The Heartland Institute released an article critical of a Nature study which seeks to refute sattellite data showing that claims of “global warming” are ridiculously overstated.
Ever since the first temperature-reading satellite was launched in 1979, scientists have tried to explain the discrepancy between satellite and ground-based readings of global temperatures. Satellite readings have shown virtually no warming trend since 1979, while ground-based readings have registered significant warming.
According to scientific studies, the discrepancy results from an urban heat island effect. Concrete, factories, office buildings, and automobiles produce heat in and around cities, causing temperatures to be somewhat warmer than the surrounding region. Moderate warming trends at land-based weather stations, typically located at airports in and around growing cities, merely reflect the growing population of the nearby city, studies show.
The recent Nature study attempts to contest the urban heat island evidence and cast doubt on the satellite readings. To support their theory, the study’s authors introduced a “fudge factor” that attempts to explain and dismiss a significant amount of documented atmospheric cooling.
This is why environmentalists HATE peer-review… it shoots down some of their best “evidence” of alleged “global warming” and other hallmarks of the plants-before-people mindset.
July 29th, 2004 at 6:22 pm
The article talks about how Nature tried to overstate the effects of stratospeheric cooling, which does exist. The expert they quoted as their source for this was Dr. Spencer who said “You can’t subtract more signal than is there, but that’s what they’ve done” in his critical anaylisis of the Nature article. According to Dr. Christy, whom the article also quotes, Dr. Spencer produced a more accurate means of calculaing Stratospehic cooling. That data shows
“satellite sensors show a long-term warming trend in the lower atmosphere of only about 0.08º C per decade [about 1.4º F per century] in the past 25 years. That trend has been corroborated by U.S., British, and Russian studies comparing satellite data to temperature data gathered by weather balloons.”
So Global Warming does exist, it’s not a fabrication. At least not according to the experts that the article you mentioned relied upon in their analysis. The fact of the matter is that the Earth is warming at much slower rate than many environmentalist groups have previously stated, due to the abberation caused by the heat pockets that you mentioned. 1.4 degrees per century probably isn’t something we should be too concerned about, but it may be in our best interest not to let that rate increase too rapidly.
July 29th, 2004 at 11:34 pm
Not to “let it” increase too rapidly?
As if we have that much control over it? The Enviro-nuts have been going crazy for decades now, and this is what they’re going crazy about? Heh.
I think, sometimes, that we give ourselves more credit as a species than we deserve.
July 30th, 2004 at 2:55 pm
If it is only increasing by 1.4 degrees per century then I see no reason why our scientific prowess cannot thwart any type of danger before it exists. It is impossible to imagine where science will take us in 100-200 years, but I’m quite confident it will be impressive.
So yes, I believe it is in our best interest not to “let it” increase too rapidly, if it is within our capability - which I believe it can be, will be, and is, at least to a degree, at the present.
August 4th, 2004 at 4:42 pm
i swear that when i was in 4th or 5th grade, the weather paranoia was all about the coming “ice age”. this was probably 1984 or so.
a few cold and snowy winters and - panic! - incoming ice age, complete with disembodied statue of liberty arm rising from a sheet of ice and everything.
a few years later, the winters are milder, the summers a bit hotter and - eek! - statue of liberty is now depicted under 300 ft of melted polar ice cap water.
i’m not worried about it.