Public understanding of the truth about global warming has been made considerably more difficult by the publication of graphs showing temperatures rising rapidly over the past decade along with statements that we are now enduring the hottest years and most extreme weather patterns on record. (Actually, the United States National Climate Data Center lists 1996 as the 47th coolest year since 1880.) Weather fluctuates, of course, so one can always point to a local extreme somewhere. Graphs of rising global temperature are, however, more convincing. Why is it that the temperature curves shown, for example, in
One difference is that Access to Energy has shown primarily graphs of temperatures in the lower troposphere as measured by weather balloons and satellites. These records are in excellent agreement; can be very accurately measured; and are a fair test of the global warming hypothesis, which actually predicts higher tropospheric temperature increases than surface temperature increases.
Global surface temperature trends are difficult to determine because many factors of local climate complicate the records. Also, human influences having nothing to do with global warming affect the surface records. These complications, however, make surface records ideal for the global warmers, who can make their graphs go up as steeply as they like by appropriate selections of data.
Figures 1 and 2 are cited in the new book
Hot Talk - Cold Science by S. Fred Singer. They are taken from Christy, J. R. and Goodridge, J. D. (1995) Atmospheric Environment 29, 1957-61 and Goodridge, J. D. (1996) Bulletin of the American Meteorlogical Society 77, 3-4. These figures illustrate the urban heat island effect at 120 temperature measuring stations in California.
The top graph in figure 1 is an average of stations in counties with current populations over 1 million. The middle graph is for counties with populations between 1 million and 100,000. The bottom graph is for counties with populations under 100,000. Notice that the trends for the 20th century in figure 1 depend upon how many people live near the thermometers - people who produce heat by their activities.
In figure 2, the trends for all 120 stations are shown separately and in order of increasing trend. The lowest 22 measuring stations actually show negative trends (even though overall California temperatures since 1909 have increased). The six arrows designate the six measuring stations in California selected for inclusion in national and global averages by the NASA GISS, which is funded by the U. S. government. This is the same group that brought word about the mythical ozone hole opening over President Bush's home in Maine and thereby speeded up the ban of CFCs.
The NASA GISS graph is widely circulated by global warmers. While it is clear that selection of stations in California is not a trivial matter, a ten-year-old child can see that the chosen six points will give an artificial and inappropriately high California contribution to the trend - and be highly satisfactory to the Clinton-Gore Administration, which funds NASA GISS. If the politically correct path to the taxpayers' pocket books were global cooling, NASA GISS would doubtless show a greater interest in the cooler trends on this graph.
|
|
Vol. 25, No. 5
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 25, No. 5 Date: January 01, 1998 04:26 PM (For actual publication date see newsletter.) Title: Perceived Reality
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|