Replies

Well, since you're feeling brave, why not take on Dr. S. Fred Singer?

I took a quick look at the page. There is a lot of content to address. But early on, there is this quote:

"But since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling just slightly. Certainly, it has not been warming."

I don't know the date of the page. Until about 1998, this statement was arguable, but the satellite data for the lower troposphere (which Singer is referring to; I know because I've seen other statements by him) -- as analyzed by one particular research group, which was the only analysis available at that time -- did not show a significant warming trend. The big 1997-1998 El Nino induced a warming trend in that data analysis. Over the ensuing years, this particular group has had to modify their analyses significantly (in fact, a "rival" group even found a simple sign error in their code) to the point that now their data shows a signfiicant warming trend. Other groups, analyzing the same raw data, find a warming trend almost double that rate.

One other point before I'm done for today. Singer blames the surface warming signal on the so-called Urban Heat Island effect. I can provide several links to studies that show the UHI is not a significant factor in global surface temperature trend determination; here's one to start with:

The Surface Temperature Record and the Urban Heat Island

I'll see what else I can find over the next few days.

I read most of the Fred Singer interview. First of all, it appears that this is from around 1998. Quite a bit has happened in the field of climate research since then, and it might be unfair for me to address what Singer said in 1998 without researching whether or not he's changed his views at all. (I know that he was one of last skeptics to cling to the satellite data as showing "no warming" when the re-analyses were clearly showing warming.)

But what I'd first like to do is to address this:

Man-made Global Warming^TM is a MYTH!

which heads your list of links. Here is a direct quote from the Singer article you suggested that I address:

"Well, as I mentioned earlier, I have no doubt that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to some increase in global temperatures."

Since we know beyond a shadow of a doubt (references available on request) that the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1850s, i.e., the Industrial Era, is almost entirely due to human activities, Singer is indicating that the human-caused increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration should lead to an increase in global temperatures.

So is "Man-Made Global Warming^TM" still a myth, if such a noteworthy skeptic admits its likelihood?

To follow that up, here are quotes from two other highly visible global warming skeptics. The first is Dr. Patrick Michaels, author of The Satanic Gases and numerous articles and opinions on global warming. Google his name if you have a spare afternoon.

I am providing the first and last sentence from the abstract of this scientific publication:

"Michaels PJ, Knappenberger PC, Frauenfeld OW, Davis RE (2002) Revised 21st century temperature projections. Climate Research, 23:1-9."

"Temperature projections for the 21st century made in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicate a rise of 1.4°C-5.8°C from 1990-2100. ....... The constancy of these results encourages us to conclude that 21st-century warming will be modest and near the low end of the IPCC TAR projections."

If the warming of the 21st century is exactly the low-end projection of the IPCC, 1.4°C, that would be more than double the rate of warming over the entire 20th century. 2.0°C of warming would be more than triple the rate of 20th century warming, and that's still near the low end of the projections.

So Patrick Michaels agrees (with caveats) that there will be "Man-Made Global Warming^TM" in the 21st century.

Finally, Dr. Roy Spencer, co-researcher (with Dr. John Christy) on the original satellite temperature data set that Singer is/was so fond of, writing in this opinion piece on Tech Central Station:

Some Convergence of Global Warming Estimates

A quote:

"On the positive side, at least some portion of the disagreement between satellite and thermometer estimates of global temperature trends has now been removed. This helps to further shift the global warming debate out of the realm of "is warming happening?" to "how much has it warmed, and how much will it warm in the future?". (Equally valid questions to debate are "how much of the warmth is man-made?", "is warming necessarily a bad thing?", and "what can we do about it anyway?"). And this is where the debate should be."

Spencer to his credit, will never say that none of the warmth is man-made. The critical aspect of this entire analysis is that models of atmospheric physics, which incorporate the influence of greenhouse gases, predict how the surface warming signal caused by greenhouse gas warming should be transferred to the lower troposphere. The earlier analyses of the satellite data indicated a discrepancy between models and data. The new analyses don't have that discrepancy.

So... this is another indication that "Man-Made Global Warming^TM" is NOT a myth. Spencer, Singer, and other skeptics indicate (perhaps with more emphasis than non-skeptic scientists) that more work needs to be done to properly quantify the contributions of natural variability, solar influence, aerosols, etc., so that a better quantification of the amount of warming directly attributable to human activities can emerge. But to deny that there is ANY involvement of human activities in the observable global temperature increase (and some related climate parameters) is a very, very untenable position to take in 2005.

Now, lest we tarry over inconsequential matters, are there points of particular interest in the Singer article that you would like me to address? If so, please indicate them.