now rising again in correlation with solar activity as is illustrated in Figure 2. Notice also that current average temperatures are not at all unusual even in comparison with just this century alone. (See Brief No. 213, National Center for Policy Analysis, which quotes this data from the original 1990 Oak Ridge National Laboratory report.)

With the advent of modern methods, atmospheric temperature measurements are being made with thermometers carried into the atmosphere by balloons, and also with sophisticated devices that measure atmospheric temperature by observation from orbiting satellites. These records are summarized in Figure 4. The blue line is the satellite record, which has only been available since 1979. Notice the close agreement between these two sets of values that were obtained by very different measurement methods. Notice, also, that current temperatures are not unusual and are not significantly rising. (See R. A. Kerr, Science 267, 612.)

Figure 5 shows the satellite record between 1979 and 1997. These are our most precise measurements of atmospheric temperatures. Moreover, their accuracy has been verified by agreement with independent measurements by weather balloon (see Figure 4). At this level of magnification and precision, temperatures can be seen to vary substantially. Overall, this data shows a slight downward trend in temperature during the past 18 years — years which included the highest atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. (See Eco• logic, 1-5, March/April 1997.)

Finally, Figure 6 shows the average surface temperature record of the 20th century versus an increase calculated from the hypothesis that rising carbon dioxide levels will cause a temperature rise. The calculated rise occurs, for the most part, after 1940 because most of the carbon dioxide increase occurred after 1940. An effect, however, cannot precede its cause. The 20th century temperature rise of about 0.6 degree Centigrade or about 1 degree Fahrenheit, an increase that correlates very well with solar activity as shown in Figure 2, cannot have been caused by the rise in carbon dioxide levels — because it preceded that rise. (See Two Environmental Issues, George C. Marshall Institute, 1991.)

The carbon dioxide level of the earth’s atmosphere has been raised from about 290 parts per million in 1890 to about 360 parts per million in 1995, and there has been no corresponding change in the earth’s temperature. Therefore, if global warming is taking place, it is an effect so small that we need not worry about it — unless, of course, measurements during future decades show a different result. It is expected that, without energy rationing, carbon dioxide levels will eventually rise to about 600 parts per million, at which a new equilibrium will establish itself. Since we have already experienced about 25 percent of this increase without a measurable effect on temperature, it is unlikely that future measurements will show a significant change.

Figures 7 and 8 show the actual change in carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. At the scale of Figure 8, seasonal fluctuations are evident. Plants inhale large amounts of carbon dioxide, so atmospheric levels vary from summer to winter. In considering global warming, the most important aspect of these two graphs is the time period over which most of the carbon dioxide increase has taken place. It is within this time period that global temperature changes from "global warming" must be evident. These temperature changes have not occurred. (See S. B. Idso, Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition, 1989 and Trends 93: A compendium of Data on Global Change, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.)

So, you may say, why the fuss? If the thermometers say the atmosphere is not warming up, that should end the argument — at least for now.

It turns out that there is a field of science in which scientists are striving to develop computer models of the earth’s atmosphere that will permit long-term weather prediction and other useful capabilities. This is a very difficult undertaking because the weather depends upon a large number of factors that interact with one another in complex ways. We are all aware that the weatherman is often wrong even in the prediction of weather only a few days ahead in a small locality. Imagine these same weathermen trying to predict weather hundreds of years in the future for the whole earth.

At their current level of development, weather predicting computer models are not very good. This is not a reason for criticism. This undertaking is potentially quite valuable. In time, perhaps, such models might be developed that are highly reliable, but their currently low level of reliability is shown in Figures 9 and 10. Clearly, computer predictions of global warming are, as yet, of no practical use. (See The Global Warming Experiment, George C. Marshall Institute, 1995.)

Figure 11 illustrates part of the reason for failures of current computer model predictions of global temperature. The calculated change in atmospheric energy (and, therefore, temperature) shown in the fourth bar on the right is very small compared with the uncertainties in three parameters upon which the calculation depends as shown by the three bars on the left. (See S. Baliunas, Uncertainties in Climate Modeling: Solar Variability and Other Factors, testimony before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the U.S. Senate, 1996.)

When uncertainties are this great with respect to the quantity being calculated, a computer model can be adjusted to produce virtually any result that is desired. This is exactly what has happened. These models, still too primitive to stand on their own, have been adjusted to conform to a perceived politically correct result, so that government funding will continue and the scientists involved will preserve their notoriety, positions, and whatever other perks are of value to them.

The drift of global warming predictions with political expediency is also illustrated in Figure 12. As resistance in the scientific community to the unproved hypothesis of global warming has grown and as temperature measurements have continued to show no significant warming, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has repeatedly revised its predictions downward. Extrapolating this prediction curve forward in time, we might humorously predict that the issue will return to "global cooling" in about the year 2003.

There is, of course, a large element of dishonesty involved in basing calls for international energy rationing on ever-shifting computer models that can be intentionally adjusted to produce a politically convenient result. Billions of dollars of annual government research grants are able to buy not only research, but also research results that government bureaucrats and politicians prefer. Unfortunately, scientific dishonesty is, in the case of the global warming debate, much worse than illustrated in Figures 11 and 12. During the most recent IPCC meeting (the results of which are being used as the current basis for a proposed treaty instituting mandatory global hydrocarbon energy rationing), a draft paper was circulated in order to influence the proceedings (B. D. Santer et al, Nature 382, 39-45, 1996). The paper demonstrated a very strong positive correlation between temperature and time in the Southern Hemisphere troposphere between 30 degrees and 60 degrees South — a region where confounding atmospheric influences are believed to be smaller, so that global warming might be more easily and accurately observed. The published values were those contained in the oval in Figure 13 and illustrated by closed circles.

After this publication appeared and long after the time when correction of its false influence on the IPCC report became impossible, the rest of the data was published by other scientists (Michaels and Knappenberger), who were astonished by the selective use of data in the Santer paper. The rest of the story is contained in the data points outside of the oval in Figure 12 and illustrated by open circles. (See P. J. Michaels and P. C. Knappenberger, Nature 384, 522-523, 1996; B. D. Santer et al, Nature 384, 524, 1996; and World Climate Report 1-21 and 2-1, 1996.) When all of the data is revealed, the graph obviously tells an opposite story — one contrary to global warming. Data selection and concealment in order to alter the conclusions of a scientific study as illustrated in this series of publications is entirely unacceptable in science.

The number of charts and graphs in this article may appear to be too many until one realizes that science does not revolve around words and rhetoric. One does not need to read a five-page article to discover that a particular scientist or "expert" holds the opinion that the hypothesis that significant global warming will occur as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not conform with experimental measurements. The measurements themselves are all that matter.

As physicist Richard Feynman said:

In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law we guessed is right. Then we compare the results of the computation with nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.

It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.

Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong. If the guess you make is poorly expressed and rather vague, and the method you use for figuring out the consequences is a little vague — you are not sure, and you say, "I think everything’s all right because it’s all due to so and so, and such and such do this and that more or less, and I can sort of explain how this works ..." then you see that this theory is good because it cannot be proved wrong! Also if the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill any experimental results can be made to look like the expected consequences.

There is a known and real atmospheric phenomenon called the "greenhouse effect," and it occurs when substances in the atmosphere allow more energy to pass into the atmosphere than they allow to pass out of it. Carbon dioxide is such a substance. It was reasonable, therefore, to hypothesize that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might warm the earth to a significant extent. An ongoing experiment over the past 50 years to test this hypothesis has shown no significant rise in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere during this period when carbon dioxide levels rose by a large amount.

Given these results, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the greater carbon dioxide levels predicted for the next century will still not lead to any significant temperature rise. This, too, is a hypothesis, and will most likely undergo experimental testing during the next century.

Numerous other points could be made, of course. Physicist Edward Teller has pointed out that the entire warming predicted by the politically correct computer models (which has not occurred) could be prevented by slightly reducing solar radiation with a particle sunscreen injected into the atmosphere. This is the technological equivalent of the cooling effects occasionally caused by volcanic activity. Teller estimates the current cost of such a sun screen to be between $100 million and $1 billion per year — between 0.1 percent and one percent of the estimated cost to the U.S. alone of the proposed first phase of the global rationing program now under consideration. This sun screen would be so diffuse that it would not be noticeable except with special instruments.

Many similar ideas have been proposed, including firing dust into the stratosphere with 16-inch naval guns at a cost of $500 million per year, adjusting the exhaust on commercial airliners to produce soot at a cost of $7 million per year, and seeding clouds with sulfur emissions at a cost of $500 million per year. Since, however, there is no detectable warming and no evidence that warming, if it did occur, would be undesirable, it appears that none of these measures will be needed.

It is reasonable for one to ask why the current temperature of the earth is advertised as being so perfect. Temperatures were much warmer about 1,000 years ago during the Middle Ages, and global weather was milder as a result. Moreover, many of the world’s people now live in regions with short growing seasons and harsh, cold weather. They would probably much prefer a somewhat warmer climate.

Global warming alarmists will probably decry Teller’s suggestion as human pollution of the atmosphere. They are also busily inventing additional disaster scenarios, such as global flooding from melting of the Antarctic Ice Cap. This flooding scenario is not consistent with scientific knowledge about Antarctica. First, floating ice does not raise the level of water when it melts (try this with a glass of water). Second, the non-floating ice that lays atop the Antarctic continent is a very cold, very thick insulator. It could not melt at the top because, even if warmed by many degrees, it would still be too cold — far below freezing.

This ice does melt continuously at the bottom where it is warmed by heat generated deep in the earth — melting in such a way as to balance snow deposition at the top, so the whole is approximately in equilibrium. Since this very thick ice is an insulator, many centuries would be required before any surface temperature change could reach the region of melting, and even then the amount of heat transferable through the ice would be negligible with respect to that already present from the earth. Over a period of thousands of years, a higher atmospheric temperature might change the nature of the Antarctic ice. It might even increase the amount of ice by promoting more snowfall. In any case, the change would take place over many millennia, so mankind would have ample opportunity to adjust.

There is even uncertainty as to whether or not man’s burning of hydrocarbons is responsible for the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, although this appears very likely. The problem is that natural reservoirs (not including storage in rocks), especially including the ocean, contain more than 50 times as much carbon dioxide as does the atmosphere, and can serve as sources as well as sinks for carbon dioxide. Exchanges between the various reservoirs are poorly understood and have uncertainties far beyond the atmospheric increase.

One possibility, for example, is that the rise in temperatures early in the 20th century caused carbon dioxide to be released from the oceans. Tree growth records, however, show no evidence of carbon dioxide increase during earlier and more pronounced warming periods; the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase correlates well with the time scale of human use; and the amount of human production correlates well with the size of the increase.

Finally, even assuming the most extreme predictions from the erroneous climate models to be true (a false assumption), calculations show that waiting 30 more years before beginning any sort of hydrocarbon rationing will not significantly change the ultimate carbon dioxide levels or calculated atmospheric temperatures, nor will it significantly affect transitional levels or temperatures. There is absolutely no reason not to accumulate data for 30 more years before taking action — unless, that is, you are a beneficiary of the global warming hysteria.

A Dead Hypothesis

All of the various arguments — largely about phenomena that are only partially understood — are, however, actually irrelevant to an evaluation of global warming. The greenhouse effect is a real phenomenon; carbon dioxide has increased; primitive computer models can be deceptively adjusted to predict substantial temperature rises; weather patterns could be changed by temperature increases; human activities most likely have caused the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide; many politicians and bureaucrats — and the scientists who are funded by them — are producing global warming propaganda; there are simple ways to reverse any temperature increase that might occur and be deemed unfavorable; and unprecedented political power over the life and death of everyone on earth would result from global energy rationing. But these matters are scientifically irrelevant.

Global warming is the hypothesis that large and damaging increases in global temperature will result from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The proponents of this hypothesis have made calculations that predict substantial warming from the increase in carbon dioxide that has already occurred. Yet, all of the methods of measuring atmospheric temperature — regardless of whether they are viewed from a 3,000 year, 300 year, 50 year, or 20 year perspective — give a contrary result. No changes in global temperature have occurred except for those associated with ordinary environmental fluctuations. Moreover, during the past 18 years — the period of greatest atmospheric carbon dioxide increase — global temperature has decreased. The global warming hypothesis has, therefore, been proved to be wrong by means of a definitive, direct experiment performed on the entire earth over the past several decades.

Global-warming theorists have tried to confuse this temperature record by publishing temperature graphs with part of the data omitted or with the temperatures inappropriately measured near ground-based heat-producing human activities. This bad data need not be confusing, however, since there is a wealth of good, unadulterated data as illustrated in Figures 1 through 6.

In science, when a hypothesis is proved wrong, it is discarded. It cannot serve as a basis for any rational action whatever except its own rejection. A hypothesis is either right, or it is wrong. There is no "in between" or "compromise." The "global warming" hypothesis is wrong. That is the end of that. It is time that we all moved on toward more promising ideas.

Dr. Robinson, who holds a PhD from the University of California-SanDiego, is publisher of Access to Energy. Further discussion of the figures and other referenced research in this article can be found in this publication (see issues 21-3, 21-8, 22-7, 22-8, 22-9, 24-2, 24-3, 24-5, 24-9, 24-10, and 24-11).

THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1997, American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated

P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913
Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna.htm
Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE
WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright privileges reserved. Address reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or the above address.

Copyright 1997 - American Opinion Publishing, Inc.