Key degrees of difference
Cameron Stewart, Associate editor | August 09, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24148862-11949,00.html
HAS global warming stopped? The question alone is enough to provoke scorn from the mainstream scientific community and from the Government, which says the earth has never been hotter. But tell that to a new army of sceptics who have mushroomed on internet blog sites and elsewhere in recent months to challenge some of the most basic assumptions and claims of climate change science.
Their claims are provocative and contentious but they are also attracting attention, so much sothat mainstream scientists are being forced torespond.
The bloggers and others make several key claims. They say the way of measuring the world’s temperature is frighteningly imprecise and open to manipulation. They argue that far from becoming hotter, the world’s temperatures have cooled in the past decade, contrary to the overwhelming impression conveyed by scientists and politicians.
As such, they say there should be far greater scepticism towards the apocalyptic predictions about climate change. Even widely accepted claims, such as that made by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong that “the 12 hottest years in history have all been in the last 13 years”, are being openly challenged.
“She is just plain wrong,” says Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs. “It’s not a question of debate. What about the medieval warming period? The historical record shows they were growing wine in England, for goodness sake; come on. It is not disputed by anyone that the Vikings arrived in Greenland in AD900 and it was warmer than Greenland is now. What Penny Wong is doing is being selective and saying that is a long time ago.”
But selective use of facts and data is fast becoming an art form on both sides of the climate change debate now that real money is at stake as the West ponders concrete schemes to reduce carbon emissions. So what is the validity of some of the key claims being made by these new blogger sceptics?
Their first claim is that the most basic aspect of climate change science – the measurement of global warming – is flawed, imprecise and open to manipulation.
The earth’s temperature is measured using land-based weather stations – in effect, a network of thermometers scattered unevenly across the globe – as well as via satellites and ocean-based weather sensors. There are four agencies that measure the world’s temperatures and each has different methodology and produces varying, although not dramatically different, results.
Sceptics accuse climate change believers of always quoting the agency that shows the highest level of warming, the US National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies run by prominent climate change scientist and activist James Hansen.
An independent study by Yale University in the US shows GISS says the earth has warmed by 0.025C a year during the past eight years while the other best-known measurement agency, London’s Hadley Centre, says it warmed by only 0.014C a year during the same period. Not surprisingly, the Hadley figures are the most quoted by climate change sceptics while the GISS figures are most popular with climate change believers.
David Evans, former consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office, says Hansen’s GISS is unreliable because it is the only measurement agency that relies almost wholly on land-based data instead of satellites.
“Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the urban heat island effect,” he says. “Urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars and houses.”
As such, he alleges that the GISS figures – which are enormously influential in the climate change debate – are “hopelessly corrupted” and may even be manipulated to suit Hansen’s views on global warming.
A group of weather buffs in the US also has attacked GISS’s methodology, putting together an online photo gallery of US weather stations at website www.surfacestations.org that shows some thermometers situated next to asphalt runways and parking lots where they would pick up excess warming.
But GISS says the distorting impact of this urban warming is negated because data from these stations is modified to remove these effects and give a true reading. Hansen acknowledges there may be flaws in the weather station data because temperature measurement is not always a precise science. But he says this does not mean big-picture trends can’t be drawn from the data.
He says: “That doesn’t mean you give up on the science and that you can’t draw valid conclusions about the nature of earth’s temperature change.”
Hansen has been infuriated by the attacks on GISS by climate change critics. Last year Canadian blogger and retired businessman Stephen McIntyre exposed a minor mistake in Hansen’s figures that had caused GISS to overstate US temperatures by a statistically small 0.15C since 2000.
Sceptics were energised. “We have proof of man-made global warming,” roared conservative American radio host Rush Limbaugh. “The man-made global warming is inside NASA.”
Hansen struck back, saying he would “not joust with court jesters” who sought to “create a brouhaha and muddy the waters in the climate change story”.
What the bloggers have succeeded in doing is to highlight that measuring climate change is an evolving science. But their success has been at the margins only. So far they have failed to prove that these discrepancies negate the broader core arguments about the trends of global warming.
However, the second argument being put forward by blogger sceptics is more accessible to the public and therefore is having a greater impact. They argue that, contrary to the impressions given about global warming, the earth’s temperatures have plateaued during the past decade and may have cooled in recent years. This, they argue, should not be happening when carbon emissions are growing rapidly. This was not what the climate change modellers predicted. Their conclusion therefore is that carbon emissions are not the driver of warming and climate change and that the earth is not heading for a climate change apocalypse caused by greenhouse gases.
“All official measures of global temperature show that it peaked in 1998 and has been declining since at least 2002,” says climate change sceptic Bob Carter, a science adviser to the Australian Climate Science Coalition. “And this is in the face of an almost 5 per cent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1998. Spot the problem?”
A careful analysis of global temperature graphs from each of the measurement agencies confirm that – despite variations between them – there has not been any notable warming since 2000. Depending on which graphs you use, global temperatures since 2000 have been more or less flat. Some, such as the GISS data, show a modest rise, while others show negligible movement and even a small fall in recent years.
Sceptics like to use graphs that date from 1998 because that was the hottest year on record due to El Nino influences and therefore the temperature trends for the decade look flattest when 1998 is the starting point.
But ultimately this is a phony war because most mainstream scientists do not dispute that global temperatures have remained relatively flat during the past decade. Where they differ with the sceptics is on how this outcome should be interpreted.
“The changes in temperature over the past 10 years have basically plateaued,” says Andy Pitman, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW. “But scientists did not anticipate a gradual year-by-year warming in temperature. What matters is the long-term trend. This outcome does not change any of the science but it does change the spin climate deniers can put on it.”
The sceptics are having a field day with this trend. The IPA’s Marohasy says: “In the last 10 years we have seen an increase in carbon dioxide levels yet temperatures are coming down. That, if anyone looks at the actual data, is not disputable. Carbon dioxide is not driving temperatures because there are other important climatic factors at play.”
Most scientists are adamant that any assessment of climate change based on only 10 years of data is not only meaningless but reckless.
“From a climate standpoint it is far too short a period to have any significance,” says Amanda Lynch, a climate change scientist at Melbourne’s Monash University. “What we are seeing now is consistent with our understanding of variability between decades. If we hung about for another 30 years and it kept going down, then you might start to think there is something we don’t understand. But the evidence at this point suggests this is not something we should hang around and wait for.”
Climate change scientists say we must go back much further than the past decade and pay attention to the longer-term trend lines that run through the temperature data and clearly trend upwards. Lynch says other factors beyond temperature are also relevant. “In the last 10 years there has been a catastrophic and massive Arctic sea ice retreat. We’ve seen glacial retreat, permafrost thaw and ocean thermal expansion, so temperature is not the whole story.”
But the sceptics are undeterred. “It is widely alleged that the science of global warming is settled,” says the US-based Science and Public Policy Institute. “This implies that all the major scientific aspects of climate change are well understood and uncontroversial. The allegation is profoundly untrue … even the most widely held opinions should never be regarded as an ultimate truth.”
Matthew England, from the Climate Change Research Centre, describes the latest blog war by climate change sceptics as an amazing phenomenon. “Climate change is a robust area of science and there is plenty that is still being debated and new discoveries are still being made,” he says. “It is a topic (that) will keep attracting different opinions from enthusiasts and from bloggers. They are a minority but they are proving to be a very vocal group.”
I take it you mean a 3% contribution to the greenhouse effect rather than to the concentration of C02? Well, my answer is that a 3% contribution to the performance of my investments will make a huge impact on my wealth over a long period. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you?
No, Steven, I said 3% contribution of C02, and that’s what I meant, so your foolish little analogy is meaningless.
C02 is not a heater. I used to have a lot of insulation in my roof, but my house was cold because I turned the heating down.
First, congratulations for recognizing that C02 isn’t a heater, and thus can not drive temperatures. As for your roof insulation analogy, C02’s “R” value in the climate “house” is extremely low, compared to water vapor’s, and decreases in logarithmic fashion as C02 levels increase. Further additions of C02 will add very little to the R-value. Further, remember man’s contribution of C02 is only about 3%, making his contribution to the R value minute, and of no consequence.
(Trying to post this again – hope it works this time!)
Dave Andrews –
Hi Dave,
In my experience, over the last 12 months, posters here and at Climate Audit are open to discussion and rarely, nay, never dismiss people of the opposite point of view with anything approaching the level of vitriol that is regularly displayed at RC and Open Mind.
So what does that say about the willingness of the climate science community to debate transparently?
I don’t think I can usefully make any judgment on that – I’m not really a student of comparative levels of vitriol! I think that, on both sides of this, there are intense levels of conviction, and obvious difficulties in taking on board elements (facts/evidence/interpretations) that are dissonant. That is human nature, I guess. I do have ‘faith’ that in the longer term, at least, the scientific process will tend closer to whatever ‘truth’ there is to be found. I think that scientists look to the academic literature (or to conferences) as their field for open debate. Are they as open as they might be? Probably not in every case, but I don’t jump to the conclusion that they are therefore engaged in deceit.
jh,
In other words, that 0.025C per year rise in temperatures is negated by the error. That 0.15C error is not insignificant when you’re talking about 0.20C increases!
I think that you’re conflating the US temperature anomaly with the global anomaly. The effect of the 2007 corrections on the global record was in the order of 0.001 degree –
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html
Dave,
The “hockey stick” was the virtual poster child for the IPCC AR3…
I would actually accept that criticism of the AR3’s presentation, in that its visual impact put too much emphasis on what is only one aspect of the science. It had its impact, but seemingly created the impression that the accuracy of palaeo reconstructions was somehow a kingpin in the ‘theory’. I don’t think that’s so.
I actually think the ‘sceptical community’ is somewhat obsessed with hockey stick debating, whether that be in respect of the original MBH98/99 studies or hockey-stick-like reconstructions since which have used different statistical methodologies. We then get onto all the ‘Team’ stuff, etc. Personally, I would be very happy to see a robust palaeo reconstruction showing a global MWP equivalent to today’s temperatures (I don’t think Loehle meets the ‘robust’ description, but bring on a better one!). I would then want to see a scientific understanding of that anomaly developed, just as we need a scientific understanding of today’s. It is not, to my mind, a logical presumption that any past temperature variation accounts in itself for present variation.
profarmer,
So, you are arguing that the atmosphere warms the oceans? You do realize the oceans are about 250 times the mass of the atmosphere right? That’s like a 10,000 lb pickup truck pulling a 2.5million lb train. Not to mention that the Argo bouys don’t show the supposed deep ocean heating. It seems to me that some may well have the relationship backwards. Can the atmosphere really drive the temperature of the oceans?
No, direct insolation (the mass of that is even less, of course!) primarily warms the oceans , the atmosphere affects radiation loss. To oversimplify, the sun insolates and the atmosphere insulates. If we removed the atmosphere the planet would become exceedingly cold, even though the heat source (the sun) remained the same. You’re right that the mass of the oceans is such that it would take a very long time for the whole body to be raised in temperature by 1 degree, say.
I’m not sure what you’re currently basing your view of Argo data on. Lyman et al. 2006 suggested cooling over the 2003-5 period, but they corrected that last year (problems with Argo float calibration) – but anyway, this referenced the upper ocean. I didn’t know that the Argo floats recorded the deep ocean…..?
(Trying to post again!)
Dave Andrews –
Hi Dave,
In my experience, over the last 12 months, posters here and at Climate Audit are open to discussion and rarely, nay, never dismiss people of the opposite point of view with anything approaching the level of vitriol that is regularly displayed at RC and Open Mind.
So what does that say about the willingness of the climate science community to debate transparently?
I don’t think I can usefully make any judgment on that – I’m not really a student of comparative levels of vitriol! I think that, on both sides of this, there are intense levels of conviction, and obvious difficulties in taking on board elements (facts/evidence/interpretations) that are dissonant. That is human nature, I guess. I do have ‘faith’ that in the longer term, at least, the scientific process will tend closer to whatever ‘truth’ there is to be found. I think that scientists look to the academic literature (or to conferences) as their field for open debate. Are they as open as they might be? Probably not in every case, but I don’t jump to the conclusion that they are therefore engaged in deceit.
jh,
In other words, that 0.025C per year rise in temperatures is negated by the error. That 0.15C error is not insignificant when you’re talking about 0.20C increases!
I think that you’re conflating the US temperature anomaly with the global anomaly. The effect of the 2007 corrections on the global record was in the order of 0.001 degree –
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html
Dave,
The “hockey stick” was the virtual poster child for the IPCC AR3…
I would actually accept that criticism of the AR3’s presentation, in that its visual impact put too much emphasis on what is only one aspect of the science. It had its impact, but seemingly created the impression that the accuracy of palaeo reconstructions was somehow a kingpin in the ‘theory’. I don’t think that’s so.
I actually think the ‘sceptical community’ is somewhat obsessed with hockey stick debating, whether that be in respect of the original MBH98/99 studies or hockey-stick-like reconstructions since which have used different statistical methodologies. We then get onto all the ‘Team’ stuff, etc. Personally, I would be very happy to see a robust palaeo reconstruction showing a global MWP equivalent to today’s temperatures (I don’t think Loehle meets the ‘robust’ description, but bring on a better one!). I would then want to see a scientific understanding of that anomaly developed, just as we need a scientific understanding of today’s. It is not, to my mind, a logical presumption that any past temperature variation accounts in itself for present variation.
profarmer,
So, you are arguing that the atmosphere warms the oceans? You do realize the oceans are about 250 times the mass of the atmosphere right? That’s like a 10,000 lb pickup truck pulling a 2.5million lb train. Not to mention that the Argo bouys don’t show the supposed deep ocean heating. It seems to me that some may well have the relationship backwards. Can the atmosphere really drive the temperature of the oceans?
No, direct insolation (the mass of that is even less, of course!) primarily warms the oceans , the atmosphere affects radiation loss. To oversimplify, the sun insolates and the atmosphere insulates. If we removed the atmosphere the planet would become exceedingly cold, even though the heat source (the sun) remained the same. You’re right that the mass of the oceans is such that it would take a very long time for the whole body to be raised in temperature by 1 degree, say.
I’m not sure what you’re currently basing your view of Argo data on. Lyman et al. 2006 suggested cooling over the 2003-5 period, but they corrected that last year (problems with Argo float calibration) – but anyway, this referenced the upper ocean. I didn’t know that the Argo floats recorded the deep ocean…..?
Steven Talbot, please give the mod time to claw the posts out of the spam filter~charles the moderator. It’s icky in there.
jeez –
Sorry, I thought I had a browser glitch. Will recognise the symptoms another time!
Sorry for the repeat posts messing up the thread, folks.
Bruce Cobb,
No, Steven, I said 3% contribution of C02, and that’s what I meant, so your foolish little analogy is meaningless.
Well, I’m sorry you think me foolish. I can only do my best 😉
You weren’t clear on what basis you quoted a 3% contribution. The relevant concern is the contribution of anthropogenic C02 to the increase in atmospheric C02, which is why I do not consider my analogy to be foolish or meaningless. Anthropogenic C02 is a small percentage of the total carbon cycle, but it accounts for a very large percentage of the increase. Were it not for other feedbacks (such as ocean warming leading to C02 release) it might be in excess of 100% of the increase in a state where forestation is being reduced.
First, congratulations for recognizing that C02 isn’t a heater
Thank you for your congratulations, which rather surprise me, given that I think the point is obvious.
and thus can not drive temperatures.
That is illogical, IMV. A hot potato isn’t a heater, but it can keep my hands warm.
As for your roof insulation analogy, C02’s “R” value in the climate “house” is extremely low, compared to water vapor’s
There is much more water vapour than C02, this is not the same as a difference in molecular absorption of IR. I can’t write a paper on IR spectra here, so we must agree to differ.
Further, remember man’s contribution of C02 is only about 3%, making his contribution to the R value minute, and of no consequence.
The ‘R value’, as you put it, would depend upon what is left in the atmosphere, not upon the total carbon cycle of the planet. The percentage of the latter is entirely irrelevant. C02 that is taken up by trees is not contributing to the greenhouse effect! C02 that is cycling in the oceans is not contributing either. Atmospheric C02 has increased more than 30% since pre-industrial times. If you think that’s of no consequence, then fine – I hope you’re right.
Steven Talbot,
It doesn’t seem fair to pile on, but you said something interesting regarding adding a little bit more CO2 to the atmosphere:
Would you apply that same rationale to the increase in solar activity and irradiance? Note that the Earth has received a substantial increase in solar energy since around 1900. That’s a long time of compounding interest. How does that square with your analogy?
Regarding your comment about both sides in this “debate” being partisan, I disagree strongly. I put ‘debate’ in quotation marks, because there has been no debate — not for lack of trying.
In fact, the pro-AGW side absolutely runs from any neutral, moderated debate. They hide out, and take potshots through a sympathetic media. But they never formally debate. Why not?
The answer is pretty obvious: they don’t have the facts to justify their hypothesis, which is predicated entirely on their [always inaccurate] computer models.
In the mean time, the planet is disagreeing with them by inconveniently cooling, even as CO2 increases.
“I’m not sure what you’re currently basing your view of Argo data on. Lyman et al. 2006 suggested cooling over the 2003-5 period, but they corrected that last year (problems with Argo float calibration) – but anyway, this referenced the upper ocean. I didn’t know that the Argo floats recorded the deep ocean…..?”
The JPL released new Argo data and since 2003 the oceans have stopped warming. Google JPL, Lyman, Argo and you should find it. However, there are plenty of researchers out there attempting to adjust what the JPL has come across.
Smokey: I concur 100% with you, debate or shut the H**l- up.
Or let’s take it to the courts Just like the Brit’s did in the case of
“An inconvenient truth”
It’s unreal to me that it has come to this point, AGW is a pox on science.
It will set back the pubic trust in scientists back decades.
Once again, you assume a static system. Humans release X amount of CO2 so that builds up in the atmosphere. The trick is, biology comes along and increase also and use the increasing CO2. It’s a dynamic system. Unless you subscribe to the abiogenic oil hypothesis, we aren’t releasing anything that wasn’t already sequesthred by plants once already anyway. Why won’t they do it again? I beleive satelite studies have shown MORE vegetation recently, not less.
So, just what is the optimal CO2 number? How do we now it wasn’t getting low enough to endanger plant life?
Smokey,
It doesn’t seem fair to pile on
Well, maybe I’m getting a wee bit tired, but hey, I like a challenge 🙂
…a 3% contribution to the performance of my investments will make a huge impact on my wealth over a long period.
Would you apply that same rationale to the increase in solar activity and irradiance? Note that the Earth has received a substantial increase in solar energy since around 1900. That’s a long time of compounding interest. How does that square with your analogy?
Well, firstly my analogy has obvious limitations (so, for example, I’m not suggesting that a doubling of C02 would double temperature!), but otherwise then yes, of course, any year on year small accumulative change in a forcing will mount up in effect….
The increase in irradiance from 1900 into the 1940s (it’s about 0.01% increase ) accounts for part of the temperature rise during that period. There is no apparent trend beyond that, and extending the graph to 2005 shows the cycle falling again.
I’m not sure where your sunspot graph comes from, but since it’s showing a global temperature peak in c.1940 I’m not inclined to give it much credence. It looks a wee bit like Svensmark & Christensen’s effort – if so, please see here for an explanation of what is obviously wrong with it –
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf
Besides, if you extend from 1980s (where it seems to finish) to the present day, you will see the apparent correlation break down very obviously (even if you discount the improper data handling demonstrated by Damon & Laut, as linked to).
Regarding your comment about both sides in this “debate” being partisan, I disagree strongly. I put ‘debate’ in quotation marks, because there has been no debate — not for lack of trying.
Ah well, I’m just giving my own impression. Personally I think both sides are pretty dug in, but we each have our views.
In fact, the pro-AGW side absolutely runs from any neutral, moderated debate. They hide out, and take potshots through a sympathetic media. But they never formally debate. Why not?
Hmm. Well, ‘pro-AGW’ seems a bit of an odd idea, but I’ve said that I am currently persuaded of the risks, so I guess I’m in the camp you mean. I don’t seem to be running anywhere, though I might hang my boots up after a bit. I’d say the media was at best 50/50 here in the UK, at least. This thread relates to an ‘Australian’ article, which I think it’s fair to say has been giving considerable exposure to ‘sceptical’ views over a long period! My judgment of the UK, US and Oz media that I’ve seen is that there is plenty of ‘doubt’ being given exposure. As for formal debate, scientists do that through the academic literature, and at conferences. I think that’s the way they should debate, because matters should be advanced through scientific process rather than influenced by rhetorical skill. But anyway – I’m not really here to justify whether or not people choose public debate. I’m certainly prepared to debate, FWIW.
The answer is pretty obvious: they don’t have the facts to justify their hypothesis, which is predicated entirely on their [always inaccurate] computer models.
Huh? I’m just a poster on a BB, and I’m not feeling short of facts (only of time, perhaps!). The basic hypothesis predates any GCM model, so it can hardly be predicated on them. I agree that they remain ‘inaccurate’ – the question is whether or not they’re useful.
In the mean time, the planet is disagreeing with them by inconveniently cooling, even as CO2 increases.
I don’t think the planet is cooling, though surface temperatures are continuing to be subject to natural variation, which is entirely to be expected.
JL,
The JPL released new Argo data and since 2003 the oceans have stopped warming. Google JPL, Lyman, Argo and you should find it.
I don’t need to google, as I’m well aware of what you’re talking about. As I’ve said, Lyman has corrected his 2006 findings. Here’s the paper, which describes the previously reported cooling as “spurious”:
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf
Since Lyman led the paper that originally reported the cooling, it hardly makes sense to imply “there are plenty of researchers out there attempting to adjust what the JPL has come across” when it’s Lyman himself now saying the cooling was spurious, relating to calibration issues discovered by JPL!
Pofarmer,
Once again, you assume a static system. Humans release X amount of CO2 so that builds up in the atmosphere. The trick is, biology comes along and increase also and use the increasing CO2.
This is an interesting idea, which reminds me of Freeman Dyson’s take on the problem –
…if we can control what the plants do with the carbon, the fate of the carbon in the atmosphere is in our hands. That is what Nordhaus meant when he mentioned “genetically engineered carbon-eating trees” as a low-cost backstop to global warming. The science and technology of genetic engineering are not yet ripe for large-scale use. We do not understand the language of the genome well enough to read and write it fluently. But the science is advancing rapidly, and the technology of reading and writing genomes is advancing even more rapidly. I consider it likely that we shall have “genetically engineered carbon-eating trees” within twenty years, and almost certainly within fifty years.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
The thing is that, if we go on as we are, then the land carbon reservoir would have to double in size by the end of the century to take up the extra C02. Maybe Dyson has a good idea, but it seems one heck of long bet at the moment (and anyway, it rather depends upon recognizing the need to develop such carbon-eaters, which doesn’t seem to be widely accepted hereabouts! ;-)). Maybe genetic technology could save the day? Who knows. I don’t think nature can be expected to respond that quickly!
Unless you subscribe to the abiogenic oil hypothesis, we aren’t releasing anything that wasn’t already sequesthred by plants once already anyway. Why won’t they do it again?
True (not the oil hypothesis, the sequestration). This has given us the atmosphere we have today, which we are, self-evidently, well-adapted to. I guess C02 may well be sequestered once again at some time in the future, but such changes in the past have been on a timescale of millions of years rather than decades. The Azolla Event drew down vast quantities of C02 (c.80% drop) but it took a while –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event
Just as well it did, really, since it was darned hot during the Eocene thermal maximum, and I rather doubt that we’d have evolved otherwise.
So, just what is the optimal CO2 number? How do we now it wasn’t getting low enough to endanger plant life?
Optimal for humans or for certain types of plants? It seems reasonable to presume that the prevailing conditions of the Holocene have been optimum for the development of human civilization (and for the plants that we have). Some plants or other life forms might well do better at higher levels of C02…. but the issue, I think, is not so much one of C02 levels, or temperature levels, but of rapid change. It’s possible that we are advanced enough as a species to adapt to such change, although at considerable cost to the extent of our civilization, I would suspect. I don’t fancy the chances for our current biodiversity, though. If change is extreme, and rapid, then life in some form will go on, but not ‘life as we know it’.
[I might give this a break soon and get back to ‘life as we know it’! ;-)]
Steven Talbot (21:58:20)
The reason why I asked the question about the 2.5 amplification number is simple. The whole “Global Warming” hype is based on that assumed amplification numbed in the earth’s energy “Heat” budget.
“The sensitivity of the climate system to a forcing is commonly expressed in terms of the global mean temperature change that would be expected after a time sufficiently long for both the atmosphere and ocean to come to equilibrium with the change in climate forcing. If there were no climate feedbacks, the response of Earth’s mean temperature to a forcing of 4 W/m2 (the forcing for a doubled atmospheric CO2) would be an increase of about 1.2 °C (about 2.2 °F). However, the total climate change is affected not only by the immediate direct forcing, but also by climate “feedbacks” that come into play in response to the forcing.”
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, pp 6-7,
Committee on the Science of Climate Change
National Research Council
Since there has been a lack of feedback for the last 8 years, it should be easy to solve for the amplification number.
Personally, I believe that the amplification is nothing more than an accounting trick to balance the “heat’ energy budget. Something like Enron would do to balance their “books”.
Steven Talbot (08:48:25)
“I don’t think the science is at the stage of being able to assess short term changes in sensitivity in response to ENSO phases, for example. The assessment of feedback for a doubling of C02 is a long-term matter, of course.”
We had about 8 years observer satilite data went Hanson to siad that the double of Co2 will lead to a “tipping piont” that we will never “recover from”.
Here’s a stupid question.
If CO2 is increasing, what is decreasing?
“The atrocities of Hitler and Stalin, and the mechanical sins of all who helped them, might have been inconceivable except for the separation of facts from values and knowledge from morality.” – l Gore
Hmmmm
Anthropogenic C02 is a small percentage of the total carbon cycle, but it accounts for a very large percentage of the increase.
I assume you’re talking about the C13/C12 isotope ratio. Man’s 3% contribution of C02 has 2.6% less C13 less than natures, and AGWers like to point out that the C13 ratio is declining, “proving” that it’s man’s evil C02 which is responsible for much of the increased C02. First of all, even if that claim were true, it wouldn’t matter one bit. The more C02 the better, in fact, as it is plant food, meaning more food for man, which is a godsend, particularly since we are now very likely on track for another LIA. But, unfortunately for AGWers, not only does their claim not matter one iota (except as propaganda), but it is false. According to this paper posted here: Spencer Part2: More CO2 Peculiarities – The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio by Dr. Roy Spencer back in January, “… the ratio of C13 variability to CO2 variability is EXACTLY THE SAME as that seen in the trends!” So, sorry, but there is no man-made C02 trend signal, much as AGWers want there to be one.
Green at last
An asteroid came at us
but what could we do?
We’d spent all
our money
to reduce CO2.
On it came.
On it came.
We were dismayed.
We cried to Lord Al G.,
but he’d flown away.
On it came.
On it came.
We were quite sad.
Compared to being smashed,
CO2 seemed not bad.
We were blasted and shattered
and what’s worse more:
we in Tennessee
were covered with Gore.
And now we’re just green ooze
with bubbling gas.
Lord G. would be proud of us;
“Green at last!”
But though we’re green
we’re also blue.
We miss that lovely CO2.
As Bruce Cobb correctly points out, CO2 is good. It is beneficial to all life on Earth. More CO2 is better; much more CO2 is much better.
Mr. Steven Talbot, you misrepresent Prof. Dyson’s central point: a tiny layer of topsoil contains enough CO2 eating bacteria to counterbalance more than the amount humans emit. And bacteria multiply rapidly, sometimes many generations every day. So they can take up the slack with ease. Please read the statement here that Prof. Dyson co-signed. Try to comprehend what he [along with more than 31,000 scientists] state.
Next, your belief that the Earth is still warming, not cooling, is at variance with the facts. Please look here. You will see that even GISS is forced to admit that the planet has been cooling.
Finally, I can not accept your dodging the debate question. On the one occasion [to the best of my knowledge] that there was a formal AGW debate, the debate audience was polled prior to the debate, and the majority believed that human activity caused global warming. Following the debate, the audience was again polled; the audience had changed its mind, and now agreed that human activity was not the culprit.
That debate experience is the reason that climate alarmists refuse to debate. They absolutely run away from any real debate — because when they debate under formalized debate rules [which are devised to sort the truth from emotion and superstition], they lose.
That is why the alarmist run from any real debate. See the Wegman Report to understand what’s really happening.
old construction worker,
I agree that projections of climate change depend upon the assessment of feedbacks rather than the primary effect of forcings. I’m not clear, though, what you mean by “Since there has been a lack of feedback for the last 8 years.” Feedbacks, either positive or negative, are at work regardless of whatever the temperature anomaly may be for a given time.
Pofarmer,
You are right in your guess that I am not a farmer ;-). Nevertheless, I believe I understand your points. You’ll note that I commented on ‘current biodiversity’ rather than speculating upon adaptations. I have little doubt that some species will do better, being well-suited or well-placed to take advantage of changes. I hope that they are the species which suit the interests of the farmers.
If you look at the Mauna Loa data, you have CO2 increasing from about 318 to about 385 PPM in the space of around 50 years. This in itself doesn’t seem extreme
I have in mind what the C02 concentration might be by the end of the century The TAR projections ranged 541 – 963 ppm by 2100 for six scenarios.
according to Ernst Beck’s work….according to Becks charts
Ah, right. Well, if you think Beck’s review of wet chemical C02 analysis is useful then I guess we have very different views indeed. Perhaps you’d like to tell me where these analyses were taken, and the extent to which they can be considered representative of atmospheric C02 rather than the state of the air in those particular locations? I’d suggest that a chemical analysis of C02 in Beijing might throw up an interesting number!
Bruce Cobb,
…unfortunately for AGWers, not only does their claim not matter one iota (except as propaganda), but it is false. According to this paper posted here: Spencer Part2: More CO2 Peculiarities – The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio by Dr. Roy Spencer back in January, “… the ratio of C13 variability to CO2 variability is EXACTLY THE SAME as that seen in the trends!” So, sorry, but there is no man-made C02 trend signal, much as AGWers want there to be one.
If Spencer has something useful to say on this matter then I suggest he publishes an academic paper on the subject rather than am article on a blog. You seem to think that his comments in an article written this year are somehow revelatory (and I note his own use of the exclamation mark, as if he thinks so too). However, he seems to be a few years off the pace if he thinks that it’s not occurred to others to investigate the matter he’s referring to –
Note that changes in the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 are also caused by other sources and sinks, but the changing isotopic signal due to CO2 from fossil fuel combustion can be resolved from the other components (Francey et al., 1995). These changes can easily be measured using modern isotope ratio mass spectrometry, which has the capability of measuring 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 to better than 1 part in 105 (Ferretti et al., 2000). Data presented in Figure 2.3 for the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa show a decreasing ratio, consistent with trends in both fossil fuel CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios (Andres et al., 2000; Keeling et al., 2005). (IPCC 4thAR, WG1 p.139)
I’d suggest you ask Dr Spencer why, when posting on a blog, he makes no mention of the above scientific work that had resolved his ‘point’ some ten years ago. Or, alternatively, just read Ferdinand Engelbeen’s comments that follow the post you’ve linked to.
So, sorry, but there is no disproof of the AGW signal in Dr Spencer’s article, much as the ‘sceptics’ would like there to be one. That, of course, is precisely why Spencer has nothing on this subject to publish academically.
Smokey,
As Bruce Cobb correctly points out, CO2 is good. It is beneficial to all life on Earth. More CO2 is better; much more CO2 is much better.
The IPCC is clear in its view that increasing C02 will show crop-yield benefits in temperate regions, for a time at least. The question is more complex than simply ‘good or bad’, though. Ch 1 of the IPCC’s 4th AR WGII deals with matters in detail. It seems likely that by mid-century, say, increasing C02 will benefit crop production in the US, on average, but that in other parts of the world the fertilising effect of C02 will be more than negated by other effects (such as changing precipitation patterns). But yes, if other elements are favourable then C02 will have a fertilising effect to a certain level.
As for your suggestion that C02 is beneficial for ‘all life’, I’m afraid I don’t understand you.
Steven Talbot, you misrepresent Prof. Dyson’s central point
I quoted him at length, so I am disappointed that you feel it was a misrepresentation.
…a tiny layer of topsoil contains enough CO2 eating bacteria to counterbalance more than the amount humans emit. And bacteria multiply rapidly, sometimes many generations every day. So they can take up the slack with ease.
In which case, I must ask you why they have not been doing precisely that?
Please read the statement here that Prof. Dyson co-signed. Try to comprehend what he [along with more than 31,000 scientists] state.
I have read it before, and I don’t think I had any difficulty in ‘comprehending’ it. As for the 31,000 scientists, are you aware that includes, for example, nearly 16,000 engineers, some half of the total? That’s about 0.8% of the engineers in the USA. I’ve got nothing against engineers, but they’re not my first port of call when looking for an understanding of climate. Given that this petition project conducted a massive mailing, that doesn’t even seem a very high proportion of engineers anyway! Another 3,069 are doctors and veterinarians. Hmm. That’s maybe 0.3% of those professions. Well, you can probably gather what I think about this ‘petition’. The ‘petition project’ website claims “All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement.” Self-evident rubbish, no? Unless you think veterinarians are somehow “suitably qualified” in such a way? Honestly, I thought contrarians in the matter of climate change liked to pride themselves on being ‘sceptics’, yet you swallow this sort of stuff without question?
Next, your belief that the Earth is still warming, not cooling, is at variance with the facts. Please look here. You will see that even GISS is forced to admit that the planet has been cooling.
I’d suggest you considered the distinction between the planet’s energy balance and its surface temperature at a particular time. If you stirred the ocean with a big spoon you would lower surface temperature, but you would not be cooling the planet.
Finally, I can not accept your dodging the debate question.
Excuse me? I am debating, am I not?
They absolutely run away from any real debate — because when they debate under formalized debate rules [which are devised to sort the truth from emotion and superstition], they lose.
You call debating with a science-fiction writer, scoring points through ad hominem attacks, a “real debate”? Well, if that’s how you think we should develop the best understanding we can of the science then I can see why you might thing the opinion of your local engineer, doctor or veterinarian is just as likely to be as useful as anyone else’s.
Perhaps you’d like to tell me where these analyses were taken, and the extent to which they can be considered representative of atmospheric C02 rather than the state of the air in those particular locations? I’d suggest that a chemical analysis of C02 in Beijing might throw up an interesting number!
Actually, Beck goes through it pretty throughly. Locations for a great many of the measurements are known.
Alternately, I’d like to see the “proof” for the ice core numbers, ya know, the ones they had to adjust 80 some years to make fit the pattern? Why did they do that? Because they were too low to fit the trend. There is a problem there. I’m not saying Becks numbers are absolute. What I’m saying is, that this study, along with things like fossil and sedimentary evidence put the ice core numbers in question. The ice core numbers looks suspiciously like a plot of CO2 concentration vs depth.
It seems likely that by mid-century, say, increasing C02 will benefit crop production in the US, on average, but that in other parts of the world the fertilising effect of C02 will be more than negated by other effects (such as changing precipitation patterns). But yes, if other elements are favourable then C02 will have a fertilising effect to a certain level.
Absolutely not buying it. NOAA TOTALLY, and I mean TOTALLY missed this summers forecast for the mid USA. Did I say TOTALLY? Yet you are telling me that they can predict weather patterns mid century????? Ain’t no way in heck. Weather predictions are proofed everday, and they still miss about as much as they hit. Show me where the Climate modelers have consistently hit.
Pofarmer,
We’ll have to agree to differ on Beck. I don’t think the data’s of much use, but perhaps I’m wrong and you’re right.
…you are telling me that they can predict weather patterns mid century????? Ain’t no way in heck. Weather predictions are proofed everday, and they still miss about as much as they hit. Show me where the Climate modelers have consistently hit.
I’m not suggesting that any model can predict the mid-USA summer of 2050, no. I think they can project trends over the long-term, although I happen to think that regional modeling is not well-advanced at the moment (you’ll note that I generalised about the whole of the USA, on average, for example). So, its on the level of projecting that there’ll tend to be more hotter years, or more wetter years, etc. The weather globally is, and will continue to be, chaotic in the short-term. Current GCM models won’t ‘hit’ even on a global level – hotter/colder next year, for example. They’re not even set up to try (they’re not baselined to any current real-world conditions). For example, they have the range of El Nino/La Nina oscillation programmed in, but they’re not predicting the particular timing of such events. So it’s very ‘broad brush’, and only useful in terms of long-term projection, rather than short-term prediction of the weather-forecast kind.
Pofarmer understands.
Beck, et al, took the painstaking records of more than 90,000 individual CO2 measurements from around the world, conducted over many years. In addition, detailed notes were kept by the numerous scientists involved [who didn’t, by the way, expect any grant money for their work].
Those conducting the CO2 measurements included drawings of their test setup, and made copious notes of exactly how their measurements were conducted. Current CO2 levels have been compared with the same wet chemical methodology. Results using the exact same methodology are consistently within +/- 3% of modern CO2 measurements done today. That is convincing evidence of their accuracy, whether Mr. Talbot likes it or not. And despite some desperate criticism by AGW advocates, Dr Beck’s work remains unrefuted, as detailed in the comments under the recent Beck article.
Beck’s paper shows that, even if the wet chemical measurements are accepted as being 3% high [and in fact, they could just as well have been 3% low], in the early 1800’s — before the industrial revolution — CO2 levels still approached 450 ppmv, much higher than current atmospheric CO2. So, why didn’t the climate begin runaway global warming in the early to mid 1800’s? Answer: because the AGW/CO2 hypothesis is false.
Steven Talbot further disparages tens of thousands of others, whom he has never met, by pretending that those taking a heavily science-laden curriculum should be effectively dismissed:
That number trumps, in a major way, the ~2,500 UN ‘scientists’ [some of whom have degrees in Sociology, English Lit and other non-science degrees] who took part in the UN/IPCC’s reports. IIRC, there were fewer than 60 UN scientists in relevant fields involved in the actual report. If 0.8% of U.S. engineers co-signed the OISM Petition, how does that compare with the best that the alarmists could do in the pro-AGW Heidelberg Appeal — which was only able, after much publicity and multiple attemps, to garner around 800 signatures?
Denigrating skeptical scientists does nothing to bolster the failed AGW/CO2/climate catastrophe hypothesis. It reeks of desperation.
I could likewise refer Mr. Talbot to one of his AGW advocates, Dr Pachauri, who, as head of the UN/IPCC believes in reincarnation, majored in economics, and deliberately insults anyone who disagrees with him as a “flat-earther.”
Rather, I would point out that Mr. Talbot’s hero, Al Gore, received a D in his college science course — then later attended Divinity School, from which he flunked out. How can anyone seriously accept any science that Al Gore advocates? And make no mistake, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the views of Al Gore and James Hansen.
Al Gore claims that rising CO2 “will cause a climate catastrophe within ten years.” He’s been saying this for many years now, and his true believers parrot his failed hypothesis even as the planet continues to cool. How intellectually blind to people have to be to still believe in the “what if” scenarios of their always-inaccurate computer models, over the ever-mounting empirical evidence of global cooling?
Rational people are more interested in the conclusions of acknowledged experts like Spencer, Beck, Monckton, Ball, Jaworowski, Seitz, Dyson, Hertzberg, Coleman, Wegman, and 31,000 other people with degrees in the hard sciences, over those with a self-serving financial incentive, which turns them into climate disaster advocates like as Gore, Hansen and Pachauri. Science, as the rest of us know, has nothing to do with advocacy of a cause.
Smokey,
Current CO2 levels have been compared with the same wet chemical methodology. Results using the exact same methodology are consistently within +/- 3% of modern CO2 measurements done today. That is convincing evidence of their accuracy, whether Mr. Talbot likes it or not.
That is an assessment of the accuracy of the measuring equipment, not an assessment of the accuracy of the measuring conditions. May I suggest you consider one of the favourite themes of this blog, that is the accuracy of measuring conditions? By all means, if you wish, consider Beck’s analysis to be useful. I think it is a complete joke, by the standards of this very blog which is concerned about the accuracy of measurement. Shall we agree to differ?
Steven Talbot further disparages tens of thousands of others, whom he has never met, by pretending that those taking a heavily science-laden curriculum should be effectively dismissed:
I’m not disparaging anyone. My partner happens to be a veterinary surgeon! She’s extremely bright, but knows next to nothing about climate science.
Look, if you want to decide what’s going to happen to the climate on the basis of an opinion poll, which shows that a very tiny percentage of those mailed actually supported the ‘petition’, then that’s fine. I’ll just keep on reading the science, if you don’t mind.
Denigrating skeptical scientists does nothing to bolster the failed AGW/CO2/climate catastrophe hypothesis. It reeks of desperation.
Actually, I think you’re rather reeking of desperation in this increasingly personalised post of yours. Just my impression, of course. The suggestion that I am “denigrating sceptical scientists” is entirely ludicrous.
I could likewise refer Mr. Talbot to one of his AGW advocates, Dr Pachauri, who, as head of the UN/IPCC believes in reincarnation, majored in economics, and deliberately insults anyone who disagrees with him as a “flat-earther.”
Your point? Shall I refer you to Dr Roy Spencer, who is a creationist, and considers that the theory of evolution is as much a matter of faith as a belief in Intelligent Design? I don’t care – if he produces good science, that’s fine by me.
Rather, I would point out that Mr. Talbot’s hero, Al Gore,…
Resorting now to straw man arguments, I see.
Rational people are more interested in the conclusions of acknowledged experts like Spencer, Beck, Monckton, Ball, Jaworowski, Seitz, Dyson, Hertzberg, Coleman, Wegman…
You are having a joke with some of those names, I take it?
You seem to have fallen back on vitriolic rhetoric in the face of debate, Smokey. Unless you can put points in a more temperate fashion, then I suggest we end this dialogue.
If you trust the ice core data over Beck’s data, then why don’t you explain to me what the ice core data was benchmarked against?
Link to my name should work now – it needed a capital letter…