Climate change sceptics wrong By Richard Black BBC environment correspondent A major argument used by sceptics of global warming is flawed, a UK Met Office study in Nature magazine says. This argument maintains that much recorded climate da

Climate change sceptics 'wrong' By Richard Black BBC environment correspondent

A major argument used by sceptics of global warming is flawed, a UK Met Office study in Nature magazine says.

This argument maintains that much recorded climate data is inherently unreliable because of where weather instruments are situated.

Most are in or near cities, which produce their own heat; so the rapid warming measured over the last century could be just a record of urbanisation.

The Met Office believes its study shows this 'urban heat island' idea is wrong.

I'm not sure David Parker has succeeded, but we admire his ingenuity Dr Fred Singer, Science and Environmental Policy Project The analysis has been done by Dr David Parker. He used data for the last 50 years to create two separate graphs. One plots temperatures observed on calm nights, the other on windy nights.

If the urban heat island hypothesis is correct, he says, instruments should have recorded a bigger temperature rise for calm nights than for windy ones - because wind blows excess heat away from cities and away from the measuring instruments.

Opposing sides

But there is no difference between the curves. 'It helps to answer the critics,' Dr Parker told BBC News.

'There are other kinds of temperature measurements, too, which could not be influenced by urbanisation, such as warming in the oceans.

'Different methods of measurement can produce different rates of warming but they all point upwards.'

Dr Myles Allen, from the atmospheric physics department at Oxford University, agrees: 'It's pretty convincing,' he said.

'It's a sensible analysis which tests a prediction of the sceptical theory; and if it's right, we should see a greater effect on calm nights.

'But you should never underestimate the ingenuity of the sceptics to come up with a counter-argument.'

One of the most prominent scientifically grounded sceptics is Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project in Arlington, Virginia, US.

'Many people have tried to correct for the urban heat island effect,' he told BBC News.

'I'm not sure David Parker has succeeded, but we admire his ingenuity.'

Selective data

Dr Singer said that many weather stations in apparently rural settings might experience a certain amount of heating from nearby settlements or even roads.

'The only true rural records are proxy records, such as the ones from tree rings,' he argued.

Other types of proxy records - where natural processes are examined to provide a an indication of past climate - include stalactites, fossil beds, ice cores, ocean sediments and glacial deposits.

The sceptics accuse the 'warmers' of being selective in their use of these proxies to show that recent trends go beyond what would be expected from natural variation.

A separate research paper, also published in this week's Nature, has found a different kind of proxy - but definitely of human origin.

A French team, led by Dr Pascal Yiou, from the Climate and Environments Laboratory in Gif-sur-Yvette, examined parish records of grape-harvest dates in Burgundy going back to 1370.

'Grape harvest dates, which are closely related to temperature... may provide one of the longest uninterrupted series of regional temperature anomalies,' the writes in the journal.

Warmer periods

The study focussed on the Pinot Noir grape; and shows that in Burgundy, temperatures in the 1990s, although higher than average, were not that unusual - some years in the 1400s and 1500s had been warmer.

'This takes us back about as far as the comprehensive tree-ring records,' commented Dr Allen, 'and the nice thing is, there's an absolute record of what happened in which year.

'The obvious problem would be if there were changes in agricultural practice, or if the Pinot Noir grape had changed significantly over time.'

Dr Yiou believes things have not changed: 'The farming practices are the same; they still don't use any chemicals or anything like that,' he told BBC News.

'Also, we compared our temperature records from the grapes with tree-ring data from nearby places, and they showed the same pattern.'

The one year which stands out as being exceptionally warm is 2003 - the year of the French heatwave which claimed thousands of lives.

'It confirms 2003 was an unprecedented year in France,' said Dr Allen.

'But this only tells us about one region of France; somewhere in the world, extreme temperatures happen every year.'

Dr Yiou now plans to expand his studies to Bordeaux and Italy, where there are similar records.

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/ 4021197.stm

Published: 2004/11/18 00:01:23 GMT

© BBC MMIV

This discusses the type of valid analysis of existing data that is needed to help determine if 'global warming' even exists!

It is professionally presumptuous to ASSUME global warming exits with only the anecdotal evidence of questionable relevance we keep seeing on this newsgroup.

And it is even more presumptuous to propose 'solutions ' to a yet unestablished global warming 'threat' based on anecdotal 'evidence'!

So, until conclusive proof is at hand we should continue collecting and analyzing atmospheric data while dropping the adolescent 'cold fusion' approach!

WDA

end

If you have followed this group you would know that the fact that global warming is real is admitted by

1) Bush's own EPA (this news is 2 years old almost)

2) Bush's own energy and commerce departments and his Science Advisor (this about a few months old)

3) The US Geophysical Union

4) Thomas Karl, Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center

5) Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research)

'There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is changing because of human activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest human influence on global climate,'

'The likely result is more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme precipitation events, and related impacts, e.g., wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes, and sea-level rise which will be regionally dependent.'

did we mention Bush's own administration?

The report, Our Changing Planet (Sept 04) 'with cover letter Congress signed by Bush's Secretaries of Commerce and Energy [et al], and his Science Adviser' whose acknowledgment of a human influence on global warming is 'encouraging' since 'Well over 98% of scientists competent in this area would agree with that,' -Prof. Thomas Graedel, Yale University

That Global Warming is real and in large part human induced is also the conclusion of

6) The most prestegious, American Academy of Science

which calls global warming a 'threat'

'Governments and consumers in the United States and worldwide <u>should take immediate steps to reduce the threat of global warming and to prepare for a future in which coastal flooding, reduced crop yields and elevated rates of climate-related illness are all but certain, top U.S. scientists said Tuesday. (June 2004, Am. Acad of Sci)

6) One of the largest if not the largest scientific peer review in human history (no less), through the IPCC

links to these have been posted N times. The right-winger crazies can now show their utter contempt for the mountains of evidence merely sampled here, since evidence and facts don't matter to them. Those who give a damn about this planet can start to do their own search launching from the above,...

notice also the scary logical flaw:

That is, the idea that unless you have 100% proof you are driving towards a cliff, you do NOT slow down or change dirction or changin anything you're doing. Hell you get auto insurance not just because the law requires it but on the change you might maybe need it. And that's when you're very sure you'll almost never need it. How about insurance where the overwhelming mountains of scientific evidence, while they can't prove anything 100% in science, the overwhelming mountains of evidence are that it is happening...and you tell us, 'no, don't buy any insurance, unless [the utterly impossible] there is 100% proof' what an insane pro-Russian-Roulette notion... play Russian Roulette with yourself, if you must (though I strongly advise against it, and getting counseling is smarter) but don't play Russian Roulette with this planet and our children's future. I'd say that if there was a mere 10% change, never mind the 95%+ chance from the mountains of evidence cited above by the concensus of the top scientists in the world. There's not 'Environmentatlist are saying that..' it's the scientists (even Repulican Bushco scientists even most of them can't deny it anymore)

wake up and smell the coffee..

stop palying Russian Roulette with our planet, and our children's

Damn. I thought it was about science. Now it's about politicians.

<rest of rant deleted>

How many political organizations does it take to change the laws of nature? Galileo was required to commit suicide for disputing the truth with ignorant politicos. Is that where we will soon be with 'global warming', like the 'cold fusion' thrash which resulted in two college 'professors leaving the USA to avoid being public chastised for academic fraudulence?

end