2009.02.17
George Will vs. climate change
On Sunday, we ran a column in our Horizon section by George Will. In it, he argued that climate change is a bunch of bunk. Turns out the real bunk was his research.
Over at Talking Points Memo, they've been trying to pin down where, precisely, Will came up with some of his claims. For example, he reported that the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center says that global sea ice levels are now the same as they were in 1979. The organization has disavowed any connection to Will's claim and in fact reportst hat sea ice levels have indeed declined over 30 years.
No word yet from Will or the Washington Post apologizing or admitting he was full of it.
RSS feed 
Around here we have a catch-phrase for exuberant ignorance:
"Hey Bubba, Watch This!"
That's about the level to which George Will has descended. Didn't his mother ever tell him that it is dangerous to ignore facts, and it is extremely irresponsible to encourage other people to do that?
Here are a few facts for Mr Will:
-- NASA satellites continue to show that Arctic ice is receding year to year (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)
-- CO2 has gone from 280 to 384 ppm in the atmosphere, which represents increased radiative forcing of a factor of 1.66 ...
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
-- There is plenty of evidence for real increases in global temperature, at least 0.6 C. See http://www.realclimate.org
And the National Academy of Sciences reports, the IPCC reports, and many others.
Will makes a point that there was concern about global cooling in the 1970s. By the same logic, we can dismiss cooling because the longstanding earlier concern was global warming. Climate change from greenhouse gasses was predicted as early as 1896 by Svante August Arrhenius. Does that make it right or wrong? Of course not. The question is whether the science supports the prediction.
What's really irritating about Will is that he more or less has the William F. Buckley mantle of the serious conservative who punctures liberal idealism with inconvenient realism from time to time.
But his climate position is about as far from realism as you can get.
So hey Bubba, watch George Will ...
Comment by Bill Kovarik — February 17, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
I am so proud of you guys for posting this. It shows you have more credibility and commitment to journalism than the Post itself.
Comment by Colin West — February 17, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
There is now plenty of evidence that the temperature of the planet has fallen in the last 10 years.
Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of believing and contributing to the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.
Climate and economy are being linked. Yes there has been warming since the Pleistocene. Climate is a multiple input, multiple loop, multiple output, complex system. The facts and the hypotheses do not support CO2 as a serious 'pollutant'. In fact it is plant fertilizer and seriously important to all life on the planet. It is the red herring used by the left to unwind our economy. That issue makes the science relevant.
Water vapour (0.4% overall by volume in air, but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house gas followed by methane (0.0001745%). The third ranking greenhouse gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves in cold water and bubbles out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great 'sink'; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
CO2 has been rising and Earth has been warming. However, the correlation trails. Correlation, moreover, is not causation. The causation is being studied, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome.
“Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy - the cosmic rays - liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”
As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
Quiet sun → reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind → geomagnetic shield drops → galactic cosmic ray flux → more low-level clouds and more snow → more albedo effect (more heat reflected) → colder climate
Active sun → enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind → geomagnetic shield response → less low-level clouds → less albedo (less heat reflected) → warmer climate
That is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
The ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that.
Although the post 60s warming period appears to be over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. Ancient sedimentary rocks and paleontological evidence indicate the planet has had abundant liquid water over the entire span. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.
Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_divisions/Sun_Climate/Experiments_SC/SKY.aspx
Comment by Francis — February 18, 2009 @ 7:04 am
The midst of a winter storm is a bad time to stand up for global warming
Comment by Henry — February 18, 2009 @ 7:31 am
It looks like he got his info from this link:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
Apparently the guy mentioned in the article exists:
http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/people/chapman.html
I think this global warming is causing the falling sleet to melt faster than usual.
Comment by Marked Man — February 18, 2009 @ 8:55 am
True Henry. They might have more psychological impact if they held hearings during the middle of July with the A/C turned off in Congress for added effect of making everyone sweat it out. Oh wait, didn't they do that already a few years back? I couldn't find a link to that but I seem to remember something along those lines happening.
Comment by Other John — February 18, 2009 @ 9:42 am
Henry,
You're right, because the public is mostly too dumb to understand that global warming is something measured over decades, and not from year to year.
I love all the ignorant people who stand up in the snow and go "GLOBAL WARMING! WHAT A CROCK!" To quote Bill Engvall: "Here's your Sign"
That sign says "hey look at me, I don't understand science!"
Comment by scott — February 18, 2009 @ 10:10 am
Here's an interesting bit of reading for all you global warming cultists. The main players are John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, Roger Revelle, the 'grandfather' of the 'man made global warming cult movement', and AlGore, a career politician who has made millions of $$ while flying around in his private jet trumpeting the end of civilization beacuse of carbon dioxide.
It seems that Revelle who was AlGore's mentor and got Gore started on his quest to save the world, had second thoughts as to the the monster he had created. Read on and figure out 'the rest of the story.'
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
Once again, follow the money.
Comment by Nick — February 18, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
"Over at Talking Points Memo, they've been trying to pin down where, precisely, Will came up with some of his claims. For example, he reported that the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center says that global sea ice levels are now the same as they were in 1979. The organization has disavowed any connection to Will's claim and in fact reportst hat {sic} sea ice levels have indeed declined over 30 years."
Really? How hard did they try?
Go to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center's website, turn to "http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf" and you'll read this:
"Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as noted in the Daily Tech article."
If you wish to quibble over the notion that "at or near" is an eternity from being "the same," knock yourself out.
Bunch of bunk? Only to the blind true believer.
Comment by Jerry - From On High — February 18, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
Jerry - From on High,
I'm afraid you were a bit too selective in your reading of the article you link. The complete paragraph is:
"Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S.
Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N. Hemisphere reduction. "
They go on to say that they expect N. Hemisphere to show effects more and that area isn't even the best indicator - total volume of ice shows a bigger decrease.
The article overall concludes that a) ice is greatly decreasing and b) global warming models account for it. Referring to an article as a reference for something that is the exact opposite of what the article states is an interesting approach.
Comment by Joe (ntp) Merola — February 18, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
Joe:
Separate out the facts (sea ice levels are near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979) from the conjecture (in your words: "They go on to say that they expect N. Hemisphere to show ..."). You can't legitimately conclude: "The article overall concludes that a) ice is greatly decreasing."
My point again: FACTS show no warming. Computer models will show whatever you want them to show.
Jerry - From On High
Comment by Jerry - From On High — February 20, 2009 @ 5:54 am