Weather 101 - Climate Change

The bad news is that the climate is changing. The good news is that the climate has always been changing. And when one looks at the wealth of scientific evidence that "real" scientists have been looking at, it is almost impossible to arrive at the conclusion that humans are causing the most recent warming spell in Earth's geologic history. In fact, during the Earth's roughly 4 to 4.5 billion year existence, proxy records (including, but not limited to fossils and geologic structures) show that the Earth has undergone numerous atmospheric and oceanic thermal rises and falls, some great and some smaller.

Rather, what makes this "warm" period newsworthy is that so-called news reporting today is instantaneous, visual and encapsulated. If a pin drops, it can be reported or blogged even before it hits the floor. Encapsulation and visualization ensure that "clips" and "quips," taken out of context, can be used to make a point, any point. It's quite like the old style of quoting in which a few words of a lengthy quote can be used to completely change the intent of the quote.

Nowhere has this approach been used so efficiently than in the purported climate change debate. In fact, the word, "debate," becomes a misnomer if one believes the climate change doomsayers. According to those supporting the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the case is proven and disbelievers should be shunned. According to the IPCC, it is "very likely that humanity's emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases have caused most of the global temperature rise observed since the mid-20th century." The terminology "very likely" means a certainty level of 90% or higher.

Enter several thousands of other scientists who refuse to be stifled and suddenly the debate is on again. And while statistics on either side can be used to advantage, the reasoning linked to those statistics tells another story.

Climate Change Evidence

Prior to attending the 2nd Annual International Conference on Climate Change in New York City in March 2009, I was a climate change skeptic, but one who was concerned about the status of our planet. After hearing noted scientists present their findings about climate change, I became a non-believer in the IPCC findings, but remain concerned about the state of our planet. The bottom line is that geologic and astronomical forces, far greater than those of mortal man (and woman) are controlling what happens on Planet Earth.

Solar cycles (in which solar output varies in a periodic manner) are directly related to the amount of energy reaching Earth; and this incoming energy is directly related to our planet's temperature. Small changes in solar output can yield large changes to Earth's energy budget. Glacial advances and retreats also fuel the temperature of the planet by changing rates of energy absorption and reflection. And over time there has been an ongoing battle between glacial and non-glacial territory. Of course, as glaciers and ice sheets grew, sea level dropped and vice versa. In the most recent geological period, glacial advance ensured that Asia and Alaska were joined by a land bridge; the Chesapeake Bay wasn't a Bay, but rather part of a series of large river systems; Florida was a much fatter peninsula; and many Scandinavian fjords were filled with glacial ice (not yet submerged in water).

According to Jeffery Gold, writing at "Wired New York - Forum", much of the Hudson Canyon (offshore from New York City) was formed during the last Ice Age, over 10,000 years ago. Sea level was about 400 feet lower then and the mouth of the Hudson River was located some 100 miles east of its present site. With a greater drop in elevation due to lower sea level, the river flowed faster and was better able to carve the canyon. The Great Falls region of the Potomac River near Washington, DC also underwent greater erosion due to the lowering of sea level and the resulting increase in slope along the waterway.

Now, that sea level is slowly rising (certainly less than rising 400 feet in 10,000 years), the IPCC wants us to enter panic mode. But, humans did not cause this dramatic rise in sea level and certainly were not around (with cars and factories) during the time sea level fell as the previous Ice Age ensued at the end of an earlier warm period.

Scientists have other evidence that over geologic time things have changed. Fossil and other records show that continents have moved (separating from a single large continental mass known as Pangea) into the distribution that exists today. Formation of mountain ranges due to vulcanism and other geologic forces becomes, over time, undercut by weathering and erosion.

Not surprisingly, animal and plant species have had to adapt, relocate or die. And in this process, oil, natural gas and coal deposits formed under growing deposits of eroded rock material. Trust me when I note that graveyards of plant and marine material (the source of our fossil fuels) could not have formed in the Middle East or the north slope of Alaska given the current continental arrangement or current climate and weather patterns.

Long-term Versus Short-term Assessments

But perhaps the largest flaw in the climate change controversy lies in the short-sightedness of the statistical analysis. Terms such as, "worst drought in 30 years," and "highest temperatures this century" tell how easy it is to use a small piece of a long-term record to make an illogical conclusion. It is no different than using the one second change in the Dow Jones Industrial Average graph at 9:35:01am to predict the change in the market for the entire day. Given the ongoing rise and fall of that graph, the result can be very different if one used the change at 10:35:01 instead.

Things have changed and they continue to change. But our perception of climate is that it is fixed. That's only because of what we experience in the here and now. But climate is only an average of conditions, filled with many variations (positive and negative) that create the average. We think that an 80 average in math class means we scored 80 on all of our tests. But that 80 can be the result of a 60, an 80 and a 100 or a 50, 90 and 100. That's quite a bit of variation around that "average" reading.

Scientific Analysis & Critical Thinking

Although scientific evidence says that humans are NOT THE cause of the recent warming, it does not mean that we shouldn't be better stewards of Planet Earth. We need to be. But, it shouldn't be done in panic mode and it shouldn't be done "at any cost." And, it shouldn't just be done with the U.S. cutting it's carbon emissions while other Nations around the world continue to pollute freely.

Instead we need to scientifically examine all of the evidence and debate the problem. Governmental determinations, research funding requirements and media attention currently act to shut down the debate prematurely and should be changed. We need to understand better how physical and other forces guide our planet. And we need to better understand what the "unintended consequences" of our actions really are. For example, when we build levees along the Mississippi River, we do protect farmland and peoples homes. But, we also cut the flow of sediment to the Mississippi River Delta causing a loss of coastal ecosystems and natural protection to the lower Mississippi River Valley. When we build dams to control stream flow and store water, we impact ecosystems downstream. When we rebuild homes in flood, hurricane or forest fire zones, we set the stage for future disasters. Simply stated, every action we take or don't take affects other things. And it is usually the larger forces of the natural world that win.

I am 100% for solar and wind power as part of a suite of alternative fuels. But, then again, Americans were for biofuels until it was discovered what their real cost turned out to be. Wind and solar power are pricey alternatives to existing fossil fuels. Should they be encouraged? Absolutely. Over time, their price will drop.

But, what about better insulating our homes and businesses? What about planting more trees in urban and other locales to help shade and cool the planet? What about the effect of windmills on birds? Why not use nuclear power with proper safeguards? All of these "trade-offs" and others have to be considered before we rush to judgment.

So, the release of the long-awaited publication, Climate Change Reconsidered - The Report of the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - NIPCC) by the Heartland Institute at its' 3rd Climate Conference in Washington, DC on June 2, 2009 should ... no, make that MUST ... restart the debate. (Alas, major national TV news networks, the Washington Post and even many conservative talk radio personalities failed to report on the release of this publication and the climate conference.) The lengthy report is filled with key scientific information that showcases the other side of the issue. Instead of relying on what computer models (with varying assumptions and mathematical algorithms) show (as did the IPCC Report), much of the content of this report is based on historical information using data and/or proxy data to assess what has happened over longer time periods. The report, however, is not for the faint of heart. It is literally, and figuratively, heavy scientific reading (it weighs 6 pounds). But for policy makers, it has to be read. Staffers, hopefully those with some scientific awareness need to read it and brief their bosses about the real science. Business owners, scientists, educators and others in leadership roles need to read it and help educate elected officials and others at all levels about the true state of climate change knowledge. This includes the balanced education of our children, the generation that will have to deal with what we do to respond to "climate change."

For everyone, the Heartland Institute has posted the Skeptics Handbook (written by Joanne Nova). The guide details some of the many IPCC statements and how easily they can be refuted. Perhaps the most important information in the handbook centers on the data used to document recent warming. It shows urban instruments biased by nearby buildings, air conditioners, and other heat sources. While likely unintentional, the effect is to skew the data toward warming.

Technology plays a role in our understanding of hurricane frequency, too. In 2004 and 2005, we were told that the number of storms was linked to climate change. Never before (at least in recent, documented history) had such a large number of Atlantic hurricanes occurred. Yet, when going back to periods BEFORE weather satellites showed mid-oceanic storms and when established shipping routes missed storms, and correcting the data set for this technological shift, NOAA scientists have shown that a similar peak occurred some 70 years earlier. Hence, overall trends during the last 100 years show no change in hurricane frequency to perhaps a slight decrease. Globally, the number of tropical cyclones remains about the same, as well.

Finally, climate change alarmists continually describe the threat to Planet Earth and its inhabitants as astronomical. Statements warning of the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to growing droughts, millions at risk as diseases spread, drowning polar bears and the potential loss of a species all grab the headlines. Yet, every one of these scenarios and others has occurred before the media, special interest groups and the Industrial Revolution arrived on the scene.

The bottom line to the climate debate is that we need better scientific research (from all quarters), better communication of the results (not just hype) and better understanding by an unscientifically oriented population. If not, we will almost certainly make inappropriate and costly decisions that may be difficult to remedy.

In Conclusion

Dr. S. Fred Singer, one of the authors of the NIPCC Report, who for decades has been an outspoken skeptic opposing alarmist junk science, noted that the NIPCC report made three broad points:

* There is NO evidence that the rise in global temperatures in the past 50 years is due to human activity. On the contrary, human activity has "no influence" at all on temperature change.

* Increases in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are natural. Any efforts to mitigate them are "ineffectual" and "won't have the slightest impact on CO2 concentrations."

* The debate about global warming "is not about the science." To the contrary, he noted that the political effort to regulate CO2 emissions "is about money and power."

Finally, please remember that statistics (on their own) do not lie. Rather statisticians, scientists, special interest groups and others can bend statistics to do their bidding.

In closing, I urge all readers of this summary article to read about both sides of "climate change" and to make their own decision about the problem or the lack thereof. Readers should apply the same type of critical analysis to proposed solutions, whether national, global or local. Then, at least, whatever we do is based on thought not mass hysteria.