I had responded to John's call to see Gore's moive with a recent
interview clip from my Uncle who is a real Climatologist unlike some
that play one in the movies.
Here was his response to my Dad about the clip of his interview.
When you watch this video, just keep a couple of things in
mind. The first point is that this was a 10 second sound bite taken
out of a 20 minute interview. And on a subject she was told in
advance, by the Director's Office of Communications, not to ask me
about as that isn't the research I do. The second thing to keep in
mind is that my statement was taken out of context.
I am frequently interviewed by reporters. Some of them are really
good and some aren't. And some of them are just down right
venal. I have a mental list of reporters who are persona non grata
with me. Until this interview, there was only one name on that
list. Now there are two.
What I told her, before the 10 seconds she actually put on the air,
was that it did look like it was getting warmer. Was the only cause
of this warming greenhouse gases produced by humans? Maybe it is
part of a long natural cycle? Or might it be caused by the fact
that over 95% of the temperature sensors (thermometers) used in
these studies are located at airports? And conditions there have changed?
When we were kids, most of those airports were out past the edge of
town. They were mostly open fields with minimal amounts of paving
for runways, taxiways, and parking ramps. During busy periods, they
might have 30 or 40 takeoffs and landings a day. The planes would have two or
have as many as 4 piston engines.
Now many of those airports are surrounded by development. Most of
their land is covered by concrete and asphalt. 50 to 60 takeoffs
and landings an hour are not unusual. The aircraft now have huge
jet engines that produce vast quantities of super-heated gases.
Might that be at least part of what's causing the warming?
If you look at the plot of temperature increases over the last 100
years, and compare it to both the increases in greenhouse gases and
the increases in population, it looks to me as though it makes a
better match with the population than the gases.
One example I point to here in San Diego is Mission Valley.
I have a copy of one of Dad's photographs from the early 1950's(?)
posted on the wall of my office. It shows Mission Valley looking
northeast from the vicinity of the Serra Museum. And what's there?
Dairy farms. Lots of open space and damp, heat moderating pasture
land. What's there now? Lots and lots of concrete and
asphalt. Thousands of buildings, all of which have air conditioners
(and other equipment) that pump lots and lots of heat into the
atmospheric boundary layer (the portion of the atmosphere in contact
with the ground).
If the atmospheric conditions today were exactly the same as they
were in 1950, does anyone believe that a thermometer near Mission
San Diego would say the same thing today as it did then? I doubt it.
Does that mean we should just ignore any problems with greenhouse
gases? No, what I told the reporter (and Mari Payton did not
mention) was that I wanted greenhouse gas emissions reduced, not
just for possible climatic warming reasons, but because I have to
breath that air. And for esthetic reasons.
I told her that climate research had a broad spectrum of beliefs on
human induced climate warming. I told her that, at one end of the
spectrum were the religious fanatics. The climate is warming
because of humans. No question about it. At the other end were the
atheists. Climate warming is a natural cycle. Humans are having no
impact. And then there's scientists like me. The agnostics. We
have yet to see any unequivocal evidence either way. We're not even
sure it is warming significantly when you get away from the cities.
And we're not going to see much research that might give us better
insights since the people who approve research grants mostly come
from the religious fanatic end of the spectrum. There was some
research done by satellite measurement that indicated that an
important part of the atmosphere might not be warming. In fact, it
might have cooled slightly in the last 20 years.
There was a lot of controversy over those results. The atheists
were really happy. The fanatics screamed. Then the science team
announced that there was a slight bias in their records. When you
adjusted for that bias, it definitely showed the atmosphere was
warming. Was the instrument error real? Or was the science team
just protecting their funding?
I really do wish I knew.
Larry
---===---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=====[\/]=====-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---===---
-----===(* Climate's what we expect, but weather's what we
get. *)===-----
Larry Riddle : Climate Research Division : Scripps Institution
of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego : La Jolla, California 92093-0224
Phone: (858) 534-1869 : Fax: (858) 534-8561 : E-Mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
F500 mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe or change options please visit:
http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500
*** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list! ***
