Jan 16 2010

30 Years of Global Cooling…Don’t Like the Numbers? Change ‘Em

Last night I happened to catch John Coleman’s TV show, “Global Warming: The Other Side” on KUSI-TV, an independent TV station here in San Diego. Coleman’s an extremely interesting guy — founder of the Weather Channel, expert TV weatherman (formerly with “Good Morning America” on ABC), an irresistible, effervescent personality.

John Coleman — A resourceful “David” successfully challenging the global warming “Goliath.” Click .

In his hour-long news special (available HERE) Coleman takes aim at some major holes in global warming, and features serious charges that the temperature data on which global warming theories are based has been deliberately altered in the direction of warming.

Computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government’s primary climate center: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina. Smith and D’Aleo found that NOAA manipulated temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and cherry-picking the location of weather observation stations.

You can see more details in their report HERE.

Recently in the Wall Street Journal (1/14/10), Stanford economist Michael Boshkin observed that “If a CEO issued the kind of distorted figures put out by politicians and scientists, he’d wind up in prison.” As a scientist myself, I am especially saddened to see scientists referred to this way but that’s what Climategate’s all about. For example, Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in Climategate, indicated a private desire to “hide the decline” in global temperatures in recent years, and is currently under investigation by Penn State University. At the same time National Review Online is reporting that the Obama administration has awarded $ 500,000 to Mann as part of their economic stimulus package. So much for job creation and scientific peer review.

Earlier this week Fox News (1/11/10) reported this rather strange headline, “30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming” according to a “leading scientist” at Germany’s Kiel University. An author of the UN’s IPCC report, Professor Mojib Latif believes we’re in for a “mini ice age.” This is an interesting switch on global warming alarmism, but it suffers from one big problem: No climate model can reliably forecast climate decades ahead.

For those who didn’t already know, this was confirmed by Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder in a Climategate email, “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” In his email, Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of NCAR, acknowledges privately a key point: In 1998 climate models did not predict the cessation of global warming that has occurred — despite continued increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide — over the last dozen years, and no one can explain why it happened. So climate forecasts decades in the future like Professor Latif’s are simply unreliable.

The decline of global warming politics is what we would expect as we approach an ebullient golden age of prosperity, exploration, and technology known as the 2015 Maslow Window. Polls indicate the public has already moved on. They are eagerly looking forward to prosperity and even a Camelot-style zeitgeist like that of the 1960s and of all other ebullient Maslow Windows of the last 200 years — all the way back to Lewis and Clark.

2 responses so far

2 Responses to “30 Years of Global Cooling…Don’t Like the Numbers? Change ‘Em”

  1. Mary Kulbergon 20 Jan 2010 at 10:16 pm

    Very good perspective on this difficult scientific controversy. However, I trust the needs of those populations, especially poor nations, who are already experiencing problems from the effects of higher sea levels and literally ‘losing ground,’ will not be forgotten but attention will be given to serious study, guidance and rational action to avert possible disaster in the future.

    Hi Mary,

    Thanks for your comment. I agree with you. We need to learn to mitigate the effects of climate change because regulation of the “pollutant” CO2 will have little effect.

    For example, the 150-year trend in sea level rise is 7 inches per century. This trend was established near 1850, about 90 years before significant amounts of CO2 were injected into the air by humans. This is based on surface gauge data from 1807 to 2002 in S. Jevrejeva et al. (2006) J. Geophys Res. 111, and satellite data from 1997 to 2006 in E. W. Leuliette et al. (2004) Marine Geodesy 27, No. 1-2, 79-94.

    You can see more details HERE.

    Best regards and stay warm!

    Bruce

  2. Brian H Campbellon 28 Jan 2010 at 6:11 am

    Anthropogenic or man-made global warming is insignificant but not a total farce. With ice cold temperatures in many cities in England, Russia, Romania, Germany, the United States, even China – it is absurd to claim there is any serious amount of climate change. These are just some of the countries that even have many deaths because the weather is so cold.

    We just have no way of telling if there was no industrial age if the temperature would have been 30.2 instead of 30.4 or what. There is something we can go by though. THE WEATHER – and the natural cyclical patterns that have happened since the beginning of time.

    Hi Brian,

    Thanks for your comment.

    I agree with you that CO2 is having a minor influence and the climate is driven by other effects. The cessation of global warming in 1998 and cooling in recent years is the latest empirical support for that idea.

    Also I agree with you that any study of climate must be grounded in scientific data — especially data that is open to the scientific community for their examination.

    BTW, I like your website.

    Best regards,

    Bruce

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply