CNN meteorologist spouted debunked theory challenging global warming
SUMMARY: After being introduced as "a little bit of a skeptic on global warming," CNN meteorologist Chad Myers put forth a theory citing skewed global warming data that has been debunked by several recent studies.
On the January 25 edition of CNN's American Morning, co-host Miles O'Brien transitioned from a report on global warming to a weather forecast by describing CNN meteorologist Chad Myers as "a little bit of a skeptic on global warming." Although Myers denied the label, he proceeded to put forward the theory -- a favorite of global warming skeptics -- that the growth of urban areas worldwide has skewed global warming data. Wholly apart from the question of the appropriateness of CNN hiring a meteorologist apparently known among the staff as "a little bit of a skeptic on global warming," the so-called "heat island" theory promoted by Myers has been debunked by several recent studies.
From the January 25 edition of CNN's American Morning:
O'BRIEN: Let's check the forecast now. Chad Myers, you're a little bit of a skeptic on global warming, I know.
MYERS: No, I absolutely believe that CO2 is heating the atmosphere, but also, some of these thermometers that we've had out in the plains for years or in the cities for years are getting surrounded by more buildings. So you get more buildings, you get more asphalt, you get more heat, so the thermometers are different. The whole -- metro areas are getting warmer, where, in fact, maybe you just see -- if you put that same thermometer out in the middle of a cornfield in Nebraska, maybe it wouldn't be too much different. We'll have to see. You know, I know that this is happening; it's just a matter of how much it is, that's all.
O'BRIEN: So, there's a little bit of global paving, too, along with global warming?
MYERS: Well, there you go.
Global warming skeptics have regularly put forth the theory the comparative warmth of cities via the "urban heat island effect" -- whereby metropolitan areas register considerably higher temperatures than their surroundings -- has skewed the global temperature record. For instance, at JunkScience.com, a website founded by Steven Milloy, who has claimed that global warming represents "flawed science," a September 12, 2004, article suggested that the urban heat island effect "create[s] the illusion of 'global warming.' " While the existence of the urban heat island effect is not disputed within the scientific community, several authoritative studies published in recent years have found that the effect on the global temperature record is negligible.
A 2001 study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determined that between 1900 and 1990, the effect of urban heat islands on the global temperature record was no more than 0.05 degrees Celsius. By contrast, the surface temperature record is estimated to have warmed by 0.6 degrees to 0.8 degrees Celsius over the past century.
In 2003, Thomas C. Peterson of the National Climactic Data Center published a study that examined "the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on ... temperature observations" and found that "no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures."
More recently, a study conducted by David Parker, of Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, also proved that the urban heat island effect is minimal. Published in the November 18, 2004, edition of Nature, the study compared temperature measurements taken in urban areas on calm and windy nights:
Controversy has persisted over the influence of urban warming on reported large-scale surface-air temperature trends. Urban heat islands occur mainly at night and are reduced in windy conditions. Here we show that, globally, temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development.
I think a lotta people are gonna prematurely die from global warming. I think denial such as Myers' is gonna accelerate this.
We must live differently. And those with power, such as Myer, and those with great power, such as Bush, must speak frankly about the coming sacrifices.
In the middle of dicing an onion, I decided that the purpose of such misinformation is to assuage anxieties about global warming. When a kooky guy like Myers suggests that global warming is much a matter of driveways and basketball courts giving us false readings, fretting folks are more likely to tune into tomorrow to the nice man that says such sweet things. More folks will mean that CNN can charge more for commercial time and then life seemingly goes on as it always has.
am enjoying the mild weather as well as the greenhouse hand wringing. i am just old enough to remember when the 70's were supposed to be the vanguard of the new ice age.
there is STILL a lack of data showing
1. observed warming is an accurate observation with a sufficient time line.
while the heat island may be nonsense, there was indeed a time when most thermometers were university novelties in cities, along with barometers and other gizmos.
2. that the observed warming trend is caused by a single cause or a few related causes.
I have not the resources to buy science journals, but there seems to be a major shortage of studies of changes to albedo or solar radiation as well as air circulation patterns. volcanoes are largely ignored.
3. that the single cause or few interrelated causes are the result of man.
only if you presuppose that co2 and so2 cause greenhouse effectcan you claim that warming is entirely or primarily caused by man.
4. that the sudden reversal of burning carbon will reverse the effect.
5. that there is any source short of nuclear fission that can replace thermal expansion related to combustion to replace our base load.
...on the other hand i guess you could set a number of say 900 000 people and hold a lottery or some good wars to see who will live in the brave new world of central planning
"Thirty years later, the global warming is seen to have continued. The concern that the cooler temperatures would continue, and perhaps at a faster rate, can now be observed to have been wrong. More has to be learned about climate, but the growing records have shown the cooling concerns of 1975 to have been simplistic and not borne out."
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
This is exactly my concern with global warming. Not enough information and the science is too simplistic without enough verifiable evidence it is anything other than a blip like global cooling was.
...we should just do NOTHING and HOPE nothing reallllly catastrophic happens?
OR
We could take steps to limit the carcinogens and other garbage that we're breathing on a daily basis.
You, um...DO agree that mercury is BAD for you, right?
And you DON'T think it's a good idea to, I dunno..maybe, cut BACK a little?
The lack of foresight exhibited by the global-warming-deniers astounds me. This is not the kind of situation where a "wait and see / not enough information" attitude is wise. I'm no Chicken Little "the sky is falling" environmentalist. But you are a fool if you won't at least consider that we're slowly f**cking up the only planet we've got.
Who cares, right?
The Invisible Man In the Sky said this is OUR planet to do with as we please, right?
Don't need to worry about the planet or the environment, 'cuz come the rapture you ain't exactly gonna be around, right?
Serves those heathens right, right?
Why does no one talk about this? The fundie contingent in this country also happens to have a strong correlation to the global-warming-denier contingent. Don't doubt for a second that they don't believe these asinine things.
I've heard recently that the phrase in the Old Testament granting Man "dominion over the earth" is more accurately translated as "stewardship over the earth." A slightly different meaning, perhaps?
"I've heard recently that the phrase in the Old Testament granting Man "dominion over the earth" is more accurately translated as "stewardship over the earth." A slightly different meaning, perhaps?"
A majorly different meaning.
become a green house gas?
and yes i do believe we should hold off on destroying developed economies for theories with poorly understood mechanisms of cause and effect.
quite simply the sylogism goes:
earth is warmer there is more co2 and so2 people cause co2 and so2 there fore people cause global warming
shaky science boys and girls
That you cant find a credible scientist not working for the oil industry that doesnt believe and support. Even the Pentagon has accepted it. Only Limbuagh and other rightwingnuts that care more about their money than the Earth itself are still arguing this point. NOTHING shaky about this science. What is shaky is your ideological antipathy to reality
i just dont buy it.
The science betwen Global Cooling and Global Warming doesn't compare. Whatever false blip the Global Cooling had, it did not have the massive scientific consensus and data support that Global Warming has. We are losing our glaciers, and ice in the polar and mountainous regions are melting. Seas are warming and coastlines are receding. Reversing what has been lost, e.g., glaciers, is not as simple as having a few cold winters. The earth's temperatures ARE rising. Even the Pentagon came out with an environmental "doomsday" report about two years ago, that addressed this issue. It is amazing how much more clout politicians and pundits have with citizens than do scientists when it comes to Global Warming.
we just had by far the most active hurricane season on record, which was one of the central tenets of global warming predictions. i don't think there are any cities out there in the middle of the ocean causing those "heat islands". the flat-earthers are at it again.
I attended a meeting where the presenter (a US government official) stated that the current (at that time) global warming model was inaccurate at best for the following reasons. 1) Temperatures were taken from one spot within a 300 mile sqare area in each reporting period. 2) This spot might change from reporting period to reporting period due to circumstances. 3) Good science would require that the 300 mile square should be a 30 mile square, but the time to gather and analyze all that data would make the data out of date before it was published. 4) Humans are having an impact on the environment, as well as other factors beyond human control. 5) We should all be aware of what we can do to make an impact, both positively and negatively and decrease the negative activities.
global warming is, of course, simply a liberal plot to keep some poor, trod-upon millionairs from making a few extra bucks...
It doesn't seem to me that Myers is saying anything against global warming, but instead is saying that the fact that the thermometers are in more urban or built up areas their readings may be skewed warmer than they would normally be. And although "the effect of urban heat islands on the global temperature record was no more than 0.05 degrees Celsius", the perception of the effect could be much greater. I personally despise the term "global warming" and would rather see the more accurate term used as global warming could cause a change in the Gulf Stream and cause a cooling effect over Great Britain. The term "global squirming" comes to mind, because if we don't do something now there won't be much we can do to stop the rock rolling down that hill.
That's it, Tralfaz. People deny global warming 'cause they want to maintain the status quo. They live a comfy life and they want it to continue. And folks think it's just gonna be balmy...and ain't that peachy.
And they assert that the science is shaky, which is the same charge levied at evolution, but why don't such folks heave microwaves out their windows and assert that if man was supposed to fly, he'd have wings, for microwave ovens and airplanes are products of the same scientific process that produced the theory of global warming and evolution.
Global warming deniers, what do you love more: your luxuries or the Earth you bequeath and your descendents that will inhabit it?
This is much more than a matter of partisan policy. This will, as I already asserted, kill many of us. It's already happening. The Masai have driven their cattle into Nairobi to feed on the plants in the parks. Fungi from the Sahara is carried by convection across the Atlantic, multiplying the asthma rates in Florida and Texas. That convection is also linked to the Red Tide. And this is just the beginning.
Luckily, some folks on the Right are starting to consider stewardship a Biblical imperative.
no one is saying that a whole way of life needs to be destroyed to stop evolution. people are suggesting (throwing microwaves out the window?) that we change EVERYTHING just begause there might be a problem.
by the way how many accepted evolution after ten years of the tehory's exposition in journals?
The whole "once upon a time some scientists in the 70s were wrong" shtick is a reassuring, happily-ever-after fairy tale. But if you wanna hear such tales, tune in to Mr. Myers. And hope that the Easter Bun-Bun will one day come to return the Earth to what it was once.
the earth that was was nasty brutish and short.
ever been on a wet raod used by horses? ever been on a summer road used by horses?
speaking of mercury, anyone want to turn back the clock to when quicksilver was a neat toy and arsenic was a food dye?
It's kind of oxymoron-ish to think that you can "debunk" something by careful scientific research. You "debunk" the idea that the moon is made of cheese (but not by taking the trouble to fly to the Moon). On the other hand you "scientifically test" the idea that the Moon is covered in an extremely deep layer of dust by sending probes, instruments (and people!). The view expressed by Myers about "urban warming" is like the latter example: a perfectly reasonably, rational conjecture that is (possibly) false. Falsified conjectures are to Science as fallen soldiers are to a nation: heroes. So the only candidate I find here for "debunking" is this article.
On another point, if Myers had claimed that urban warming was a key component (or any component) in global warming the reference to the 2001 IPCC study would be relevant. But he didn't, so it isn't. His quite reasonable point was not that urban sprawl warms the planet, rather that it may be making measurement even harder than it is already.
Chad Myers, one of the talking heads on CNN, is now an expert on whether Global Warming is a fact. He must be an expert, he's on TV. He seems like a reasonable guy. He's got nice hair. he speaks pretty good, too. Yes, I'll have to agree with him on this.
Meteorology is the study of the day to day weather. Climatology is the study of long range changes in the Climate. They are similar studies but not the same. But then again, we have a Senator, who is an MD, diagnosing brain injury by old video clips. We have an ex-house majority leader who got his start in politics by railing against the government banning DDT (Old Tom D was an exterminator, you know, so he is the one I would go to for information on whether some chemical is harmful for my children). And best of all, we have a group of religious zealots taking over a school board in York, PA and trying to jam creationism into our science curriculum. God must have spoken to these people, so lets teach our kids some of that intelligent design too, while we're at it.
We need to start listening to those who have the most experience in scientific studies, and less to imbeciles.
By contrast, the surface temperature record is estimated to have warmed by 0.6 degrees to 0.8 degrees Celsius over the past century.
At this pace, I should be able to golf in Toronto in January in about a million years.
For you guys that pooh-pooh global warming, I hope you guys are right. I hope you aren't kooky. Or deluded. Or desperate deniers. But I find your reasoning as crumbly as feta cheese. For example, Mr. Myer's suggestion that global warming is a mistake of thermometer placement is, well, daft. It makes me wonder if you members of the "Everything is peachy pack" know any scientists. Do you know how methodical and anal those guys are? And how brilliant?
Will Mr. Myer's next suggestion be: "I suspect that some thermometers fell off their nails and plopped into frying pans. Thus, the lie of global warming!"
what about a doctor? or a physicist?
by the way-
the chemist was c u m laude rose hulman m s at southern illinois
the doctor md from iu
the physicist b s from manchester and m s from ball state.
Not sounding alarmist on this is probabably a good thing in the general media, as not one of us can actually predict exactly what will happen when as the climate continues to warm and TV is not good with such complexities. However, listeners should not interpret this stance as the equivalent of "there isn't enough science" to support the statement that the planet is warming. There certainly is plenty of science to back that up; it just doesn't fit neatly into a sound byte. If you're curious, you should read about it, not get your facts from the TV. TV should just stay away from complex topics. They aren't good at it and just mislead people into thinking there are simple answers.
Most doubters who do manage to acknowledge that yes, maybe the planet is indeed warming up, always state that it's happening at such a rate that it will be thousands of years before "I can golf in Toronto." This belief that natural change is only gradual can be traced back to Darwin's writings on evolution, which most of the doubters disbelieve as contrary to God's revelations, yet they unconsciously allow Darwin's theory of gradual change to mold their thoughts on this topic. The irony is almost painful.
What awaits us is not gradual warming, but a massive and quick change to a new steady-state. The planet has made many such changes in the past, often within human timescales of decades. It has indeed been warmer before, but never warmer since our species existed. What temperature is the tipping point to the new steady-state? Who knows. Will the planet get warmer or colder? Both; it's a big place. Can reducing greenhouse emissions now make a difference? Again, who knows. Are humans to blame? Maybe, but assigning blame accomplishes nothing. Can mankind survive this? Sure, we're resourceful and adaptive. Will our lives be very different when this happens? You bet. What should be done about it now? Well, first we have to agree there is a problem, then maybe we can begin to talk about options. Hey, it might even be fun, watching the greatest drama our civilization has ever faced unfold.
--someone with the time can do some google work on "positive feedback loops", or possible mechanisms by which the climate change will accelerate , and also the content of methane (another greenhouse gas) dissolved in seawater. since water holds more gas when it is colder, another possibility is that warming oceans will start giving the methane back to the atmosphere, and making the situation even worse.
And Casey, you're not one of those hucksters behind a curtain, pulling levers and blustering.
What you wrote is so cogent that I wish we could have coffee this afternoon.
It dismays me that this thread doesn't generate more discourse. It seems easier to rant about Rush than engage global warming, which is far more momentous and monstrous.
P.S. - Not that I don't like to rant about Rush.
Sounds great for us Canadians!
Noo doot aboot it eh!
;)