In latest column, Will outsources climate change falsehoods to NRO's Steyn
SUMMARY: George Will repeated Mark Steyn's false claim that "If you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life." In fact, climate experts reject the notion that global warming has slowed or stopped.
In his July 23 Washington Post column, George Will repeated National Review Online columnist Mark Steyn's false claim that "[i]f you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life. If you're graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade." Will stated that Steyn's observation "could explain why the [National] Mall does not reverberate with youthful clamors about carbon" after "New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called upon 'young Americans' to 'get a million people on the Washington Mall calling for a price on carbon.' " In fact, Steyn's claim is false: While 1998's annual global average temperature set a record high that has not since been matched in most datasets, climate experts have identified a long-term warming trend and reject the notion that global warming has slowed or stopped. As Media Matters for America has noted, Steyn cited a discredited report by EPA research analyst Alan Carlin as purported evidence for his claim.
Media Matters has documented Will's previous efforts in Washington Post columns to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming by distorting, twisting or misusing evidence. For example, World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Michel Jarraud has written that a key assertion in one of Will's columns -- that "there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade" -- was "a misrepresentation of the data and of scientific knowledge."
Additionally, Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander wrote in his March 1 column that while "[t]he editors who checked the Arctic Research Climate Center Web site believe it did not, on balance, run counter to Will's assertion that global sea ice levels 'now equal those of 1979,' " "I [the ombudsman] reviewed the same Web citation and reached a different conclusion."
From Will's column:
The costs of weaning the U.S. economy off much of its reliance on carbon are uncertain, but certainly large. The climatic benefits of doing so are uncertain but, given the behavior of those pesky 5 billion, almost certainly small, perhaps minuscule, even immeasurable. Fortunately, skepticism about the evidence that supposedly supports current alarmism about climate change is growing, as is evidence that, whatever the truth about the problem turns out to be, U.S. actions cannot be significantly ameliorative.
When New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called upon "young Americans" to "get a million people on the Washington Mall calling for a price on carbon," another columnist, Mark Steyn, responded: "If you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life. If you're graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade."
Which could explain why the Mall does not reverberate with youthful clamors about carbon. And why, regarding climate change, the U.S. government, rushing to impose unilateral cap-and-trade burdens on the sagging U.S. economy, looks increasingly like someone who bought a closetful of platform shoes and bell-bottom slacks just as disco was dying.
This way we can all be so embarassed by believing those lunatic scientists of the IPCC.
Thanks!
Written By: Compiled by Peter Risdon
Published In: Environment & Climate News > September 2008
Publication date: 09/01/2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
Despite what many global warming alarmists assert in the media, there are many articles in the world's leading science publications contradicting the assertion that "the debate is over" about global warming. These articles destroy the illusion that there is a "consensus" among scientists about the causes of global warming. The following is the third of a three-part list of many such articles. Compiled by Peter Risdon.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23697/Still_More_PeerReviewed_Studies_Contradict_Global_Warming_Alarmism.html
It's the AA rule: whenever he cites something, it almost never says what he claims. He claims that his article is peer reviewed--and then cites from a right-wing think tank, not peer reviewed!
Again, AA, please cite a real article that refutes AGW. You can't do it. They don't exist.
Its certainly nothing to do with good journalism, or informing the public of matters of importance.
There is a very interesting article written by Dr. Roy Spencer, regarding the current problems with climate modeling.
Dr. Spencer is a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
I feel this article will show you that the AGW argument is anything but settled.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
It is a typical ploy of yours to attack the messenger and use name calling when you cannot attack the message. That also goes for funnymanpants below.
Are you looking at the list I provided in my link above?
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23697/Still_More_PeerReviewed_Studies_Contradict_Global_Warming_Alarmism.html
I found the first 20 or so are on the effects of solar influence on the climate.
When I looked up the first one on the list, Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth's climate (Journal of Coastal Research, SI 50, pp. 955-968, 2007) - Richard Mackey I found it replete with references to Global Warming.
I'm guessing you thought each of these peer reviews were specifically arguing against AGW. I can see why you might think that from the title. But that would be in error. As you can see they are studies of factors other than AGW that influence climate and climate change. In that vein they indirectly contradict claims of AGW.
Hope that helps.
ps. Thanks for taking the time to look up the abstracts. Where did you find them?
Oh, my. Absolutely not. That's like saying studies showing that thousands of roadway fatalities are caused by cell phone use indirectly contradict claims that drunk driving causes roadway fatalities.
Unfortunately, Roy Spencer has added little to the scientific understanding of AGW. He can't even tell the truth about his own work. Check out realclimate.org for his antics.
It looks to me like you need to do the checking. What I found was a scientist, who is an AGW proponent picking at Spencer's formulas. I guess that would to be expected as just about every major study I have seen has some other scientist poking at it.
For you to say that Roy Spencer has added little scientific understanding is simply your bias. Of course he has added to the discussion as can be seen by some of the attempts to find flaws with some of his work.
If we use your standard, then the hockey stick dendroclimatic graph published in 1998 by Mann, Bradley and Hughes, (known as MBH98) in the IPCC report has been thouroughly discredited along with AGW because of the errors in their work.
Are you willing to apply the same standards to Mann, Bradley, and Hughes that you apply to Spencer? If not, at best you are not being very consistent.
Different time scale, Will. It's called science.
Also, if you are even vaguely educated (or able to understand baseball statistical evaluations), you should at least be able to understand the difference between Speed and Velocity.
Speed = Weather
Velocity = Climate
The only difference between weather and climate is the timescale on is using. I see weather reports that prognosticate a week or two and in some cases even further.
At what point does weather become climate?
Here, I'll let NASA explain it:
"In most places, weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. Climate, however, is the average of weather over time and space. An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
Thanks for providing that explanation. What I wanted to find out is where do AGW proponents mark the starting point for discussing climate change? Is it over a season? A year? A decade? Or is it over a century or a millenium?
This is getting off topic, but what I find interesting is that some AGW proponents claim the 90's the hottest decade on record and use that as evidence of AGW but seem to poo-poo the recent studies showing the last 10 years of cooling temps. Why does one prove AGW and the other does not?
I generally only look at the current threads. I see this one is about to drop off the list. Perhaps we can discuss this some other time.
Full Press Release and Abstract to Study:
July 23, 2009
Nature not man responsible for recent global warming
Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.
The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.
"The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely" says corresponding author de Freitas.
"We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.”
Climate researchers have long been aware that ENSO events influence global temperature, for example causing a high temperature spike in 1998 and a subsequent fall as conditions moved to La Niña. It is also well known that volcanic activity has a cooling influence, and as is well documented by the effects of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption.
The new paper draws these two strands of climate control together and shows, by demonstrating a strong relationship between the Southern Oscillation and lower-atmospheric temperature, that ENSO has been a major temperature influence since continuous measurement of lower-atmospheric temperature first began in 1958.
According to the three researchers, ENSO-related warming during El Niño conditions is caused by a stronger Hadley Cell circulation moving warm tropical air into the mid-latitudes. During La Niña conditions the Pacific Ocean is cooler and the Walker circulation, west to east in the upper atmosphere along the equator, dominates.
"When climate models failed to retrospectively produce the temperatures since 1950 the modellers added some estimated influences of carbon dioxide to make up the shortfall," says McLean.
"The IPCC acknowledges in its 4th Assessment Report that ENSO conditions cannot be predicted more than about 12 months ahead, so the output of climate models that could not predict ENSO conditions were being compared to temperatures during a period that was dominated by those influences. It's no wonder that model outputs have been so inaccurate, and it is clear that future modelling must incorporate the ENSO effect if it is to be meaningful."
Bob Carter, one of four scientists who has recently questioned the justification for the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme, says that this paper has significant consequences for public climate policy.
"The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.”
“Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission trading scheme) will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”
--
McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
This figure from the McLean et al (2009) research shows that mean monthly global temperature (MSU GTTA) corresponds in general terms with the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) of seven months earlier. The SOI is a rough indicator of general atmospheric circulation and thus global climate change. The possible influence of the Rabaul volcanic eruption is shown.
There is one thing you leftist-sheeple need to know: follow the money. The US Government has spent nearly 80 billion dollars "studying" global warming/climate change. That is a cash cow that has a vested interest to keep perpetuating the lie. Further, any scientist who is a "skeptic" is said to be in the tank of big oil. Exxon has spent 23 million on those skeptics.
If 23 million will buy experts who are in the tank for big oil, tell me, what will 80 billion buy?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
This is written so even you liberals would be able to understand it:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/CriticalTopicsInGlobalWarming.pdf
Literature re: Impact of solar variability on the earth’s climate:
1. "Solar variability and the earth’s climate: introduction and review" George Reid Space Science Reviews 94 (2000) p.1-11
2. "Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays" N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007
3. "Global temperature forced by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases?" Wibjorn Karlen Ambio, Vol. 30 (2001)p. 349-350
4. "The sun’s role in climate variations" D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677
5. "Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999" Kunihiko Kodera Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 (2003) 1175 doi:10.1029/2002GL016584
6. "Can slow variations in solar luminosity provide missing link between the sun and the climate?" Peter Fokul EOS, Vol. 84, No. 22 (2003)p.205&208
7. "Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?" N Shaviv & J Veizer Geological Society of America 13 (2003) p.4-10
8. "Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record for the past 130 years" Willie W-H Soon Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32 (2005) L16712
9. "Solar forcing of the polar atmosphere" P A Mayewski et al Annals of Glaciology Vol. 41 (2005) p. 147-154
10. "The influence of the 11-yr solar cycle on the interannualcentennial climate variability" Hengyi Weng J of Atmosphere and solar-terrestrial physics Vol. 67 (2005) p. 793-805
11. "Living with a variable sun" Judith Lean Physics Today (2005) Vol 58, No. 6 p. 32-37 American Inst. Of Physics USA
12. "Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming" N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L05708
13. "Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed northern hemisphere temperature record" N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L17718
14. "Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds" R G Harrison & D B Stephenson Proceedings of the Royal Society A (UK): 10.1098/rspa.2005.1628 (2006)
Literature re: Sea-level rise and ocean temps:
1. "New perspectives for the future of the Maldives" N-A Morner M Tooley & G Possnert Global and Planetary Change 40 (2004) p. 177-182
2. "Estimates of the regional distribution of sea-level rise over the 1950-2000 period" J A Church et al J of Climate 17 (2004) p. 2609-2625
3. "Low sea-level rise projections from mountain glaciers and icecaps under global warming" Sarah Raper & Roger Braithwaite Nature V.439 (2006) p. 311-313
4. "Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea-level records" S Jevrejeva et al J of Geophysical Research V.111(2006) C09012
5. "On the decadal rates of sea level changes during the twentieth century" S J Holgate Geophysical Research Letters 34 (2007) doi:10.1029/2006GL028492
6. "The sustained North American warming of 1997 and 1998" A Kumar et al J of Climate 14 (2001)p.345-353
7. "Recent cooling of the upper ocean" J Lyman J Willis & G Johnson Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006) L18604
8. "Anomaly of heat content in the northern Atlantic in the last 7 years: Is the ocean warming or cooling?" V Ivchenko N Wells & D Aleynik Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006) L22606
9. "How much is the ocean really warming?" V Gouretski & K P Koltermann Geophysical Research Letters 34 (2007) L01610
Arctic and Antarctic Temps:
1. "First survey of Antarctic sub-ice shelf sediment reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat" C J Pudsey & J Evans Geology 29 (2001) p.787-790
2. "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response" P Doran et al Nature online 13 January 2002 (DOI:10.1038/nature 710)
3. "Variability and trends of air temperature and pressure in the maritime Arctic, 1875-2000" I V Polyakov et al J ournal of Climate 16 (2003) p. 2067-2077
4. "Holocene climate variability" P A Mayewski et al Quaternary Research 62 (2004) p. 243-255
5. "Global warming & the Greenland ice sheets" P Chylek J E Box & G Lesins Climatic Change (2004) 63 p. 201-221
6. "A multi-proxy lacustrine record of Holocene climate change on northeast Baffin Island, Arctic Canada" Quaternary Research (2006) 65 p. 431-442
7. "Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1990-2005" P Chylek M K Dubey & G Lesins Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006) L11707
8. "Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century" B M Winter et al J of Geophysical Research 111 (2006) D11105
9. "Ice shelf history from petrographic and foraminiferal evidence, Northeast Antarctic Peninsula" C J Pudsey et al Quaternary Science Reviews 25 (2006) p. 2357-2379
Circulation/Ocean and Atmosphere:
1. "A study of NAO variability and its possible non-linear influences on European surface temperatures" D Pozo-Vazquez et al Climate Dynamics, Vol. 17 (2001) p. 701-715
2. "Impacts of low frequency variability modes on Canadian winter temperature" B Bonsal, A Shabbar & K Higuchi Int’l journal of Climatology, Vol. 21 (2001) p. 95-108
3. "Are stronger North-Atlantic southwesterlies the forcing to the late-winter warming in Europe?" J Ottermann et al Int’l J of Climatology, Vol. 22 (2002) p. 743-750
4. "Variability of extreme temperature events in south-central Europe during the twentieth century and its relationship with large-scale circulation" P Domonkos et al Int’l J of Climatology, Vol. 23 (2003) p. 987-1010
5. "January Northern Hemisphere circumpolar vortex variability and its relationship with hemispheric temperature and regional teleconnection" R Rohli, K Wrona & M McHugh Int’l J of Climatology, Vol. 25 (2005) p. 1421-1436
Extraneous influence on mean temperature trends: urbanization, land-use change etc.:
1. "The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases" R A Pielke sr et al Phil. Trans. R soc. London UK (2002)360 p.1705-1719
2. "Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate" E. Kalnay & M Cai, Nature, Vol. 423, 29 May 2003, p. 528-531
3. "The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska" K Hinkel et al International J of Climatology, Vol. 23, 2003, p. 1889-1905
4. "Impacts of anthropogenic heat on regional climate patterns" A Block, K Keuler & E Schaller Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 31, L12211, 2004
5. "A test of correction for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data" R McKitrick & P Michaels, Climate Research, Vol. 26, 2004, p. 159-173
6. "Evidence for a significant urbanization effect on climate in China" L Zhou et al Proc. National Academy of Science(USA) V. 101 (2004) p.9540-9544
7. "Evidence for influence of anthropogenic surface processes on lower tropospheric and surface temperature trends" A T J De Laat & A N Maurellis, International J of Climatology, 26, 2006, p. 897-913
8. "Urban heat island effect analysis for San Juan, Puerto Rico" A Velazquez-Lozada, J E Gonzalez & A Winter, Atmospheric Environment, 40, 2006, p. 1731-1741
Uncertainties in climate model simulations of regional & global features:
1. "Potential role of solar variability as an agent for climate change" C Bertrand & J Van Ypersele Climatic Change V 43 (1999) p.387-411
2. "Simulated impacts of historical land-cover changes on global climate in northern winter" T N Chase et al Climate Dynamics V 16 (2000) p. 93-10
3. "Monsoon prediction-why yet another failure?" S Gadgil M Rajeevan & R Nanjundiah Current Science(India) V 88 (2005) P.1389-1400
4. "Detection and attribution of twentieth-century northern & southern African rainfall change" M Hoerling et al J of Climate V 19 (2006) p. 3989-4008
5. "ENSO evolution and teleconnections in IPCC’s twentieth century climate simulations: realistic representation?" R Joseph & S Nigam J of Climate V 19 (2006) p.4360-4377
6. "Precipitation characteristics in eighteen coupled climate models" Aiguo Dai J of Climate V 19 (2006) p.4605
7. "Is the thermohaline circulation changing?" M Latif et al J of Climate V 19 (2006) p.4631-4637
Miscellaneous papers and research:
1. "Reconciling observations of global temperature change" Richard Lindzen & Constantine Giannitsis Geophysical Research Letters V 29 (2002) No 12 10.1029/2001GL014074
2. "Compilation and discussion of trends in severe storms in the United States: Popular perception vs climate reality" Robert Balling Jr & Randall Cerveny Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p.103-112
3. "On destructive Canadian Prairie windstorms and severe winters: A climatological assessment in the context of global warming" Keith Hage Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 207-228
4. "Shifting economic impacts from weather extremes in the Unites States: a result of societal changes, not global warming" Stanley Changnon Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 273-290
5. "The global warming debate: A review of the present state of science" M L Khandekar T S Murty & P Chittibabu Pure & Applied Geophysics V 162 (2005) p. 1557-1586
6. "Extreme weather trends vs dangerous climate change: A need for a critical reassessment" M L Khandekar Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p.327-331
7. "The interaction of climate change and the carbon dioxide cycle" A Rorsch R S Courtney & D Thoenes Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p. 217-238
8. "Can we detect trends in extreme tropical cyclones?" Christopher Landsea et al Science V 313 (2006)p.452-454
9. "Trends in western North Pacific tropical cyclone intensity" MC Wu K-H Yeung & W-L Chang EOS Transactions AGU V 87 (2006) No 48 28 November 2006
10. "On global forces of nature driving the earth’s climate: Are humans involved?" L F Khilyuk & G V Chilinger Environmental Geology V 50 (2006) p. 899-910
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20LONG%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf
If I am not mistaken, there is plenty of science out there disproving global warming. Thanks for playing.
Happy reading folks!