Recently there has been a flood of reports concerning global warming. We don't believe that the earth and all of its inhabitants-human, fauna, and flora-will be subjected to a warming which would make living nearly impossible.
While the number of skeptics [of the global warming theory] has been depicted as a very small group, one petition was signed by 17,000 scientists and engineers. The vast majority of skeptics are well-informed. Indeed, some skeptics come across as positive, brilliant, human, and interesting; that is far from the mediocre scientists that they are frequently depicted to be.
Skeptics have frequently been ridiculed. However, such attacks are inconsistent with the National Academy of Science code of conduct:
"The fallibility of [scientific] methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledgeellipsemust be continually scrutinized for possible errors."
It states that a "searching skepticism as well as an openess to new ideas are essential to guard against intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results."
Detection of any warming is not simple. Elaborate surface temperature databases contain data from thousands of weather stations around the world. These stations, however, are far from uniformly located, and they lack identical instrumentation and working environment. Far more of their measurements are based on land rather than water, in the Northern Hemisphere vs. the Southern, and in developed areas vs. undeveloped.
Based on such databases, the globally averaged temperature is 1.0° F. warmer today than 100 years ago. However, if only US stations are utilized, this warming disappears. That is correct-no warming shown within our country. And since US stations are the best in the world, the global results are likely biased upwards and may be measuring urban warming only.
As an alternative approach to surface databases, a database of satellite-measured temperatures has emerged. While this record is shorter, with about 20 years of data, its coverage of our planet is 100%, and far more uniform. This database shows there has been no warming over its history.
There is controversy in detection of global warming, depending on which type of data one sees.
The proponents of the warming issue automatically point to society as the culprit. However, there are as many, if not more, reasons to point to Mother Nature, because of natural climate variations. We, on planet Earth, live in an ocean of cyclical phenomena.
The daily and annual cycles of our planet are the most obvious. A few other cycles include the poorly defined 2-7 year El Niño events, the 11 year sun-spot cycle, longer cycles of 80, 200, and 1,500 years, and very long-term cycles of 19,000, 41,000, and 100,000 years.
Do we know everything about such cycles? Absolutely not, but that is the point. Our understanding of these events is embryonic, but rapidly unfolding, including their relationship to climate. Hence, finding society guilty of global warming today is surely premature.
Proponents of global warming rely almost totally on huge computer models to make their case. What is left unsaid is the quality and limitations of these models. These models rely on cutting up the Earth into cells. In some models, this leads to nonhomogeneous cells such as Los Angeles to Las Vegas to Reno and back to San Francisco. In the past, there have been major concerns on model stability leading to the use of "fudge factors" (not our term).
Some of the leading critics of these models have expressed concerns focused on what they consider unacceptable treatment of both water vapor in the atmosphere and on cloud cover. In digging into these aspects one discovers that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, contributing as much as 95% of the greenhouse effect. One further discovers that these models only predict a significant warming when a water vapor feedback mechanism is incorporated. Without this feedback, increased levels of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases will not lead to the dramatic warming predicted.
The science behind this issue is far from complete. The economic consequences of any decision are so enormous that it benefits us all to make sure we get the science right and not settle for a politically defined solution.
If the Kyoto Treaty were adopted today it would cost the US taxpayers billions, perhaps trillions of dollars, dramatically affecting our economy.
It is the firm conviction of the authors that the proponents of global warming have not proven that fuel-based carbon dioxide is guilty. In addition, we would argue, even more strongly, that the proponents have not made the case that it is imperative that we act immediately.
Michel Halbouty
Geoscientist
Houston
Gerald Westbrook
Chemical Engineer/Energy Economist
Houston
