January 2008 was an exceptional month for our planet, with a significant cooling, especially since January 2007 started out well above normal.
January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. I have reported in the past two weeks that HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year.
Also see the recent post on what the last 10 years looks like with the same four metrics – 3 of four show a flat trendline.
Here are the 4 major temperature metrics compared top to bottom, with the most recently released at the top:
UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature anomaly (HadCRUT) Dr. Phil Jones:
Reference: above data is HadCRUT3 column 2 which can be found here
description of the HadCRUT3 data file columns is here
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Dr. James Hansen:
Reference: GISS dataset temperature index data
University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) Dr. John Christy:
Reference: UAH lower troposphere data
Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA (RSS):
Reference: RSS data here (RSS Data Version 3.1)
The purpose of this summary is to make it easy for everyone to compare the last 4 postings I’ve made on this subject.
I realize that not all the graphs are of the same scale, so my next task will be to run a combined graphic of all the data-sets on identical amplitude and time scales to show the agreements or differences such a graph would illustrate.
UPDATE: that comparison has been done here
Here is a quick comparison and average of ∆T for all metrics shown above:
| Source: | Global ∆T °C |
| HadCRUT |
– 0.595 |
| GISS | – 0.750 |
| UAH | – 0.588 |
| RSS | – 0.629 |
| Average: | – 0.6405°C |
For all four metrics the global average ∆T for January 2007 to January 2008 is: – 0.6405°C
This represents an average between the two lower troposphere satellite metrics (RSS and UAH) and the two land-ocean metrics (GISS and HadCRUT). While some may argue that they are not compatible data-sets, since they are derived by different methods (Satellite -Microwave Sounder Unit and direct surface temperature measurements) I would argue that the average of these four metrics is a measure of temperature, nearest where we live, the surface and near surface atmosphere.
UPDATE AND CAVEAT:
The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:
“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”
I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”
There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.
UPDATE #2 see this post from Dr. John R. Christy on the issue.
UPDATE #3 see the post on what the last 10 years looks like with the same four metrics – 3 of four show a flat trendline.
Sponsored IT training links:
Get professional help for your HP0-J33 exam! Download the 650-575 test questions for practice and pass 117-201 exam on first try.
Chris,
You’ve made a number of flawed assumptions there. Let’s start with how CO2 can be significant as a global warming mechanism. First, every minute enough sunlight hits the earth to power the entire U.S. for a year. So, holding back a small percentage of that for warming the planet would certainly be significant.
Second, when you count human CO2 as smaller than all of those other contributions, you fail to explain how it is that we have doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere. Depending on whether you go by the 280ppm at the start of the industrial revolution or the 220ppm around the start of agriculture and whether you go by some estimates around 400ppm now and some as high as 450ppm now, we can quibble about the percentages. But, no matter which pair of numbers you use, our increase is tremendous.
As for how we cause such increase, don’t forget deforestation in your numbers. When you destroy a forest, not only do you release the carbon in the wood, you also release the 99% of the carbon that is sequestered in the soil, at least for temperate forests. For rainforests, the number in the soil may be lower. Both increase the CO2 in the atmosphere tremendously when cut down, faster if it’s by slash and burn, but by the same amount either way.
The global warming panic-mongers have some explaining to do, but of course they’ll ignore this downward temperature drop and sound more alarms when it goes up again.
I don’t know how you can measure a global temperature change of a fraction of a degree anyway. This research is helpful and should be done, but it’s also useful to use regional, cultural measures of climate behavior. Texas had the coolest and wettest year on record last year. This year looks similar so far .
It is not unheard of that a warming period is immediately followed by a cooling period. Nature always finds a way of balancing itself out. This happened during the last Ice Age and will probably always happen in a continuous cycle. Granted this is a ficitional reference, but if any of you have seen The Day After Tomorrow with Dennis Quaid, in it he references actual historical scientific data that showed the Last Ice age was preceeded and followed by drastic warming trends. This current cooling trend may be reminiscent of the latest Little Ice Age which occurred around the Medieval times. This cooling trend will most likely be followed by warming trends that will shift the temperature back above where it last left off in January 2007. No matter what, I still feel that we, as a society, need to be more environmentally responsible (whether this warming/cooling trend is caused by Global Warming or not).
atmospheric CO2
There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.
🙁
Hello everyone, I’m a lurker. I am really enjoying the give and take. I also appreciate the civility of most of the posters here. Just wondering when the February numbers will be out. Thanks, Mike
Nevermind… Mike
JM
Arrhenius the Nobel Prize winning Chemist stated that:
a decrease in the concentration of carbonic acid by half or a doubling would be equivalent to changes of temperature of -1.5C or +1.6C respectively.
If this old paper is the basis of the Physics of Global Warming it needs to be validated by a Physicist.
TD:
” [Arhennius said] a decrease in the concentration of [CO2] by half or a doubling would be equivalent to changes of temperature of – 1.5C or +1.6C ”
I agree, that’s what he said – and it came out pretty good for a first cut model didn’t it?
” … it needs to be validated by a Physicist ”
Well firstly whole branches of physics and chemistry overlap particularly around 1900 (so much so, that Marie Curie who is generally regarded as a physicist got her second Nobel prize in 1911 for Chemistry. Another physicist – Linus Pauling – won the Chemistry prize in 1954 for contributions to atomic theory.
Secondly the argument is so simple it can be validated and understood by a Year 12 physics student.
Thirdly, it has been validated by all climate research since, including the IPCC which is just documenting people polishing the minor jewels on the elephant of the original idea.
Science is accretive not revolutionary so you shouldn’t be surprised by that fact.
Here’s a bit of data on CO2 and warming around the time of the last deglaciation.
http://tinyurl.com/28v4ph
I’ll keep searching if you remain unconvinced.
Why are temperature changes ever called “anomalies?” The only “normal” thing is that temperature is ALWAYS changing. I would be scared to death if these temperature graphs went flat. By the way, the long term prognosis: absolute zero. Thank entropy and Rudolf Clausius.
JM wrote: “Well over the last 100 years we’ve done the experiment. CO2 levels are now approaching 400ppm and average tempreture is about 1.6C higher.”
Wrong, JM, check the “real data” (and IPCC). It is not 1.6C, it is 0.7C over the past 100 years..
And over the last 10 years it was 0.06C.
No big deal, JM.
Max
JM wrote ” [Arhennius said] a decrease in the concentration of [CO2] by half or a doubling would be equivalent to changes of temperature of – 1.5C or +1.6C ”
I agree, that’s what he said – and it came out pretty good for a first cut model didn’t it?”
Based on more recent data, this is a bit on the high side for CO2 alone. Let’s use basic physics to establish the theoretical temperature increase from doubling CO2 levels from 280ppmv, which they were in 1900, to 560 ppmv, which they are projected to be in 2100, assuming there are no natural or other anthropogenic forcing factors (which is obviously not the case).
Arrhenius Law tells us
dE = [alpha] ln ( [CO2] / [CO2] orig ),
where alpha is 5.35 (Myhre et al.)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
dE is change in forcing
using Stefan-Boltzmann:
dT/dE = 1 / (4 [sigma] T^3)
then:
dT = [alpha] ln ( [CO2] / [CO2] orig) / 4 [sigma] T^3)
A doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv,
And substituting T = 15 degrees C = 288.16K
dT = 5.35 ln (560 / 280) / (4 *5.6705E-08 * (288.16^3))
or
dT = 0.6833 centigrade for a doubling of CO2
for simplification, let’s call that 0.7 degrees C
You can do the same calculation based on the CO2 level of 381 ppmv, as measured in 2006
Then you arrive at a dT of around 0.3 degrees C, by increasing CO2 from 280 to 381 ppmv.
This means there is about 0.4 degrees C warming to be expected from today to the year 2100, if CO2 increases to the anticipated 560 ppmv.
Since the relationship is logarithmic, CO2 will have to double again, to 1120 ppmv for another 0.7 degrees C to result. This might happen by around the year 2400, if current rates of increase continue and we haven’t run out of fossil fuels before then.
All of the above assumes that there are no significant natural forcing factors and no positive or negative feedbacks (water as vapor, water as liquid in lower altitude clouds or as solid in higher altitude clouds, etc.).
Max
JM wrote ” [Arhennius said] a decrease in the concentration of [CO2] by half or a doubling would be equivalent to changes of temperature of – 1.5C or +1.6C ”
I agree, that’s what he said – and it came out pretty good for a first cut model didn’t it?”
Based on more recent data, this is a bit on the high side for CO2 alone. Let’s use basic physics to establish the theoretical temperature increase from doubling CO2 levels from 280ppmv, which they were in 1900, to 560 ppmv, which they are projected to be in 2100, assuming there are no natural or other anthropogenic forcing factors (which is obviously not the case).
Arrhenius Law tells us
dE = [alpha] ln ( [CO2] / [CO2] orig ),
where alpha is 5.35 (Myhre et al.)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
dE is change in forcing
using Stefan-Boltzmann:
dT/dE = 1 / (4 [sigma] T^3)
then:
dT = [alpha] ln ( [CO2] / [CO2] orig) / 4 [sigma] T^3)
A doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv,
And substituting T = 15 degrees C = 288.16K
dT = 5.35 ln (560 / 280) / (4 *5.6705E-08 * (288.16^3))
or
dT = 0.6833 centigrade for a doubling of CO2
for simplification, let’s call that 0.7 degrees C
You can do the same calculation based on the CO2 level of 381 ppmv, as measured in 2006
Then you arrive at a dT of around 0.3 degrees C, by increasing CO2 from 280 to 381 ppmv.
This means there is about 0.4 degrees C warming to be expected from today to the year 2100, if CO2 increases to the anticipated 560 ppmv.
Since the relationship is logarithmic, CO2 will have to double again, to 1120 ppmv for another 0.7 degrees C to result. This might happen by around the year 2400, if current rates of increase continue and we haven’t run out of fossil fuels before then.
All of the above assumes that there are no significant natural forcing factors and no positive or negative feedbacks (water as vapor, water as liquid in lower altitude clouds or as solid in higher altitude clouds, etc.).
Max
Max
Thanks for doing the legwork. Now at least the argument is back in reality-land, rather than la-la land where people are denying well established physics.
Your point about other forcing factors and feedbacks is well made. I understand that there is a general belief that climate feedbacks are positive (at least at the point where we are at now).
I think we should also acknowledge the confounding effects of aerosols during the middle 20thC which moderated the tempreture increase from CO2 forcing.
Nonetheless, hat tip to ya. Thanks.
Hi JM,
You wrote: “I understand that there is a general belief that climate feedbacks are positive (at least at the point where we are at now).”
This is a moot point.
Those who want to convey a message of potentially alarming AGW (such as IPCC or, even more so, James E. Hansen) apparently hold that belief, although there is no scientific evidence supporting it and the actual temperature record to date actually speaks against it.
My bet (based on the observed temperature record) would be that the positive and negative feedbacks essentially cancel each other out.
Regards,
Max
Back again, JM,
You wrote: “I think we should also acknowledge the confounding effects of aerosols during the middle 20thC which moderated the tempreture increase from CO2 forcing”.
This is a bit of a red herring, in my humble opinion.
There is very little mention of this global cooling period in the latest IPCC AR4 WG1 report. Two references are cited: “From about 1940 to 1970 the increasing industrialization following World War II increased pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, contributing to cooling, and increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases dominate the observed warming after the mid-1970s.” “During the 1950s and 1960s, average global temperatures leveled off, as increases in aerosols from fossil fuels and other sources cooled the planet.” No hard data are presented to support these suggestions.
A common explanation, which expands on the rather sparse statements of the IPCC can be found on the pro-AGW blog sites. The response below is quoted from a pro-AGW blogspot as part of its “how to talk to a skeptic” series:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-about-mid-century-cooling.html
“During this period [1945-1975] the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time [than today]) was temporarily overwhelmed by an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution. Pollution regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in this different kind of emissions and as the air cleared, the CO2 signal again emerged and took over.
This phenomenon has been given the name of “global dimming”, although IPCC states in its report: “’Global dimming’ is neither global in extent nor has it continued after 1990.”
There are, however, some problems with the explanation of “global dimming due to anthropogenic aerosols”:
First and foremost, the suggested aerosol explanation for the mid-century temperature drop is based on theory alone. There is no observational physical evidence for strong anthropogenic aerosol cooling on a global basis during this period. The data are just not there.
The regions that produce aerosols have shown warming in recent years, and those that cooled from 1945-1975 were not necessarily those regions where aerosols were supposed to have any discernable effect. In other words, the actual observations do not support this cause-effect relationship for the mid-century cooling as suggested by the IPCC.
Those areas that were not affected by aerosols show the 1945-1975 cooling trend. This is evident in IPCC Southern Hemisphere temperature records for the last century. The question must be answered: how did “increased pollution in the Northern Hemisphere” affect temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere, as postulated by IPCC?
Next, regions that produce massive amounts of aerosols today do not show cooling at all. They actually show warming.
During the period from the 1950s to around 1980, there was negligible increase in temperatures in China. There was also negligible economic growth. Starting in the 1990s, there has been explosive economic growth in China with tremendous increases not only in CO2 but also in aerosol and sulfate emissions. If the mid-century “global dimming” hypothesis were valid, these emissions should presumably cause local cooling today as they are supposed to have done from 1945 to 1975, yet there has been a sharp increase in temperatures in China.
If we look at global emissions of the principle aerosol, sulfur dioxide, we see that these have increased steadily from around 28 to 72 million metric tons per year over the period 1945 to 1980 (expressed as sulfur), then decreased slightly to around 65 million metric tons per year in 1995 before increasing again to around 77 million metric tons per year today, where they now stand at a record high. The latest increase has occurred primarily in Asia, while both North America and Europe have seen significant decreases since around 1980. On a global basis, however, SO2 emissions have not been reduced, but have remained roughly constant or even increased slightly. In other words, there is no reason that aerosol emissions should have caused a cooling effect from 1945 to 1975 and then not continued to cause cooling after 1980 on a global basis.
Since the residence time of sulfur dioxide and sulfates in the atmosphere is very short (from 2 to 6 days), there is not much of a cumulative impact, and today’s record rates of SO2 emissions (77 Mtons/year) should show a higher cooling effect than the much lower rates, which occurred in the 1950s and 1960s (30 to 45 Mtons/year) and which are blamed for the cooling trend then.
Another argument points away from the suggestion that the mid-century cooling was caused by anthropogenic aerosols. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution sulfates and CO2 emissions have largely increased together, and on a proportional basis sulfate emissions were higher than greenhouse gases during the early industrial revolution when there were no automobiles or diesel engines and a higher percentage of the CO2 emissions came from (relatively high sulfur content) coal rather than oil or gasoline. This period was also before there were any environmental regulations governing sulfur pollution.
As a matter of fact, the Hadley record shows that the period of highest decadal rate of temperature increase since records started is NOT the most recent period (1976-2007) with 0.17 degrees C, but an earlier period (1860-1879) with a decadal rate of increase of 0.20 degrees C. During this period sulfate emissions increased at a greater rate in relation with CO2 emissions, when compared to today.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
Since the temperature record shows that the industrial revolution, as indeed the period from 1906 to 1940, was not accompanied by cooling, the suggestion that cooling in the mid 20th century was caused by sulfates can be seriously questioned.
And finally, Europe and the USA have seen a recent massive cleanup of sulfate aerosols, and indeed the temperature rose in these regions over the same period. The AGW theory as stated in the “illconsidered” blogsite cited above postulates: “Pollution regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in aerosol emissions and as the air cleared, the CO2 signal again emerged and took over.”
If one were to accept the explanation for mid-century cooling as having been caused by anthropogenic aerosol emissions, then the aerosol reduction in the USA and Western Europe would have had a sufficiently high impact that CO2 would not even have been needed to explain the subsequent warming in these regions. As Hans Erren points out graphically, if all of the cooling in the USA from 1950 to 1975 were caused by increasing aerosols (Schneider et al) then all of the warming since 1975 could well be caused simply by eliminating a major portion of these aerosols.
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/usso2vst.gif
In other words, the IPCC’s suggested anthropogenic aerosol explanation for the global cooling experienced from 1945 to 1975 makes a good story that superficially “fits” the AGW theory but, upon closer examination, it has several serious flaws and inconsistencies and can therefore be seriously questioned or dismissed outright.
Just my thoughts.
Regards,
Max
To Max:
Thanks more than I can express for your comments. Your comments
show some hard science, and that I can live with. It pretty well demolishes the argument that CO2 impacts global warming through absorption.
That leaves reflection, where the trapped solar heat is reflected back onto the earth. Does anyone know of any experimental data that proves reflection?
I am a retired Geometry teacher. In Geometry one is required to give rigorous proof for any theorem. What I am looking for here is that rigorous proof.
Before we make political decisions we better know absolutely what the climate is doing, and why. Perhaps the “and why” is the most important part of the debate. Any political decisions made will hugely impact all of us. As I look at the global warming debate what I am seeing is a great deal of poor logic, bad science, and worse math, on both sides of the argument. (Thanks again for the good science above) I submit that it is past time for us to end the cranial anal inversions and start finding the rigorous proofs. CHK
I,m confused in calculations
How can earth warm/cool 0.5 degrees in a year? If M (earth) = 6×10 exp 24 kg, and we approximate that 1/20 000 of mass (outer layer) only counts, and let’s approximate the mass as H2O (as in sea), then heating this outer layer by 1 degrees requires 6xexp24x4000 J/20 000 = approx 10 exp 24 J
with a radius of 7000 km, and approximated as a flat circle (only half gets sun)
A (Earth in sun) = 7000 000 m x 7000 000 m x 3; at earth’s surface solar power is 1000 W per m2 (at upper layers=?); If we assume every single photon heats the earth and nothing radiates back to space, then we get 150 x 10exp12x1000 W (or J/s)
in a year we get heat 365x12x3600, or 16 000 000 times the before calculated sum, or 2,4 x 10exp24 J At this point Joules are somewhat balanced, but as we now, the sun doesn’t always shine, not everything absorbs, a lot reflects, and the earth is not just it’s outmost layer, so what on earth are the meteomen (and women) doing when they present us with temperatures-temperatures of what?
Another problem has come up for me in understanding global warming. The winds. As I look at a chart of wind patterns, both surface and upper air, I notice that the equator gets in the way. There are no wind currents that cross from northern hemisphere to southern hemisphere, so there can only be a little cross over. This means that only a very small percentage of CO2 moves from America to the some point accross the equator. So why then is CO2 or SO2 impacting the southern hemisphere at the same rate as the northern hemisphere? Or is it that CO2 is not a global warmer at all, just a hemisphere warmer?
I must admit, that as an intrested observer of the argument of anthropogenic causation of global warming, I am easily confused. It seems to me too many simple questions are going unanswered. CHK
Mra raises a valid question in asking what the “global average temperature” measurement actually represents.
Roger A. Pielke Sr. has raised some serious reservations regarding unresolved issues in using globally averaged surface temperature trends as a metric for assessing climate change.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf
But mra’s more basic question is “temperatures of what?”
We have seen from Anthony Watts’ studies that even the land surface temperature stations used by NCDC NOAA in the USA are subject to major errors as a result of urbanization effects. These measure air temperature near the surface. Not only are a majority of the stations poorly sited with paved parking lots, buildings with air conditioners, etc. nearby, but five of the six “Global Historical Climatology Network” (GHCN) stations in California (for example), which are being used to compile the “global average”, are located in urban centers that have grown to more than 1 million inhabitants. In comparing two fairly close stations located north of Sacramento, CA (Orland, a well-sited station and Marysville, a poorly sited station), the NCDC temperature record shows that Marysville has recorded temperatures of 0.9C higher and a linear decadal rising trend of 0.13C per decade higher than Orland.
Since the global linear trend of temperature from 1976 to 2007 is 0.17C per decade, an error of 0.13C per decade raises some serious questions.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-44/#comment-3738
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425725910040&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425745000030&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
There is no reason to believe that the cases cited by Watts are unusual exceptions. In fact, there are other data from around the world that show that this is not the case. So there is a basic problem with the raw data used.
We then read in the latest NCDC update: “In February 2006, NCDC transitioned to the use of an improved Global Land and Ocean data set (Smith and Reynolds analysis (2005)), which incorporates new algorithms that better account for factors such as changes in spatial coverage and evolving observing methods.”
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html
Descibing the problem in more detail NCDC goes on to say:
“NCDC’s long-term mean temperatures for the Earth were calculated by processing data from thousands of world-wide observation sites on land and sea for the entire period of record of the data. Many parts of the globe are inaccessible and therefore have no data. The temperature anomaly time series presented here were calculated in a way that did not require knowing the actual mean temperature of the Earth in these inaccessible areas such as mountain tops and remote parts of the Sahara Desert where there are no regularly reporting weather stations. Using the collected data available, the whole Earth long-term mean temperatures were calculated by interpolating over uninhabited deserts, inaccessible Antarctic mountains, etc. in a manner that takes into account factors such as the decrease in temperature with elevation. By adding the long-term monthly mean temperature for the Earth to each anomaly value, one can create a time series that approximates the temperature of the Earth and how it has been changing through time.”
NCDC describes briefly the SR05 adjustment method for arriving at the “blended land and ocean dataset”: “The SR05 analysis merges a new analysis of in situ SST anomalies with an analysis of Land Surface Temperature (LST) anomalies from a gridded version of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN)“.
So we start off with raw data that contain a spurious error, which exaggerates the record by several tenths of a degree C, and we then apply complicated adjustments to arrive at a “globally averaged blended land and ocean dataset”.
So back to mra’s question: “what on earth are the meteomen (and women) doing when they present us with temperatures-temperatures of what?”
Max
Regardless of all comments above it is has been proven that the long term trend favours global warming.
The analysis wrt to this presented on Real Climate and other similar blogsites is convincing.
La Nina was predicted to result in a lowering of temperatures. This does not invalidate the long term trend.
That said, the AGW protagonists are a mixture of balanced and normal scientists combined with a bunch of narcissisistic, intelligent, but emotionally immature folk who create the bulk of comment on some high profile blogsites.
Independent of the validity of the AGW position it is clear that resources are being consumed at an unsustainable rate. Furthermore the products of these resources are largely unnecessary and shortlived. Most of these emanate from the East – India and China.
These countries are rapidly emerging from poverty on the back of crapulous consumption of what will become increasingly scarce minerals and fuels.
The pollution and consequences to human life are well known.
The solution to putative AGW must be based upon two things.
Firstly the denial of an increase in the standard of living of many poverty stricken folk in the East and secondly a dramatic lowering of the standard of living of those countries that depend upon mineral and fuel exports for economic growth.
Any alternative will be too slow to emerge to “save the world” as the AGW folk would desire.
It is possible that we are about to witness either the greatest ecological catastrophe (wrt to causation of human fatalities) or the greatest loss of human life based upon the implementation of strategies designed to mitigate putative AGW.
Max,
Your post indicates that you are indeed a thinking human being. This is a good thing. As a thinking human being, you must recognize that the source of any piece of information is incredibly relevant.
A thinking human being does not go to a Phillip Morris press release to find out whether tobacco is hazardous to one’s health. A thinking human being does not go to a McDonald’s press release to find out whether obesity is a real health risk.
And, a thinking human being does not go to ExxonMobil to find out if anthropogenic global warming is real or if it poses a real danger for humanity. You have probably unknowingly done so. Pielke has stated in no uncertain terms that he is indeed an employee of ExxonMobil. Read his post to the Royal Society for yourself at http://tinyurl.com/2arkxc.
Or, for the short version, I have pasted a relevant reply in its entirety.
The rest of your post refers back to this blog, hardly an authoritative source and to two specific weather stations worth of data. Unfortunately, climate change is not equal around the globe. Some areas will cool while most warm. We must be very careful to always note the difference between localized weather, localized by either locale or by time, as with a cold La Nina year.
MODERATOR REPLY: Just to be clear, there are two Dr. Rogar Pielkes, Dr. Roger Pielke Senior who runs http://www.climatsci.org is not the person mentioned in this comment.
Message to Andrew Montgomery
Andrew, you have presented a thoughtful (if somewhat gloomy) analysis of the situation.
I do not believe that anyone disagrees that the Earth has been warming since around 1976, at a decadal rate of 0.17 or 0.13 degrees C, depending on the record used (surface vs. troposphere). This trend has slowed down slightly over the past 10 years to around 0.06C per decade (both records agree on this). Whether this apparent “plateau” is the beginning of a new long-term trend with a slower rate of increase or even a reversal is too early to say.
You wrote: “La Nina was predicted to result in a lowering of temperatures. This does not invalidate the long term trend.”
It is true that, while there has been an underlying warming trend of around 1.0C over the past 150 years, there have been several ups and downs in the record over this period. And, while we may know more about what causes climate changes than we did twenty years ago, there is still much more that we do not yet know.
There is good agreement that atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen from around 280 ppmv in 1900 to around 380 ppmv today.
There is no doubt that theoretical physics tells us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which would cause an increase in temperature of around 0.7C if its atmospheric concentration doubled from the value of around 280 ppmv in 1900 to a projected 560 ppmv by 2100 (and there were no other forcing factors and positive or negative feedbacks).
There is a lot of doubt, however, about what this all means for the future. The blog site you mention, Real Climate, has one viewpoint on this, which largely reflects the so-called “consensus” view as postulated by IPCC.
This view suggests that anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW) is very likely to have been the principal factor in causing the observed warming trend and that this warming trend will accelerate in sort of a “hockey stick” fashion in the future due to AGW, rather that going through cyclical swings as it has done in the past.
The projections for the future are based on computer models. These models include the theoretical forcing factors from greenhouse gases as well as significant positive feedbacks from water vapor. The impact of clouds is largely ignored. The impact of solar variability is deemed to be extremely low, while there is an admission by IPCC that the level of scientific understanding of these factors is low.
So the temperature projections are based on a high level of forcing from greenhouse gases, which is multiplied by a factor of two to three by assumed net positive feedbacks with very little natural forcing.
Once temperature projections for the future have been made, these can then be used to predict how the global climate system will react.
IPCC has made projections on melting glaciers and ice sheets, rising sea level, increased severe weather events, such as droughts, heavy precipitation events, heat waves, intensity of tropical cyclones, etc.
IPCC admits that the projections relating to severe weather events are based on “expert opinion” rather that “attribution studies”, and that the probability that these are caused by human impact is “more likely than not” (i.e.50+%).
But, unfortunately, this is not where the story stops.
There are some politicians, politically motivated activists and scientists who grossly exaggerate the IPCC projections to spread fear in the public.
Where IPCC suggests sea level rise measured in centimeters, these activists talk of 6-meter waves swallowing New York City.
Where IPCC postulates a gradual increase of temperatures, these alarmists talk of imminent “tipping points” from which human civilization the environment and our planet will not be able to recover.
You mention that the choices we face are both rather gloomy (if we believe the disaster scenario painted by the alarmists): face a climate disaster or stop the development of India/China and reverse economic growth in the developed world. It also includes, of course, keeping the very poorest nations in their poverty, without access to electrical energy and clean drinking water, for example.
I am more of an optimist.
I believe that there is no impending climate disaster, and that whatever happens to sea levels or ice caps, we can adapt (as the Dutch have been doing for years).
As far as the “greatest ecological catastrophe (wrt to causation of human fatalities)” is concerned, there was an annual average of just under 20,000 fatalities worldwide during the period 2000-2006 from all weather-related extreme events (including extreme cold)
There is no doubt that denying the poorest nations electrical power and clean water (which together kill around 4 million people annually from water-caused disease and respiratory diseases from indoor air pollution caused by cooking with wood or dung) is by far a greater problem for humanity that the projected climate change.
It gets less attention, because it is a”poor man’s (and woman’s) problem” rather than the projected climate crisis, which is essentially a “rich man’s problem”.
Yes, we should conserve energy.
Yes, we should develop more energy efficient automobiles.
Yes, we should stop pollution of our environment.
Yes, we should stop waste.
Yes, we should reduce our dependency on dwindling oil reserves in politically unstable regions.
Yes, we should develop renewable power sources.
And at the same time we should help the poorest nations develop a standard of living that is well above the poverty line and attack the many other REAL problems that are out there rather than waste our time and resources on the computer-generated virtual climate problem of the future.
Just my thoughts on this.
Regards,
Max
Message to Misanthropic Scott
Agree with you that one has to check the source of info.
As far as I know, Roger Pielke Sr. is a respected climate scientist.
I do not see any logical link to your mention of Phillip Morris, McDonald’s or ExxonMobil.
A press release by any of these organizations regarding the impact of their businesses on the world would carry about as much weight as a press release by the WWF or the Union of Concerned Scientists.
But the main point of my response to mra on “what are we measuring” was to point out that there are a lot of uncertainties regarding the validity of the “globally average land and sea temperature”, as pointed out by some of the work done by Anthony Watts and others. I also showed that there are an awful lot of adjustments, corrections, etc. made to the raw numbers to arrive at a final figure, further complicating the answer to the question raised by mra.
That’s all.
Regards,
Max
hi JM I’m back
You have either misstated Arrhenius or I am finally getting close to the method by which CO2 works its magic
The formula for carbonic acid is H2CO3, not CO2, and a Nobel Prize winning Chemist would know that
So is it that Infrared combines H20 & CO2 to form H2CO3 thereby warming the planet or is Arrhenius a dead end, as my understanding is that he actually based his paper on a halving or doubling of atmospheric “Carbonic Acid” (H2CO3).