MY VIEW
Global warming must be defined with data, not rhetoric
by Maurice Gibbs

If you believe some form of global warming exists either as human-induced or as natural planetary weather cycles or unexplainable phenomena, with the potential impacts on Nantucket in mind, what are your thoughts on its validity, how it is caused or not caused, and what should be done to neutralize or even reverse it? The question itself points to a large part of the problem in the global warming debate. Words alone will neither define nor solve this issue - one that is most worthy of the application of the world's best scientific minds. One cannot address such questions with generalities, speculation and, most importantly, by name-calling and political posturing. This issue requires applied science, not polarization in the political arena. To quote Professor Aaron Wildavsky of Berkeley, ". . . global warming is the mother of all environmental scares." Yes, hysteria is on the loose.

Colorado State's Dr. William Gray, one of the nation's leading hurricane authorities recently said in an interview that he was "skeptical as hell" about the subject of global warming.

Please don't get me wrong. Global warming is certainly an issue worthy of discussion. There is even a place in that discussion for speculation. Yet speculation without applied science is simply the equivalent of a runaway railway train. One must move the discussion to fact-finding, to data and to analysis of this data to determine proof. The hype of our media, while important to raising public awareness, brings little clarity to a most complex scientific question. One looks in vain for the verifiable data.

In those long-ago high school days, my teachers required tests for valid answers in algebra, geometry and physics. Proof was all-important. It still is. I have seen precious little verifiable science to support the global warming debate. Like other news stories, the media should be demanding facts, not working on ratings. There is an urgent need for applied science to analyze and filter the good from the bad data to settle out many of the imponderables of 'cause and effect.'

We are told that the rise in temperature of global warming is on the order of 0.7 to 0.8 degrees Celsius over the past century. That calculates to approximately 1.44 degrees Fahrenheit. Yet, Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, warns us, ". . . present [computer] models have large errors on the order of 50 percent." He goes on to say that, "Not surprisingly, those models are unable to calculate correctly either the present average temperature of the earth, or temperature ranges from the equator to the poles. Rather, models are adjusted or 'tuned' to get those quantities approximately right." As a meteorologist and oceanographer, I agree with Professor Lindzen's position. If models must be "tuned," are we not working ourselves toward the situation of a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than real truths? Are we examining each element of the mathematics, physics and chemistry of the atmosphere? For most of my career the solar constant was just that, constant. Twenty, 30 and 40 years ago our calculations locked in 1.54 gram-calories/sq cm/sec as a key part of any equation. This figure is now in doubt, if not already refuted. Without proof of this constant value, how can we be sure of anything that follows? Is the incoming radiation of the sun constant? Some say no. Only data and its analyses will answer this debate.

While debating global warming in the national arena is healthy, putting that debate ahead of scientific data is a dangerous way to approach this or any other scientific issue. To be sure, common sense tells us that we should minimize any dangerous emissions into the atmosphere. We should be mindful that acid rain and the like are man-made and should be addressed seriously.

If this debate is to be kept in perspective, we must avoid loose rhetoric and seek out valid analyses. Merging science into an admixture of politics, hype and television ratings can only damage efforts to verify the validity of global warming. In the meantime, you the readers should demand more than generalities and political platitudes. Avoid being seduced by hype. Listen to all sides and cool the name-calling game. It serves no one. Good scientists challenge and test their data repeatedly. Good citizens should do likewise. Ask for more definitive proof and keep an open mind in this most complex scientific debate. In short, global warming needs to be defined with data points, not rhetoric. Like the citizens of the great state of Missouri, "show me." As yet, you haven't.

- Maurice E. Gibbs, a former commander in the U.S. Navy, is a retired meteorologist

and oceanographer.