Another Blow to the
Pseudo-Science of Global Warming Skeptics
August 25, 2005 — By Peter H. Gleick, The Pacific Institute
In a
serious blow to the already discredited arguments made against climate
change by global warming skeptics, a new analysis of satellite data
confirms that the earth is warming at a rate consistent with that
projected by climate models, and far faster than the skeptics previously
acknowledged.
The satellite data were originally interpreted by John R. Christy of the
University of Alabama in Huntsville and colleagues as showing little or
no warming occurring between 1979 and 2003. Indeed, they concluded that
there was actually a cooling trend in the tropics – conclusions
seriously at odds with actual temperature records and with estimates
from global climate models. Other climate skeptics latched onto this
faulty interpretation to support their conclusions that global warming
is false, or small, and climate models in error.
Now, it turns out that the skeptic’s manipulation of the satellite data
was wrong. When their errors are corrected, the satellite data agree
remarkably well with other observations of global warming, and with
forecasts by climate models.
In an article in Science magazine published August 11th in Sciencexpress,
Carl Mears and Frank Wentz correct temperature estimates made from
satellite data. It turns out that Christy and his colleagues made a
serious error in a “correction” applied to the data. When the
“correction” is itself corrected, the satellites show that the Earth as
a whole is warming more twice as fast as Christy et al. suggest, and the
tropics, rather than cooling, are actually warming.
And what is the reaction from the skeptics? Admit error? No. It is
spin-city. Like a fossil-fuel-powered Energizer Bunny, the skeptics keep
right on going.
According to the August 12th New York Times, Christy and Spencer, who
misanalyzed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite
data, conceded that they had made a mistake but said that their revised
calculations still produced a warming rate too small to be a concern.
"Our view hasn't changed," Christy said. "We still have this modest
warming."
Leading skeptic Patrick Michaels, who has long relied on the wrong
interpretation of these data to try discredit climate models and
evidence of warming, is now trying to use the new interpretation to say
the rate of warming is too slow to be of concern. A “1984-esque”
commentary published at the Cato Institute entitled “Studies Uncover
Global Warming Errors” is written in a way that suggests these “errors”
were committed by global warming scientists, rather than by the skeptics
themselves: According to Michaels, “These results reassure the arguments
of those who say that global warming is likely to be modest.” It’s as
though the Flat Earthers were to issue a press release entitled “Studies
Uncover Errors in Research on the Earth’s Shape” to discredit new
evidence that the Earth is round.
In fact, these new results blow apart the argument of global warming
skeptics who have denied warming and misused data to delay policy
actions. And is the warming only “modest” as Michaels says? No, the new
rate not only agrees with climate model estimates and actual
observations, but shows warming is already happening at a rate more than
twice as fast as leading skeptics have been willing to admit and far
higher than what nature can dish out. In fact, there is no longer any
credible observational or modeling estimate that disagrees with the
conclusion that humans are already rapidly changing the planet’s
climate.
We are witnessing evolution in climate skepticism right before our eyes.
This small group of skeptics has gone from denying that humans could
affect the climate, to denying that humans are already affecting the
climate, to denying that humans can affect the climate very much. The
next stage in their evolution will be denying that the effects – big or
small – will be bad, and then they will argue that it costs too much to
do anything about. Finally, they will argue that it’s too late to take
action, because climate change is unavoidable. And by that time, they
may be right.
______________________
Based in Oakland, California,
The
Pacific Institute is an independent, nonpartisan think-tank studying
issues at the intersection of development, environment, and security.
Information on The Pacific Institute's funders is posted on its
website.
Dr. Peter H. Gleick is a 2003 MacArthur Fellow, member of the
US National Academy of Sciences Water Science and Technology Board, a
lifetime member of the International Water Academy in Oslo, Norway, and
President of the Pacific Institute, Oakland. Dr. Gleick did some of the
earliest research on the impacts of climate change for water resources
in the early 1980s. His findings, suggesting dramatic impacts of climate
change for snowfall, snowpack, and runoff, still form the basis for our
understanding of some important risks of climate change, despite vast
improvements in models, computers, and climate analysis over the
subsequent two decades. He was recently appointed to the UN-Sigma Xi
Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change and Sustainable Development
analyzing approaches and policies for adapting to and mitigating climate
change.
To subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.enn.com/
|