Letter to editor shows ignorance of global warming deniers

Marcia Turnquist of Northwest Portland, you should send me a cyberspace gift basket. I was this close to titling my blog post, "Marcia Turnquist is a scientific freaking fool."

But I thought that sounded just a tad impolite for a headline, so I demoted that sentiment to the body of this post -- though I still dearly hope Google manages to connect "Marcia Turnquist" and "freaking fool" for as long as the Holy Search Engine does its thing.

As I guess is obvious, I'm losing my patience with global warming deniers.

Also, with media outlets that treat their scientific illiteracy with any sort of respect. Given how many letters to the editor are received by the Oregonian, but not published, it baffles me why the newspaper would choose to waste paper and ink on Turnquist's inane babbling.

Which I'll quote in its nonsensical entirety:

Hot or cold?
The climate bill of energy taxes is dead and, contrary to what most people have been led to believe, it's cause for celebration, not reason to hold a wake for the planet. In his column "Warming the globe: A long, hot summer is boiling a short, hot planet" (July 23), David Sarasohn repeats the latest alarmist claim that 2010 is the warmest year on record. Really? With our icy winter and record snows across Europe and Asia? Did I mention that South America recently experienced unusual cold and snow? But how can this be?

Well, here's one possibility: "adjusted" temperatures. For example, a Goddard Institute for Space Studies U.S. temperature graph once showed the 1930s warmer than recent years. But funny how the modern versions of the same graph were "adjusted," lowering the 1930s temperatures and raising those of late. Voila! Hottest year ever.

Skeptics of global warming are often accused of ignoring science. No, what we ignore is dishonest, doctored science that thirsts after grant money. What we need is an overhaul of a dysfunctional system.

In the meantime, let's all go out and celebrate the death of energy taxes that surely would have spelled death to our economy.

MARCIA TURNQUIST
Northwest Portland 

Marcia, a search of Oregon Live (the Oregonian's web site) showed me that you are a frequent letter writer. I couldn't bear to read any more of your missives, but noticed that your special focus is on climate change/global warming.

Here's a suggestion for you: try spending less time watching Fox News and reading right-wing blogs, and put more energy into learning about reality.

Fact: the first six months of 2010 indeed are the warmest on record. 

The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies now reports that the first six months of 2010 are the warmest on record, both in terms of atmospheric data and in combined atmospheric/ocean readings.

In some cases the atmospheric readings for some of the first six months of the year are between 1.8 and 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above what they were in previous years.

And on top of that, last week Arctic sea ice extent hit the lowest level ever for June.

"The 2010 temperature data is evidence that the planet is continuing to warm," said Rafe Pomerance, a senior fellow at Clean Air Cool Planet. "The absolute numbers indicate that the earth's climate is moving into uncharted territory, as reflected by the massive retreat of Arctic sea ice."

Fact: 2009 was the second warmest full year on record.

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.

Fact: the last decade was the warmest on record.

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.

The near-record temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures in the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while also increasing its tendency to blow from north to south and draw cold air southward from the Arctic. This resulted in an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north.

"Of course, the contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the U.S. temperature does not affect the global temperature much,' said Hansen.

Obviously.

Marcia, you need to take a look at a globe. For one thing, maybe you believe the Earth is flat, since you're a global warming denier who doesn't pay any attention to science.

For another, you'll find that our planet consists of much more than just a few countries. Global warming has gotten that name for a reason: it's global. 

Well, I hope you find this blog post, or maybe someone else will point it out to you. I'm a big fan of the opinion pages in newspapers and magazines, but opinions really should have a foundation on facts.

I have a three year old granddaughter. I don't want people like you spreading lies about global climate change, because she is going to have to live on this planet long after you and I are gone.

You've got a right to your crazy political views, Marcia. But you don't have a right to twist scientific facts to suit your fancy.

Before you write your next rant letter to the editor, you should spend a few hours browsing through the Climate Progress and Skeptical Science web sites. Reality is a terrible thing to waste.

Comments

[DJ]

Brian likens himself to a scientist, but he’s a far better student of Saul Alinsky. As he does above right from the outset, over and over you’ll see Brian using this Alinsky rule throughout his blog:
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

Another of Brian’s favorite tactics is to set one standard for his readers and a lesser standard for himself. He does this above by ridiculing Marcia with, ”Marcia, you need to take a look at the globe.” And he says that AFTER he himself talks about Arctic sea ice only WITHOUT mentioning the growth of Southern Hemisphere sea ice and the overall state of global sea ice balance.

Brian, you need to take a look at the globe.

[Brian Hines]

DJ, if you or Marcia have evidence that the Goddard Institute for Space Studies data/conclusions about global climate change are incorrect, you need to publish your research and enlighten the scientific community.

Until then, I feel entirely justified in ridiculing people who downplay science and elevate personal political views. The future of our planet is too important to future generations to put up with those sorts of petty games.

[DJ]

The evidence is hiding in plain sight. Click on the URL linked to my name and you'll see southern hemisphere sea ice growth over the past 30 years.

GLOBAL warming? Not.

[Brian Hines]

DJ, you need to dig deeper into the science of global climate change. Note the word, "global." Check out:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-increasing.html

The southern oceans have been warming more than the northern oceans. Sea ice growth isn't solely dependent on the temperature.

Climate is complex, which is why we need to trust the expert consensus of climatologists, 97% of so of whom support the conclusion that global warming is happening and humans are responsible for it.

[DJ]

Brian says you should trust the self-consenting “experts.” It’s all too complex, so leave the thinking to them.

That said, maybe we can tease some thought out of Brian anyway.

First of all, let’s quote the study Brian cited:
- “There are many uncertainties with both the model and the reanalysis data, and the results must be viewed with caution.”
- “The author (Zhang) is grateful for the support of NASA (Grant NNG04GB03G) and NSF (Grant OPP-0240916).”

Now set aside reason and assume Zhang is not influenced by making a living on grant money. Further assume his model and the data are indeed correct. In short, the model shows that increasing ocean surface temperature ultimately leads to a net increase in sea ice.

Question for Brian…Why did Zhang stop there and not comment on the logical effect of ice growth on AGW? Since arctic AGW models heavily factor the ice-albedo feedback by which melting begets lower albedo, which begets increased radiation absorption, which begets even lower albedo and increased AGW – then the flipside must also be true: Antarctic ice growth begets higher albedo, which begets decreased radiation absorption, which begets even higher albedo and decreased AGW.

Why is the AGW crowd so loud about the effect of ice MELT on AGW – but silent about the effect of ice GROWTH on AGW?

The AGW crowd can’t have it both ways, Brian. Start thinking, stop blindly following.

[Blogger Brian]

DJ, I'm not quite sure what global warming denying argument you're using in the comment above. Fortunately, the Skeptical Science web site has cataloged the groundless arguments anti-science types come up with in this area.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

So when you leave a comment, why don't you reference the number of the unfounded global warming denying argument you're using? See:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I'm not sure, but # 10 ("Antarctica is gaining ice") and #79 ("The science isn't settled") seem germane here. Here's the truth about these unfactual claims:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm

[DJ]

Brian, it's funny that you think I'm citing an anti-AGW argument. It speaks to how little you really know about the subject and makes it apparent that you like to "post a link" that you haven't critically read let alone understand.

The albedo-effect is basic common knowledge in the science of heat transfer. It's the reason you don't wear a black t-shirt in the sun on a hot summer day. It's a common element in climate models (especially where snow and ice are growing or retreating) and is not disputed by scientists on either side of the AGW argument. That's why it's so glaringly obvious (for someone who reads studies and doesn't just link them) that the study you cited conveniently stops before the albedo effect kicks in and undermines its pre-determined conclusion.