Global Warming Scientists Dispute Man-made Greenhouse Effects

In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel oneffect. It probably has the largest impact on the
Climate Change (IPCC) stated in their Fourthplanet's temperature and climatic conditions, much
Assessment Report that human actions are "verylarger than CO2. Water particles in the form of clouds
likely" (i.e. with 90% or greater probability) the causeact to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues
of global warming, indicated by an increase of 0.75that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately
degrees in average global temperatures over the lastsimulated by scientists attempting to predict future
100 years. This statement is the result of very toughweather patterns and their effects on global
discussions on a worldwide scale between thousandswarming. This argument probably is correct and it is
of climate researchers whether human activity is thewell recognized that water vapor is responsible for
main cause of global warming. The results of thisthe natural warming up of the surface temperature
discussion were presented to the public in manyto approximately 30-35ºC. Anthropogenic
publications, for instance in Martin Durkin´sgreenhouse effect, according to the film’s
documentary “The Great Global Warmingargumentation, is only about 2% of the total
Swindle”, presented in March 2007 at UK´s“natural” greenhouse effect, which
Channel 4. The main message of this production wascorresponds to a 0.6-0.7 ºC increase in temperature.
that man-made global warming is "a lie" and "theThis estimate is somewhat smaller compared to the
biggest scam of modern times." Martin Durkin andresults of much more sophisticated simulations (0.9
coworkers argue that the scientific consensus on– 2.7ºC), but there is undoubtedly an
climate change is the product of "a multibillion-dollaranthropogenic effect of CO2 increasing the average
worldwide industry, created by fanaticallysurface temperature.
anti-industrial environmentalists, supported byOne example of the complexity of climatic simulations
scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding andis the prediction of future storm events considering
propped up by complicit politicians and the media".global warming effects. According to a recently
The documentary showcases scientists, politicians,published study, published online by research
economists, writers, and others who are sceptical ofmeteorologist Tom Knutson in the journal Nature
the scientific consensus on anthropogenic (orGeoscience and resumed in the New York Times
man-made) global warming. Some of the scientists,(May 18, 2008), global warming isn't to blame for the
opposing the main stream of greenhouse gasrecent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic. The study
theories, simply argue that it has not yet beenpredicts that by the end of the century the number
ascertained whether humans are the primary causeof hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent. In
of global warming or if there are other naturalthe past, Knutson has raised concerns about the
variations responsible for this phenomenon likeeffects of climate change on storms. His new paper
increased solar activity, cosmic rays or variations inhas the potential to heat up a simmering debate
natural climatic cycles. There is also a series ofamong meteorologists about current and future
scientists questioning the temperature records usedeffects of global warming in the Atlantic. And
in the databases as temperature differencesKnutson is not alone with this view. Another group of
attributed to the greenhouse effect are reasonableexperts, those who study hurricanes and who are
small (fractions of a ºC). The so-called “urbanmore often skeptical about global warming, also say
heat island” effect leads to a local warming inthere is no link between global warming and hurricane
more populated areas, showing slightly higherfrequency. They attribute the recent increase to a
temperatures due to to increased heat generated bynatural multi-decade cycle. According to the
cities, rather than a global temperature rise. Anyhow,prediction, the number of hurricanes touching land in
this argument was confuted by the IPPC, indicatingthe US and its neighbors will drop by about 30
that the effect of the urban heat island on the globalpercent because of wind factors. However, the
temperature trend is no more than 0.05 °C (0.09biggest storms, those with winds of more than 110
°F) degrees through 1990.mph, would only decrease in frequency by 8 percent.
Other facts presented by the film were shown to beThe biggest decrease is forecasted for storms with
incorrect or misinterpreted. The film asserts forwinds between 39 and 73 mph (normal tropical
instance that records of atmospheric CO2 levels sincestorms), who would decrease by 27 percent.
1940 show a continuing increase, but during thisIt's not all good news from Knutson's study,
period, global temperature decreased until 1975, andhowever. His computer model also forecasts that
has increased since then. Anyhow, it is well“hurricanes and tropical storms will be wetter and
recognized that this cooling was driven mostly byfiercer. Rainfall within 30 miles of a hurricane should
aerosols (i.e. pollution) in the atmosphere. There isjump by 37 percent and wind strength should
nothing contradictory about this cooling when allincrease by about 2 percent”, Knutson's study
sources of radiation changes are considered. Asays.
second argument that easily can be invalidated is theThere are already critical reactions on this new
impact of the so-called “solar variationpublication. MIT hurricane meteorologist Kerry
theory” on global warming. According to theEmanuel claims that the computer model used by
authors, solar activity (and involving cosmic rays asKnutson is not adequate enough to look at storms
well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation) isand according to Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist
currently at an extremely high level and directly linkedfrom the National Center for Atmospheric Research
to changes in global temperature. The film arguesin Boulder, Colo., Knutson's computer model is poor at
that solar activity is far more influential on globalassessing tropical weather and ''fail to replicate
warming than any other anthropogenic or naturalstorms with any kind of fidelity.'' It also does not
activity on Earth. What the film does not mention isconsidering well enough the intensity, duration and
that solar activity has declined over the last 30 yearssize of the storm events, as not only the number of
- at the same time as the major spike in globalhurricanes is important to evaluate.
temperature.Positive feedback comes from NOAA hurricane
But there are some statements related to themeteorologist Chris Landsea , who wasn't part of this
influence of the oceanic mass and water vapour onstudy, praised Knutson's work as ''very consistent
climate change which are more difficult to confute.with what's being said all along.'' ''I think global
Water vapour makes up about 98% of thewarming is a big concern, but when it comes to
greenhouse gases by volume and provides somethinghurricanes the evidence for changes is pretty darn
between 40 to 80 percent of the natural greenhousetiny,'' Landsea said.