Global warming tonic
I remind readers of the interesting article series by Lawrence Solomon that appears regularly on the FP Comment page of the National Post newspaper. I've taken the liberty of reproducing the most recent (30th) installment below. Remember, you can access the whole series at Larry's website here:
THE DENIERS — PAR T XXX
What global warming, Australian skeptic asks
LAWRENCE SOLOMON
Financial Post
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
Bob Carter, a professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia), is a paleontologist, a stratigrapher, and a marine geologist.
He has been chair of the National Marine Science and Technologies Committee, director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council. He is Cambridge educated. And he is an outspoken global-warming skeptic.
Most global-warming skeptics criticize the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on limited grounds — they might view the science put forth by the IPCC to be at odds with science in their particular discipline, for example, or they might object to the IPCC’s secrecy, or they might object to the IPCC’s failure to observe standard peerreview practices. Moreover, when they object they generally do so quietly, often without naming names and only in private.
Prof. Carter objects on multiple grounds and in multiple arenas; he names names and he will set the record straight, even when those he believes to be in the wrong are fellow skeptics.
NASA chief Michael Griffin, for example, is a skeptic because he thinks that global warming may be beneficial, that it is not worth worrying about, and that, in any case, we wouldn’t be able to stop it, even if we wanted to. But Dr. Griffin also thinks that a global-warming trend is certainly underway, and to this Prof. Carter takes objection.
Dr. Griffin’s “opinion is unsupported by the evidence,” Prof. Carter wrote in rebuttal. “The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4%) in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
“Second, lower-atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17%).”
Moreover, Prof. Carter adds, credible scientists predict global cooling. How then can Dr. Griffin boldly assert that humans are causing global warming?
One of the most contentious areas of climate-change science involves computer General Circulation Models (GCMs), the predictive tool that generate most of the scary scenarios that arouse public alarm. Prof. Carter has long been a critic of these models, which claim to project for us what the climate will be in the year 2100.
In the past, Prof. Carter has drawn the ire of global-warming proponents with his GCM critiques. Now, to his satisfaction, he has support in his critique from an unlikely source — Kevin Trenberth, whom he thinks of as “one of the advisory high priests of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
As Dr. Trenberth recently acknowledged to Nature journal’s Climate Feedback blog, IPCC models cannot predict future climate because they don’t reflect reality: “None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate,” he stated.
“Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.”
While these statements warrant Prof. Carter’s approval , others do not, such as Dr. Trenberth’s claim that people have mistakenly believed that the IPCC makes predictions: “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been,” claims Dr. Trenberth.
To which Prof. Carter notes an audit at the 27th International Symposium on Forecasting presented earlier this month. It found that “in apparent contradiction to claims by some climate experts that the IPCC provides ‘projections’ and not ‘forecasts’, the word ‘forecast’ and its derivatives occurred 37 times, and ‘predict’ and its derivatives occur 90 times” in a chapter from the IPCC’s latest report.
“There is no predictive value in the current generation of computer GCMs and therefore the alarmist IPCC statements about human-caused global warming are unjustified,” he concludes. Until others conclude so too, expect Prof. Carter to continue his critiques without fear or favour.
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation.


Comments
Nah there's no global warming...
In the meantime more than 1000 seabirds turned up on the SE coast dead - cause starvation. Fish stocks have moved significantly north due to warming of Atlantic. Grey whales off the coast of California on route to the Artic last month were noticeably boney or skinny. Warm waters are playing hell with their food sources zooplankton. The waters off North Carolina have risen 8 inches in the past 100 years. Just enough so that riparian forests just inland of Wilmington on the Cape Fear River have all died. Salt water has come miles up the river and killed all the red maples, Tupelo gum and bald cypresses.
Dr Reese Halter, conservation biologist and author of Wild Weather - The Truth Behind Global Warming
>
Posted by: Dr. Reese Halter | July 31, 2007 06:38 PM
Nah there's no global warming...
In the meantime more than 1000 seabirds turned up on the SE coast dead - cause starvation. Fish stocks have moved significantly north due to warming of Atlantic. Grey whales off the coast of California on route to the Artic last month were noticeably boney or skinny. Warm waters are playing hell with their food sources zooplankton. The waters off North Carolina have risen 8 inches in the past 100 years. Just enough so that riparian forests just inland of Wilmington on the Cape Fear River have all died. Salt water has come miles up the river and killed all the red maples, Tupelo gum and bald cypresses.
Dr Reese Halter, conservation biologist and author of Wild Weather - The Truth Behind Global Warming
>
Posted by: Dr. Reese Halter | July 31, 2007 06:38 PM
The great global warming swindle is just that a "SWINDLE". This bottom of the barrel production scraped up a motley collection of hazbeen, disgruntled heratics who are so out of date with mis-information that in another time and place could be considered midly humerous. Everyone is entilted to their own opinions but not facts. The troposhere is in fact warming and recent measurements clearly indicate this. Carbon dioxide is 10 times more potent than solar forcings. The 1940 to 1960 cooling period resulted from reduced solar activity. I gather the Arctic research hasn't spent much time in the Arctic nor has he noticed the missing ice. And as for the contention that global warming is driven but the vast research dollars - that is absolute flummery. In case you just dropped into Earth the Bush Administration hasn't exactly been throwing research money at global warming for the past 7 years. Folks may not like Al Gore nor politicians but the science that he's articulated is peer-reviewed. The tabloid SWINDLE junk belongs next to the check-out cash register at the grocery store.
Posted by: Dr. Reese Halter | July 31, 2007 07:23 PM
The great global warming swindle is just that a "SWINDLE". This bottom of the barrel production scraped up a motley collection of hazbeen, disgruntled heratics who are so out of date with mis-information that in another time and place could be considered midly humerous. Everyone is entilted to their own opinions but not facts. The troposhere is in fact warming and recent measurements clearly indicate this. Carbon dioxide is 10 times more potent than solar forcings. The 1940 to 1960 cooling period resulted from reduced solar activity. I gather the Arctic research hasn't spent much time in the Arctic nor has he noticed the missing ice. And as for the contention that global warming is driven but the vast research dollars - that is absolute flummery. In case you just dropped into Earth the Bush Administration hasn't exactly been throwing research money at global warming for the past 7 years. Folks may not like Al Gore nor politicians but the science that he's articulated is peer-reviewed. The tabloid SWINDLE junk belongs next to the check-out cash register at the grocery store.
Posted by: Dr. Reese Halter | July 31, 2007 07:23 PM