Edward R. Long | Global warming – man, or nature?
Both the new president and both sides of the aisle in the new Congress have been politically convinced, or see an opportunity for a government power play, that man’s carbon-dioxide emissions are the cause of global warming. But is man really responsible? More than 30,000 American scientists and engineers do not think man is the cause. More and more leaders in England and other parts of the English-speaking world are beginning to think not. The new head of the European Union is in doubt.
You probably have not heard from these doubters in the mainstream media. So, unless you and I make the effort and take the time we are not going to hear the arguments or see the data for why man probably has little or nothing to do with global warming. And if we don’t do so and if we do not speak clearly to our elected representatives, then cap and trade or some equally expensive form of government intervention and control is going to take place. No matter what the method, it will be a carbon tax, and it will be of unprecedented magnitude that will affect every aspect of life. We, the tax payers and consumers, will pay for it all.
In early 2007 I was of the mind that man probably was a significant cause of global warming. By the time Al Gore was awarded the Peace Prize, I was very much in doubt because of discussions I was hearing at American Physics Society meetings. By the end of 2007 I had heard and read enough for me know that the subject of global warming was not being honestly and openly publicly discussed. At the beginning of 2008 I began to assemble information on global warming for a client. By mid-2008 I had gathered a very large library of information and had concluded that man has little, if any, to do with global warming. Of the information I am free to disclose I want to share a very small portion of it with you.
Before I continue I should tell you that I am a physicist. That fact does not make me any better or worse than the rest of this community but having worked as a scientist/engineer for almost 45 years I tend to question almost everything I see, hear, touch, taste, and smell – and anything I happen to think about. Otherwise I am fairly human, even though I am also extremely conservative. Finally, I believe in being a good steward of the planet and will gladly stack my stewardship up against anyone’s, including any extreme environmentalist.
The information I would like for you to know is, for the most part, contained in four papers that you can find online. I hope you will take the time to at least briefly read them and learn what is within. The contents are accurate and are not manipulated. Their collective position is that global warming is due to nature. You are free to disagree with the thinking, but please do so after having read them and after having read the data and facts, not statements and opinions, from those who say man is the cause. If you will do this then you will have an informed opinion upon which to decide if you want to pay a very large sum of money in taxes and for the cost of goods and services in the coming years as part of a futile battle with nature.
The four papers you will find on the web page are listed below. A brief description of the content of each is provided.
1 – GlobalWarming(ItsNatureNotMan).pdf
A paper, by me, that contains hopefully understandable observational data and discussion pertaining to global warming. It provides
- A definition of global warming;
- Earth temperature data for the past 2,000 years and estimated data for the past 300,000 years that show there has been a cyclic heating and cooling of Earth throughout the centuries;
- Carbon dioxide (CO2) level data that varied with temperature. The maximums when man consumed little energy were the same as occurring now. The data suggest that CO2 varies because of the temperature variation, not the opposite;
- Data for the periodic variability of the incident sun energy for the same periods. The Earth’s temperature cycles correspond to the sun’s cycles, thus suggesting that temperature is driven by incident solar energy;
- A discussion of what is known as climate sensitivity, using observational data. The treatment addresses the prime weaknesses in the climate models that predict extreme global warming due to manmade CO2 and suggests why this modeling is in error.
(The data and discussion in part are from a paper by Dr. Roy Spencer, who has since refined his work to even more strongly make the case that the climate models used to predict extreme global warming are in error.)
2. – Global WarmingPrimer.pdf
This paper originates at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
- The levels and composition of greenhouse gases;
- Historical levels of atmospheric CO2 and Earth temperature and current CO2 emissions;
- CO2 emissions;
- Various modeled predictions of temperature;
- Consequences of the most recent warming;
- Results and costs for the options we have for responding to the current CO2 levels.
3. – ClimateSensitivityReconsidered.pdf
The article was published at the American Physical Society WEB page. The following web address is that from which it was copied. It is authored by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (Lord Monckton).
www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm.
The APS printed a disclaimer that the article had not been reviewed after political pressure was applied. The disclaimer seems odd to me. I have never known the APS to publish an article unless it had been reviewed in some manner. Lord Monckton has been ridiculed by the scientists who advocate anthropological (manmade) global warming because he does not have a formal degree in science and thus his voice is not welcomed into their community. He is highly conservative and has been fairly direct in his castigating remarks about the proponents of anthropological causes of global warming.
- The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2,000 percent;
- CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
- Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
- The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
- The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
- Global warming halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
- Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
- The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1,000 percent;
- It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
- Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
- In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
4 – BrenchleyLetterToMcCain.pdf
This is an open letter to Sen. McCain when the senator was the 2008 Republican candidate for president of the United States. It was written by Lord Monckton and, seems to reflect frustration with the senator’s position that he would pursue a cap and trade bill. The reason for including it is that the author well-summarized a rebuttal to every red flag raised by proponents of anthropological causes of global warming.
- Edward R. Long is a physicist and vice president of the Augusta County-based Longhill Technologies.
With all due respect, this piece is just wrong. I’m a bit disappointed that an excellent publication like the AFP would offer space to re-open this flat-Earth argument.
It’s true that a few government officials like incoming EU head Vaclav Klaus — an extreme free-market ideologue and famously unreasonable man — along with some pseudo-scientists with no credentials in climatology continue to pound the 1980s drum that global warming isn’t our fault. For many years, coal, oil, and auto industries used to pay fake experts to peddle this lie, but now even industry has accepted that carbon emissions coming from people burning dirty fuels are causing today’s global warming.
Only a very small minority, whether because they are misinformed or because they are paid to spread confusion, still seems to feel the need to argue about it. Yet, by now, probably more people believe the Earth is flat or worship the Big Mac than question that today’s global warming is caused by burning dirty fuels!
In any event, all major world academies of science — including the US, the UK, Russia, and China — have determined that the catastrophic climate change of the last century has been caused by humans. While the Earth has naturally gone through cycles of warming and cooling throughout its history, today’s warming is something different: it’s faster, bigger, and much more dangerous.
Mr. Long should be very ashamed of himself for trying to confuse the issue at this late date. I’m guessing that Mr. Long is a political conservative? In that case, might I suggest that he join with fellow conservatives like Newt Gingrich and John McCain in coming up with ways to get America into clean energy while creating jobs and opportunities for investors and entrepreneurs. The coming Green Economy could be the biggest business opportunity in America since the high tech boom. There’s lots of money to be made in saving the Earth!
To bring some of this money and these green jobs to the Shenandoah Valley, a group of us in Staunton is now trying to get our city to commit to produce 20% of its energy from clean, local sources by 2020. You can find out more at http://www.stauntongreen2020.org.
Thanks, Erik. Just to be clear, I don’t at all share the perspective that Mr. Long does on this issue. I do, however, support a healthy debate on the issues of the day. I can’t imagine that there are many who believe as fervently as Mr. Long that there is room for discord on global warming, but I also think that those who disagree with the prevailing view should be given a fair hearing.
Most CEOs and the vast majority of scientists disagree with Mr. Long’s claims and the reports he cites. Humans are now a force of nature, our actions are clearly a cause of global warming and other environmental problems. But don’t take my word for it.
Chief executives of 10 major U.S. corporations — including Alcoa, DuPont and General Electric — gathered in D.C. last year at the National Press Club to urge government to require companies to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. “The science of global warming is clear,” said Duke Energy’s James Rogers, as quoted in Congressional Quarterly Researcher. He bluntly stated at the execs’ news conference, “We know enough to act now. We must act now.”
We must act individually, collectively, locally and globally. Human nature must become more aligned with nature.
I love that you have an open forum for healthy discussion, Chris! At the beginning,it’s good to hear all views. You gather the evidence and make judgments. Then, at some point in time, the verdict is in. That’s healthy debate.
After that, continuing to debate facts that are proven beyond reasonable doubt becomes unhealthy. Is it healthy to debate whether cigarettes really cause cancer? Whether schools should really be de-segregated? Whether women should really vote?
These debates are over, and for a good reason. It’s now time to move on with global warming too. The solutions are too urgent and important to waste any more time with non-issues that just confuse people about the proven facts.
If nothing else, we have people talking today on the AFP site. I would like to presume that the silence that greets many of our stories and columns and op-eds from contributors implies agreement, but sometimes I wonder if it might signal apathy.
We shared this column because as much as many of us agree that global warming is a scientific fact, there are plenty of voices out there suggesting strongly that otherwise is the case. They have their reasons for doing so, and I think many of us think it’s all politics. Mr. Long here admits to being a committed conservative, so perhaps his perspective is skewed by his politics, I don’t know. That said, whether the debate is regarding the facts or simple politics, it is still a debate, and we have to address it as such.
Mr. Curran’s attack on Mr. Long and his article is ridiculous on its face. More and more scientists are taking a new look at the issue of “global warming” and “hothouse gases”, and their causes.
I don’t believe that man has significantly changed the earth’s temperature (it is hard to measure a 1/2 degree change on a good day), but I won’t discount that man does have some imput into it.
We have 6 BILLION people now putting out CO2 24/7. A century ago we had about 1/3 or 1/4 that number of people, or even less. This contribution is a result of a greater population. What do you want to do about it – kill off enought o strike some kind of balance re the CO2/H20/N2/0 exchanges?
We have a lot of animals today. They produce methane, CO2, and other flatulent gases as a part of their daily life. Do you want to slaughter all of them to stop this gas exchange/production?
Saving rainforests and other large land mass forests/vegetation is commendable and in my opinion, something that should be pursued in a pragmatic manner. However, this would also include certain harvesting techniques that would help prevent forest fires by controlled burns to get rid of the massive underbrush that has helped create the superfires that the western US has experienced in the last 20 years. No doing this has created a tremendous amount of CO2 and other burn gases that result from these terrible superfires (also consume houses/materials, gases, oil, etc).
The coal industry is getting better equipment to control the output of its operations and this should be encouraged by the govt, thru tax-breaks, if necessary. In the long run, we all win.
By the way, where the hell is “global warming?” The world is suffering its worst winter in decades, if not in centuries, and this has all the indications of a climate change trend that the world goes thru on a cyclical schedule. No sunspots in recent years and the temperatures are getting cooler. Could there be a correlation, esp. since the sun is responsible for almost all of earth’s climate and changes?
Don’t dismiss the opposing views that global warming is not manmade (I’ll include a minor influence by man). A volcano puts more garbage gases into the atmosphere, and effects growing sun-light time, more than anything man is doing by using coal, etc. Also, undersea volcanoes are releasing all kinds of hot gases 24/7. These gases have to go somewhere, such as “UP.”
If you have ever done any paleobotany studies of fossils (as I have) you will see that the climate has undergone major changes throughout the whole history of the earth. Mankind was not around at the extinctions of the dinosaurs as well as many of the early fossils (i.e. trilobites, ammonoids, euryptorids, etc) so something else had to be responsible.
Man is a little like a carbuncle on the backside of the earth. A volcano is a superpuss pimple. Which one will give us “change?”
Mr. Friedman might discover that “global warming” is just a loose catch-all term for climate change, not a literal, descriptive term. It’s because of the climate change that winters can indeed get worse during this “global warming.”
In this same way, an email which has been sent as a “CC” uses no carbon and French Fries are not French. Mr. Friedman’s confusion is understandable though. Many of today’s pressing scientific discussions have perhaps been oversimplified for public consumption. I’m not sure however what a “superpuss pimple” might be.
None of the .pdf’s Edward Long offers are credible sources.
If someone wants to refute that global climate change is in progress, how about some articles or links to respected scientific organizations to back it up? How about the NOAA, NISS, NASA, Stanford, MIT or CalTech?
Comments from an old, has-been weatherman or links to nutcase websites don’t cut the mustard.
-Mike
Erik,
“You gather the evidence and make judgments. Then, at some point in time, the verdict is in.”
What evidence? What debate? The only evidence I have seen in the past several years is that climate change is not anthropological. The only debating going on is in the blogosphere. The MSM won’t touch it. Offers have been made to debate this publically but there are no takers.
Mike,
No credible scientist disputes global warming or climate change for that matter. The dispute is as follows:
Does 100 PPM (that’s parts per MILLION!!!) of CO2 (a weak greenhouse gas) added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution enough to precipitate global climate change? The evidence increasingly suggests no.
Reducing man-made CO2 emissions will NOT save the planet! The Man-Made Global Warming Theory that the UNIPCC hangs its hat on, states that increasing amounts of man-made carbon dioxide will trap more of the sun’s heat in the atmosphere. This will then increase the water vapor content of the atmosphere. According to the IPCC, the two greenhouse gases will combine their super powers to increase earth’s surface temperatures to dangerous levels.
But, my friends, carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring trace gas essential to life on earth. Simply reducing CO2 levels does nothing to reduce real pollution. It does nothing to clean up our streams and rivers from dangerous mercury contamination. It does nothing to prevent sewage from polluting our drinking supplies. It doesn’t fix holes in the ozone layer, nor does it stop landfill chemicals from leaching into ground water. Even if CO2 levels plummeted in the next 20 years, we’d still have pollution problems.
CO2 is not a pollutant and reducing emission of it does nothing to abate the real pollutants (sulfur, particulates, metals, etc). We can’t afford to waste trillions of dollars needlessly chasing the CO2 fantasy. We are just starting several decades of global cooling, which directly kills twice as many people as warming and many times more indirectly. If we needlessly blow trillions of dollars trying to reduce CO2, we will have significantly reduced our ability to deal with global cooling and all it’s attendant problems (crop failures, reduced food supply, increased energy costs, increased transportation costs and interruptions, etc), all during three decades when global population will increase by 50%!
A cleaner environment can be accomplished through technology, not command and control regulations. Saddling our economy with UN mandates and new layers of federal bureaucracy will only make us poorer and not solve the alleged climate crisis.
There are, however, a number of urgent environmental problems where spending significant money would produce a significant result in my opinion. Cheap (probably coal-fired; alternatively nuclear) energy for 3rd world countries, to minimize wood-burning and charcoal fire cooking, and generally allow them to lift themselves out of poverty. Clean water and sanitation for the same. Healthy research funding for additional/new sources of energy generation, and transport fuel substitution.
Just happened upon this site after reading a different piece by Ed Long. I wonder how many of the commenters are physicists. I’m a physicist myself and agree that the evidence for AGW is largely non-existent. All the hype is generated based on mathematical climate models that are essentially unvalidated. Freeman Dyson has pointed out that the modelers don’t understand the global climate system well enough to build valid models. They are all sucking their own exhaust in a small closed community which is why there models correlate with one another — this kind of “consensus” is without value. It is the kind of consensus you always get when everyone who believes the same thing sits around congratulating each other on how smart they are.
Let’s see them accurately predict ten years ahead without fudging the data, then they might have some credibility. For example, why have they missed the cooling trend of the last eight years?
Agreement doesn’t make bad science good science.
Just happened upon this site after reading a different piece by Ed Long. I wonder how many of the commenters are physicists. I’m a physicist myself and agree that the evidence for AGW is largely non-existent. All the hype is generated based on mathematical climate models that are essentially unvalidated. Freeman Dyson has pointed out that the modelers don’t understand the global climate system well enough to build valid models.
***
Freeman Dyson disagrees with you that the “evidence for AGW is largely non-existent.” He accepts the existence of AGW and wrote, “ One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.” He has also said that recent advancements in measurement have “transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science.”
Dyson does believe that currents models forecasting future climate change have limited validity, but that’s a different matter.
***
Let’s see them accurately predict ten years ahead without fudging the data, then they might have some credibility.
***
Umm, this statement demonstrates that you don’t understand the nature of the relevant climatological research, which isn’t designed at present to offer forecasts of such short duration. Where did you get your Ph.D. in physics from anyway?
I met Dr. Long at the Gov McDonnell town meeting. He is still fervent that global warming is not anthropogenic. Putting that issue aside a moment, the far more interesting question is why Dr. Long and others like him are predisposed to be warming skeptics. They base their arguments in science, but clearly they start with skepticism and seek to confirm that. So, what is the source of the initial skepticism? Perhaps this can be best answered by the skeptics themselves. For purposes of this question, please do not say, “Because that is what the science suggests.” I am looking here for a reason not based on science. Thanks. Send your answer to bdansby@bishopdansby.com