what is global warming all about?

Answer 1

A lot of people focus on carbon dioxide, but it's actually several greenhouse gases that are the problem.

If you've ever sat in a car on a sunny day, you can understand what global warming is. The inside of the car gets much hotter than the outside because the windows act like heat traps -- they let the sunlight in but don't let the heat back out.

Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, do the same thing, except they do it for the entire Earth. Sunlight goes right by them, but the heat from the ground does not. So the Earth is warming up like the inside of a car. [Note that this analogy is ovesimplified, but it will do for now.]

Nobody would really care about this if it didn't have negative consequences. The warming Earth will lose a lot of ice as it gets warmer, and all this extra water will mess up the delicate balance of the weather systems. This can cause floods, really big hurricanes, and other bad things.

And we're sure that we're the cause. A paper released by several organizations who represent almost all the climate scientists in the world said that we are "90% sure" that humans are the cause of global warming.

Answer 2

It is about Carbon.

Humans have begun releasing Carbon into the atmosphere, which was previously trapped in perpetuity in fossilised states. We have also removed many trees which need CO2 to make oxygen and the Carbon stays in the tree.

Although humans breathe out CO2 this is not the cause of global warming as we obtain the Carbon from our food to make Carbon Dioxide. What goes in goes out!

The problem is humans are releasing Carbon from other sources and we are deforesting the planet and this is causing an imbalance in the form of extra CO2 gas. CO2 itself happens to cause warming and so all the extra gas is heating up the planet. The result will not just be melting ice caps but water molecules will expand as well, which means the oceans will expand.

Answer 3

Look people the CO2 is not a problem. The plants and photosynthesis have taken care of the CO2. Look up photosynthesis and understand Thatt is the way God designed it. WE can not live without the plants .The plants need CO2 as much as we need oxygen . Global warming is a hoax . WE could look at tha bad methane gas. Methane is a very light gas and very explosive. Where is it I cant find a trace of it.

Answer 4

It's very simple.


The abnormal increase of Earth's temperature due to the continuous accumulation of gaseous pollutants is called Global Warming.

Answer 5

Global warming is when the amount of Carbondioxide increases in the atmosphere.It then leads to rise in temperature leading to melting of glaciers and such..But how does the level in carbondioxide rises,I don't that!...

Answer 6

Plus Ça (Climate) Change
The Earth was warming before global warming was cool.

BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST (Wall Street Journal Online)

When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.

Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.

During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.




Many things are contributing to such global temperature changes. Solar radiation is one. Sunspot activity has reached a thousand-year high, according to European astronomy institutions. Solar radiation is reducing Mars's southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants anywhere on the Red Planet. Back on Earth, a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that "the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming."
Statistics suggest that while there has indeed been a slight warming in the past century, much of it was neither human-induced nor geographically uniform. Half of the past century's warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now. And while global temperatures are now slightly up, in some areas they are dramatically down. According to "Climate Change and Its Impacts," a study published last spring by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the ice mass in Greenland has grown, and "average summer temperatures at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet have decreased 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1980s." British environmental analyst Lord Christopher Monckton says that from 1993 through 2003 the Greenland ice sheet "grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year," and that in the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has grown as well.




Earlier this month the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its fourth five-year report. Although the full report won't be out until May, the summary has reinvigorated the global warming discussion.
While global warming alarmism has become a daily American press feature, the IPCC, in its new report, is backtracking on its warming predictions. While Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect.

The IPCC confirms its 2001 conclusion that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes the world will experience, but it does not note that there has been a steady decrease in the number of global hurricane days since 1970--from 600 to 400 days, according to Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Peter Webster.

The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.




Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.
Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.

As we have seen since the beginning of time, and from the Vikings' experience in Greenland, our world experiences cyclical climate changes. America needs to understand clearly what is happening and why before we sign onto U.N. environmental agreements, shut down our industries and power plants, and limit our economic growth.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

Answer 7

Man has practically custom made the climate we have today
in the dinosaurs days there were no desserts and just about all desserts are a result of mans interventions
ghengas Khan burned all the forrests and filled the wells with sand turning huge teritories into desserts
the phoenician fleet deforested Lebanon and created those desserts ,Spain was deforreseted for building the Armada
and the Sahara used to be forrests ,until a n ancient civilization opit an end to that
now it is like a fire growing by 7 kilometres a year the heat consuming the plant growth on the edges.
collectively all of this has had a huge impact on gobal cilmate ,
but this is nothing compared to the effects of the expanding irrisponsible modern agriculture

Is global warming a man-made menace?

not all there are natural cycles in the planets life
but a lot is influenced by mans existance ,and this is increasing with overpopulation,putting strains on Natural resources and increasing contaminations as well as destructions of essential componants the ensure living conditions for all life forms

some home truths

politicians and scientists who work for politicians have downplayed the facts because solutions are expensive and means change and change effects many people income,and most of the world is kept in the dark of the real things that are going on.


in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification


in recent times thousands of people have died because of exessive heat,usually old people.in India ,Mexico and France,
deforestation causing desertification,the desert conditions causing very cold nights and scorching hot days

in china, thousands of what used to be farmers are running for their lives from the dust storms that have burried their towns and turned their lands into dessert,the globe where they were got to hot for them .
and instead of producing food they are now needing it from some where else,and they will drastically effect the world food prices when they start buying water in the form of grains ,at any cost destabalising governments, in some countries ,could be the result
(are you seeing more Chinese around interested in agricultural lands ,we do here in Mexico)

,the Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year
and all of the desserts we know are a results of mans actions ,and they are increasing ,not getting less ,in the dinosaurs days ,there were no desserts.

collectively this planet is drying up because of bad farming practices like,over grazing and fertilizers,

as far as the food production is concerned, Global warming or some of its effects are serious,rising seas result in landloss

each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss

more landloss because of desertification every year,we have less areble land to produce food ,for an extra 70 million people ,

and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,
and there are less and less farmers to do it..
who are overpumping deep carbon aquifiers
who are plowing more and more unstable lands because they have lost so many million hectares to desertification ,
because of bad farming practises ,such as using fertilizers and heavy machinary or over grazing

RISING SEAS
The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.
this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter.

Global warming is in theory reversable,but it will mean global co operation between all countries ,and taking into account human nature and the world politics ,it is unlikely that this will happen,

At least not untill we are all in the middle of planetary disastres and it becomes a battle for the survival of humanity every where.

SOLUTIONS
if you want to help the planet ,plant a tree every week ,if everyone on the planet did we we would be able to reverse the destructive processes

reduce carbon emisions,and they are already working on that by alternative forms of energy and regulations on carbon producing materials,aerosol cans,burning rubbish,industrial chimneys,powerplants etc.

the capture of carbon and the production of water and assist the aquiferous manta.

the world bank pays large subsidies for reforrestation to capture carbon and the best tree for this is the Pawlonia

Waterharvesting projects ,such as millions of small dams.to redirect over ground waterflows from the rains into the ground to supply subteranian water supplies.

the protection of existing forrests.

stop building more highways,urban planning to include vegetation stop building cities encourage people to return to the land to conduct their business from there which now has become possible thanks to the internet.

education to motivate people to auto sufficiency by building more home food gardens.

education on environmental awareness
education on family planning to curb over´populaion

Agricultural education and improvements to follow the principals or sustainability and soil management.

more environmental or land ,design to prevent bush fires,such as--fire breaks

,more dams.regulations and control for public behaviour

alternative effeciant public transport to discourage the use of the internal conbustion engine

recicling wastes,limit water use

i am a Permaculture Consultant for the department of Ecology for the regional government in Guerrero Mexico
http://spaces.msn.com/byderule

Source(s) Lester E Brown is the director and founder of the global institute of Environment in the United states .he has compiled a report based on all the satalite information available from NASA,and all the information that has
come from Universities and American embassies WORLD WIDE ,
his little book--a planet under stress , Plan B has been trans lated into 50 languages and won the best book award in 2003.

Answer 8

Earth's temperature rising trough a natural mechanism, and us rising this rate of increment through greed

Answer 9

everyone will be dead by 2025

Answer 10

If you REALLY care about all the Global Warming talk, read this from two experts in the field.


Statement of Dr. William Gray
Department of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making
________________________________________
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am William M. Gray, a Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado. I have been studying and forecasting weather and climate for over 50 years (see my attached Vitae). My specialty has been tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones. I have made Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts for the last 22 years.
Over the last 20 years, I have been dismayed over the bogus science and media-hype associated with the nuclear winter and the human-induced global warming hypotheses. My innate sense of how the atmosphere-ocean functions does not allow me to accept either of these scenarios. Observations and theory do not support these ideas. The nuclear winter hypothesis did not recognize that the globe's hydrologic cycle operates on a time scale of 8-10 days and that nuclear- spawned dust material would be quickly rained out of the atmosphere. The human-induced global warming scenarios have a major flaw in that they accept the view that an increase in the global hydrologic cycle will cause enhanced upper-tropospheric water vapor gain and a suppression of outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) to space. The opposite is true. Global Climate Models (GCMs) are also not able to realistically predict the ocean's deep water circulation which is fundamental to any understanding of global temperature change.
As a boy, growing up here in Washington, DC, I remember the many articles on the large global warming that had occurred between 1900 and 1940. No one understood or knew if this warming would continue. Then the warming abated, and a weak global cooling trend set in from the mid-1940s to the early 1970s. The global warming talk ceased and speculation about a coming ice age came into vogue. I anticipate that the trend of the last few decades of global warming will come to an end, and in a few years we will start to see a weak cooling trend similar to that which occurred from the mid-1940s to the early 1970s.
I would like to present a different view on the likelihood of human-induced global warming and also provide evidence that global hurricane activity has not increased as the globe has warmed in recent decades. There is no significant correlation between global warming and global hurricane activity.
HUMAN-INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING
Although initially generated by honest scientific questions, this topic has long ago advanced into the political arena and taken on a life of its own. It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gains from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject. This includes many governments of western countries, the media, and scientists who were willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research. It is unfortunate that most of the resources for climate research come from the federal government. When a national government takes a political position on a scientific topic, the wise meteorologist or climatologist either joins the crowd or keeps his/her mouth shut. Scientists can be punished if they do not accept the current views of their funding agents. An honest and objective scientific debate cannot be held in such a political environment.
I have closely followed the greenhouse gas warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere functions in over 50 years of study and forecasting, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and likely insignificant amounts of global warming (~ 0.2-0.3 degree C).
Most geophysical systems react to forced imbalances by developing responses which oppose and weaken the initial forced imbalance; hence, a negative feedback response. Recently proposed human-induced global warming scenarios go counter to the foregoing in hypothesizing a positive feedback effect. They assume that a stronger hydrologic cycle (due to increased anthropogenic greenhouse gases) will cause additional upper-level atmospheric water vapor. This increased vapor results in a reduction of OLR loss to space and causes additional warming (Fig. 1). This positive water vapor feedback assumption allows the small initial warming due to human-induced greenhouse gases to be unrealistically multiplied 8-10 times. This is where much of the global modeling is in error. As anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase it does not follow that upper-level water vapor will increase. If it does not, little global warming will result. Observation of middle tropospheric water vapor over the last few decades shows that water vapor has in fact been undergoing a small decrease. The assumed positive water vapor feedback as programmed into the GCM models is not occurring. Energy budget studies indicate that if atmospheric water vapor and the rate of condensation were held fixed, a doubling of carbon dioxide would cause only a small (~ 0.2 - 0.3 degree C) global warming. This can be contrasted to the 2-5o C warming projected in the models.
The other primary physical limitations of the GCM simulations are their inability (as yet) to properly treat the global ocean deep circulation. This requires the need to model ocean salinity variations. Climate change cannot be objectively discussed without a realistic treatment of the ocean.
Figure 1. Illustration of the relative magnitude of the suppression of outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR) by water vapor and CO2. The global models assume that as CO2 doubles, water vapor increases and causes more suppression of OLR and warming. The opposite is true.
Skillful initial value GCM climate prediction is not possible and probably never will be. This is due to the complex nature of the atmosphere/ocean system and the inability of numerical models to realistically represent this physical complexity. Realistic features currently cannot be forecast more than a week or two into the future (see Figs. 2 and 3). Imperfect representations of the highly non-linear parameters of the atmosphere-ocean system tend to quickly degrade (the so-called butterfly influence) into unrealistic flow states upon long period integration. Short-range prediction is possible up to a week or 10 days into the future because there tends to be conservatism in the initial momentum fields which can be extrapolated for short periods. But beyond about 1-2 weeks, the multiple unknown and non-linear energy-moisture exchanges within the earth system become dominant. Model results soon decay in chaos. Numerical climate models cannot now and likely never will be able to be accurately forecast more than a few weeks into the future. If skillful GCM climate forecasts were possible, we would be eager to follow their predictions. Currently, GCMs do not make seasonal or yearly forecasts. How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can’t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified? They know that they dare not issue shorter forecasts because they are aware that they have little or no skill.
Figure 2. Illustration of atmosphere-land ocean modeling complexity. It is impossible to write computer code to represent such complexity and then realistically integrate hundreds of thousands of time steps into the future.
Besides the physical uncertainty concerning how to represent the complexity of the atmosphere-ocean system in quantitative terms, climate models have become too complex for any one person or team to understand. Due to the great complexity of the GCM system, the true reasons for success or failure often cannot be determined. These models have been developed by teams of specialists who concentrate on different parts of their model. No one person is able to understand the whole GCM simulation. Most model developers are talented and skilled technicians. However, few have ever given real-world weather briefings or made operational weather forecasts.
Figure 3. Illustration of the two methods of climate prediction. The top diagram shows how numerical climate prediction is made and loses skill rapidly. It does not use past data. The bottom diagram shows how statistical prediction is based on past data and can utilize associations that are not physically understood.
The potential for climate modeling mischief and false scares from incorrect climate model scenarios is enormous. Numerical modeling output gives an air of authenticity which is not warranted by the input physics and long periods of integration. How many more climate scares are we to see from climate models which are not able to realistically predict past and future climate changes let alone future decadal or century changes?
Many of my older meteorological colleagues are very skeptical of these anthropogenic global warming scenarios. But we are seldom asked for any input. Despite my 50 years of meteorology experience and my many years of involvement in seasonal hurricane and climate prediction, I have never been asked for input on any of the International Panels on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. They know my views and do not wish to have to deal with them. Many other experienced but skeptical meteorologists and climatologists are also ignored. I find that the summary page conclusions of the IPCC reports frequently do not agree with the extensive factual material contained within them. In fact, the summary conclusions of many of the IPCC reports give the impression they were written before the research is done.
It is disappointing that more atmospheric scientists have not spoken out about the reality of human-induced global warming and the reliability of the GCM simulations. It is also mystifying to me how the global warming advocates are able to get away with the argument that extreme weather events have become more prevalent in recent years and that they likely have a human-induced component. Such assertions are factually wrong.
There is nothing we humans can do to prevent natural climate change, which I believe nearly all the recent global temperature rise is due too. We have no choice but to adapt to future climate changes. Restricting human-induced greenhouse gas emissions now, on the basis of their assumed influence on global warming, is not a viable economic option, even if it were politically possible. China and India would never restrict their growing fossil fuel usage. Restricting greenhouse gas emissions would have little or no effect on global temperature. We need to keep the western world economies vibrant if for no other reason than to be able to afford the needed large technical research funding that will be required to develop future non-fossil fuel energy sources.
I am convinced that in 15-20 years, we will look back on this period of global warming hysteria as we now look back on so many other popular, and trendy, scientific ideas -- such as the generally accepted Eugenic theories of the 1920s and 1930s that have now been discredited. There are so many other more important problems in the world which need our immediate attention. We should not be distracted by a false threat that is mostly just due to natural changes in climate.
GLOBAL WARMING INFLUENCE ON HURRICANES
The Atlantic has large multi-decadal variations in major (category 3-4-5) hurricane activity. These variations are observed to result from multi-decadal variations in the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC) - Fig. 4. When the THC is strong, it causes the North Atlantic to have warm or positive Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies (SSTA) and when the THC is weak, cold SSTAs prevail. Figure 5 shows these North Atlantic SSTAs over the last century with a projection for the next 15 years.
We observe that there are significantly more Atlantic basin major hurricanes when the THC is strong than when it is weak. Figure 6 shows the sum of tracks of Atlantic major hurricane tracks during a 20-year period when the THC was strong (left) versus an 18-year period when it was weak (right). Note the large differences. Figure 7 gives an illustration of how fortunate peninsula Florida was in terms of landfalling hurricanes during the period of 1966-2003 in comparison with the earlier period of 1932-1965. The varying strength of the Atlantic THC is partly responsible for these differences. Luck also played a role. There were many intense hurricanes just off the Florida coast during the later period that did not come ashore (i.e., Hurricane Floyd, 1999).
Figure 4. Idealized Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC) that becomes stronger and weaker on multi-decadal time periods. More major hurricanes form in the Atlantic when it is stronger than when it is weaker.
Figure 5. Last century Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly (SSTA) in the North Atlantic showing multi-decadal periods of warm and cold anomalies and a projection of these SSTAs to 2020. More major hurricanes form when SSTAs are positive and fewer when they are negative.
Figure 6. Tracks of major hurricanes in 20 years (1950-1969) when the thermohaline circulation was strong and the North Atlantic had positive SSTAs (left) and in 18 years (1970-1987) when the thermohaline circulation was weak and the North Atlantic had negative SSTAs (right).
Figure 7. Comparison of Florida peninsula landfalling major hurricanes in a 33 year period (1933-1965 -- 11 landfalling major hurricanes) and in a later 38 year period (1966-2003 -- 1 landfalling major hurricane).
Recent major hurricanes Katrina and Rita and last year's four U.S. landfalling major hurricanes have spawned an abundance of questions concerning the role that global warming might be playing in these events. The ideas that global warming was the cause for these last two years of greater hurricane activity has been greatly enhanced by two recent papers presenting data to show that global tropical cyclones have become more intense in recent years. They tie this increased hurricane activity to global warming. These papers are:
a) Kerry Emanuel, 4 August 2005: Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature, 436, 686-688.
b) P.J. Webster, G.J. Holland, J. Currie and P. Chang, 16 September 2005: Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science, 309, 1844-1846.
The near universal reference to these two papers over the last two weeks by most major media outlets is helping to establish a belief among the general public and scientists not involved in tropical cyclone studies that global hurricane intensity has been rising and that global warming is primarily responsible. This conclusion is not valid. The authors have improperly handled their data sets and their findings should not be accepted. These papers require a response from a few of us who study hurricanes. I feel I have an obligation to make formal comments on these papers (to the editors of the journals), which I will do in another week or two.
DETERMINATION OF HURRICANE INTENSITY
There always has been, and there probably always will be, problems in assigning a representative maximum surface wind to a hurricane. As technology advances and the methods of determining a hurricane’s maximum winds change, different values of maximum winds will be assigned to hurricanes than would have been assigned in previous years.
With the availability of new aircraft deployed inertial dropwindsondes and the new step-frequency surface wind measurement instruments, it is being established that Atlantic hurricane surface winds are sometimes stronger than were previously determined from wind values extrapolated from aircraft altitude. Saffir/Simpson category numbers in the Atlantic due to these changes in measurement techniques have risen slightly in recent years. Although most of the comparative differences in the 38 major hurricanes of the last 10 years in the Atlantic basin (1995-2004) vs. the 14 major hurricanes of the prior 10 years (1985-1994) is thought to represent real variability, a small part of this difference may be due to the assignment of a Category 3 or Category 4 status to a hurricane which in earlier years might have received a one category lower designation.
THEORY
Despite what many in the atmospheric modeling community may believe, there is no physical basis for assuming that global tropical cyclone intensity or frequency is necessarily related to global temperature. As the ocean surface warms, so does the upper air to maintain conditionally unstable lapse-rates and global rainfall rates at their required values. Although there has been a general warming of the globe and an increase of SSTs in recent decades, observations do not show increases in tropical cyclone frequency or intensity.
VARIATION IN MAJOR HURRICANE NUMBERS DURING RECENT DECADES OF GLOBAL WARMING
The NOAA reanalysis of global mean temperature difference over the last two 10-year periods have shown that the mean annual global surface temperature has risen 0.39 degree C from the 10-year periods of 1985-1994 to 1995-2004. This is a substantial increase in global temperature (rate of 3.9 oC per century). Table 1 shows the number of measured major hurricanes around the globe (excluding the Atlantic). Major hurricanes have not gone up in the more recent 10-year period when SSTAs have warmed considerably.
Table 1. Comparison of observed major (Cat. 3-4-5) hurricanes-typhoons in all global basins (except the Atlantic) in the two most recent 10 year periods of 1985-94 and 1995-2004. The summertime sea surface temperature increases between these two 10-year periods are shown in the right column.
The Atlantic has seen a very large increase in major hurricanes during the last 10-year period in comparison to the previous 10-year period (38 between 1995-2004 vs. 11 during 1985-1994). The large last decade increase is a result of multi-decadal fluctuations in the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation (THC). Changes in salinity are believed to be the driving mechanism. These multi-decadal changes have also been termed the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO). Even when the large increase in Atlantic major hurricane activity is added to the non-Atlantic global total of major hurricanes, there is no significant global difference (208 vs. 218) in the numbers of major hurricanes between the two periods.
Comparison of Atlantic hurricane activity between the last 15-year active period (1990-2004) with the activity during the active 15-year period of 1950-1964.
There have been hurricane periods in the Atlantic in the past which have been just as active as the current period. A comparison of the last 15 years of hurricane activity with an earlier 15-year period from 1950-64 shows no significant difference in the more intense major hurricanes (Table 2). Note that there has actually been a slight decrease in major hurricane numbers in the most recent 15 years. The number of weak tropical Named Storms (NS) rose by over 50 percent, however. This is a reflection of the availability of the satellite in the later period. It would not have been possible that a hurricane, particularly a major hurricane, escaped detection in the earlier period. But many weaker systems far out in the Atlantic undoubtedly went undetected before satellite observations.
Table 2. Comparison of Atlantic tropical cyclones of various intensities between 1950-1964 and the recent 15 year period of 1990-2004.
Change in Intensity Measurement Technology of the Northwest (NW) Pacific and Comparison of Earlier and Later Periods
This most active of the tropical cyclone basins had aircraft reconnaissance flights during the period 1945-1986 but has not had aircraft reconnaissance since. The satellite has been the only tool to track NW Pacific typhoons since 1987.
There was an anomaly in the measurement of typhoon intensity in the 14-year period of 1973-1986 when the Atkinson-Holliday (1977) technique for typhoon maximum wind and minimum sea-level pressure (MSLP) was used. This technique is now known to have significantly underestimated the maximum winds of the typhoons in comparison with their central pressures. This has been verified by a combination of satellite-aircraft data from the Atlantic and pre-1973 NW Pacific aircraft-measured wind and MSLP. Table 3 shows the official average of the annual number of super typhoons in the West Pacific (equivalent to the number of category 3-4-5 or major hurricanes of the Atlantic). Note that between 1950-1972 and over the last 18 years, this number of super-typhoons has averaged about five per year while during the Atkinson-Holliday period of 1973-1986 it was less than half this number. Weaker storm numbers during the 1973-1986 period were the same. If we disregard this anomalous 1973-1986 period and compare annual frequency of super-typhoon activity between 1950-1972 versus 1987-2004 we see little difference despite the recent global warming trend.
Table 3. Comparison of the annual average of super- typhoon activity in three multi-decadal periods in the western North Pacific. The middle period (1973-1986) used the Atkinson-Holliday (1977) intensity scheme. This reported maximum wind values that were too low.
WHAT OTHERS SAY
I fully subscribe to the view expressed by Max Mayfield, Director of the NOAA National Hurricane Center when he stated last week before the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science and Transportation Sub-Committee: "We believe this heightened period of hurricane activity will continue due to multi-decadal variance, as tropical cyclone activity in the Atlantic is cyclical. The 1940s through the 1960s experienced an above average number of hurricanes, while the 1970s into the mid-1990s averaged fewer hurricanes. The current period of heightened activity could last another 10-20 years. The increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations/cycles of hurricane activity, driven by the Atlantic Ocean itself along with the atmosphere above it and not enhanced substantially by global warming. The natural cycles are quite large with an average 3-4 major hurricanes a year in active periods and only about 1-2 major hurricanes annually during quiet periods, with each period lasting 25-40 years".
I also subscribe to the views expressed in the new paper titled "Hurricanes and Global Warming" which will soon be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This paper is authored by [Roger Pielke, Jr., Director, Center for Science and Technology, U. of Colorado; Christopher Landsea, Director of Research, NOAA National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL; Max Mayfield, Director, National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL; James Laver, Director, NOAA National Climate Center, Washington, DC; and Richard Pasch, Hurricane Specialist, NOAA National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL] and makes the following statements: "Since 1995 there has been an increase in frequency and in particular the intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic. But the changes of the past decade are not so large as to clearly indicate that anything is going on other than the multi-decadal variability that has been well documented since at least 1900 (Gray et al. 1997; Landsea et al. 1999; Goldenberg et al. 2001)"......
and
"Globally there has been no increase in tropical cyclone frequency over at least the past several decades (Lander and Guard 1998, Elsner and Kocher 2000). In addition to a lack of theory for future changes in storm frequencies, the few global modeling results are contradictory (Henderson-Sellers et al. 1998; IPCC 2001)"
SUMMARY
Analysis of global tropical cyclone activity of all intensities does not support the hypothesis that there has been a significant increase in tropical cyclone frequency-intensity associated with global temperature rise.
REFERENCES
Atkinson, G.D. and C.R. Holliday, 1977: Tropical cyclone minimum sea level pressure/maximum sustained wind relationship for the western North Pacific. Mon. Wea. Rev., 105, 421-427.
Elsner, J.B and B. Kocher, 2000: Global tropical cyclone activity: A link to the North Atlantic Oscillation. Geophysical Research Letters, 27, 129-132.
Goldenberg, S.B., C.W. Landsea, A.M. Mestas-Nunez and W.M. Gray, 2001: The recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity: Causes and implications. Science, 293, 474-479.
Gray, W.M., J.D. Sheaffer and C.W. Landsea, 1997: Climate trends associated with multidecadal variability of Atlantic hurricane activity. “Hurricanes: Climate and Socioeconomic Impacts.” H.F. Diaz and R.S. Pulwarty, Eds., Springer-Verlag, New York, 15-53.
Henderson-Sellers, A., H. Zhang, G. Berz, K. Emanuel, W. Gray, C. Landsea, G. Holland, J. Lighthill, S-L. Shieh, P. Webster and K. McGuffie, 1998: Tropical cyclones and global climate change: a post-IPCC assessment. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 9-38.
Lander, M.A. and C.P. Guard, 1998: A look at global tropical cyclone activity during 1995: Contrasting high Atlantic activity with low activity in other basins. Mon. Wea. Rev., 126, 1163-1173.
Landsea, C.W., R.A., Pielke, Jr., A.M. Mestas-Nunez and J.A. Knaff, 1999: Atlantic basin hurricanes: Indices of climate changes. Climate Change, 42, 89-129.







Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
________________________________________
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at [e-mail]