'The global warming hypothesis is dead, scientifically'
Ed Berry is making some noise about climate change, and he's singing a different tune than former Vice President Al Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth."
Berry, 73, an accomplished atmospheric physicist who recently moved to the Flathead Valley from Sacramento, Calif., was among about 700 scientists who attended the International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 7-10.
Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, the group has decidedly different views on climate change than Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The IPCC consensus asserts that the influence of human-produced greenhouse gases will cause a warming trend with dire environmental consequences.
The prevailing conclusion at the New York conference, according to Berry, is that "the global warming hypothesis is dead, scientifically."
The conference, he noted, was attended by high-profile scientists and figures such as former NASA astronaut and U.S. Sen. Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, whom Berry has known since he was an undergraduate at Caltech University.
"It seems every few years we run into each other," he said. "We were good friends from Caltech all the way through."
Berry noted that the attendance of 700 scientists at the conference "is just a drop in the bucket" of the growing ranks of scientists who disagree with IPCC conclusions.
"There's a big list of scientists that in just the last year have changed their minds," Berry said. "The momentum is in our direction."
But politics, he said, are still thoroughly dominated by global warming alarmists and major media that advance their views.
"Clearly, Al Gore is good at what he does," Berry conceded, adding that it is now up to scientists with different views to make them known.
Since moving to the Flathead, Berry has been publicly engaged on the topic, writing letters to the editor and speaking to groups, using a lengthy PowerPoint presentation that is basically an outline for a book he is writing.
"What I'm after is making it comprehensive but simple because I'm aiming at the general public rather than scientists," he said of the book.
Berry insists that the models used to support the warming theory produce faulty predictions because they cannot account for all of the dynamics influencing the atmosphere.
They cannot account for ever-changing greenhouse gases, radiation, solar energy and ocean currents. One of the greatest omissions from climate modeling, Berry said, is they do not account for the incredibly dynamic influences of cloud cover, a subject he knows well.
After Caltech, Berry went on to earn a master's degree in physics from Dartmouth College, and then a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Nevada.
His doctoral thesis involved measuring and predicting the formation of the smallest water molecules into raindrops.
He was the chief scientist and manager of the airborne research facility at Nevada's Desert Research Institute, where he developed instrumentation technology for aircraft in monitoring the atmosphere.
He recalls one aircraft radar innovation in 1972 that produced the largest radar image of a hurricane up to that time.
Berry also managed for a period the National Science Foundation's weather modification program, which involved cloud-seeding research. He was involved with a research project that for the first time identified how cities, filled with heat-radiating concrete and asphalt, actually modify the weather.
For Berry, studying the atmosphere wouldn't be complete without actually getting into it.
He started as a glider pilot and later became a powered airplane pilot. He got involved in competitive sailing with his wife, eventually winning major national and North American regattas.
Throughout his educational and work experience, Berry says he is most grateful for the pre-eminent scientists who taught him how to approach problem solving, going all the way back to learning under the renowned Linus Pauling at Caltech.
"It isn't the things you learn," Berry said. "It's how you learn to think."
Berry has deep concerns about the political direction for climate-change policies, particularly a cap-and-trade system that is likely to come from Washington, D.C. It is a system that will produce a bureaucracy and it will essentially amount to a tax on energy production and consumption.
It was a major topic at the conference in New York, where economists projected the economic impacts.
"People have different numbers, but they are all big," Berry said of those impacts.
"It's going to affect the cost of energy significantly," he adds, in a regressive fashion impacting low-income energy consumers the most.
Reporter Jim Mann may be reached at 758-4407 or by e-mail at jmann@dailyinterlake.com
mtboat
Great website. Mr. Berry, really good information.
mtboat
C'mon...44 comments about Bob Dylan and only 39 and the back seat for this column. Pitiful bunch here,that talk like they know about the environment, even belittling those who tried to inform others about the current state of affairs. Where are they now?
MrMark
Went to Ed's website yesterday. He's running for trustee of FEC. He needs the support of all that think that global warming is a bunch of crap. Go to his site. Read the material and support him. I know I will be.
MrMark
Yeah, I agree mtboat. socialist and EdBarry had some really interesting discussion on an issue that may never be fully resolved. I'm definitely no braniac but I've always sided with good solid science. What amazes me is that some base their belief of the greenhouse effect on "proven" data from the 18 and 1900's! C'mon. We are much smarter now than in the 18 and 1900's. Not to say that we didn't have brilliant minds back then. But the instruments that we have today to be able to monitor this stuff are so much more sophisticated than back then.
mtboat
This is too important to let go of yet.
mtboat
I was hoping this would stay in comments for awhile and generate some good discussion.
mtboat
Maybe nobody wants to debate any more. A little intimidated maybe?
MrMark
socialist-the article is designed to inform and entertain, not lay out all of the science involved with confirming what any rational thinking person already knows. And you talk about "No science to back it up"? Really? Is that where you really want to go? It occurs to me that it is the liberal whack jobs running around claiming the sky is falling, pointing to the glaciers melting and showing a polar bear on an ice floe as proof that the earth is getting warmer. Puleeese. Let's put your science and real science and observation up against one another. I bet real science wins. And oh by the way. Polar bears sit on ice floes all the time!
mkelley
I completely agree with MrMark. It is so nice to hear a voice of reason. Yes, the globe is warming, but not for the reasons a lot of people think. Come on... give the Earth some credit here. She's not as fragile as people think. Personally I saw let it warm up. It is too damn cold up here anyway!
EdBerry
Socialist: Thank you for your excellent questions. Given the limited format of this blog, I will be brief. My plan is to continue this type of discussing on my website which I am now working on. Give me a week or so and I will have a way to continue this at www.climatephysics.com. 1. Indeed, the scientists I work with have concluded carbon dioxide will not cause significant global warming. There are two camps that still come to the same conclusions. The first camp uses the "classical" greenhouse theory to show that doubling CO2 will increase temperature about 1 degree F with no feedback, which is negligible. Added to that is the negative feedback of water vapor and clouds which reduces this to 0.5 degrees F. So no important greenhouse effect. The second camp is pursuing the physics of the atmosphere in more detail and they reject the classical greenhouse effect totally. In its place, they hypothesize that CO2 adds to the ability of the atmosphere to remove heat from the earth and move it to the top of the atmosphere. In this hypothesis, more CO2 will cool the planet rather than warm it. 2. If we add methane to
EdBerry
2. If we add methane to this argument, then it adds no significant heating. There is no good basis for concluding that methane has caused significant changes in past climate, in spite of the stories we read. 3. The ocean very rapidly adds or emits CO2 to maintain a balance with the ocean temperature. We can see response times down to 6 months. Clearly, CO2 is following ocean temperature rather than changing ocean temperature. The total response time of CO2 in our atmosphere is about 5 to 7 years. This means if the CO2 in the atmosphere were in balance with the ocean temperature, and then we suddenly double the CO2, the CO2 added will fall naturally to about 1/3 that added in about 5 years. 4. Can man contribute to the greenhouse effect? Well, first we have to prove there really is a greenhouse effect. This gets back to point one. Very good physicists have said "There is no source in scientific literature where the greenhouse effect is introduced in harmony with the scientific standards of theoretical physics." I agree with them and I will present the argument in more detail on my forthcoming website. Another conclusion is that
EdBerry
Another conclusion is that "Lee's (1973) paper is a milestone marking the day after which every serious scientist or science educator is no longer allowed to compare a greenhouse with the atmosphere." 5. In my opinion, V. Ramanathan is an excellent scientist. He is on the right track about black carbon and this is a subject of important research. Black carbon does affect our atmosphere. We just don't know how much. In his comparisons with GHG forcing, Ramanathan uses the UN IPCC values which have now been discredited, but that is OK because the point Ramanathan is making is that black carbon is significant compared to the IPCC GHG hypothesis. 6. There is good evidence that our atmosphere changes its cloud cover and water vapor in a manner that keeps the earth's temperature in balance. In other words, our atmosphere is self balancing, like the level of water in a lake. The hypothesis that our atmosphere can go into runaway heating has been shown to be invalid. 7. It is much safer to believe what individual scientists write and publish than it is to believe what a government organization says. NASA, NOAA, NSF, Nat Academy of Sciences, Union of Concerned
EdBerry
7. It is much safer to believe what individual scientists write and publish than it is to believe what a government organization says. NASA, NOAA, NSF, Nat Academy of Sciences, Union of Concerned Scientists, JPL, and Scripts are promoting the IPCC claims which have now been invalidated.
MrMark
Finally, a voice of reason in world gone crazy. Thank you Mr. Berry for standing up against the lunacy and speaking for hundreds and even thousands of others that actually know and understand how the it all works. It isn't surprising that the ultimate goal of the lunatics is to funnel more and more tax money into the pockets of big government. Please, get that book out asap! And I've always wondered about how paving the earth had an effect on climate. I mean when you think about it, it's just got to. heat radiating off of asphalt and concrete, even asphalt roofing on houses. You name it! Thank you Mr. Berry!
Lucky
I'm ashamed that the Inter Lake would publish a story like this with no refuting opinion from a "real" scientist. This crackpot climate-change denier has been running around for a year touting his yet-to-be-published book. Let's see the book and all the peer-reviewed science and then we can judge. Meanwhile, if you want the real story with all the science, Steve Running (Nobel Prize) will be giving a talk tonight in Butte. It's not about models. Just look around at the Montana snowpack, streamflows and summer temperatures. Change is happening all around you. You can choose not to believe it, but that doesn't change the facts.
doood
Yes Lucky, things do change. Has anything in this world ever been the same? Global warming is joke and one of the biggest wastes of attention we have in the world. Let's think about what this crisis has replaced in the environment cross hairs. Hmmm...how about global poisoning. Man made stuff dumped in the environment, everywhere.
doood
Well global poisoning just isn't good for big business...but global warming, that has all kinds of market potential. I think us poisoning our food and water supplies is really more of an issue, just not newsworthy. Here's my simplistic view...more heat and co2 eventually means more clouds, sure they trap some heat in, but I'm guessing they block even more. Warmer it get's, thicker they get. I know, first grade stuff, but on the other hand I think we will survive if we can find some soylent green.
fencer24
There is a greater correlation between Baby Boomers hitting menopause and Global Warming than there is with any rise in CO2. But the question I am still waiting for Al Gore to answer is if the earth has a fever, what is the earth's natural temperature? Go back just 10,000 years ago and we were all under 10,000 feet of ice. Personally I prefer the warming compared to then.
MTGriz24
The climate of earth has changed for millions and millions of years. Global warming/cooling is nothing new. I'm not sure why we're so freaked out about it now. Then again, maybe Al Gore is right...afterall he did invent the internet.
socialist
This article is devoid of any scientific arguments against man made greenhouse warming. Ed Berry is completely entitled to his opinion, as he is an expert in the field... however, Jim Mann, you failed to mention any of the science related to his denial. All you mention is the following statement from Ed Barry "They cannot account for ever-changing greenhouse gases, radiation, solar energy and ocean currents. One of the greatest omissions from climate modeling, Berry said, is they do not account for the incredibly dynamic influences of cloud cover, a subject he knows well"... Jim... Every climate modeler already know this.., even high school geography students know this. WHERE IS THE SCIENCE JIM MANN. Yes, ocean currents, and the reflectivity of clouds, especially the polluted ones cause headaches for climate modelers. Jim Mann, please admit that you only wrote this article to slight the liberal politics that, somehow, happen to be aligned with the full recognition of the Greenhouse Effect... a theory that has been established throughout the 18, and 1900's. Jim, this article had you signature all over it, bias from the start with NO SCIENCE to back it up.. thanks again for catering to your audience.
EdBerry
Readers wishing to read some science that falsifies the global warming hypothesis can review the proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change: http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html The Heartland Institute is putting all the proceedings of the Conference online including videos of the key presentations. All approximately 700 scientists who attended this conference will assure you that CO2 does not and will not cause global warming. These include the top atmospheric scientists in the world. Our atmosphere is far more stable than the alarmists want you to believe.
EdBerry
This is for Lucky and for any readers who wish to see an short answer to his comment. The whole idea of the First Amendment is to allow people to express their ideas. The Daily Interlake has done very well in printing both sides of the global warming issue. A newspaper cannot make scientific judgments, so it is better to error on the side of open communication than to error on the side of restricting communication. For peer-reviewed science, start at the Conference reference in my other comment. Then go to all the links to the very many peer-reviewed articles that falsify the global warming hypothesis. If you follow all the paths you will spend a few years full time, and that is assuming you are already a PhD level physicist. The rules of science dictate the burden of proof is on the alarmists. All the skeptic side has to do is to find one key error in the alarmist hypothesis to falsify it. The skeptics have done much more than this. They have falsified every key point of the alarmist claims. There are a few problems with what Steve Running presents. He claims he is right because he has
EdBerry
To continue: He claims he is right because he has a Nobel Prize. What he has is 1/600th of a Peace Prize given in Norway. This is a political prize and has nothing to do with scientific accomplishment. The real Nobel Prizes in science are from Sweden. A real Nobel Prize winner was Richard Feynman, who said, "If your hypothesis does not agree with observations, it is wrong. It does not matter who you are or what your name is, If your hypothesis does not agree with observations, it is still wrong." Steve Running is presenting hypotheses that do not agree with observations. He did not appear at the Conference on Climate Change to defend his non-scientific views. Unless he defends them then he is speaking outside the mainstream of atmospheric science when he continues to state them. Examples: He is still presenting the "hockey stick" temperature chart as reality when it was totally discredited in 2003. He is presenting his alarmist CO2 chart that shows CO2 increasing for the past few hundred years. This is contradicted by data showing that our CO2 levels were 440 ppm in 1820 and 1940 which is much higher than the present 385 ppm
EdBerry
To continue #2: and higher than the 400 ppm where alarmists say the earth will go into runaway heating. He claims the climate models are correct when they do not and cannot predict climate. He uses the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent" when he links melting glaciers and other observed events to global warming. And in the process, he has deceived people like Lucky to think this is a legitimate argument. The fact is that glaciers have been melting at a constant rate since about 1800 or about 150 years before man began to emit any significant CO2. The melting rate has not changed after CO2 began to be emitted. So to claim melting glaciers supports the global warming hypothesis is incorrect. In fact, it is the other way around. Because the last 50 years of added CO2 have not affected the melting rate of the glaciers, this is proof that the two are not connected and it is another link that falsifies the global warming hypothesis. So when you talk about facts, you must be careful about what information you pull from the facts. Lucky is pulling the wrong information from the facts before him.
mtboat
Thank you Mr. Berry.