Climate
of extremes: global warming science they don't want you to know
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels,Robert C. Balling
|
Images of text from the book taken from the
following Web site: http://books.google.it/books?id=lWQdP4_7SycC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=Climate+of+Extremes:+Global+Warming+Science+They+Don%27t+Want+You+to+Know&source=bl&ots=1I2CftKUb9&sig=SzNM8kDXrk9tQbkKG-wK87uOoyo&hl=it&ei=-HreS5zWD9u5sgaAyo30AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false |
The book starts with this on page vii.
|
|
(Googled over 100 references – most used the above quote to question the legitimacy of climate change- not able to find any reference as to why the above quote is “irrelevant”)
1. Seems to imply that MANY climate scientists are hiding data that might disprove climate change- example at http://www.digradio.com.au/unleashed/stories/s2868937.htm (this April 10, 2010 article also needs to be “debunked”)
2. House of Commons committee: "On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change."
3. What data is he referring to? Has it been released? Do other organizations have similar data which shows the same thing?
|
Page xii - Snow pack in the Pacific Northwest – |
|
|
1. “Using data back to 1915 clearly shows that the current era is hardly unusual,..”. Presents data as if there is no controversy when there is one, and only uses data that supports his case – see “Warming Climate Is Affecting Cascades Snowpack In Pacific Northwest” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090512153335.htm
2. The last 50 years might actually be more relevant because of increasing temperatures since 1970 (would help to have graph of temperatures in the Pacific Northwest)
3. May be measuring the wrong things – snowpack vs water content vs stream flow in August (or when it’s needed) vs stream flow is the spring (flooding)
4. "All things being equal, if you make it 1 degree Celsius warmer, then 20 percent of the snowpack goes away for the central Puget Sound basin, the area we looked at," said Joseph Casola, a University of Washington doctoral student in atmospheric sciences. Winter precipitation in the Cascades is likely to be similar to what is recorded now, but more of it will be rain.
5. Note: snow pack in March 2010 is 51% of normal in some places. State and federal scientists are expecting drought conditions this summer after snowpacks in several spots in the state fell well below averages, following a dry winter. However, the snowpack in the California Sierra is above normal.
The question that should have been asked:
How should the Pacific Northwest plan for water resources in the next 50 years? Mr. Michaels would have you believe that the planners do not have to concern themselves with the impacts of global warming. However, the consensus appears to be that, given the same amount (or more) of participation, there will be more rain (hence, less snow pack), more spring runoff, and less summer runoff, and the planners need to take this into account in their long-range plans.
(Mr. Michaels also implies that several people were fired simply for telling the truth. The actual circumstances are likely to be more complicated – they might have not been telling the entire truth, might have misrepresented the truth, and/or there might have been other reasons which Mr. Michaels purposefully omits.)
Analysis:
· Presented the selected data as if it was the best way to explain the “thing”
· Did not specify why the time period selected was the appropriate time period, when another time period (which indicates that there is a problem) is probably more appropriate
· The type of measurement selected (“percentage of snow pack in mountains…”) is not the most appropriate measurement for the “thing” being discussed (snowpack) (“water content” is the more appropriate measurement)
· Did not mention that the consensus opinion is the opposite of his
· Did not try to refute the consensus opinion (e.g., why his opinion is better)
Foreword – A Climate
of Extremes
|
Page 1 |
1. Opinion - he’s implying that only the “other side” is guilty as charged
|
Page 1 |
What Mr. Michaels picks up on is Al Gore’s comments on Greenland and explains:
|
Pages 1 and 2 |
1. Mr. Michaels should not be quoting Al Gore. Al Gore may be a very knowledgeable politician, but he is not a climatologist. Since, to many, Al Gore personifies the “climate change alarmists”, Mr. Michaels hopes that, by discrediting Al Gore, he can discredit the “climate change alarmists”. But by not using primary sources (and also by intentionally misrepresenting what Al Gore knows), Mr. Michaels significantly weakens his case.
2. Mr. Michaels knows that Al Gore does not conjecture that significant Greenland ice will melt in the next 10 years, even though Al Gore mentions the melting of Greenland as part of his response. This is used to imply that Al Gore doesn’t know his facts, which is definitely not the case. Although the quote is not taken out of context, using this example is a blatant example of disinformation and misrepresentation.
3. Mr. Michaels also is using out-of-date sources (see below) – he should have known better. Greenland is currently losing about 71 cubic miles if ice/year, not 25. And the rate is increasing. If the rate continues to increase, ice melt from Greenland could easily add five inches of sea-level rise by 2100 – (averaging just 1.5 mm/year * 90 years = 135 mm = 5.3 inches). And although the complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet might take many centuries, the impact would be devastating.
· Also see “Greenland Ice Melt – Relevant and Irrelevant Factors”)
|
Page 2 |
4. Mr. Michaels is cherry-picking data (two ice streams at the pre-satellite rate vs. the increase of the overall rate of ice loss for all of Greenland). “Gore had to know that” is another statement implying that Al Gore ignores facts that do not fit with his notion of climate change. In this case, it’s really the opposite – Mr. Michaels had to know that the rate of ice loss in Greenland is actually increasing and he selectively picked two ice streams where this is not the case for a specific year. Due to the increased moisture in the atmosphere, Greenland is probably getting more snow than it has in the past – so one would expect that some areas would actually seen a decrease in ice loss. But it’s the increasing rate of ice loss that matters. One wonders how many years of increasing ice loss it will take for Mr. Michaels to admit that there is a problem.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,661192,00.html 11/13/2009According to the new report, Greenland lost an estimated 1,500 gigatons (one gigaton is equal to 1 billion tons) of ice from the year 2000 to 2008. (average of 175 gigatons per year) "That is at the upper end of recent estimates of Greenland mass loss using various other methods," van den Broeke told SPIEGEL ONLINE. Between 2006 and 2008, the loss in weight totaled 273 gigatons per year, he said. The scientists are convinced their results are accurate because they arrived at their numbers using two fundamentally different methods -- both of which returned the same conclusion. On the one hand, they monitored the movement of the ice which they fed into a regional computer model. For a second data source, they used the Grace observation satellites, which measure the Earth's gravitational field. In the period between 2000 and 2008, the dwindling glaciers have been responsible for the sea level rising by an average of about half a millimeter per year. However, during the last three years of observation, the value rose to 0.75 millimeters per year. According to the researchers, these results could indicate that the sheet of ice is melting at an accelerated rate. |
|
Pages 2 and 3 |
As Mr. Michaels knows, the IPCC Fourth Assessment was very conservative. In stating that “[I]t’s highly debatable whether we could get to four times the background..’’, Mr. Michaels knowingly overlooks the obvious – if we continue to burn fossil fuels in a “business as usual” scenario for the rest of the century, the CO2 concentrations from fossil fuels could easily reach three times the background. And it is quite likely that as the temperature increases there will be additional CO2 released from soils, peat bogs, and permafrost – thus four times the background concentration is quite possible in the next 100 years. In addition, the CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. In this case, the Greenland ice WILL all melt – it’s simply a matter of when. In addition, many climatologists expect that there is a “tipping point” beyond which it will be impossible to stop the melting of the entire ice sheet. So looking forward 1000 years is not ”audacious” – climatologists are not “project[ing] the future state of the world” and are not making a “thousand year political statement“ - because it is not meant to be a real forecast of the future. It simply gives us an idea of how long the melting might take with a given set of assumptions. Also, the Roman Curia in 1000AD would probably have assumed that the climate in 2000AD would be much like the climate in 1000AD since the CO2 concentrations would not have changed much. It’s only by looking at possible future scenarios (where the CO2 concentrations have increased) that we can get some sort of an idea of what we might be responsible for. I’d like to see Mr. Michaels make a peer-reviewed forecast of Greenland ice melt for the next 200 years- all he is offering is objections.
Pages 3 and 4
|
Pages 3 and 4 |
Al Gore’s statement on drought is NOT wrong, as Mr. Michaels implies. All he said was
|
|
Apparently Mr. Michaels thinks that because there was no correlation between drought and temperature in the past 100 years, there will be no correlation in the future. But this is just opinion, not fact. In fact, it is at odds with what most climatologists think – warmer temperatures do dry out the soil. And most climatologists would agree with most, if not all, of what Al Gore says above. What exactly does Mr. Michaels think was wrong with Al Gore’s statement?
|
Page 3 |
· Mr. Michaels is again trying to imply that Al Gore “doesn’t get it”, when in fact Mr. Michaels “doesn’t get it”. (see next three items)
· One of the common “canards” that climate deniers use is that many JOURNALITS were worried about “global cooling” in the 1970’s – but climatologists were not. Again, Mr. Michaels is using irrelevant information.
· Mr. Michaels is implying that warmer temperatures will increase crop yields and the American farmer can adapt, so why worry. However, the International Food Policy Research Institute built a complex model to estimate the impact of climate change. The results of the model, which compares a world with climate change to a world without it, are not comforting, particularly in the developing world. By 2050, wheat yields in developing nations would drop by about 30 percent and irrigated rice yields would drop by 15 percent. Also, most farmland is irrigated, most people think that there will be much less water for irrigation. (I think the “consensus opinion” in the US is that food supplies will decrease – need more info)
·
And the “natural desert called California”
relies on irrigated water, which may be in short supply in the coming years (New
York Times - February 21, 2009 – “Last year, during the second year of the
drought, more than 100,000 acres of the 4.7 million in the valley were left
unplanted, and experts predict that number could soar to nearly 850,000 acres
this year”. “California is facing its worst drought in recorded history .
The drought is predicted to be the most severe in modern times, worse than
those in 1977 and 1991.” (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12252
– Feb 2009) (Need an update for 2010)
Analysis:
· Uses an interpretation of a message (Al Gore’s response re Greenland) that he knows is wrong to try to make a point
· Quotes scientific data that he knows has been superseded (ice loss on Greenland)
· Presents facts that he knows misrepresent the “situation’ and are therefore irrelevant (two ice streams who loss of ice is now what it was before the satellite when the total ice loss is actually accelerating)
· Did not mention that the consensus opinion is the opposite of his
· Did not try to refute the consensus opinion (e.g., why his opinion is better)
· Implies that the “other side” is ignoring the data and is therefore not being honest (when the “data” that is being ignored is not relevant and he is not being honest)
· Does not cover the most important facts (annual ice loss overall is increasing)
Glaciers – Starting on page 103
|
Page 103 |
Just reporting on someone else’s work
|
|
There was no reference to the increase in the ice cap because the increase was expected and was not relevant. (With warmer temperatures and more moisture in the atmosphere, accumulation of the ice cap was expected.) And even with the accumulation of the ice cap, the entire ice sheet was losing mass
|
http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm · An international team of climatologists & oceanographers estimate Greenland’s interior ice sheet has grown 6cm per year in areas above 1 500m between 1992 and 2003. Lead author, Ola Johannessen says sheet growth is due to increased snowfall brought about by variability in regional atmospheric circulation or the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation · All this data has been pieced together to form a continuous picture of Greenland's mass balance from 1958 to 2007 (Rignot 2008 ). There is robust agreement between the various independent measurements and a clear long term trend is apparent. In the 1960s, the ice sheet was losing 100 gigatonnes of ice per year. In the 1970s-1980s, the rate of ice loss slowed to near mass balance. In 1996, the rate of ice mass loss had increased to 97 gigatonnes per year. In 2007, the ice mass loss increased rapidly to 267 gigatonnes per year. |
|
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/a-global-glacier-index-update/ |