Global Warming Science

Global Warming or Urban Heating?
The World has NOT Been Warming the Way the Doomsayers Have Predicted
by Michael Theroux

There was another big march on Washington, D.C. It was called the
March for Peaceful Energy and it commenced on October 24, 1998.
Guessing from the numerous and quite disorganised emails received,
its main themes appeared to be "global warming", "free energy",
and "hemp":

"To effect implementation of the 1998 Comprehensive National Energy
Strategy (CNES) that President Clinton has submitted to Congress
proposed for $6.3 billion funding to ameliorate global warming
pursuant to last December's Kyoto Protocol, with the additional
public input constituted by [the] Citizen's Peaceful Energy Plan
(CPEP)...

"Employing a global internet campaign supporting CPEP, grassroots
organizers including University of Maryland students are determined
to help President Clinton pass legislation to implement his 'Million
Solar Roofs Initiative' and 'New-Energy' technologies to replace
nuclear & fossil fuel power and to actually neutralize radioactive
wastes. Hemp activists will join The March to champion a National
Hemp Reform Act for cheap non-polluting biofuels and to heal the
atmosphere by reducing carbon dioxide to reverse the greenhouse
effect and increase oxygen to repair the ozone layer. All are
concerned about the lethal threat posed to the oceanic phytoplankton
by ozone layer depletion and about the oppression of indigenous
peoples by energy industry policies."

While all of this seems to be a grand and noble undertaking, some
serious questions arise from more fact oriented free-thinkers. First
of all, I don't think President Clinton has Global Warming on his
mind nor will he in the coming months. Secondly, while there is no
question as to the efficacy of hemp as a potential replacement for
depleted and wasted resources, the "reform of hemp" movement is
tainted by the selfishness and the lack of credibility of far too
many marijuana substance abusers. But, what is of greater interest
here (and seems to be the focus) is the whole issue of Global
Warming. What are the facts concerning so-called "Global Warming,"
and how are they arrived at? Why has the idea of global warming been
thrust into the public limelight? Who is benefiting from the idea of
Global Warming?

The Measuring of Global Temperature
Many aren't aware that there are two methods used to measure global
temperature. The first, and the method used in defense of the idea of
Global Warming, is to average out temperatures around the world as
measured in white louvered boxes called Stevenson Screens, usually
mounted one metre above ground. This antiquated way of data
collection consists of the combined average of tens of thousands of
thermometers world-wide. The boxes are usually placed where there may
be appropriately trained people to read them, (as a teenager, I did
this for the University of North Dakota - and was trained by another
teenager!) such as at post offices, airports, pilot stations,
radio/tv stations, etc. By far the majority are located mostly in
cities, and on land.

The major problem with this method of data acquisition is that most
cities and towns will show long-term warmings caused by what is
called Urban Heat Island Effect — caused by the tendency of man-made
structures to heat up to high temperatures in the daytime and slowly
release that heat during the night, resulting in a higher daytime and
even higher nighttime temperature than would exist in a nearby rural
area. The effect, of course, increases as towns grow over time, so
that warming effects in the towns will increase too.

Also, the system only measures temperature on land. Land occupies 25%
of the earth's surface, while 75% of the planet is covered by water
and ice. Many areas on land are not even covered such as deserts,
tundra, mountains, and forests, but several urban areas are
overpopulated with the temperature measuring stations. All of these
problems with land measuring stations will definitely add up to false
impressions of long-term global warming.

For example, below are rural `greenfields' temperatures for
Australia. The post-1910 data used the standard Stevenson Screen. But
if we look at the graph below that of only the six state capital
cities of Australia, we get quite a different story. From the the
comparison of graphs, it is clear that if the majority of land-based
readings are taken in growing towns and cities, we end up with a long-
term warming creep in the averaged data, a creep which is impossible
to correct since there is no absolute point of reference against
which to apply corrections.





The second, and newer method used to measure global temperature, is
to use NOAA satellites to measure the temperature of the lower
atmosphere, giving the Earth a uniform global sweep, with bodies of
water equally included. This method has been in use since January
1979, is said to be accurate to within one hundredth of a degree.

The two methods are compared below, referenced to a common start
point in January 1979, (when satellite monitoring began). The urban-
based surface network shows a clear long-term warming, but the
satellites do not. So, the frequent claims that the earth has been
warming is quite misleading. From the satellite perspective, 1997 was
a very ordinary year indeed, the 8th coldest in the 19-year record.
(from http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/ )



This chart represents over 19 years of data, and indicates the world
has NOT been warming the way the doomsayers predicted during the very
period when the most extravagant claims about warming were being
made. Based on satellite measurement, 1997 was a cooler year than
average, and certainly not the "warmest" as widely claimed by the
greenhouse industry. The media has pretended the satellite data did
not even exist, boosting the erroneous surface data instead (which
shows global warming). The "greenhouse industry" scientists strongly
oppose the satellite method. Some "leading pro-warming scientists"
have directly attacked the satellite method by pompously demanding
quality standards from the satellites that they fail to apply to
their own data. Several scientists active in the greenhouse scare are
themselves veterans of previous, — and discredited — scares. Some
other scientists have been swept along by the hype and simply failed
to maintain scientific standards in their work. This is once again
reminiscent of the HIV=AIDS scandal where job security and funding
come first and foremost — above real science.

The major reference for this article comes from the website, "Still
Waiting For Greenhouse" at http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/ — entirely
self funded and created by John L. Daly, author of several articles
and papers on the greenhouse scandal, and the author of, The
Greenhouse Trap, (Bantam Books, 1989). I would urge you to check out
his website as there is far more to the controversy than could be
detailed here, and Mr. Daly has done an extraordinary job of
researching and compiling documents to back up what he is saying. His
website "aims to highlight what many climate scientists know to be
exaggerated claims and political propaganda about `Global Warming',
based on unscientific (mostly computer model) evidence. The observed
evidence indicates that LITTLE or NO global warming is happening and
little should be expected." He demonstrates among other things, how
the 11-year solar cycle is responsible for cyclic fluctuations in
global mean temperature, and the site is loaded with graphs and
charts of real data displaying the truth in his statements. Other
topics covered include: The latest info on El Nino/La Nina, How the
Sun, not the Greenhouse Effect, has warmed up the Earth during the
last few centuries, How Cosmic rays, not man-made emissions of CO2,
control the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere,
and "Scientism in the American Meteorological Society," at
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/scientism.htm.

The Global Emergency Alert Response (GEAR)
The email we received that sparked the initiative to compile this
article came from the The Global Emergency Alert Response (GEAR).
This organisation claims its goal is to "sound the alert and compel a
response from everyone to address the need for 'Global Peace Now!' so
human and natural resources may be more productively applied towards
remedial actions addressing our global social and environmental
emergency only partially characterized by the increasingly lethal
climate changes from global warming and ozone layer depletion. "Stop
Global Warming and Save the Phytoplankton from Ozone Layer Depletion
with New-Energy Science and Hemp for Victory!", is the GEAR formula
for how to save the atmosphere in time, if there still is time enough
left to fix it before it is too late. Please join in the human
internet chain reaction to spread this information on the solutions
and actions at hand."

All of my dictionaries state that the word "compel" means
to "force," "command," or "require," someone to do something. This
brand of environmental nazism is not only typical of the politically
correct elite, but is completely subject to the faulty science they
have no business promoting. We have seen time and again the activist
jumping upon a cause backed by poorly researched themes, only to use
the power of hysteria to "educate" the public into frightened
submission. There is no denying that our presence and practises may
have an effect on our environment, and we certainly do not condone
unconscious corporate atrocities. But, before we jump to conclusions,
devise "how-to" formulas, and "compel" others to do our will, there
had better be a lot of sound, serious research involved — and not
baseless parroting for the cause.

Email webmaster at: info@borderlands.com