Editor's Note: Contributing Editor, Bill Zettler, has written one of the most in-depth and provocative looks at the social and scientific phenomenon surrounding the issue of global warming. Zettler continues the five-part series on what has become perhaps the most controversial issue of our time. It is a must read for those who want to have the facts about climate change and the motivations behind those who promote speculation over GLOBAL WARMING. -- Dan Zanoza
From the Desk of Bill Zettler
In this column, I discuss the accuracy and honesty of the measurements used to hype the global warming scare.
The most obvious measurement--and the one discussed most often in the media--is temperature, when it comes to global warming. The deceptive way the environmental lobby frames this argument is by comparing the temperature from the 1970’s with the current decade. The reason this is done is because the 1970’s were the coldest decade of the 20th century. This would look especially dire, since any comparisons would be going from a very low point to a very high point. This is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
The proper comparison would be the 1930’s, since that was the warmest decade of the 20th century. But when 1930’s temperatures are used as a comparison to the current “heat wave” things don’t look much different. For example, Greenland shows a decrease in temperature since 1930. For the continental U.S., 29 of the 48 continental states had their highest recorded temperatures in the 1930’s and the warmest July on record was in 1936. Therefore, using the 1930's temperature template as a base for comparison would make it difficult to convince people the world is coming to an end, considering things haven’t changed in 70 years.
Another well known and agreed upon temperature issue is called the “Urban Heat Island” (UHI) effect. This is the well-researched and documented increase in temperature over urban areas caused by the enormous increase in heat-absorbing material used in modern life. Some examples of this heat absorption phenomenon are more asphalt parking lots, more eight lane highways, bigger roofs because of bigger houses, ubiquitous air conditioners cooling interiors by moving heat outside and tens of millions of hot truck, bus and auto engines idling in traffic jams. And consider the heat absorption rates of our enormous modern airports, virtually 100% cement and rooftops, where many of our city temperatures are officially recorded. Certainly there must be some large temperature distortions in those environments. An attempt is made to adjust temperatures down to account for UHI, but the question remains, is it adjusted enough?
In other words, our modern society generates and traps enormous amounts of heat in the heat-absorbent materials of modern life and releases that heat back into the local area, usually at night. This is why 80% of the increased temperatures in urban areas occur at night i.e., the increase in the lowest temperature of the day (early in the morning) represents 80% of what climate alarmists call global warming. If it is really “global warming” as opposed to “local warming” shouldn’t most of the increase be during the day rather than at night?
This Urban Heat Island effect can be easily seen by comparing the temperatures of Albany, N.Y. and New York City for the years 1930 to 2005. Albany’s temperature trend is down by about ½ degree, while NYC temperature trends are up by one degree. If it is “global” warming, how can two cities 140 miles a part as the crow flies have such different trends? Doesn’t it make sense that the Urban Heat Island effect of a city with 80 times the population of another accounts for most or all of the difference?
To illustrate the serious problem with current temperature measurements there is a picture of an official temperature-gathering site in Tucson, Arizona at this link: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/07/how_not_to_measure_temperature_22.html Imagine how hot that parking lot blacktop must get in July in Arizona. If this is an example of the temperature-gathering quality in the U.S., imagine what the sites in Kazakhstan, Paraguay and Zimbabwe must be like. Making trillion dollar spending decisions, based upon information from sources like this, is beyond ridiculous, it’s frightening.
Measurements of CO2 itself are also controversial. Since 1958, the official site for CO2 collection and measurement has been 13,000 feet up an active volcano in Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Since volcanoes are known to give off huge amounts of CO2 when active, the question arises why that site was chosen. Even stranger is the official source for CO2 measurement before 1950. That would be a 400 foot ice core from Antarctica reflecting CO2 levels.
Which brings up two measurement questions: Why collect CO2 samples from 13,000 feet up an active volcano in a tropical climate (tropical climates create CO2) for post-1950 records and collect samples from 10,000 feet lower in an arctic climate (arctic climates absorb CO2) for the years before 1950?
And why use an ice-core and it’s less reliable records instead of the 90,000 scientific CO2 readings taken directly from the atmosphere prior to 1950? One reason might be that the direct measurements taken prior to 1950 often show CO2 rates higher than the current levels. This would limit the environmental lobby’s argument that CO2 levels are at an all-time high and the world was coming to an end because of it.
As for Antarctica melting and raising the sea level, as Al Gore would have us believe, research shows otherwise. Mainland Antarctica cannot melt because its average temperature is –55 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter and 0 degrees in summer. In fact, recent research shows Antarctica getting colder and getting larger by 26 Giga tons per year. And if neither Antarctica nor Greenland is melting, then the sea levels are not rising because 98% of all frozen water in the world is in these two locations. That is why melting glaciers have virtually no effect on sea levels since in total they represent less than 2% of all frozen water.
Another Al Gore fairy tale is how global warming is melting Mt. Kilimanjaro. That would be impossible since the temperature at the top never gets above freezing. The reason there is less ice and snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro is because the monsoons from the Indian Ocean shifted away from the region about 150 years ago causing less precipitation to fall, therefore, causing less snow and ice to accumulate. Ice and snow wear away over time, if they do not have regular precipitation renewing their ice source. It has nothing to do with temperature or global warming.
So, measurement sources of temperature are questionable, measurement sources of CO2 are questionable and the melting of ice caps is questionable. Doesn’t that make the whole theory of "Global Warming" questionable?
In our next article, I discuss the thoughts of the deniers, those scientists who disagree with the rush to judgment of the United Nations and Al Gore.
Part 1 Series Overview by Bill Zettler: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/global-swarming.html
Part 2 If It's Not Carbon Dioxide, What Is It? by Bill Zettler: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/global-swarmi-2.html
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected].
Comments