Meteorologists and Global Warming: The
Psychological and Linguistic Side of the Story


DEAR SIR
During my recent visit to Australia I noticed that here as in North America
global warming is very much a hot topic. In both hemispheres a veritable
industry spews forth opinions about the consequences of global warming on
everything under the sun. No doubt at this very moment a group in Australia
funded by Qantas is assessing the consequences of global warming on the
flavour
of Long flat Red. Until recently, global warming produced by increased
carbon
dioxide as a result of burning fossil fuels occupied the same position in
the
minds of meteorologists as tenets in the Apostle's Creed do to devout
Catholics.
To question global warming was unthinkable. More than heresy, it was folly.
But
there are always brave souls willing to risk throwing dead cats into
temples,
and at last a few dissidents have appeared on the scene. Prominent among
them is
Richard Lindzen (see, e.g., BAMOS, April 1993). He may be wrong but he is
too
knowledgeable to be dismissed as an ignoramus or a crank. A healthy debate
on
global warming, long lacking, has begun to emerge, although the balance is
still
heavily in favour of true believers. One aspect of the global warming debate
that has to my knowledge never been aired has a psychological flavour. One
of
meteorology's dark secrets is that meteorologists suffer from an inferiority
complex, which a Freudian psychologist might label physics envy. Like it or
not,
meteorologists have not been held in especially high esteem. They are
frequently
the butt of humiliating jibes about the inexactness of their science and
about
their alleged inability to predict the weather. Although those who make
these
jibes are on all fours with know-nothings who assert that physicians cannot
heal
us (they can heal us, they just cannot grant us immortality), even unjust
barbs
can sting.
But all this has changed recently. Meteorologists have been propelled into
the
limelight, transformed from ugly ducklings into swans. Drunk on the wine of
public favour, meteorologists are hiring press agents, buying blow dryers,
and
trading in old spouses for new. Meteorologists are sought as guests on talk
shows, courted by the press, invited to dine at the homes of presidents and
prime ministers and the palaces of archbishops. Politicians now listen
intently
to the pronouncements of meteorologists, whereas not long ago their opinions
would have evoked at best a yawn, more likely contempt. And by great good
fortune this transformation has occurred just as physics has gone into
decline.
For many years following World War II physicists were caught up on a wave
generated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. For almost half a
century
physicists have been the beneficiaries, consciously or not, of fear of The
Bomb.
Give us more money, they have said, or our ability to obliterate the
Russians
will fall behind their ability to obliterate us. Of course, all physicists
do
not work on bombs, but all boats do rise on a rising tide. With the sudden
and
unpredicted collapse of The Evil Empire, the bomb factories are shutting
down
and, not by coincidence, physics is in decline. Conservation of fear demands
a
new bogeyman. Fortunately, just in time, Global Warming has emerged to fill
the
gap, and meteorologists have been quick to exploit it. Meteorologists are at
the
same time those best able to pronounce on global warming and those whose
assertions should be treated with the most caution. It is not that global
warming is not true but rather that it is too good not to be true. It has
rescued meteorologists from oblivion, increased their stature, even fattened
their purses. Because meteorologists are knowledgeable but not
disinterested,
they should be listened to but not necessarily believed. I, for one, believe
little what climate modellers say. My scepticism is based partly on
linguistic
grounds.
Climate modellers almost without exception refer to their computer
simulations
as "experiments', rarely even qualified by "numerical." What's in a word?,
you
may ask. Words betray inner states of mind, and the words used by modellers
indicate to me that they have crossed the line between reality and fantasy.
To
them, their computer simulations really are experiments on the same footing
as
the kind in which experimenters get their hands dirty. Modellers discuss the
results of their (numerical) experiments in the same way that laboratory
scientists discuss theirs. Yet a simulated "experiment' according to Robert
Romer (American Journal of Physics, Vol. 61, 1993, p. 128) is "the creation
of
the devil, and the temptation to use one must be stoutly resisted." I also
am
sceptical of climate modellers because of their habit of dismissing as
inconsequential everything their models cannot treat. Not long ago, clouds
were
considered to be minor players in the global warming drama. Why? Because
modellers couldn't adequately include clouds in their models. Or because
modellers are heavily steeped in dynamics, and clouds occupy a low status in
the
various kingdoms and duchies into which the atmosphere has been artificially
divided. My scepticism about climate models is fuelled by their inability to
postdict the climate.
To my knowledge, no model run backward in time from the present has
predicted
the observed temperature decrease that not so long ago was generating alarms
about global cooling. It has long been accepted that to acquire validity, a
theory must have predictive capabilities. What are we to make of a theory
that
doesn't even have postdictive capabilities? True, rather than simulated,
experiments will provide the evidence for or against global warming just as
true, as opposed to simulated, sex is what makes babies.
Craig F. Bohren Department of Meteorology The Pennsylvania State University
(circa 1993) AMOS Bulletin #6 82

NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS
HOME / DONATE / ONE LEVEL UP / ABOUT NCPA / CONTACT


Myths of Global Warming


Friday, May 23, 1997
The Clinton administration has decided to commit the United States to
finalizing a treaty in December 1997 that would impose legally binding,
internationally enforceable limits on the production of greenhouse gases,
primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). That decision was based on the belief that
global warming is significant, that humans are its primary cause and that
only immediate government action can avert disaster.

Yet there is no scientific consensus that global warming is a problem
or that humans are its cause. Even if current predictions of warming are
correct, delaying drastic government actions by up to 25 years will make
little difference in global temperature 100 years from now. Proposed treaty
restrictions would do little environmental good and great economic harm. By
contrast, putting off action until we have more evidence of human-caused
global warming and better technology to mitigate it is both environmentally
and economically sound.

Much of the environmental policy now proposed is based on myths. Let's
look at the four most common.

Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level
temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6
degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of
climate measure-
ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. [See
Figure I.] Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the
increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation
over the last 15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming
between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in
England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. Scientists do not agree
that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence
supporting that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly
concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin.


a.. A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the
Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the
warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions -
principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]

b.. Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey
conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic
climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use.

c.. More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president
of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly
actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available
evidence.
While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the
past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a
small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to
1940 - before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming. The
belief underlying this myth is that the consequences of near-term inaction
could be catastrophic and, thus, prudence supports immediate government
action.

However, a 1995 analysis by proponents of global warming theory
concluded that the world's governments can wait up to 25 years to take
action with no appreciable negative effect on the environment. T.M.L.
Wigley, R. Richels and J.A. Edmonds followed the common scientific
assumption that a realistic goal of global warming policy would be to
stabilize the concentration of atmospheric CO2 at approximately twice
preindustrial levels, or 550 parts per million by volume. Given that
economic growth will continue with a concomitant rise in greenhouse gas
emissions, the scientists agreed that stabilization at this level is
environmentally sound as well as politically and economically feasible. They
also concluded that:


a.. Governments can cut emissions now to approximately 9 billion
tons per year or wait until 2020 and cut emissions by 12 billion tons per
year.

b.. Either scenario would result in the desired CO2 concentration of
550 parts per million.

c.. Delaying action until 2020 would yield an insignificant
temperature rise of 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.
In short, our policymakers need not act in haste and ignorance. The
government has time to gather more data, and industry has time to devise new
ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic
Environmental Problems. Proponents of the theory of human-caused global
warming argue that it is causing and will continue to cause all manner of
environmental catastrophes, including higher ocean levels and increased
hurricane activity. Reputable scientists, including those working on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations
organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate
warming, reject these beliefs.

Sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact,
sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years - far
predating any possible human impact. Rising sea levels are natural in
between ice ages. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists,
the current rate of increase is slower than the average rate over the
18,000-year period.

Periodic media reports link human-caused climate changes to more
frequent tropical cyclones or more intense hurricanes. Tropical storms
depend on warm ocean surface temperatures (at least 26 degrees Celsius) and
an unlimited supply of moisture. Therefore, the reasoning goes, global
warming leads to increased ocean surface temperatures, a greater uptake of
moisture and destructive hurricanes. But recent data show no increase in the
number or severity of tropical storms, and the latest climate models suggest
that earlier models making such connections were simplistic and thus
inaccurate.


a.. Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological
Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of
hurricanes.

b.. From 1991 through 1995, relatively few hurricanes occurred, and
even the unusually intense 1995 hurricane season did not reverse the
downward trend.

c.. The 1996 IPCC report on climate change found a worldwide
significant increase in tropical storms unlikely; some regions may
experience increased activity while others will see fewer, less severe
storms.
Since factors other than ocean temperature such as wind speeds at
various altitudes seem to play a larger role than scientists previously
understood, most agree that any regional changes in hurricane activity will
continue to occur against a backdrop of large yearly natural variations.

What about other effects of warming? If a slight atmospheric warming
occurred, it would primarily affect nighttime temperatures, lessening the
number of frosty nights and extending the growing season. Thus some
scientists think a global warming trend would be an agricultural boon.
Moreover, historically warm periods have been the most conducive to life.
Most of the earth's plant life evolved in a much warmer, carbon
dioxide-filled atmosphere.

Conclusion. As scientists expose the myths concerning global warming,
the fears of an apocalypse should subside. So rather than legislating in
haste and ignorance and repenting at leisure, our government should maintain
rational policies, based on science and adaptable to future discoveries.


This Brief Analysis was prepared by H. Sterling Burnett, environmental
policy analyst with the
National Center for Policy Analysis.

Here's another one you should
read.http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/gcpo/GREENHOU2.PDF.pdf

And another, from the UK
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/agina...g1.htm#suspend