Things Heating Up In The Global Warming Debate

By Scott Kriner, Green Metal Consulting Inc.

It’s climate change time again. The special Summit on Climate Change at the United Nations, the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh and further UN talks planned for Bangkok have drawn our attention to this issue once again. And don’t forget about our Congress deliberating on the Climate Bill (aka Cap and Trade bill). Just two years ago 180 nations made a promise to draft a sweeping international treaty by the end of 2009 to slow climate change. But hope is fading. Later this year, the international climate meeting in Copenhagen will be focused on a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012.

Already the claims of world leaders earlier this year are falling short of their predictions in terms of reducing greenhouse gases. The dire predictions continue, despite the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) own climate models failing to predict the global cooling that NASA claims has occurred since 2001. Yet we are to believe these model’s predictions for the next 50 -100 years and the forecasted calamities from climate change. The NASA temperature measurements are from satellites and are precise, with no influence from land use changes and urban growth that can often affect ground-based temperature measurement stations.

The debate over whether climate change is man-made or natural continues to take place. This is despite Al Gore and other politicians claiming that the debate is over. Greenbuild has just announced that their keynote speaker will be none other than the honorable Al Gore. Reportedly his speaking contract prohibits him from answering any questions from the audience. That may be one way to end a debate.

On the other side of the “debate”, some scientists have stated that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would only raise global temperatures 1 degree Centigrade. Other scientists claim that warming is taking place due to CO2 emissions triggering higher atmospheric humidity and upper level cirrus clouds, which then bring substantial additional warming. Interestingly, without that humidity/cloud feedback effect, the IPCC models predict little future warming. But NOAA measurements dating back several decades show there has been no increase in atmospheric relative humidity, even while atmospheric CO2 has increased. Similarly, NASA instruments show no increase in upper level cirrus clouds corresponding to increased CO2 levels. So what is more valid – computer predictions or actual measurements?

The Sep 23 USA Today newspaper ran an article on the UN Climate Summit Meetings. In it, the writer states that “nearly all the news from scientists add up to one hard truth: it will be extremely difficult to avoid more warming of the Earth.” To the scientists who believe that the global climate change that we are seeing is natural, the USA Today statement is equivalent to saying that it will be extremely difficult to avoid the sun rising and setting every day. If climate change is not the result of man-made greenhouse gases, then we have no control over it. But we do have a responsibility to our citizens to prepare them and plan for how to deal with the natural climate changes taking place.

Scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics are claiming that global temperatures closely follow fluctuations in solar output and ocean circulation cycles. Solar output measurements show a near-perfect fit between 20th century solar output and global temperature trends. Interestingly, solar activity has declined in this present decade, and coincidentally global temperatures are declining since 2001.

According to William Gray, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, the modeling of the ocean’s deep circulation is also fundamental to any understanding of global climate change. Gray has found that deep water circulation patterns control global surface temperature. The warming seen since the mid 1970s to 1999 and over the last century is due to reductions in the rate of ocean deep-water circulation. The circulation is driven by global ocean salinity variations. But he states that CO2 changes play no role in these ocean changes.

Al Gore stated that “the sun will soon rise red over the land”…but the models he relies on have already been proved wrong. So the debate may not be over.

For instance, the EPA has now ruled that CO2 is an air pollutant. So all of us need to stop polluting and hold your breath. And CO2 is often used in the definition of greenhouse gases which some say are causing global climate change. But our human lungs contain CO2 at concentrations far higher than atmospheric levels. Let’s face it – with no CO2 in the atmosphere, all plants would die. On the other hand, higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause more plant growth leading to a more diverse biological environment. Atmospheric levels are usually 400 ppm. Yet, in a room or office, you and the people around you are breathing and causing the CO2 levels to reach more than 1000 ppm, according to Access to Energy.

Interestingly, even some environmentalist groups that support the theory that climate change is manmade are running into some difficulties in how to solve this problem. Renewable energy sources are often touted as the solution for weaning us off fossil fuel burning sources of energy. Yet, there have been some stories lately that have environmentalists actually protesting the development of wind farms, solar farms, and hydro-electric power.

Environmental groups advocating for land conservation and protection of endangered species are in opposition to the solar energy project in the Mojave Desert announced by Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar on June 29. Their concern is based on the impact on the habitat for critical desert species. Another point they raise is the water requirements for the project. The solar power plants consume four times as much water as a natural gas power plant, and twice as much water as a coal or nuclear plant, according to the Heartland Institute. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is suggesting legislation to turn much of the Mojave Desert into a protected national monument, which would block the solar projects.

Another group, the Blue Mountain Alliance, is opposing the plans for the construction of new wind farms in the foothills of the Blue Mountains in Oregon. The concerns are based on water issues, soil runoff, the impact on the deer and elk in the area, and the impact on the migration of native protected birds.

In Ohio, more than a dozen environmental activist groups have blocked a hydro-electric dam project proposed for the Cuyahoga River in Ohio. The groups are arguing that the older dam that the new project would replace should be torn down with no replacement.

From all accounts, it appears that in reality there is plenty of debate on this issue. So why are government policies being proposed before the debate is settled? I think we all know the answer to that question.

Scott Kriner, MCA's Technical Director, is the president and founder of Green Metal Consulting Inc. He is a LEED Accredited Professional who began his career in the metal construction industry in 1981. His company is a member of the U.S. Green Building Council, the California Association of Building Energy Consultants and the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET). Scott can be reached by email at skriner1@verizon.net, or by phone at (610) 966-2430. You can also visit him on the web at www.greenmetalconsulting.com. 

For more columns by Scott and a host of other contributors, click here.