Correcting Misconceptions About 'Global Warming'

By -
Readers of this blog have brought to my attention certain things alleged during the (just ended) 24 hours of Al Gore. Because of all of our new readers (thank you!) let me summarize the science of some of things brought up as "major concerns" and why I do not view 'global warming' as a major environmental problem.

Temperatures Continue to Warm
No, they do not. Atmospheric temperatures peaked in 1998 and have showed no warming since.

The more important metric of earth's temperature is ocean heat content. It has been stable since about 2003:


It is not correct to say that "earth's temperatures are rising." They are not.

Sea Levels
"sea levels are rising"
For some reason, when I go to YouTube to capture the discussion about accelerating sea levels so I can repost it here, the video skips past that part of the discussion. So, you'll just have to take my word for it that the panel discussed a half meter rise in the next 50 years.

There is no evidence that sea level rise is accelerating.
University of Colorado
In order for sea levels to rise half a meter in the next 50 years, the rate of increase would have to more than double. There is no sign that will occur. Here is the more recent data which shows sea levels are falling.
sea level has been falling the past year (purple circle)
There is absolutely no sign of an acceleration in sea level rise. 


The Computer Models That Forecast "More Extreme Weather"
The computer models have consistently forecast too much warming over the last 20 years and have shown little or no skill at forecasting regional trends. For a discussion go here and here.

As documented on this blog on numerous occasions, hurricane numbers and intensity are trending down not up.

There is no evidence the weather is becoming more extreme and the computer models have no skill at making those types of predictions. 

So, if you are concerned about these topics due to comments made during the event, you can rest easy.

Comments

  1. The MonsterSeptember 15, 2011 at 7:33 PM

    Sadly, I am not able to have a rational conversation with my brother (a trained meteorologist who was one of your classmates decades ago) because he's bought into the "consensus" and feels comfortable describing skeptics like me as "deniers".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sam KingSeptember 15, 2011 at 9:19 PM

    I have to express surprise at your assertions. Atmospheric temperatures are only one measure of global warming and the 1998 claim has been extensively shown to be wrong by many sources. See: http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf, for instance.

    Also your use of a short term graph (17 years) of sea level rise is misleading since the longer term trend shows a clear acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-broader-view-of-sea-level-rise.html

    Computer models have also shown too little warming and too little effects from warming. As the science of climate advances the uncertainties narrow and computer models can and do become better but climate science relies on fundamental scientific principles and is not beholden to computer models as much as many people have been led to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike SmithSeptember 16, 2011 at 6:54 AM

    Hi Sam,

    Thank you for your comment.

    Please reread my posting. There are two sea level graphs. One goes back to 1880. Your statement about "a clear acceleration in the rate of sea level rise" is scientifically false. I did read the paper you suggested at "skeptical science." The methodology in that paper, as it pertains to 'global warming' is flawed. If you read the paper, you see that it takes out the "land rise." The whole Gore/IPCC scare tactic is "flooded cities!" If the land rises at the same rate as ocean levels rise, then there is no net rise in sea levels.

    The short term graph from the University of Colorado actually overstates the amount of rise ( http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/new-web-site-new-sea-level-release ) because of a nonsensical "correction" for "ocean basin size" but I present it because it is the standard with which most are familiar.

    The fact is (and it is a fact) that temperatures are outside of the IPCC's 95% confidence interval (not shown in this posting) on the cold side. I did not assign the confidence interval, the IPCC did.

    In order for something to be "science" there MUST be a falsifiable hypothesis. How many more years do temperatures have to be outside of their 95% confidence interval for the theory of global warming to be falsified? I'd say we are getting close.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  4. EARTH'S CLAIMATE CHANGERSeptember 16, 2011 at 9:37 AM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mike SmithSeptember 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM

    Comment removed due to being off topic. Political, offensive and off-topic comments are removed from this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  6. DPSeptember 17, 2011 at 12:20 PM

    Could you please tell us who you are, and what authority and educational background you have to speak on this subject as "weather experts"? Thanks.

    D.Perkins, UMASS-Amherst

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mike SmithSeptember 18, 2011 at 8:26 AM

    My name and credentials are readily available by searching back to the beginning of the blog. I'm Mike Smith, Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and board certified consulting meteorologist. I have also received the Society's award for outstanding contribution to applied meteorology.

    D. Perkins: Are you the biologist who signed the Union of Concerned Scientists' statement, "Bush-League Lysenkoism: The White House Seeks to Bend Science To Its Will" about "particular Christian fundamentalist moral codes" and the books sold at the "Grand Canyon bookstore"? Just wondering.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hilary's Forecast Path Shifts West; Updated 9:20am PDT

By -
Image
The forecast path of the center of Hilary has shifted a bit to the west. This increases the threat to the Southland, especially in terms of flooding.  Rainfall Note the heavy rains are forecast for Los Angeles County. Serious flash flooding may result. Because the forecast path has shifted to the west, that increases the threat of serious flooding in Los Angeles County north into Yosemite and the southern Sierra. It lessens the threat in Utah and western Arizona. While the threat of widespread flooding in Utah and Arizona lessens, note that some thunderstorms with localized heavy rain show up on the map.  In Nevada, the more western path increases the risk of serious flooding around Mt Charleston and into the central part of the state.  Here is the updated  (9am PDT) flash flood risk map. Wind There are already about 40,000 people without power in California, mostly in the center of the state.  The maps above are the peak gusts forecasted with the storm. The highest winds, in general,
Read more

Dangerous Travel Conditions - People Reportedly Stranded

By -
Image
-- Note, more current info available. Scroll up. --- Updated Information as of 8am PDT You are risking your life if you attempt to travel through the purple area.  While the rain has not begun in coastal California, I would urge you to use this time to make any preparations. Power outages have occurred already in southeast California. Here is the latest radar as of 7:55am PDT. As of 6:40am PDT , the radar indicates moderate to heavy rain falling over desert areas of Southern California and far western Arizona (click to enlarge).  Rainfall amounts for the 24 hours ending at 7am PDT show more than two inches have already fallen. There are reports from reliable sources that roads are already washed out and that people are stranded in isolated parts of the desert.  Below is a high-resolution computer model's rainfall forecast from 5am PDT to 11pm PDT Sunday. More than a foot of additional rain is forecast to fall. This will lead to catastrophic flooding.  Here is a map of current watc
Read more

Update on Tornado and Wind Potential; 12 Noon PDT

By -
Image
There was at least one tornado and at least one funnel cloud yesterday.  --- original forecast --- Hilary (the swirly symbol) continues to move NNW paralleling the coast of Baja California, Mexico. The area outlined in red has a significant risk of tornadoe s the rest of the afternoon.  Below is a list of peak wind gusts so far.  Peak winds may increase farther north as the afternoon progresses.  Addition at 12 noon PDT: Sure enough, winds have increased.  Note: If you are in the San Diego area, I recommend not  traveling east on I-8. Heavy rains may cause flash flooding that will involve the highway. 
Read more