The Global Warming Storybook

A Danish scientist says global warming is a myth:

University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.

It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.

But the U.N. is still at it, claiming that the world "may" get greener, then wilt, due to global warming.

Yes, and my house "may" be picked up by a cyclone and transported to a curious land of little people, talking scarecrows, and cowardly lions.  But pardon me if I'm not budgeting for ruby slippers just yet.

Actually, it is not only possible, but virtually certain that global temperatures will rise for a period of time . . . . and fall during other periods of time, just as temperatures have risen and fallen over the ages throughout the earth's history. 

But the claim that within less than a century mankind has radically transformed the climate of the earth so as to raise temperatures dangerously beyond the normal wide range of natural variation is an audacious claim that requires compelling proof before it can be accepted.  Such proof has not been provided.  "May" and "might" and "estimates" do not cut it.  Sorry, Chicken Little.

To look at it another way, if we were entering another ice age right now (and -- who knows? -- we "might" be), does anyone seriously believe that simply by producing enough carbon dioxide humankind could stave off the ice age and keep the global climate sunny and pleasant?

Please.

If that is a silly fantasy, then so is the flip side of the same coin.

When was the last time you looked at a photo of the earth as seen from space?  Do you realize how vast are the earth's oceans and seas, and how tiny is the portion of the total earth occupied by humans?  Even believers in man-made global warming admit that over 95% of carbon dioxide emissions come from natural sources.  This is before one even reaches the question of whether carbon emissions actually create a "greenhouse" effect.  To jump to the conclusion that humans have, in a few short decades, destroyed the global climate by adding minimally to worldwide carbon dioxide emissions, it is almost mandatory that one suffer from a lack of perspective, a dose of subconscious hubris, and a dollop of guilt.  Yes, mankind is important, but not that important -- not yet.

If it's drama you want -- if it's danger you're looking far -- then look no further than the nearest terrorist rat hole or Iran's underground nuclear facilities.  We have a real and serious terrorist menace on the earth right now, and yes, it is coming to get us. 

I know it's comforting to focus instead on imaginary environmental dramas in which there are no real enemies other than ourselves.  But if you expect the terrorists to wait patiently while you play out this fantasy, you truly belong in the Land of Oz.  I suggest we pay attention to what is right in front of us and put away the bedtime stories.

_____________________________

Update:  Some commenters visiting today from Salon.com (welcome all!) seem to be under the misimpression that there is only one Danish scientist who disagrees with the theory of global warming.  Others seem to underestimate the depth and breadth of the case against global warming alarmism.  For those who are interested, below are linked some of the prior posts on the subject at this website.

Please note that the series of posts labeled "Global Cooling Weather Watch" is a response to overhyped reports of record high temperatures in the mainstream media.  Record high or record low temperatures any given day, month, year, or decade do not tell us anything useful about the overall direction of global climate change.  However, many in the mainstream media are more than willing to treat every hot summer day or temperate winter day as fresh evidence of global warming, which is preposterous.

I particularly recommend Neal Boortz's excellent discussion of some of the many reasons to be skeptical about the theory of man-made global warming.  However, many of the posts below link to additional scientific and practical arguments against global warming extremism in addition to those points raised by Boortz. 

It should be noted that there are multiple "sticking points" for global warming alarmists. 

First one must establish an overall trend of global temperatures.  On this point, the evidence is mixed.  We do not have direct observational evidence; we must rely on indirect evidence mixed with untestable hypotheses.

Next, one must establish that the range of increase in temperatures that we are facing is so out of line with previous world temperatures as to be a cause for significant concern.   On this point, the evidence is weak.  Again, scientists have no direct observational evidence, and are extrapolating from geologic and other indirect evidence without a means of independently verifying the accuracy of their conclusions.  New evidence is still being discovered on the subject of the range of prior temperature around the world.  The "science" of global warming cannot be settled because the foundational science is not settled.

Third, one must establish that human greenhouse gas emissions are the cause for any warming that is observed.  The scientific case for the greenhouse gas theory is far from settled.  Many scientists hypothesize, for example, that changes in the sun have more to do with current temperatures on earth than carbon emissions.

Fourth, one must demonstrate that more lives will be lost and costs imposed due to higher temperatures than are currently being lost every year due to freezing temperatures, and that there is a very substantial benefit to be gained by attempting to "stop" global warming if it is occurring.  Here, the case for concern about global warming case is again thin.

After that, one must come up with a practical plan, not ruinous in cost, and which would require the participation of nations such as India and China, to solve the problem.  Here, the case is also very weak.

Here is a partial list of prior posts for further reading (in reverse chronological order) (pick one or two at random or go crazy and read them all):

• Wheels Coming Off the Bandwagon of Global Warming
• Polar Bears Thriving Despite "Global Warming"
• The Beginning of the End for the Global Warming Crusade?
• Global Warming Hype Watch
• The Global Warming Joke
• The Deadly Human Cost of Environmentalist Overkill
• Global Cooling Weather Watch: Record Snowfall
• Global Cooling Weather Watch: 13 More Dead in War on Global Warming
• Bad Global Warming Science, Badly Reported
• Global Cooling Weather Watch: Midwest Subzero Temperatures
• Reasons for Skepticism About Global Warming
• The Religion of Global Warming
• Turning up the Heat for Al Gore
• Global Cooling Weather Watch - Frozen Citrus
• Global Cooling Weather Watch
• Newsweek Still Sounding the Alarm on Global Cooling -- Er -- Warming?
• The Scientific Flaws in Gore's Global Warming Movie
• You Mean Scientists Still Have a Lot to Learn About Global Warming?

Update 2:  Global warming skeptics seem to be winning the debate lately -- literally (via Brutally Honest)

______________________________

Tags:  earth climate average avrage temperature temperture change changing changeing myths

Comments

[biz markie]

Why does one Danish scientist have so much more credibility than 95% of the scientific community? I'm just asking.

"Yes, and my house "may" be picked up by a cyclone and transported to a curious land of little people, talking scarecrows, and cowardly lions. But pardon me if I'm not budgeting for ruby slippers just yet."

How much would you budget to protect against a terrosist attack that "may" occur, but that you would most likley not be a victim of even if it did?

[Robert]

To hear people who thought Saddam Hussein was going to take over the US with imaginary weapons describe others as "Chicken Littles" is the irony of the century.

[jay k.]

and the sun revolves around the earth, which is flat.
ludites rock.

[ME]

This is probably the least scientific "debunking" of global warming that I've read in a long time.

"But the claim that within less than a century mankind has radically transformed the climate of the earth so as to raise temperatures dangerously beyond the normal wide range of natural variation is an audacious claim that requires compelling proof before it can be accepted. Such proof has not been provided."

Yes, it has:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

For a more thorough debunking of climate change skeptics: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

"To look at it another way, if we were entering another ice age right now (and -- who knows? -- we "might" be), does anyone seriously believe that simply by producing enough carbon dioxide humankind could stave off the ice age and keep the global climate sunny and pleasant?"

Yes, it's called terraforming, and is believed to be possible by many serious, scientific people. Obviously the amount of "staving off" would depend on how bad the ice age was and what the limits of greenhouse warming are, but yes, of course people seriously believe that we can warm the planet by putting carbon into the atmosphere.

"If that is a silly fantasy, then so is the flip side of the same coin."

That's a logical fallacy...first off, as I said above, it's not silly fantasy, it's science. Second, whether we could "fully" stave off an ice age with carbon says nothing about whether carbon emmisions lead to an increase in global temperature. The effect is real, the degree of the effect has yet to be determined, but has been measured as an average .11 degrees per decade since 1880, though the warming has been 3 times faster overall since 1970 compared to the rest of the century.

"To jump to the conclusion that humans have, in a few short decades, destroyed the global climate by adding minimally to worldwide carbon dioxide emissions"

Who said humans have "destroyed the global climate"? I don't think anyone has seriously said that (beyond your typical hyperbolistic enviro-nut). Furthermore, your analysis of 95% of carbon emmissions not being from human causes is actually quite irrelevant. Adding 5% to one side of an equilibrium can throw things REALLY off balance. Furthermore, human carbon emissions aren't the only problem....deforestation reduces the amount of carbon that can be processed back to O2 by plants, for example, and the warming we're already experiencing is thawing the siberian tundra, releasing a LOT of methane that had been trapped.

Ignoring the science of global warming will not make it go away.

[Todd]

I always LOVE how the global-warming alarmist freaks show up and cite Wikipedia as evidence. Sheesh. Try this one on:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Face it. You don't have FACTS to back up your dire predictions. You have flawed computer models and inference. That's junk science at best. And yet, you want us to pump billions, possible trillions of dollars at this supposed problems. Meanwhile, anyone who is skeptical are outcasts and even receive death threats.

Yeah, this is really science. NOT!!!

[jim]

I always LOVE how the global-warming alarmist freaks show up and cite Wikipedia as evidence.

I always love how global-warming denying freaks refuse the evidence that proves they're wrong.

If the Wikipedia link is wrong, and/or contains wrong or faulty information - then prove it wrong! It should be easy, right?

If you can't prove it wrong, then the argument stands.

If you disagree with the argument I've just presented here, then please show what I've said that's wrong, and logically explain why it's wrong.

[JohnRyan]

The earth is only 6000 years old. It says it in the Bible and some scientists agree.

[DP]

The Wikipedia entry leads to a graph that was generated from data published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, you will notice that each of the traces on the graph comes from data from a different article, and that all those articles are cited on the page in appropriate journal citation format. If you would like to claim that you and one Danish "scientist" have more expertise than ten peer-reviewed journal articles, then by all means feel free to do so.

[eddiehaskel]

A. When "providing evidence" it always is recommended that the evidence come from outside sources and not self-referential links.

B. The CFP article relies similarly on mere statements and is written by someone whose byline is unapologetically described as a former climatologist. That's a refutation of many articles from many different scientists?

I guess when I was taking science and math in school there was a different set of criteria used for discerning truth/fiction and simple bloviation.

But that requires hard work, research and stamina.

However, the real questions is whether all of the deniers are willing to take the chance that they are wrong.

And why not plan for the end of fossil fuels instead of acting like an ostrich?

But then, there would not be any reasons left to bash Mr. Gore or those of us who do not think that burning fossil fuels is the only way to perserve modern life.

[Tridentata]

Have you read what Bjarne Andresen's Niels Bohr institute has to say about evolution?

"Evolution is an inherent part of biological systems and we in the center aim at developing new views and models to deal with evolutionary processes in general. This includes models of evolving biological systems, like gene regulatory circuits, but also concerns more abstract modeling of for example evolving social systems." (http://cmol.nbi.dk/research.php?research=4 ) (Andersen is also involved in this evolution study: http://www.dna.gfy.ku.dk/index.html)

It is easy to pick and choose tidbits from scientific reports. Would creationists be able to support Andresen's findings on climate change yet refute his thoughts on evolution? It seems a slippery slope.

Also, reading the study, it says only that there is no such thing as "global temperature" because the Earth is just too large and diverse an entity to be able to measure averages of temperature in that way. The only real conclusion then is that there is no way to measure if there is global warming or not using the current system of averaging. Andersen is looking at the Earth and the idea of global temperature within the idea of ontological complexity:

"From its beginning, biology was a science of complex systems, but with the advent of electronic computing and the possibility of simulating mathematical models of complicated systems, new intuitions of complexity emerged, together with attempts to devise quantitative measures of complexity. " (quoted from "Aspects of Complexity in Life and Science" published by Andersen's Niels Bohr Instiute http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche/cePubl/97g.complisci.html)

Andersen's beef is more with a linear system of global temperature measurement than it is with the idea that carbon emissions are not affecting the globe.

Here is a better news piece on the study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

It includes this key line of analysis that people using the study to refute global climate change seem to omit: "What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of Earth."

Pollution, deforestation, etc. are still real problems that we should be concerned about. Nowhere is the study refuting that. To jump to the conclusion that global warming is a myth (and that we should not be concerned about carbon emissions, etc.) based on the idea that we need a better way to measure the temperature of the earth is a very suspect interpretation of the findings.

Regardless, I wonder why you expend so much energy trying to refute "global warming." It seems (by all the posts and comments I have read here at least) that you are quite emotional about the issue. That is strange to me. Is it simply because it is lumped under "liberal" causes? There certainly is a ton of hype and misinformation about the issue, but it seems that the enlightened conservative approach would be to find solutions based in careful thought and conseravtive values instead of stirring up partisan politics and using selective bits from scientific reports. In fact, I think you could be more compelling in your arguments if you were able to accept some of the real dangers of pollution and look at answers that made the most sense yet still embraced your core political values. We don't live in a black-and-white world and all black-and-white responses seem to do is excite the far ends of the politcal spectrum.