It is a shame that this must be the case. The study of the global climate is relatively new and has been aided by large fast computers and the internet technology to transmit massive amounts of data globally as never before. The forces driving our climate are very complex, some of them not even known.

The study of the Earth’s climate deserves to have all of the latest analytic tools brought to bear on increasing the understanding. Regrettably, very strong political forces are now involved with the scientific issues, which have made such debates quite poisonous and unscientific.

As in past years scientific/environmental issues can be driven by political agendas and a veneer of science jargon. The debate is characterized by alarmist and confusing rhetoric, a patina of plausibility, impending doom, statistical legerdemain, as well as personal attacks, disrespect, and dismissiveness.

Regrettably, this has happened many times in the past such as the government sanctions of Galileo and the torture and execution of his colleague Giordano Bruno. Heresy is not welcome, even if the heresy is true. Contrary to the edicts of today’s elitists, the science has not spoken with regard to global warming as claimed, and the scientific debate is not over. We simply know too little about how the climate works to make such arrogant claims.

Global Warming

Yes there is global warming. And there is cooling too, even today. The Earth has been in repeating cycles of warming and cooling over millions of years. History shows that the time between ice ages is measured in thousands of years. Global warming takes place in between the ice periods.

During the 13th to the 18th century the earth went through a cooling period now called the Little Ice Age. During this time snow fell in Paris in July and Ice Carnivals were held on 4 feet of ice on the River Thames in London.

Taking centuries to recover, the earth at this time is still slowly warming from the Little Ice Age. Since 1675 the surface temperature has increased about 0.6 deg C. Other temperature data bases from both balloons and satellites, while covering shorter periods of time, agree with each other and do not show much warming.

Greenhouse Effect

For millions of years there always has been a greenhouse effect as well, since the presence of water vapor and lesser amounts of other gases in our atmosphere have helped in the warming by retaining heat from the sun. Were it not for the warming (retention of solar energy) by these gases our planet would be extremely cold (about -109 deg. F).

By far water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, accounting for more than 95 percent of the warming. The CO2 contributes much less while CH4 (methane) and N20 (nitrous oxide) contribute lesser still. Of the total inventory of such gases, 99.72 percent are estimated to be from natural sources, man-made sources of these gases are about 0.28 percent, and water vapor the vast majority of that.

This does not imply that the natural sources of greenhouse gases are completely known. In this context the curiously singular focus on man-made CO2 emissions, suggests that politics and not science is driving the debate.

Among the lesser gases CO2 is the most controversial which is often portrayed as a pollutant as well as being the sole source of warming. It is not. CO2 is a crucial reactant in the process of photosynthesis, the source of nearly all plant and animal life on our planet.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)

An estimated 186 billion tons of CO2 are put into the atmosphere annually, about 6 billion tons of which are man-made. The majority comes from biological activity in the oceans, and the remainder comes from decaying plant life, volcanoes, etc.

Natural Sources of Warming

Natural sources of greenhouse gases such as those mentioned above account for more than 99 percent of the total. New sources of gases continue to be found. The warming from such gases is completely dominated by water vapor, not CO2.

As climate expert Walter Broecker has said: “I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas -- water vapor”.

Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.

Other Natural Sources of Warming

• (1) Astronomical Causes
• 11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
• 21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun (precession of the equinoxes ) and here.
• 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the small wobble in Earth's orbit (tilt)
• 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )
• (2) Atmospheric Causes
• Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases -- the "greenhouse effect".
• Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps
• (3) Tectonic Causes
• Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.
• Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.
• (4) Other sources of warming may also be at work of which we know little or nothing, such as recently discovered volcanism under the Arctic Ocean. 12 new volcanoes have been found there, in addition to large amounts of hydrothermal activity.
• (5) In the April 2006 issue of Astronomy Magazine (p. 14) are 2 photos taken of the South Pole region of Mars. There are huge mesas of dry ice (solid CO2, m.p. of -78 deg C (minus 109 F)). The photos taken 6 years apart clearly indicate a warming process taking place. The mesas are retreating, according to the authors, at about 10 feet per Martian year (687 earth days). While it is no proof of the warming, one must suspect the involvement of increased energy from the Sun, the same Sun we have.

Movie Makers

It seems like everyone is an expert in climatology, an expert in computer modeling, an expert in scientific discussion, and cause and effect. Having scientific credentials let alone interests in science is not apparently required to influence science policy. Fear is. Neither lawyers, movie stars, politicians, nor anchor men inspire confidence in their scientific pronouncements. They do not consider the long list of natural warming and cooling processes involved, nor appreciate the huge uncertainties which must be considered.

In recent months we’ve had the Al Gore movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” The movie is a high quality photo essay, featuring many assertions and very little science, and no consideration of the weaknesses of his assertions. Many people have been critical of the movie for its lack of scientific rigor. John Stossel is among many who have panned the movie as “A Convenient Lie.” Also see Natural Sources of Warming above.

For example, Gore’s movie features the calving of icebergs from the faces of glaciers, with the voiceover implying that such activity (which has gone for hundreds of thousands of years), is caused by mankind’s activities. Left out of Gore’s discussion of disappearing glaciers, are other glaciers in New Zealand, Norway, and even the US where glaciers are growing.

The Hubbard glacier is Alaska is growing to such an extent that it threatens to block a nearby fjord. What this suggests is that whatever is happening with the climate is not global, but at best, regional. This does not suggest much of anything other than the obvious that climate varies from time to time and place to place.

Most certainly this is no basis for implementing trillion dollar cures for what is a largely natural phenomenon.

There is the perennial argument that the ice cap of Africa’s Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing because of global warming. Left out of this discussion are the facts that the disappearance of this ice cap has been going on for a hundred years.

Nearby temperature stations suggest that little or no warming has taken place in the Kilimanjaro region in decades. It makes for high drama if you have axes to grind and people to scare, but it appears to be a natural phenomenon such as a change in precipitation patterns, well underway before the advent of coal plants and SUVs.

Then we get Tom Brokaw’s version of global warming which he claims to be irrefutable. If one examines the actual temperature data, sea level data, rainfall data, many of the global warming arguments are most certainly refutable. For example, the actual temperature data show stations that are warming a little, cooling a little, and many staying about the same temperature over the past 100 years or so.

Likewise the sea level data show that sea levels are going up a little, some are going down a little, and some remaining unchanged over the past 100 years or more. Even the sea level at the famous Tuvalu Island in the South Pacific seems to be declining. None of this is mentioned by Gore or Brokaw.

The global warming debate has been taken over and contaminated by political zealots. In too many cases the spending of billions of research dollars has transformed scientists into money/agenda-driven zealots, too.

For example, consider the National Center for Atmospheric Research's climate expert, Stephen Schneider, who in 1989 in Discover Magazine said: “…on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well...to (reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change) ... we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have ... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Call it what you will but that isn’t science. The exaggerations don’t get much clearer than that.

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is the energy and science writer for Hawaii Reporter. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:foxm011@hawaii.rr.com

HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com

Guest Commentary...