TCS Daily

"Too Hot" Not So Hot

By Robert C. Balling - April 21, 2006 12:00 AM

The latest triumph of the global warming crusade is a one hour HBO special entitled "Too Hot Not Too Handle" that is premiering in several cities this month. The screening in Albuquerque was well-advertised; it was free, and hosted by Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez. At the screening they offered free wine, free cheese and crackers, free fruit, and best of all, free "Stop Global Warming" bracelets. The state's attorney general showed up, but despite the advertising, free stuff and the close proximity to the University of New Mexico and Sandia Labs, the relatively small auditorium at the National Hispanic Cultural Center was half full. Advertise free food and drinks in your typical college town, and most places would fill up to watch me play the spoons!

Mayor Chavez kicked off the event claiming that Albuquerque was playing a role in fighting global warming and that along with 200 other cities as Albuquerque is now a "signatory" to the Kyoto Protocol. This all quickly devolved into an attack on President Bush for not signing the Protocol and a commitment to help Al Gore win his battle on global warming. The challenge of climate change was curiously equated to the challenge of World War II -- where global warming was proclaimed to be the challenge of our generation.

The film opened with images of worldwide eco-pain, and if nothing else, "Too Hot" will win the award for most dramatic music used in a global warming documentary. A troop of well-known global warming scientists appeared over the next hour to explain one horror after another. Deaths from heat waves started the parade followed by overall increases in extreme weather events. Snowpack melt was followed by wildfires and massive extinctions. The scientists acknowledged that plants will benefit from elevated concentrations of carbon dioxide, but quickly turned to hyper-production of pollen from ragweed and disease worldwide.

Just as the march of pain started to take on a stale flavor, the documentary took some bizarre twists. We learned that the horrible United States is largely responsible for all this global chaos, but the future is in our hands. Hybrid cars are featured and in a sad twist of fate, race driver Paul Dana explains the value of ethanol. In case the name seems hauntingly familiar to you, Paul Dana was killed a month ago while driving in an Indy Racing League event in Florida (in a car getting a few miles to the gallon of high-performance racing fuel). Next up was none other than Willie Nelson touting the use of bio-fuels to run our fleet of trucks from coast to coast.

The film ends with an acknowledgment that China and India and other countries must become part of the solution, but most importantly, Washington cannot continue to be the final holdout in the push to solve the global warming crisis. Wind turbines, solar panels, and nuclear power hit the screen toward to end, and a burning earth is seen as the film ends.

If we adopted every suggestion in the film, concentration of carbon dioxide will still double this century. The reality avoided in the film is that China is currently building over 500 coal-fired power plants; they intend to build one new coal fired plant every week for decades to come, and no matter what we do in the US, emissions from throughout the world will drive atmospheric carbon dioxide levels steadily upward.

Dr. Robert Balling, Jr. is Director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University.



Conclusion: let's give up
The author concludes cheerfully on the note that there's nothing we can do about air pollution anyway, because China will undo any effort we make. How comforting.

If we had leadership we would have signed on to Kyoto and been able to encourage not just the Chinese but the Indian and American electricity producers to employ Clean Coal technology in the design of their new plants. We know that India and China have to develop in any event, and coal is the fuel they have.

In fact it could have been a major topic in the current head-to-head with Jiang. A president able to mouth polysyllabic words could have mentioned the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle over tea, and recommended that no new plant needs to use old technology.

But our hands are tied. We can do nothing. We face an asthmatic future from breathing sulfate aerosols, and we can soon get our mercury dose without the expense of eating fish. Darn it!

Too Hard -- So let Hu do it!
World may turn back clock for liquid coal future
Reuters, April 21, 2006

...Shenhua is expected to start production at its first coal-to-liquids plant at the end of 2007, with annual output of 1 million tons of oil products including diesel, gasoline and naphtha for petrochemicals.

Beijing is encouraging development of coal liquefaction to help curb a growing reliance on oil imports. Analysts say within a decade it could be making up to 1.2 million bpd of coal-based synthetic fuel, or NEARLY 50% OF 2005 IMPORTS.

Last month it signed a memorandum of understanding with energy major Royal Dutch Shell to develop a coal liquefaction project in the Ningxia region. "It's an area where CHINA THINKS IT CAN TAKE A TECHNOLOGICAL LEAD. This is probably the main driver rather than whether or not it works at $30 barrel," said said Tony Regan of energy consultancy Tri-Zen...

"Converting just 5% of the U.S. coal reserves to Fisher-Tropsch fuels would equate to the existing U.S. crude reserves of 29 billion barrels," said a spokesman for Canadian company Syntroleum, referring to liquefaction technology.

Like Pro-Kyoto science and economics, the climate is "not so hot"
Please see point #5 below, and note that you can easily verify the validity of this statement by going to the referenced website and plotting the temperatures yourself.

Note also that the pro-Kyoto types have never, in my eXperience, given references to raw data in these forums, likely because the raw data does not support their case.

Humanmade CO2 emissions increased significantly after about 1930. BUT the USA's NOAA data set, which is likely the very best in the world, actually shows slight summer and fall cooling from 1930 to 2005, and about 0.5 C (1 degree F) warming only in winter and spring seasons.

Also, the "greenhouse" response to added atmospheric CO2 is not exponential, as some pro-Kyoto types would have you believe, it is logarithmic. This means that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere has less and less effect on the (flattening) warming curve.

It also means that at the current 30% increase in CO2 allegedly due to human activities, Earth has already experienced more than half the temperature effect of a hypothetical doubling of CO2.

So where is this very scary warming? The USA has actually cooled slightly in summer and fall since 1930, in spite of all the CO2 going into the atmosphere!

It appears that the pro-Kyoto types cannot even get their crises right. A stronger scary case could be made saying that Earth is entering a cooling phase, and the only thing that has saved the USA's summer and fall growing/harvest seasons is fortuitous warming due to humanmade CO2. NO NORE CHEERIOS FOR BREAKFAST, AMERICA! BE VERY SCARED!

Maybe we need a reverse Kyoto, wherein we give the fossil fuel companies $50 per Tonne to blow CO2 into the atmosphere! Just kidding folks, the oil companies already have lots of money, but it shows just how absurd the whole Kyoto fiasco really is!

In fact, this global warming scare is not scary at all. Use real data , not pro-Kyoto hysteria, and the crisis disappears!

A Challenge to Pro-Kyoto types - SHOW ME THE DATA!



Previously posted on TCS:

I believe it is well established that the economic projections of IPPC scenarios are absurdly high.

So are their highly unscientific projections of global warming. Here is some hard data and references to counter the scare-mongering.

Most of the alarming predictions from the pro-Kyoto enthusiasts come from two sources:

a. Climate computer models that are simply exercises in curve fitting, and which prove absolutely nothing;

b. Grafting together dissimilar data sets - for example Dr. Michael Mann's discredited "hockey stick", which grafted tree ring proxies to recent surface temperature measurements.

It is interesting to note that the statements of so-called "climate skeptics" of five years ago still hold true, while the pro-Kyoto global warming crowd are always having to re-invent the nature of their crisis, as one-by-one their scary conclusions are discredited.

Let's examine some allegations by the climate skeptics that have never been adequately addressed by the pro-Kyoto crowd:

1. Climate has always changed, long before man could have had any impact on it. For example, contrary to Mann's hockey stick, the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the present.

2. Much of the recent alleged surface warming actually occurred from ~1850 to ~1930, before the huge increase in the use of fossil fuels.

3. In spite of the huge increase in fossil fuel use from ~1930 to ~1975, global average temperatures actually cooled slightly over this period.

4. Some surface warming has been reported from ~1975 to 2005 but it has been difficult to separate the urban heat island component from true surface warming. The surface temperature data set appears to be rather compromised in much of the world.

5. The USA's NOAA data set, which is likely the very best in the world, actually shows slight summer and fall cooling from 1930 to 2005, and about 0.5 C warming only in winter and spring seasons.

6. Satellite and weather balloon data show no net warming in the Lower Troposphere ("LT") from ~1975 to ~2000. The satellite data set provides far better coverage of the planet than the surface data set.

7. There is a possible small increase (~0.2 degrees C) in global average LT temperature from ~2000 to 2005 , but this change is within the margin of uncertainty.

8. During the forty year period 1961-2000, both the number and intensity of landfalling U.S. hurricanes decreased sharply. The year 2005 remains an anomaly and we need more years of data to draw any different conclusions.

Based on the data, one would conservatively conclude that:

Increased atmospheric CO2 is at most a minor driver of warming. Closed form solutions suggest an upper limit of a 1 degree C warming from a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2. There is no evidence of an "amplifying effect" as assumed in higher estimates from computer climate models.

The surface warming is largely natural and may now be driving a slight warming response in the LT. Since any possible LT warming is lagging rather than leading the alleged surface warming, it is very difficult to conclude that the alleged surface warming is primarily caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Prove to yourself that it is NOT SO HOT
The aforementioned USA temperature plots can easily be re-created by going to:
Data type: Mean temperature
Period: Summer (etc.)
Location: United States
First Year to Display: 1930
Last year to Display: 2005
Line chart
Hit "Submit" and the plot and green trend line are displayed.

Thank you AllanMacRae for posting so I don't have to counter the ignorance of Roy and Rhampt. Alas your efforts will be vain but you score great points for your excellent post.

Atmospheric dimming
You're getting to be a bit of a Johnny One-Note in your insistence on being fed raw numbers, Allan. But the real picture is more complex than what you've apparently been led to believe.

Physics doesn't lie, and there is certainly a warming effect from CO2 and other GHG's in the air. But the effect has been masked by a parallel cooling effect from particulate aerosols. As I'm sure you know, high altitude particles from our industrial output reflect sunlight back into space before it even gets to the troposphere. So the one effect is cancelling out the other.

It may be that in order to maintain a livable planet we will have to increase our production of SOx, soot, smoke and other aerosols, to prevent a runaway greenhouse up ahead as GHG's double from today's values. This will, of course, present something of a toxic dilemma for surface dwelling life forms.

This dynamic tension should explain to you any apparent inconsistency between firmly grounded theory and actual atmospheric measurements. Your coments are invited.

>"Physics doesn't lie, and there is certainly a warming effect from CO2 and other GHG's in the air. But the effect has been masked by a parallel cooling effect from particulate aerosols."

Physics doesn't lie. This is true. But AGW alarmists, such as yourself, exaggerate. The actual physical data does nothing to confirm the claims of AGW alarmists.

Please provide some kind of source for your theory on the parallel cooling effect from particulate aerosols. When I worked for the EPA about 15 years ago particulate emissions were on a downward trend and increased regulation of particulate emissions was on a upward trend. Also define particulate aerosols and their source please.

>"This dynamic tension should explain to you any apparent inconsistency between firmly grounded theory and actual atmospheric measurements."

In other words the "apparent inconsitency" is that the actual data does not support the theory. In what branch of science is it permissiable to cast aside actual, physical data in favor of one's pet theory?

Atmospheric dimming or intellectual diming?
Well said Tlaloc and shame on you, Mr. Bean for your unscientific approach - AND STILL NO RAW DATA!

The bogus climate modellers have been using atmospheric dimming via aerosols to force their computer models to conform to the global cooling that occurred from ~1930 to ~1975. Trouble is, they had to INVENT the aerosol data to do so. Such Guano!


I helped start an environmental group in the late 1960's, when it was anything but fashioable. Now environmentalism has regretably become widely discredited due to junk science, covert political agendas and ridiculous scare tactics. I leave you with this excerpt, written by Piotr C. Brzezinski in The Harvard Crimson, 20 April 2006:

Environmentalism is dead. Alarmism - the environmental movement's basic strategy - has led to this dead end. Not that this history of crying wolf has chastened
contemporary environmentalists. Activists and researchers still issue dire warnings with mind-numbing regularity. Although such scare mongering persists, it has reached the point of diminishing returns. Knowing the movement's track record of false alarms, the American public dismiss dire environmental warnings out of hand.
Thus, on the 37th anniversary of Earth Day, the environmental movement is looking increasingly long in the tooth. Alarmist environmentalists have overshadowed moderate, careful researchers, and undermined the credibility of the entire movement. Until
environmentalists cease depending on nightmare scenarios, they will fail to influence the public at large.

since nothing bad will happen
why should we do anything to prevent it?

You mean the aerosols that we've spent the last 40 years getting out of the atmosphere?

The total amount of aeorols in the atmosphere has been falling in recent decades, thanks to laws that are cleaning up the atmosphere.

If aerosols were as important as you wish to believe, then they should have been adding to the warming signal, not subtracting.

Since aerosols have a much shorter life in the atmosphere than does CO2, the affect of aerosols should be concentrated nearest where they are created.

Since the vast majority of aerosols are produced in the norther hemisphere, if your theory had any validity, there should be much more warming in the southern hemisphere than in the north.

Unfortunately, the real world data shows just the opposite.

Try again.

shame on you
trying to post real data, when you know that only polemics are allowed at this site. ;*)

The Warming Trend Will Not Be Stopped
It's the Sun. This is cyclical. "There's nothing new under the Sun."

Do human beings contribute to the current warming trend? Yes. All of about 15% of it. The rest of it is beyond our power to affect; in addition to being significantly less urgent and extreme than the HC scientists (Hysterically Correcting), for the sake of good pay, make it out to be. The human contribution is insignificant.

Too Hot, Too Cold, So What
Over Earth's 4.5 billion or so year history, the climate has been much hotter than it is now, and much colder. Chances are it will be both again in the future. There are many many more variables than CO2 concentration that will affect our climate. Most of them, the biggest one being solar energy output and activity, are completely out of our control. The best we can do is bring our innate human ability and growing technological savvy to adapt to the changing environmental situation.

I'm all for reducing the amount of air pollution we create. If the goal is to reduce the human footprint on the Earth, go for it. But rather than directing their considerable financial resources to, say, designing, testing and selling cleaner truck engines, or funding programs that will enable homeowners to install wind turbines and solar panels in their backyards, these so-called environmentalists would rather blow a lot of hot air and pollute the political environment with their own foul anti-corporate partisanship.

Far cheaper to produce a finger-pointing cinematic tome than to actually try to solve the problem. Far more profitable to solicit donations to this or that NGO and pay lobbyists to take leftist politicians to dinner in DC than to invest in Earth-friendly innovations.

This whole global-warming "debate" is becoming an empty bore. People see this for what it is: Don Quixote taking on the giants in his head and trying desperately to enlist us in his dunderheaded, Kyotic quest. That's why the theatre in NM was half-empty.

The answers to all your queries
"Physics doesn't lie. This is true. But AGW alarmists, such as yourself, exaggerate. The actual physical data does nothing to confirm the claims of AGW alarmists."

Which actual data? Please specify all data that does not confirm such a conclusion.

Self-evident that GHG's have a warming effect. Self-evident that aerosols have a cooling effect. Common sense dictates that actual data should reflect the balance of these two opposing forces.

"Please provide some kind of source for your theory on the parallel cooling effect from particulate aerosols."

If you google "global cooling" you will find links to a mountain of research on the subject. I hope you are not telling me you've been innocent until this moment of such a body of research.

Since the 1950's the amount of sunlight reaching the surface has dimmed between 8% and 30% (typically around 22%) according to data from Antarctica (Liepert & Stanhill), Israel, Germany, Russia and Australia (Roderick & Farquhar). Ramanathan's data from the Maldives are particularly convincing. He was the first to show that clouds at the top of the pollution layer became highly reflective as they were saturated with particulate matter.

Another good google is the "pan evaporation rate". See if you can pick the methodology apart. (No one has done so yet.)

The general idea is that atmospheric droplets condense around nuclei. The smaller nuclei from man-made particulate emissions form many more, and smaller, droplets-- thus increasing cloud reflectivity.

One effect has been the frequent failure of monsoons in Africa since the 1970's. I believe you may have heard of the frequent droughts there in the past thirty years.

Why should that be? Well, monsoon clouds appear to track south from the more polluted northern hemisphere. They tend to avoid such in favor of less polluted southern air. Thus droughts in Somalia parallel flooding in Mozambique.

Much more detail is available if you need it.

"When I worked for the EPA about 15 years ago particulate emissions were on a downward trend and increased regulation of particulate emissions was on a upward trend."

Both trends are accurate-- for the US, Japan and Europe. Since 1972 aerosol emissions in the West have generally mitigated considerably. In the past couple of decades, aerosol emissions from the East have increased considerably. So current data reflect both up and down trends.

"Also define particulate aerosols and their source please."

Principally smokestack emissions. Airborne sulfates, soot, ash and smoke. Much comes from the open burning of forest slash and other dead vegetation in land clearing on a amssive scale, on every continent.

Unique theories all your own
You're telling us, then, that there is no net loss of sunlight to the surface from an increase in reflectivity, and that particulates in the atmosphere have no effect of reflecting sunlight back to space? And that I should be ashamed?

Couple this with your other theory, that the greenhouse effect is not in effect, and I think you have enough material to turn the world of climatology on its ear. Imagine-- none of the principles we thought govern the heat budget of the planet are operational! Who da thunk?

The onus is on you to find data disproving the obvious. If you look at my comments above, titled "the answer to your questions" I think you will find ample evidence to wade through. You're starting to become a Johnny One-Note on this insistence that I waste my time looking up transferable graphs and lists of data entries for you to mock.

You counter all the evidence anyone has presented with a piece of ideological opinion from someone I've never heard of. This P Brzezinski is a joke. The discussion began on a scientific note. So start making sense instead.

Yes, aerosols
Actually we've been cleaning up the atmosphere from US, European and Japanese industry since about 1972. At the same time the Soviet Bloc was contributing massive amounts of particulates up until maybe 1990. And since then the developing world-- China, India and the like-- have been contributing vast quantities of aerosols. So the net amount has been falling only slightly.

Explain to us please how your theory works, that aerosols contribute to atmospheric warming instead of cooling. We know they reflect sunlight back into space, resulting in measurably less sunlight at the surface. What else do they do?

no, aerosols
I said that the falling levels of aerosols should have enhanced the warming caused by CO2.

You have admitted that aerosol levels have been falling. Yet you claim that rising aerosol levels are masking the warming we should be seeing from CO2.

So which is it. Are aerosol levels rising or falling. You've made both claims in a matter of two posts.

southern hemisphere
You've yet to explain how aerosols, which are mostly produced in the norther hemisphere, are having a greater affect on the southern hemisphere.

whining and extremist moaning
You are beside yourself today roy. Must be an off day. You usually do a better job than this in your posts.

They U.S. didn't and doesn't need to be a part of Kyoto. More bad news, several states are working on building new "clean coal" generating as well as coal bed methane and some coal slurry technology. Wind power generating is off and running here in a pretty big way and bio-diesel and ethanol plants are coming your way as well.

The U.S. needed to sign Kyoto why?

than you should be happy to know
The plants are in the planning stages in the U.S. as well. So are clean coal electricty plants, coal bed methane production, bio-diesel and ethanol.

Well thought out
i could dispute some of your conclusions in the beginning, but why bother. Overall this is too well done to mess with.

Sorry Mr. Bean, wrong again. {AND IMAGINE, STILL NO DATA!}
Mr. Bean, do not deliberately mis-state what I've said here - yours is a dishonest and reprehensible tactic, all too often used by the pro-Kyoto gang.

Of course the greenhouse effect is real - otherwise Earth would be locked in a permanent deep freeze. Water in all its forms (vapor, clouds) is the dominant greenhouse gas, with CO2 and other greenhouse gases a very distant second.

The question is HOW MUCH warming is caused by increased humanmade atomospheric CO2 and the answer is NOT MUCH, AND NOT ENOUGH TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT.

You are also trying to bully and intimidate, another favorite tactic of the pro-Kyoto gang. I suggest you are wasting our time, and I will not respond to you further.

I leave all of you with the April 12, 2006 comment in WSJ on the intimidation topic by Dr. Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT (perhaps you've heard of him, Mr. Bean).

Excerpt from Lindzen WSJ comment of April 12, 2006 (referenced above)
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested -- a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences -- as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union -- formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when antialarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Senator Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two
congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the
scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists -- a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism.

Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest.

However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can
respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited."

Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for
improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming -- not whether it would actually

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.


Kyoto Protocol and Al Gore
The Democrats again demonstrate that they depend on voters not having any actual memory of history. Criticizing President Bush over not trying to have the Senate ratify the Kyoto Protocol, while praising Al Gore, is hypocritical. Gore came back from Kyoto in 1997 with the treaty in hand, but he and Clinton NEVER asked the Senate to ratify it during their last three years in office. Why? The Senate had earlier voted 98 to 0 that it would not accept the treaty because it leaves China and India unregulated, since all Kyoto would accomplish if adopted by the US would be to OUTSOURCE all new industrial jobs to China and India.

Al Gore was hyping global warming back before the 1992 election, when he thought his book "Earth in the Balance" would help him win the presidency. In 1993 he proposed a carbon tax, to raise the cost of coal and gasoline and thus discourage the production of greenhouse gases. His book says US gasoline prices should be as high as those in Europe and Japan, where taxes make up half the cost, and the cost per gallon is over $4.00. He should be happy that increasing demand for oil from China and the inability of the US to develop new supplies in its own territories is inching the gasoline price to where he thought it should be to discourage CO2 production. Democrats complaining about higher gas prices while demanding that more be done to prevent CO2 emissions are contradicting themselves.

The bottom line is that Al Gore was Vice President for 8 years, and did not accomplish ANYTHING to fight global warming. He is going around the country with his new "mockumentary" about global warming, but he will NOT take responsibility for doing absolutely NOTHING about the problem when he was working in the White House. Democrats will dutifully ignore that fact, but the rest of Americans are under no duty to do so. At least Robert McNamara now apologizes for the mess he made of the Vietnam War. I doubt we will ever see the day that Gore apologizes for squandering an 8-year window of opportunity to lead the country to take some kind of positive action.

Excellent points, coltakashi.
I recall the Senate vote as 95-0, but it has been a long time and you may be quite correct. In any case, such a conclusive vote would tend to dissuade any sensible President (even the Clinton/Gore tag team) from attempting to pass Kyoto into law.

Best wishes to all, don't frighten your kids with scary (phony) global warming scenarios, and enjoy the weekend!

Hope it's hot! :-)

Good to hear it
Those are very positive developments -- more proof that constructive solutions for climate change and our dependence on foreign oil will not lead to economic collapse.

Beleive it or not…
you aren't the only one who has noticed this. Many of us uneducated average joes reading on this subject (and others) notice it quite well. Don't stop on roy's account, we could all use more information to combate the growing din of useless idiots.

An apparent discrepancy
I have fifty or sixty messages waiting in the queue for my response-- so your patience here would be appreciated.

Meanwhile your contention is that there should be increased warming in the southern hemisphere since there are fewer man-made aerosols there-- and instead there is more cooling.

I would have a better idea of what you're talking about if I could see your citations of temp measurements in the south. We do know that temps are as cold as ever in the interior of Antarctica, for reasons specific to that continent. But I'm not aware that temps in general are any cooler than before in the southern hemisphere. So please go out of your way and actually cite something for me.

I'm holding my breath. Thanks in advance.

This is obfuscation
"I said that the falling levels of aerosols should have enhanced the warming caused by CO2."

If the overall trend was for fewer aerosols, that would be what we found. It hasn't been, and we haven't found it to be.

"You have admitted that aerosol levels have been falling."

No I haven't. You're feigning stupidity here. The real picture is complicated as aerosols from the US have been falling while those from Asia have been rising. My point was in response to AllanMacRae's comment that we haven't seen the kind of warming we should be getting from GHG's in the atmosphere. And I said it is offset by cooling from particulates. Which is true. Whether they are up one year and down the next is immaterial. Relative to the 1950's they are way up-- still.

"So which is it. Are aerosol levels rising or falling. You've made both claims in a matter of two posts."

Relative to a basseline in the 1950's they are up considerably, as a mountain of data shows. Relative to last year, I have no idea. That would be a blip, not a trend. Particulates are rising from some sources, falling from others.

But not if they are based on heavy-handed BS like Kyoto. Technology and natural selection will save the day and cull out the bad ones.

The Maldives study
While I'm busy elsewhere, go to the effort of reading about the Maldives study. Half the islands are subjects to northern hem. winds and the other half, the cleaner southern circulation. I'll respond more specifically when I have a moment.

Lindzen comment
>So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science?

They have, in the tens, hundreds, and thousands. Over six thousand scientists with earned PhD's in the physical sciences have signed the Oregon Petition against the claims of global catastrophe from human release of CO2:

Here's the key paragraph of that petition: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Other statements by atmospheric scientists and meterologists against the junk science of the global warmers include the Leipzig Declaration of 1997, the "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming" (1992), and the Heidelberg Appeal (1992, 4000+ signers including 72 Nobel winners), which can all be found at

There are no similar signed statements by scientists that human release of CO2 *will* cause catastrophe. Even James Hanson, given his malicious leftist partisanship, says he believes the temperature increase from a doubling of CO2 will only amount to a degree or degree and a half. No one with any sense or honesty claims that small a temperature increase will cause a monumental global catastrophe.


No Subject
rb> And I said it is offset by cooling from particulates. Which is true.

No it isn't. There was a study released in 1996 in Nature by Ben Santer that claimed this. It later turned out he had apparantly cherry picked the years of his study. He was forced to withdraw the paper when it was shown his conclusions were completely at odds with the complete data set. Of course, Santer was the one at the heart of the 1996 IPCC report controversy, where a critical chapter was doctored after the 'final draft' had been peer reviewed and approved by the scientific authors.

roy lies about his own posts, again
Roy, I point to your 1:20pm post from today. Here's the money quote.
"So the net amount has been falling only slightly."

If you were a man, you'd apologize. Since you aren't, I won't hold my breath.

well that's one thing
As recently as last week roy was claiming that antartica was warming up.
One small step for accuracy. So many left to go.

More on intimidation of anti-Kyoto scientists (and economists):
Printed in Energy and Environment and updated for the Calgary Herald (2004 and 2005).

This issue matters because intimidation and funding bias are forms of corruption that should not play any part in science, and yet today that corrupting influence is pervasive.

Drive-by shootings in Kyotoville
The global warming debate heats up
By Allan MacRae

Drive-by shootings have moved from the slums of our cities to the realms of academia. Any scientist who dares challenge the Kyoto Protocol faces a vicious assault, a turf war launched by the pro-Kyoto gang.

These pro-Kyoto attacks are not merely unprofessional - of no scientific merit, they are intended to intimidate real academic debate on the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty to limit production of greenhouse gases like CO2 that allegedly cause catastrophic global warming.

Witness the attack on Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist". While Lomborg did not challenge the flawed science of Kyoto, he said that Kyoto was a huge misallocation of funds that should be used for more pressing needs - such as cleaning up dirty drinking water that kills millions of children every year.

In January 2003, the Danish Committees on Scientific
Dishonesty (DCSD) declared that Lomborg's book fell within the concept of "objective scientific dishonesty". The DCSD announced its ruling at a press conference and published it on the Internet, without giving Lomborg any opportunity to respond prior to publication.

Almost one year later, in December 2003 the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation completely repudiated the DCSD's findings.

But such bullying is not unique, as other researchers who challenged the scientific basis of Kyoto have learned.
Of particular sensitivity to the pro-Kyoto gang is the "hockey stick" temperature curve of 1000 to 2000 AD, proposed by Michael Mann of University of Virginia.
Mann's hockey stick indicates that temperatures fell only slightly from 1000 to 1900 AD, after which temperatures increased sharply as a result of humanmade increases in CO2. Mann concluded: "Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence."

Mann's conclusion was the cornerstone supporting Kyoto. However, Mann has been proven entirely incorrect.
Mann eliminated from the climate record both the Medieval Warm Period, a period from about 900 to 1300 AD when global temperatures were warmer than today, and also the Little Ice Age from about 1300 to 1800 AD, when temperatures were colder.

Mann's conclusion contradicted hundreds of previous studies, but was adopted without question by Kyoto supporters and was the centerpiece of the 2001 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Canada’s climate change policy is still based on that erroneous SPM.

In 2003, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard University wrote a review of over 250 research papers that concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were true climatic anomalies with worldwide imprints - contradicting Mann's hockey stick and undermining the basis of Kyoto. Soon and Baliunas were then attacked in the journal EOS.

Also in 2003, University of Ottawa geology professor Jan Veizer and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv concluded that even though prehistoric CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were often many times today's levels, CO2 had an insignificant effect on Earth’s temperatures. Veizer and Shaviv also received "special attention" from EOS.

In both cases, the attacks were highly unprofessional - these critiques should have been launched in the journals that published the original papers, not in EOS. Also, the victims of these attacks were not given advanced notice, nor were they were given the opportunity to respond in the same issue. In both cases the victims had to wait months for their rebuttals to be published, while the specious attacks were circulated by the pro-Kyoto gang.

Scientists opposed to Kyoto have now been completely vindicated.

Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph and Steven McIntyre conducted a detailed audit of Mann’s hockey stick, and found fatal errors including severe data selection biases and methodological mistakes. McIntyre and McKitrick even showed that hockey stick graphs could be produced over 90% of the time by loading any set of random numbers into Mann’s computer code. Just call it “Mann-made global warming”.

Few scientists now accept Mann’s hockey stick. Climate researcher Hans von Storch further criticized it in Science Express in 2004, calling it “rubbish".
Meanwhile, our Ottawa brain trust has just announced that CO2 will be declared a toxic substance under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Is their next move a tax on cow and sheep flatulence, as was tried in New Zealand?

Or will it be a new National Energy Program, another pillaging of Alberta?

The United States House Energy & Commerce Committee has launched a full investigation into the IPCC’s bias and incompetence, and the entire Mann hockey stick fiasco:

The truth is there never has been any solid scientific evidence in favor of Kyoto. From the beginning, Kyoto has been politically driven, replete with flawed science and scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

The pro-Kyoto gang should finally admit that their pet project actually hurts the environment - Kyoto is a massive waste of scarce global resources that should be used to alleviate real problems, not squandered on fictitious ones.

...But Dim Selectively!
Soot, oxides of nitrogen, and tropospheric ozone are actually warming agents. (High atmospheric ozone is too, but we'd better not mess with that one.) In his less confrontational moments, James Hansen has urged that policies be adopted to decrease these emissions because there are good economic arguments resulting from decreased health costs. Thus, reducing those emissions would fall under the heading of "no regrets" changes.
Sulfates cool not just by reflecting sunlight but by suppressing methane emissions from peat bogs. Better yet, iron--particularly iron sulfate--over blue-water (iron starved) ocean areas directly pulls down carbon dioxide and fertilizes organic production of dimethyl sulfate, another major sunlight-reflecting aerosol.
Here again, we can thank our comrades--Oops, fellow capitalists! Except for the soot, they are doing a fine job of supplying sulfates from coal combustion and iron-bearing dust from various overly exuberant agricultural practices dating back to the Great Leap.

[Note to Threadmaster or Threadmistress]
My "Dim Selectively" comment should follow dimming by MarktheGreat. I have a certain hesitation admitting this because my posting is now positioned just before one commending such a well thought out comment, and I did enjoy basking in the glow.
In the future, I'll reference the name and title of any postings that I refer to in the tread.

Thanks, RV

Peer review does its work
I've not heard of your Ben Santer, who is apparently in your view at the heart of all things evil.The current state of research into global dimming in no way relies on this person's statements, in the suspect article or other writings.

You should be aware that the process by which an author's findings are credited or discredited (" cherry picked the years of his study"... "was forced to withdraw the paper when it was shown his conclusions were completely at odds with the complete data set") is known as peer review. It's a good way of finding mistakes in research. And authors have been known to make them in good faith. This does not paint your Mr Santer as a liar.

Depends on your baseline
Since about 1990, some data show a slight brightening. Other data don't. The measurements are a bit equivocal, and no strong global trend toward brightening has been shown. Thus my comment.

However on the longer timeline, since the 1950's there is no such equivocation. Sunlight reaching the surface at all latitudes has been shown to be significantly dimmer than before.

That is the fuller answer where I had given you the shorter answer.

You seem much more anxious, if I may say so, to score a point against me than you are to look into the matter deeply enough that the truth emerges. What kind of game are you playing, and why?

Hard to accomplish
Low altitude and surface soot may have a warming effect. In fact back when our big worry was a new ice age we thought seriously about seeding the ice shields with coal dust. But it doesn't act that way at the top of the troposphere. And that, when you're talking micron sized particles, is where the action is. No, if it escapes from an indistrial process or even from an open fire, soot is a coolant.

The problem with allowing it to continue is that reducing incident sunlight slows the weather engine, making the global circulation slow. And that eventually kills the monsoons. I don't think India, China, Indonesia, etc would be happy with that scenario.

No, I would offer that the best way would be to find ways to simultaneously reduce GHG emissions, like CO2 and methane, and reduce particulate emissions. Then maybe we could return to "normal"-- meaning the temps we built our civilization around.

Nice idea though. It would have been so cool to keep a steady course by selectively increasing our pollution. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Try this approach instead: the engine that really puts away carbon is vertical ocean movement-- updwellings and downdwellings. They mix the CO2-heavy surface waters with the mineral-rich bottom waters and help convert the carbon back into life.

Coincidentally this end of the food chain desperately needs work right now. The oceans are dying, as we are efficiently scooping up such significant amounts of carbon based life forms that worldwide they are becoming depleted of life. You can look this up if you haven't been following this development.

I think we'd therby be doing the planet a favor,. Whereas your hopefully tongue in cheek description of good economic arguments outweighing health costs is in my view a leetle dubious. Let's work on it with freshly sharpened pencils.

Old bean's still at it
Since the 1950's the amount of sunlight reaching the ground has dimmed between 8 and 30%, (typically around 22%).
Nice try! The solar flux during the 1950 was perhaps the most for approx. 100 years. The solar flux at 10.7cm increased about 400% at solar maximum vs solar minimum.
This may not sound like much but this wavelength is in the range of the most efficient at heating anything with water, oils, etc.
Humidity explains much of the other possible increases in global temperature as well as pan evaporation rate, the higher the humidity the lower the evaporation rate. Humidity also has approx 10 times the capicity of increasing temperatures as CO2. Didn't see that on the flim clip!
You stated you once worked for the EPA. Well that explains
pretty much everything! Thats the agency that is bringing us scaremongering, higher energy prices and bad movies.

Recent aerosol data mixed
You have real difficulty reading data you don't want to believe, Mark. Once again, overal data since 1950's: RISING RISING RISING. Data since 2000: mixed, some rising, some falling. In the US, Europe and Japan, output dropping. In the developing world, output rising sharply.

Read it six times and remember what I said. Very little data surrounding ANY parameter will show a worldwide rise or fall in every last location. It's a big world, and data are usually mixed.

I know of no location anywhere though that shows aerosols to have risen overall from the 1950's to date. None. Nada. Zip. That's not to say that somewhere, somehow, some might be found one day.

Finally, I find your making this into a blood sport tedious and not in the spirit of inquiry.

I don't know why you think I would consider clean coal technology bad news. The other developing technologies are also good developments.

The United States should have shown leadership in the matter, as a guide for the rest of the world. We used to be looked to for leadership, and the rest of the world was ready to follow. But then our leadership wandered off in a direction all its own.

An opportunity was squandered to bring China and India on board. Sure, you can argue that they were exempted. But that was for an introductory period, to counter the (valid) argument developing nations made that "proto-Kyoto" models would not allow them to pass through a stage the developed nations had already passed through. It was implicit that as they passed stages on the way toward full development they would be expected to limit emissions.

Now we are in a rapidly changing world, and emissions will be controlled the hard way-- through rapidly rising fuel costs. So energy will become more the exclusive preserve of those who can afford it. And the prices of all transported goods will follow the rise in transport costs. Not the best way to do it-- but lacking responsible leadership, the only way we can do it.

The future is here, and it's not some intergovernmental agreement that's breaking the bank, it's profligate fuel consumption.

Nothing ever changes
Please move forward, Mark. Antarctica as a whole is not warming. I've said about four times already that it is staying cool in the interior, while it is warming at the margins. Your painstaking search for inconsistencies is beyond tedious.

You should be finished reading the Maldives findings by now. I'm looking forward to your analysis of them.

Solar flux vs global dimming
"The solar flux during the 1950 was perhaps the most for approx. 100 years. The solar flux at 10.7cm increased about 400% at solar maximum vs solar minimum."

You appear to have access to data no one else is aware of. If max vs minimum output was 400%, what is the normal range of fluctuation? That sounds like an incredible amount. How come people weren't saying Wow, the sun is four times brighter than it was a couple of years ago?

The pan evaporation findings, showing a decrease over time in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth, derive from data over a fifty year period. And this body of data is consistent with the theory that links it to the amount of high altitude particulate matter. The two things track very nicely, and leave little doubt.

Anything you give us that shows significant change in the solar output over a fifty year period would be quite significant. Why don't you provide it?

Also, note that when there is less incident sunlight reaching the surface there is less evaporation. Thus fewer clouds, thus less rainfall. Thus less retention of warmth at the surface at night, without the blanket effect. Thus more warming during the day, as the sun's rays are not as impeded by cloud cover. You proudly retain one bit of knowledge-- that humidity retains heat better than dryness. Go ahead and learn some of the other material. The world is a complex place, and much remains to be learned about it.

That was someone else who worked for the EPA-- one of my interlocutors. Sorry. You say a bad movie was produced by the agency? What was it called?

Brief review of the science - written in 2002 and still pretty good...
For those who may be interested, our Kyoto science position is outlined in the APEGGA article and rebuttal, available at:

Given the passage of several years since this article was written, I would still not change much, in spite of many new scientific developments in the field. I still think we were (and are) on the right track...

In the meantime, the pro-Kyoto gang have changed their tune, saying that the critical evidence of global warming is to be found in ocean temperatures, as opposed to air temperatures, as they previously claimed (is their positional shift because there has been cooling since 1998, or is it because Mann's hockey stick has been discredited, or other?).

It took years of hard work by McIntyre and McKitrick to break Mann's hockey stick, in part because Mann was less than open in providing his data and methodologies. How many more years will it take before the latest pro-Kyoto gambit is exposed as erroneous, or possibly even a hoax?

It only takes a few months to throw together these questionable hypotheses, but it takes years of diligent work to glean the data, analyse it properly and publish the results.

As their scientific case withers, the pro-Kyoto gang have become more hysterical in their latest dire warnings of impending doom. James Hansen in the USA and a gaggle of Sir This and That's in the UK say that we are about to cross some mystical climate threshold and then total hell will break loose. Funny that we did not cross this elusive threshold in 1934, which was as warm as 1998, nor in the Medieval Warm Period, which was significantly warmer.

Chill out! As a theory, the global warming crisis is highly overheated - the hot air is much more rhetorical than real.

If you want to do something worthwhile, fight real air, water and soil pollution, and strive to improve real energy efficiency. Even better, work to eliminate needless suffering in the developing world (examples: clean up the drinking water and rejuvenate the fight against malaria).

Encourage new energy technologies but be very skeptical of those that require big subsidies - they are probably so inefficient that they actually hurt rather than help the environment (examples of such inefficiency are most onshore wind power projects and fuel ethanol derived from corn).

Lastly, don't worry so much, and strive to make your loved ones happy.

On computer modelling...
Letter to Benny Peiser at CCNet.

Hello Benny,

Please understand that I do understand something about key concepts of the practice and theory of modelling, and accordingly, about the value and pitfalls of modelling. However, Rob Lyons' essay reminded me of an admonition that decades ago we used in IBM. Perhaps it still is extant, but if so, it is not being impressed with sufficient emphasis or frequency on the minds of many prominent and influential parties today, much less the minds of Joe Journalist and John Public. It is a Memento Mori that deserves quiet repetition before the start of every modelling exercise, and serious reflection before publishing.

"Simulation is like masturbation; if you do it too often, you begin to think it is the real thing."

Jon Richfield

This is it?
After all this carping about my comments, you finally show your hand. And this is all you've got? To coin a phrase-- NO DATA!

It seems that your entire mountain of unsupported surmise rests on some very tiny premises. One is that Hale's law of sunspot polarity is somehow linked to variations in the intensity of sunlight.

I'll admit I'm new to consideration of this obscure item. But looking over what material there is on solar-terrestrial interactions, I'm failing to find your smoking gun. In other words this is some flimsy stuff.

Maybe you could inform us if there exists any actual hard data linking periods of extreme sunspot activity (extreme either in intensity or duration, as per your little chart) with measurable fluxes in sunlight intensity as measured on the surface of our planet.

You offer this: "Although the causes of the changing sun's particle, magnetic and energy outputs are uncertain, as are the responses of the climate to the sun's various changes, the correlation is pronounced. It explains especially well the warming trend up to 1940, which cannot have much human contribution, and the cooling trend from 1940 to the late 1970s. Increased solar activity, not increased atmospheric CO2, can also be the primary cause of the warming trend since the late 1970s."

Calls for a lot of speculation. Consistent with the data, cooling during the period 1940- late 70's increases in tandem with rapid industrialization and a major world war, which would put a lot of particulate matter into the air. Passage of the Clean Air Act and adoption of cleaner technologies, coupled with still rising CO2 emissions, could quite reasonably have corrected that trend by the end of the 70's. So your hand picked data support your view no better than does everyone else's.

Not to mention the lack of supporting data for your surmise about an increase in solar activity subsequent to the 1970's. It would be easier to illustrate a link with an increase in hot air coming from Washington, beginning in 1981.

Seriously, I would consider the premise if you can point the way toward any data that supports it. Right now it's still at the stage of Velikovsky's planetary collisions.

TCS Daily Archives