I received this presentation of the “Bjerknes Lecture” that Dr. James Hansen gave at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union on December 17th. There are the usual things one might expect in the presentation, such as this slide which shows 2008 on the left with the anomalously warm Siberia and the Antarctic peninsula:
Source: James Hansen, GISS
Off topic but relevant, NASA has recently “disappeared”updated this oft cited map showing warming on the Antarctic peninsula and cooling of the interior:
There is also some new information in Hansen’s presentation, including a claim about CO2 sensitivity and coal causing a “runaway greenhouse effect”.
Hansen makes a bold statement that he has empirically derived CO2 sensitivity of our global climate system. I had to chuckle though, about the claim “Paleo yields precise result”. Apparently Jim hasn’t quite got the message yet that Michael Mann’s paleo results are, well, dubious, or that trees are better indicators of precipitation than temperature.
In fact in the later slide text he claims he’s “nailed” it:
He adds some caveats for the 2xCO2 claim:
Notes:
(1)
It is unwise to attempt to treat glacial-interglacial aerosol changes as a specified boundary condition (as per Hansen et al. 1984), because aerosols are inhomogeneously distributed, and their forcing depends strongly on aerosol altitude and aerosol absorbtivity, all poorly known. But why even attempt that? Human-made aerosol changes are a forcing, but aerosol changes in response to climate change are a fast feedback.
(2)
The accuracy of our knowledge of climate sensitivity is set by our best source of information, not by bad sources. Estimates of climate sensitivity based on the last 100 years of climate change are practically worthless, because we do not know the net climate forcing. Also, transient change is much less sensitive than the equilibrium response and the transient response is affected by uncertainty in ocean mixing.
(3)
Although, in general, climate sensitivity is a function of the climate state, the fast feedback sensitivity is just as great going toward warmer climate as it is going toward colder climate. Slow feedbacks (ice sheet changes, greenhouse gas changes) are more sensitive to the climate state.
Hansen is also talking about the “runaway” greenhouse effect, citing that old standby Venus in part of his presentation. He claims that coal and tar sands will be our undoing:
Hansen writes:
In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.
That would be the ultimate Faustian bargain. Mephistopheles would carry off shrieking not only the robber barons, but, unfortunately and permanently, all life on the planet.
I have to wonder though, if he really believes what he is saying. Perhaps he’s never seen this graph for CO2 from Bill Illis and the response it gives to IR radiation (and thus temperature) as it increases:
It’s commonly known that CO2’s radiative return response is logarithmic with increasing concentration, so I don’t understand how Hansen thinks that it will be the cause of a runaway effect. The physics dictate that the temperature response curve of the atmosphere will be getting flatter as CO2 increases. Earth has also had much higher concentrations of CO2 in past history, and we didn’t go into runaway then:
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya — 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
There’s lots more in this paper to behold in wonderment, and I haven’t the time today to comment on all of it, so I’ll just leave it up to the readers of this forum to bring out the relevant issues for discussion.
I’m sure Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit will have some comments on it, even though his name is not mentioned in the presentation. My name was mentioned several times though. 😉
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
512 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Johnson
December 23, 2008 6:50 am
Your NASA Science in action. Raw data is out, and opinion rules supreme.
From Science News, December 6, 2008: A letter, pasted without alteration.
n “Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was” (SN: 10/25/08, p. 5), Science News includes a graph, attributed to NASA, that shows temperature deviations from the year 1880. The data clearly indicate a distinct warming trend throughout the period. Why is it that over the past two years I have very painstakingly researched the data from more than 200 weather stations from every continent, including more than 20 north of the Arctic Circle, and I haven’t found a single one that indicates a trend that even remotely resembles that represented by the graph in your article? The difference between my primary research and the data from NASA is disconcerting.
As a high school environmental science teacher, I don’t know whether to teach my students of the threat of global warming or of the terrible hoax being played by the world’s scientists in whom we entrust so much. Will someone please provide the locations of specific weather stations that indicate the trend shown by the NASA graph, instead of just showing NASA’s compilation of weather station data?
Edward Amatetti, Gaithersburg, Md.
The NASA graph depicts a year-by-year estimate of average global temperature, not the temperature recorded at any individual weather station. That estimate includes data gathered at more than 500 land-based weather stations, says Reto Ruedy, a mathematician and climate modeler at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. Since December 1981, sea-surface temperatures have been estimated from satellite observations; before then, such data were gathered at sea by commercial and government research vessels. —Sid Perkins
Joel Shore
December 23, 2008 7:03 am
E.M. Smith says:
Investors Business Daily a ‘nutty political publication’? A national non-political newspaper that is the main competitor to The Wall Street Journal.
Well, their editorial page seems to be (as I would say is pretty true of WSJ’s editorial page). The reporting in WSJ is quite good though (and rumor has it that some of the reporters for WSJ agree with my characterization of the editorial page)…I am not sure about the reporting in IBD but then that piece was, I believe, on the editorial page.
Sorry, you’ve just completely blown any shred of credibility possible. The rest of whatever you have to say is of no interest at all. If you can’t tell a real reputable paper from your fantasies then there is no hope for veracity
How convenient that you have found an excuse to ignore the most substantive part of my post where I showed that you were clearly wrong and Hansen’s characterization of what he provided to the authors is supported by the reference that the authors gave to Hansen in their paper. Yes, very convenient indeed!! I guess that is how you can continue to believe the fictions that you do.
Joel Shore
December 23, 2008 7:19 am
Fred Gams asks:
Let me ask you this:
Does the fact that CO2 has increased yet the global temperature anomaly has decreased in the past decade falsify the theory?
How can the fact that temperature sometimes decreases over some relative short periods of time falsify the theory when exactly the same sort of behavior is seen in the climate models forced with CO2?!? (See here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/langswitch_lang/fr ) That makes no sense at all. In fact, if this did not occur that we would be forced to conclude that the climate models were significantly overstating the variable component of climate relative to the forced component.
And, by the way, whether or not the global temperature anomaly has increased or decreased over the past several years depends strongly on exactly which years you include and which data set. Since a 10 year period would no longer include the “El Nino of the century” in 1998, I rather doubt that the trend line for any of the surface temperature records actually shows a decrease over the past decade. (And, in fact for the ten-year period from 1998 to 2007, the trendlines for both the HADCRUT data set and the NASA GISS data set were positive even with 1998 there, although the error bars on the trends are still large over such a short period.) But, at any rate, the data for trends are very noisy from year-to-year and one data set to another (e.g., NASA GISS vs Hadcrut) until you get out to 12 to 15 years or so where trendlines become much more robust…which, interestingly, is basically just what the climate models predict to be the case!
How about “realist”. Those that realize we are far from knowing exactly what factor(s) drives our climate. There are many clues but it is a very complex system, no? To me, history shows “tipping points” ( a term I disagree with) flop to the ice age side, not to catastrophic warming. Our planet seems to be able to recover from events (volcanic, ice ages,for example) without our assistance or intervention. Our contribution of Co2 is miniscule and quite clearly the atmosphere has recovered from much worse influx of GHG’s.
foinavon
December 23, 2008 8:01 am
Will (15:23:47)
I don’t agree with your analysis Will. Looking at some of your points:
Re Santer: Secondly, Santer ends his study in 1998 at the height of the super el nino. A little convenient perhaps? The cherry picking being done here is breathtaking.
Except that that’s false, since Santer et al. in fact ended their study with data up through December 1999. This was a relatively strong La Nina (cool) year as it happens.
See Methods section of Santer et al and Figures:
e.g. Santer et al: Since most of the 20CEN experiments end in 1999, out trend comparisons primarily cover the 252-month period from January 1979 to December 1999, which is the period of maximum overlap between the observed MSU data and the model simulations. The general tendency to rubbish the data if it doesn’t support your argument. “Satellite data has too many uncorrected errors, is unreliable, etc.” Come on, let’s be grown-ups here. You can throw out ANY empirical data that doesn’t suite your argument by pointing to “measurement errors”.
There are several people on this thread that seem to be doing that (see just above)! I’m not “rubbishing” anything. I’ve illustrated that the two graphs in the introductory post to this thread are incredibly misleading. That’s not “rubbishing”. I’ve described exactly what the problems are with reference to the science. Anyone is welcome to argue against my descriptions, but no-one has chosen to do so, at least in respect of the science. If one is interested in the science on this issues one may as well address the science as it stands.
And my comments about the satellite/radiosonde data is in the same vein. The data simply isn’t sufficiently accurate and precise to establish whether there is a real discrepency between models and temperature in the tropics. It’s not “rubbishing” the data to point out the facts:
Santer et al. say essentially the same thing:
Santer et al: A number of national and international assessments have tried to determine whether this discrepancy [foinavon: Santer et al refer to apparent discrepancies between models and tropospheric temperature measurements] is real and of practical significance, or simply an artefact of problems with observational data (e.g. NRC, 2000; Karl et al., 2006; IPCC 2007). The general tenor of these assessments is that structural uncertainties in satellite- and radiosonde-based estimates of tropospherical temperature change are currently large; we do not have an unambiguous observational yardstick for gauging true levels of model skill (or lack thereof). The most comprehensive assessment was the first report produced by the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP: Karl et al., 2006). This report concluded that advances in identifying and adjusting for inhomogeneities is satellite and radiosonde data had helped to resolve the discrepancies described above, at least at global scales.
In the tropics, however, important differences remained between the simulated and observed “differential warming”.….and they go on to point out that the evidence indicates that the lack of precision and accuracy in the radiosonde and satellite measurements together with the known measurement problems that are very well highlighted in the scientific literature have precluded establishing whether it’s the models or the measurements that are “wrong” in the specific case of the tropics.
It’s well established that there are problems with the measurements here. Perhaps you’re not familiar with the scientific literature. But if one wants to understand these issues, one should address the science warts and all…pointing out known problems is not “rubbishing” I hope we’d all agree! So your response remains unsatisfactory and evasive on the question of the “hot spot”, unfortunately.
That’s sad. Pointing out what the science indicates is “unsatisfactory and evasive”!? In fact I’m complete agnostic of whether the models turn out to be correct or the measurements. I don’t share your need to throw my opinion on one “side” or the other. When we know we’ll know and will have learned something. Perhaps the models will have to be revised somewhat. Perhaps not. We’ll see.
One should try to be more relaxed about the science. It isn’t necessary to take every bit of work that doesn’t agree with one’s position and try to trash it. Our understanding of these issues doesn’t depend on any single paper!
foinavon
December 23, 2008 8:31 am
Will Nitschke (00:14:39) : A paper that does computer modelling, used to defend computer models.
So basically, all the evidence for the role and significance of aerosols is theoretical at present? Would that be a reasonable assumption?
Of course not and one should be careful not to fall into the trap of considering that once an analysis (that might involve equations, computers or models) of real world data takes place, that the study thus becomes “theoretical”!
Have a read of some of Ramanathan’s papers for example. There is a huge amount of empirical data that bears upon aerosols and their effects. A vast literature of surface measurements (the global dimming story of the 90’s was based on some of this), satellite measurements of aerosols and the effects on radiative forcings….Ramanthan’s recent approach is to use remote unmanned planes to fly through aerosolic regions to characterize their compositions…
…once one has sufficient data on the types of aerosols and their effects, then efforts can be made to quantitate this in terms of forcing contributions to the earth’s energy budget (positive and negative) and so on. This involves computational analysis and the data can be incorporated into General Circulation Models as improved parameterization of aerosol contributions. But as with all models, the inputs are parameterized against empirical data.
The specific point about black carbon that you refer to relates to the fact that black carbon often doesn’t exist alone. It’s mixed in with the generalized aerosolic load (sulphurous and organic particulates and so on). So to determine the specific contribution of black carbon within the overall aerosolic brown clouds, one needs to independently determine the forcing from black carbon (Ramanathan describes how he determines this in several of his papers), and then uses experimental measures of the aerosol composition to factor out the specific contribution from black carbon. He uses a model to do this.
There are very large uncertainties in the of the aerosolic contributions as Ramanathan’s paper (the Wegman testimony submission that you read) indicates rather clearly. Hopefully the nett cooling effect of aerosols is at the low end of the estimates!
Joel Shore
December 23, 2008 8:57 am
Roy Sites:
Let me see, we assume that all unexplained temperature change is due to CO2 and then compute the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 and then we show that a doubling of the CO2 causes the temeperature change. Hmmmmmm, sounds like circular reasoning to me. If we cannot think of any natural causes then it must be caused by us humans. This is really good “science”.
Your summary of what I said could not be more incorrect. I am afraid that you didn’t understand any of what I said. First, there was no assumption that all the temperature change in going from the last glacial maximum (LGA) to the current interglacial period was due to CO2. In fact, I believe the estimate is that only about 1/3 of it was due to CO2 (and maybe 40% or so to all the greenhouse gases). And, this is not an assumption but rather a value arrived at by estimating all the known changes in radiative forcing between then and now.
Second, all of the changes between the LGA and the current interglacial period were assumed to be due to natural causes and not to humans. (This estimate of the sensitivity to the climate to radiative forcings in general…and to CO2 in particular…uses empirical data from a natural event and not from the current warming over the last century that is understood to be largely due to humans.) So, I have no idea what your statement that “if we cannot think of any natural causes then it must be caused by us humans” refers to in this context.
Les johnson
December 23, 2008 9:00 am
John Philip: your 2. Temperatures have increased substantially in the last 10 years. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:132/plot/uah/last:132/trend
Actually, the trend is negative over the last 11 years, since May, 1997. The UAH trend is positive only if the la Nina years (1999-2000) are your start point. Like you did.
If you take out the ENSO years, and the start point is 2001, the trend is negative. If you put in the ENSO years (1998-2000), the trend is negative.
Nice cherry pickin’.
Note that the start of the negative trend is moving backward in time, as the anomalies continue to fall.
Les johnson
December 23, 2008 9:14 am
foinavon: your
There are very large uncertainties in the of the aerosolic contributions as Ramanathan’s paper (the Wegman testimony submission that you read) indicates rather clearly.
Which paper? The one that says that aerosols are masking warming, or the one from the previous year, that says that aerosols contribute 1/2 the observed Asian warming?
Joel Shore
December 23, 2008 9:15 am
David Ball says:
Those that realize we are far from knowing exactly what factor(s) drives our climate. There are many clues but it is a very complex system, no?
I don’t disagree with you on this but just because we don’t understand everything does not mean that we understand nothing. And, the fact is that we understand the climate well enough to know that it has responded quite dramatically to radiative forcings of estimated to be of a similar magnitude to the one we are currently in the process of applying. The fact that we don’t know exactly how it is going to respond to this significant perturbation is hardly very reassuring in my book.
To me, history shows “tipping points” ( a term I disagree with) flop to the ice age side, not to catastrophic warming.
I am not sure where you get this interpretation from. Actually, the evidence from the ice age – interglacial cycles (and basic reasoning) suggests that ice sheets can break up and sea levels can rise much faster than such ice sheets can build up and sea levels fall.
Our planet seems to be able to recover from events (volcanic, ice ages,for example) without our assistance or intervention.
Well, sure, particularly on timescales of millions of years, our planet can recover from lots of things. It has recovered from supervolcanic eruptions, large asteroid impacts, etc., etc. That hardly seems to be an argument for why we need be unconcerned about putting our planet, and our societies, through such events. After all, I doubt you would use this argument to argue against doing anything to prevent a large asteroid strike.
And, by the way, if you want to talk about things affecting our planet, one can safely say that whether Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction or whether some terrorists blow up some buildings or whether our financial system falls apart is something that will affect the planet far less than any of the things that you mention and yet we still decide to do something about these threats to our society (in some cases even though they turn out to be non-existent threats).
Our contribution of Co2 is miniscule and quite clearly the atmosphere has recovered from much worse influx of GHG’s.
It hardly seems miniscule when we have already raised the level of CO2 over 35% and will likely more than double it by the end of the century. And, in fact, the rate at which this rise is occurring is extremely rapid compared to known historical analogues (such as the ice age – interglacial oscillations). Whether or not such rapid changes have occurred further back in time when we don’t have the good temporal resolution that we have from ice core data is unclear…But, again, even if true would hardly be a good argument for not being concerned about causing such a rise now.
Tallbloke
December 23, 2008 9:29 am
foinavon (05:53:07) :
Yes, there’s pretty good evidence that the atmosphere has warmed the oceans. The ocean temperatures have been monitored for around 50 years, and the data demonstrate characteristics of warming via the atmosphere.
That would be the sun’s energy passing into the oceans via the atmosphere wouldn’t it?
Or are you talking about heat absorbed by the atmosphere from the sun being re-radiated into the ocean? Or Outgoing longwave radiation given off by the ocean being absorbed by the atmosphere and being re-readiated into the ocean?
When asked about “Global Warming” russian astronomer Khabibulo Abdusamatov (Director of the Pulkovo observatory), said: “That´s hollywood science”.
And a long time ago famous psychiatrist Karl Jung said: “Statistics is the science which demonstrates that the average weight of a pebble in a pebbles´beach is, say, 132 grams, but you can spend your whole life trying to find one pebble with such a weight”
Hank
December 23, 2008 9:43 am
Arrhenius 1906
We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops that at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.
anna v
December 23, 2008 9:44 am
Joel Shore: It hardly seems miniscule when we have already raised the level of CO2 over 35% and will likely more than double it by the end of the century. And, in fact, the rate at which this rise is occurring is extremely rapid compared to known historical analogues (such as the ice age – interglacial oscillations).
Nobody says that the CO2 is not rising. I am becoming though more and more convinced that it has a very small role in heating up the planet, on the one hand, and on the other hand I have started questioning how the CO2 is measured and budgeted. There seem to be enormous holes in the knowledge of the latter and I look forward to the data from the new satellite that will give near ground measurements. It will probably do for CO2 measurements what happened with satellite temperature measurements: ground the observations to their real scale.
This 35% may be mostly due to the warming of the oceans by the natural cycles of PDO ENSO and what not and might be there whether humans existed or disappeared from the face of the earth. There is not enough information to know this. There is enough information to know that the 1degree Celcius that might come by 2100 is not disastrous and people and the biosphere can adapt to the consequences, better than if a little ice age were to come.
So we do not panic, but say there is enough time, centuries, to learn about the cycles better and to create real models that can have predictive power before we start claiming control of the climate, either involuntarily or by terraforming.
Keep cool, and have a merry Christmas
John Philip
December 23, 2008 10:02 am
Les – Actually, the trend is negative over the last 11 years, since May, 1997. The UAH trend is positive only if the la Nina years (1999-2000) are your start point. Like you did.
If you take out the ENSO years, and the start point is 2001, the trend is negative. If you put in the ENSO years (1998-2000), the trend is negative.
Nice cherry pickin’.
If I had chosen the timescale you might have a point, if you re-read the thread you will discover that I did not. It seems unsurprising that a trend that includes the most powerful El Nino event of the last century towards the beginning shows a negative slope, but given that absolutely nobody expects such natural variation to disappear in an AGW scenario I fear the relevance to the thread escapes me.
foinavon
December 23, 2008 10:24 am
Les Johnson (09:14:44),
Careful with your reading! Ramanathan has identified black carbon as a nett positive contribution to warming with the overall aerosol load being nett negative.. If you look at the data extracted from Ramanathan and Carmichael’s review in Nature Geosciences last year reproduced below you can see the point (see table at bottom of this post)..
Black carbon has a net warming contribution that is particularly high in the atmosphere (like other aerosols it cools the surface). The overall aerosolic contribution to the earth’s “energy budget” is a nett cooling, as a large amount of previous measurement has already established.
Ramanathan has pointed out in at least one of his papers [Nature (2007) 575-578)] that regionally, and in the lower atmosphere 2-5 km above surface, the atmospheric warming contribution of local black carbon can be as large as the enhanced greenhouse warming. So he suggests that high altitude Himalayan-Hindu-Kush, for example, where particularly fast warming has occurred, may have a significant contribution from black carbon.
But outside high altitude regional effects, the overall aerosolic forcing is a negative one. Ramanathan considers this to be a dilemma, since he would like to take steps to greatly reduce specifically the black carbon component of aerosolic emissions. He recognises that this can’t be done by reducing aerosolic emissions overall since this will enhance global warming:
e.g. Ramanathan: “The logical deduction from Fig 2a,c,d is that elimination of present day ABCs through emission strategies would intensify surface warming by 0.4 to 2.4 oC.” (ABC being atmospheric brown cloud).”
Clearly there are some large uncertainties in these numbers, since that’s a large range! Hopefully with the NASA Glory satellite scheduled for 2009 designed (partly) to assess atmospheric aerosols, this uncertainty will come down in the coming years…
[*****] Forcings extracted from Figure 2 of V Ramanathan and G. Carmichael (2008) Nature Geosciences 1, 221-227.
black carbon (BC):
atmosphere +2.6
surface -1.7
total +0.9
non BC man-made aerosols:
atmosphere +0.4
surface -2.7
total -2.3
all GHG’s (CO2, methane, N20, halons, ozone):
atmosphere +1.4
surface +1.6
total +3.0 (W/m2 presumably)
CO2:
atmosphere +1.0
surface +0.6
total +1.6
(this data is also in the Ramanathan’s Wegman testimony submission that you can access I believe.)
John S.
December 23, 2008 10:37 am
Foinavon,
When the issue is the imputation of climate system energy amplification via water vapor, nitpicking the difference between the terms “feedback” and “strength of feedback,” or the paper’s own “magnitude, ” just doesn’t cut it in any serious physical discourse.
What makes Dessler et al’s entire excercise not a proper experimental study from the start is their premise that “water vapor feedback is one of the most important in our climate system, with the capacity to about double the direct warming from greenhouse gas increases.” And their Eq. 1, by which that strength is computed from field data, incorporates a partial differential term for radiative flux term “precomputed” by models. The ensuing results in their Table 1 scatter by a factor of more than two, depending on which year’s January is used relative to January 2008, the coldest of the decade. All of this scarcely inspires confidence that anything resembling an intrinsic response characteristic of the climate system has been established. When you have concomittant variables, all sorts of fanciful relationships can be derived empirically. The object of bona fide experimental science is to test premises–not to simply use the premise to bolster an argument that flies in the face of physical laws.
“Climate science” would take a positive step toward credibility by acquiring a thorough grasp of the Second Law of Thermodynmamics and a proper understanding of feedback and stabilty in dynamic systems. Meanwhile, I’m off to re-read “Alice in Wonderland.” It offers fantasy that is far more amusing. Cheers!
CodeTech
December 23, 2008 11:18 am
Joel Shore: It hardly seems miniscule when we have already raised the level of CO2 over 35% and will likely more than double it by the end of the century.
Sigh.
You really don’t get this.
“WE” have raised the level of CO2? WE??? Can you actually prove this? Can you demonstrate how human activity has DEFINITELY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY raised CO2 levels? Not a theory, now, and not a model, but proof?
See, you can’t. Our contribution to the carbon cycle is not enough. And this is one of the most basic parts of the whole thing.
Almost everything else is moot. “WE” are not the sole cause of increased CO2. CO2 follows temperature. The cart goes BEHIND the horse. The sinks are not static, and grow as required (keyword: GROW) for the available CO2.
–the evidence from the ice age – interglacial cycles (and basic reasoning) suggests that ice sheets can break up and sea levels can rise much faster than such ice sheets can build up and sea levels fall.–
Joel, that was not a catastrophe, it was a enormous boon and blessing. As Martha Stewart says, “It was a Very Good Thing.” Before the Big Melt life was cold, brutish, and short. Afterwards civilization rose and flourished. You wouldn’t be here today if not for the Big Melt.
Try not to freak out about the climate. The seas are NOT going to boil. Your boy Hansen is wrong about that, as wrong as wrong could be. Quell your panic attack. Irrational paranoia doesn’t suit you.
–the rainforests aren’t experiencing ‘die-back’ they’re experiencing ‘cut-back’.–
Syl, this is going to blow your mind so hang on to your chair, but people have been living in rain forest for thousands of years, and burning them, and deforesting them, and farming them. Humanity has had a huge impact on the Amazon and and all the other rainforests on Earth for millennia, and yet the rain forests are still there and the oceans have not boiled away! Imagine that! Creation still exists!!!
The galloping doomsday paranoia expressed by the Chicken Little cacklers is NOT supported by science, not by good science anyway. The End is Not Near. We do not need to huddle in the cold and dark for fear the seas will boil and all life will be extinguished. That’s nutty nutbar talk.
Alarmists, this is Earth calling. Please take some valium. Have a timeout. Seek professional help for your problem, which is psychological on your end, and not real in the sense of reality.
Steve
December 23, 2008 12:10 pm
Hey Foinavon,
Thanks for your responses. I know I’m not an expert on climate and I may never know enough to really understand all of the science (then again does anyone) but I’m just not convinced we are heading towards some sort of crisis. I live in New Zealand and we try to represent our country as clean and green, it is but not as idealistically as we think. I almost feel NZ has jumped on this issue and accepted any and all catastrophic messages just to maintain our clean & green image in the international public eye. In some sense we are trying to out-green other countries. Our previous government passed an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) which included livestock emssions (e.g) methane. No other country in the world has done this. I would say for good reason because I believe livestock are carbon sinks not carbon sources. Methane has to come from somewhere and I would argue our livestock obtain the carbon in CH4 from the grass which in turn gets it from the atmosphere via photosynthesis. It’s a natural carbon cycle. Further not all carbon taken in is converted by livestock into methane, they also produce offspring and non-perishable goods, such as wool, leather etc. If we were to calculate the carbon out – carbon in (I know carbon is not representative of CO2 but then why am I to reduce my carbon footprint 🙂 ) I’m pretty sure we would get a negative number.
I like your statement:
“The main thing is to address the science in a relaxed, skeptical, and most-importantly, an honest manner.”
I am all for doing that but it seems to me that only one side appears, as in the media and the public eye, to be doing that, the “skeptics”. My workmates are constantly talking about the oceans turning purple with jellyfish dominating the water and the sky turning green. They talk about runaway tipping points and sea levels rising amounts that don’t seem plausible. They talk about the thermohaline conveyor belt shutting down and Europe freezing over. They talk about epic droughts, massive floods, destructive storms and the icecaps/Greenland melting completely. They basically paint a picture of hell on earth. To me it just seems bizarre. We’re playing a game of who can scare who the most by coming up with some highly improbable though “possible” scientific scenario.
My workmates are good but they don’t hold a candle to our media. We’re constantly bombarded in the media with catastrophic messages and doom and gloom. Neither seems to have done much research themselves into the science but base their views on things like “An Inconvenient Truth”. I hardly see how that film is addressing the science in a relaxed, skeptical, and most-importantly, an honest manner. Yet our government is listening to people like Al Gore.
I pity our politicians as it seems that the scientists that are shouting the most shrilly are the ones being listened to and, lets be real here, the politicians usually are the least capable to decide on the science, yet they will determine our future for better or worse.
Graeme Rodaughan
December 23, 2008 12:18 pm
Will Nitschke (19:29:01) : It is my understanding that given sufficient time CO2 dissipates from the atmosphere. It is absorbed by the oceans and animal and plant life. That’s why so much carbon is locked up in the crust. So this is a nonsense argument. [snip, use of this as a pejorative will not be tolerated ~ charles the moderator]
“Perjorative aside”. Will – What I’m trying to get at here is that some prominent members of the AGW Camp have stated that the world will pass a tipping point in the near future (say within 10 years) where global warming will become a run-a-way process due to positive feedbacks.
Given a growth rate for CO2 of approx 2PPM per year and a current base of 385 PPM. That suggests that the tipping point is approx 400PPM.
Hence what was stopping run-a-way global warming when CO2 was well in excess of 1000PPM – i.e during the Ordovician?
Also once a run-a-way global warming has occurred – what could possibly get the system out of of the global warming state as CO2 will still be present and the “other factors” post tipping point such as the proposed increased humidity would also mitigate any change?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Graeme Rodaughan
December 23, 2008 12:53 pm
@Will Nitschke (21:41:19) : Specifically.
Here are some questions for you – if you would please consider them, I would like to know what the answers are.
The Troposphere hot spot is the “specific” signature for CO2 Global Warming as espoused by the IPCC – the hot spot does not exist (i.e can’t be found after years of looking for it).
Hence the underlying theory of CO2 Global Warming is wrong – is this correct?
Have you got any real causation evidence of,
1. That CO2 will cause measurable Global Warming? I.e a signal for CO2 induced warming can in fact be determined for the last 30 years, and the data that is used for that signal can be independently verified as correct. (i.e not fudged, obscured, manipulated or an artefact of a poorly sited measuring device).
2. That Man Made emissions of CO2 will cause measurable Global Warming? I.e. that the component of CO2 attributable to human activity can be measured as a distinct signal for warming in the last 30 years. Same data caveats as the previous question.
3. That Global Warming is – in fact – Catastrophic? I.e. Cold kills more people than heat. Crops do better in the warm, than in the cold, etc.
4. That Increases in CO2 will not allow for a Global Cooling? I.e. that CO2 is a contributer to Global Warming – or are you trying to have CO2 increases force all weather events? If so, please refer to later questions, re Pseudo-science.
Some more questions for you.
1. What is the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration for plant life?
2. What is the optimal temperature for Planet Earth?
3. What is the optimal method for measuring Planet Earth’s temperature?
4. What is the optimal method for data management for the temperature data used in climate science? Specifically, wrt the surface temperature data?
5. What is the value of openness and transparency with regards to publishing the raw data and methods in science. Specifically wrt the surface temperature data?
6. What are the ,strong>specific falsification criteria for the hypothesis that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Warming”.
7. If there are no falsification criteria for the hypothesis that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Warming” – how do you
(a) distinguish that hypothesis from the following one.
… The world, and all in it was created 10 minutes ago. All memories are fake… — Which also has no falsification criteria as it explains all phenomena.
(b) Avoid the charge that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Warming” is a pseudo-scientific belief.
8. If “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause both Global Warming and (now) Global Cooling” as some our now beginning to suggest. Is it still science, as per previous questions.
NOTE: I accept that CO2 is a Global Greenhouse Gas, and it has a warming impact. My principle concerns are as follows.
1. That climate science has been throughly politicised and is no longer objective.
2. The lack of transparency and openness of both data and methods by prominent Climate Scientists is a blight on the practice of science and at the very least raises a suspicion of fraud.
3. That the impact on climate of human emissions of CO2 has not been effectively distinguished from natural variation of the climate.
4. That proposed mitigations, such as CAP and Trade will do nothing more than institute a regressive tax on human activity will creating a fake market for a fake product that will allow those who can participate in that market to profit at everyone elses expense.
5. That the growing calls for dissenting voices against the AGW Orthodoxy be silenced is nothing more than an assault on western civilization, free speech and human liberty.
Thanks
Mike Bryant
December 23, 2008 12:54 pm
As the temperatures tumble and the CO2 levels fall, I fear that it will be attributed to the world-wide recession. Meanwhile mankind suffers, while the elite continue to collect the CO2 taxes.
Will anyone know what really happened, or will the media be in lockstep by then because of the Internet/Radio Fairness Act.
Here is a graph of the skyrocketing CO2 levels: http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/gorebot/co2-2000.gif
Mike Bryant
December 23, 2008 1:05 pm
Joel,
WE have done this? Why must YOU remain a part of this evil collaboration?
Soon, I hope, you will tell me that you are off-grid, you only use human powered or solar/wind/electric propulsion for your transportation, and you buy all your food (vegetarian only) from local sources. In that way you can begin to say that you are not even a tiny part of the problem. Sorry, I missed one. You also must stop breathing.
I suppose what you really want is to have these measures forced upon you.
Graeme Rodaughan
December 23, 2008 1:08 pm
@Will Nitschke (21:41:19) : Specifically.
Could you please try an answer the following questions.
1. Would you hold that a well formed scientific theory would have clearly defined falsification criteria?
2. If you hold that the theory that “Man made emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Global Warming”, is a well formed scientific theory – what are the specific falsification criteria for the above theory?
Also – there is something that has deeply troubled me about the basis of the “evidence” for “Man made emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Global Warming” which is encapsulated in the following posts on Climate Audit.
Well, well. Look what the cat dragged in. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3393
Bishop Hill: Caspar and the Jesus Paper http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427
These two posts and the attendent comments outline a set of practices by the purveyors of the “Hockey Stick” that could well be argued to be fraud.
Will – could you please outline what your POV is with regards to the content of the above posts.
Will – if the content of the above linked posts is valid – what do you have to say with regards to such practices occuring in science?
Thanks. G
Your NASA Science in action. Raw data is out, and opinion rules supreme.
From Science News, December 6, 2008: A letter, pasted without alteration.
n “Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was” (SN: 10/25/08, p. 5), Science News includes a graph, attributed to NASA, that shows temperature deviations from the year 1880. The data clearly indicate a distinct warming trend throughout the period. Why is it that over the past two years I have very painstakingly researched the data from more than 200 weather stations from every continent, including more than 20 north of the Arctic Circle, and I haven’t found a single one that indicates a trend that even remotely resembles that represented by the graph in your article? The difference between my primary research and the data from NASA is disconcerting.
As a high school environmental science teacher, I don’t know whether to teach my students of the threat of global warming or of the terrible hoax being played by the world’s scientists in whom we entrust so much. Will someone please provide the locations of specific weather stations that indicate the trend shown by the NASA graph, instead of just showing NASA’s compilation of weather station data?
Edward Amatetti, Gaithersburg, Md.
The NASA graph depicts a year-by-year estimate of average global temperature, not the temperature recorded at any individual weather station. That estimate includes data gathered at more than 500 land-based weather stations, says Reto Ruedy, a mathematician and climate modeler at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. Since December 1981, sea-surface temperatures have been estimated from satellite observations; before then, such data were gathered at sea by commercial and government research vessels. —Sid Perkins
E.M. Smith says:
Well, their editorial page seems to be (as I would say is pretty true of WSJ’s editorial page). The reporting in WSJ is quite good though (and rumor has it that some of the reporters for WSJ agree with my characterization of the editorial page)…I am not sure about the reporting in IBD but then that piece was, I believe, on the editorial page.
How convenient that you have found an excuse to ignore the most substantive part of my post where I showed that you were clearly wrong and Hansen’s characterization of what he provided to the authors is supported by the reference that the authors gave to Hansen in their paper. Yes, very convenient indeed!! I guess that is how you can continue to believe the fictions that you do.
Fred Gams asks:
How can the fact that temperature sometimes decreases over some relative short periods of time falsify the theory when exactly the same sort of behavior is seen in the climate models forced with CO2?!? (See here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/langswitch_lang/fr ) That makes no sense at all. In fact, if this did not occur that we would be forced to conclude that the climate models were significantly overstating the variable component of climate relative to the forced component.
And, by the way, whether or not the global temperature anomaly has increased or decreased over the past several years depends strongly on exactly which years you include and which data set. Since a 10 year period would no longer include the “El Nino of the century” in 1998, I rather doubt that the trend line for any of the surface temperature records actually shows a decrease over the past decade. (And, in fact for the ten-year period from 1998 to 2007, the trendlines for both the HADCRUT data set and the NASA GISS data set were positive even with 1998 there, although the error bars on the trends are still large over such a short period.) But, at any rate, the data for trends are very noisy from year-to-year and one data set to another (e.g., NASA GISS vs Hadcrut) until you get out to 12 to 15 years or so where trendlines become much more robust…which, interestingly, is basically just what the climate models predict to be the case!
How about “realist”. Those that realize we are far from knowing exactly what factor(s) drives our climate. There are many clues but it is a very complex system, no? To me, history shows “tipping points” ( a term I disagree with) flop to the ice age side, not to catastrophic warming. Our planet seems to be able to recover from events (volcanic, ice ages,for example) without our assistance or intervention. Our contribution of Co2 is miniscule and quite clearly the atmosphere has recovered from much worse influx of GHG’s.
Will (15:23:47)
I don’t agree with your analysis Will. Looking at some of your points:
Re Santer:
Secondly, Santer ends his study in 1998 at the height of the super el nino. A little convenient perhaps? The cherry picking being done here is breathtaking.
Except that that’s false, since Santer et al. in fact ended their study with data up through December 1999. This was a relatively strong La Nina (cool) year as it happens.
See Methods section of Santer et al and Figures:
e.g. Santer et al: Since most of the 20CEN experiments end in 1999, out trend comparisons primarily cover the 252-month period from January 1979 to December 1999, which is the period of maximum overlap between the observed MSU data and the model simulations.
The general tendency to rubbish the data if it doesn’t support your argument. “Satellite data has too many uncorrected errors, is unreliable, etc.” Come on, let’s be grown-ups here. You can throw out ANY empirical data that doesn’t suite your argument by pointing to “measurement errors”.
There are several people on this thread that seem to be doing that (see just above)! I’m not “rubbishing” anything. I’ve illustrated that the two graphs in the introductory post to this thread are incredibly misleading. That’s not “rubbishing”. I’ve described exactly what the problems are with reference to the science. Anyone is welcome to argue against my descriptions, but no-one has chosen to do so, at least in respect of the science. If one is interested in the science on this issues one may as well address the science as it stands.
And my comments about the satellite/radiosonde data is in the same vein. The data simply isn’t sufficiently accurate and precise to establish whether there is a real discrepency between models and temperature in the tropics. It’s not “rubbishing” the data to point out the facts:
Santer et al. say essentially the same thing:
Santer et al: A number of national and international assessments have tried to determine whether this discrepancy [foinavon: Santer et al refer to apparent discrepancies between models and tropospheric temperature measurements] is real and of practical significance, or simply an artefact of problems with observational data (e.g. NRC, 2000; Karl et al., 2006; IPCC 2007). The general tenor of these assessments is that structural uncertainties in satellite- and radiosonde-based estimates of tropospherical temperature change are currently large; we do not have an unambiguous observational yardstick for gauging true levels of model skill (or lack thereof). The most comprehensive assessment was the first report produced by the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP: Karl et al., 2006). This report concluded that advances in identifying and adjusting for inhomogeneities is satellite and radiosonde data had helped to resolve the discrepancies described above, at least at global scales.
In the tropics, however, important differences remained between the simulated and observed “differential warming”.….and they go on to point out that the evidence indicates that the lack of precision and accuracy in the radiosonde and satellite measurements together with the known measurement problems that are very well highlighted in the scientific literature have precluded establishing whether it’s the models or the measurements that are “wrong” in the specific case of the tropics.
It’s well established that there are problems with the measurements here. Perhaps you’re not familiar with the scientific literature. But if one wants to understand these issues, one should address the science warts and all…pointing out known problems is not “rubbishing” I hope we’d all agree!
So your response remains unsatisfactory and evasive on the question of the “hot spot”, unfortunately.
That’s sad. Pointing out what the science indicates is “unsatisfactory and evasive”!? In fact I’m complete agnostic of whether the models turn out to be correct or the measurements. I don’t share your need to throw my opinion on one “side” or the other. When we know we’ll know and will have learned something. Perhaps the models will have to be revised somewhat. Perhaps not. We’ll see.
One should try to be more relaxed about the science. It isn’t necessary to take every bit of work that doesn’t agree with one’s position and try to trash it. Our understanding of these issues doesn’t depend on any single paper!
Will Nitschke (00:14:39) :
A paper that does computer modelling, used to defend computer models.
So basically, all the evidence for the role and significance of aerosols is theoretical at present? Would that be a reasonable assumption?
Of course not and one should be careful not to fall into the trap of considering that once an analysis (that might involve equations, computers or models) of real world data takes place, that the study thus becomes “theoretical”!
Have a read of some of Ramanathan’s papers for example. There is a huge amount of empirical data that bears upon aerosols and their effects. A vast literature of surface measurements (the global dimming story of the 90’s was based on some of this), satellite measurements of aerosols and the effects on radiative forcings….Ramanthan’s recent approach is to use remote unmanned planes to fly through aerosolic regions to characterize their compositions…
…once one has sufficient data on the types of aerosols and their effects, then efforts can be made to quantitate this in terms of forcing contributions to the earth’s energy budget (positive and negative) and so on. This involves computational analysis and the data can be incorporated into General Circulation Models as improved parameterization of aerosol contributions. But as with all models, the inputs are parameterized against empirical data.
The specific point about black carbon that you refer to relates to the fact that black carbon often doesn’t exist alone. It’s mixed in with the generalized aerosolic load (sulphurous and organic particulates and so on). So to determine the specific contribution of black carbon within the overall aerosolic brown clouds, one needs to independently determine the forcing from black carbon (Ramanathan describes how he determines this in several of his papers), and then uses experimental measures of the aerosol composition to factor out the specific contribution from black carbon. He uses a model to do this.
There are very large uncertainties in the of the aerosolic contributions as Ramanathan’s paper (the Wegman testimony submission that you read) indicates rather clearly. Hopefully the nett cooling effect of aerosols is at the low end of the estimates!
Roy Sites:
Your summary of what I said could not be more incorrect. I am afraid that you didn’t understand any of what I said. First, there was no assumption that all the temperature change in going from the last glacial maximum (LGA) to the current interglacial period was due to CO2. In fact, I believe the estimate is that only about 1/3 of it was due to CO2 (and maybe 40% or so to all the greenhouse gases). And, this is not an assumption but rather a value arrived at by estimating all the known changes in radiative forcing between then and now.
Second, all of the changes between the LGA and the current interglacial period were assumed to be due to natural causes and not to humans. (This estimate of the sensitivity to the climate to radiative forcings in general…and to CO2 in particular…uses empirical data from a natural event and not from the current warming over the last century that is understood to be largely due to humans.) So, I have no idea what your statement that “if we cannot think of any natural causes then it must be caused by us humans” refers to in this context.
John Philip: your
2. Temperatures have increased substantially in the last 10 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:132/plot/uah/last:132/trend
Actually, the trend is negative over the last 11 years, since May, 1997. The UAH trend is positive only if the la Nina years (1999-2000) are your start point. Like you did.
If you take out the ENSO years, and the start point is 2001, the trend is negative. If you put in the ENSO years (1998-2000), the trend is negative.
Nice cherry pickin’.
Note that the start of the negative trend is moving backward in time, as the anomalies continue to fall.
foinavon: your
There are very large uncertainties in the of the aerosolic contributions as Ramanathan’s paper (the Wegman testimony submission that you read) indicates rather clearly.
Which paper? The one that says that aerosols are masking warming, or the one from the previous year, that says that aerosols contribute 1/2 the observed Asian warming?
David Ball says:
I don’t disagree with you on this but just because we don’t understand everything does not mean that we understand nothing. And, the fact is that we understand the climate well enough to know that it has responded quite dramatically to radiative forcings of estimated to be of a similar magnitude to the one we are currently in the process of applying. The fact that we don’t know exactly how it is going to respond to this significant perturbation is hardly very reassuring in my book.
I am not sure where you get this interpretation from. Actually, the evidence from the ice age – interglacial cycles (and basic reasoning) suggests that ice sheets can break up and sea levels can rise much faster than such ice sheets can build up and sea levels fall.
Well, sure, particularly on timescales of millions of years, our planet can recover from lots of things. It has recovered from supervolcanic eruptions, large asteroid impacts, etc., etc. That hardly seems to be an argument for why we need be unconcerned about putting our planet, and our societies, through such events. After all, I doubt you would use this argument to argue against doing anything to prevent a large asteroid strike.
And, by the way, if you want to talk about things affecting our planet, one can safely say that whether Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction or whether some terrorists blow up some buildings or whether our financial system falls apart is something that will affect the planet far less than any of the things that you mention and yet we still decide to do something about these threats to our society (in some cases even though they turn out to be non-existent threats).
It hardly seems miniscule when we have already raised the level of CO2 over 35% and will likely more than double it by the end of the century. And, in fact, the rate at which this rise is occurring is extremely rapid compared to known historical analogues (such as the ice age – interglacial oscillations). Whether or not such rapid changes have occurred further back in time when we don’t have the good temporal resolution that we have from ice core data is unclear…But, again, even if true would hardly be a good argument for not being concerned about causing such a rise now.
foinavon (05:53:07) :
Yes, there’s pretty good evidence that the atmosphere has warmed the oceans. The ocean temperatures have been monitored for around 50 years, and the data demonstrate characteristics of warming via the atmosphere.
That would be the sun’s energy passing into the oceans via the atmosphere wouldn’t it?
Or are you talking about heat absorbed by the atmosphere from the sun being re-radiated into the ocean? Or Outgoing longwave radiation given off by the ocean being absorbed by the atmosphere and being re-readiated into the ocean?
When asked about “Global Warming” russian astronomer Khabibulo Abdusamatov (Director of the Pulkovo observatory), said: “That´s hollywood science”.
And a long time ago famous psychiatrist Karl Jung said: “Statistics is the science which demonstrates that the average weight of a pebble in a pebbles´beach is, say, 132 grams, but you can spend your whole life trying to find one pebble with such a weight”
Arrhenius 1906
We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops that at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.
Joel Shore:
It hardly seems miniscule when we have already raised the level of CO2 over 35% and will likely more than double it by the end of the century. And, in fact, the rate at which this rise is occurring is extremely rapid compared to known historical analogues (such as the ice age – interglacial oscillations).
Nobody says that the CO2 is not rising. I am becoming though more and more convinced that it has a very small role in heating up the planet, on the one hand, and on the other hand I have started questioning how the CO2 is measured and budgeted. There seem to be enormous holes in the knowledge of the latter and I look forward to the data from the new satellite that will give near ground measurements. It will probably do for CO2 measurements what happened with satellite temperature measurements: ground the observations to their real scale.
This 35% may be mostly due to the warming of the oceans by the natural cycles of PDO ENSO and what not and might be there whether humans existed or disappeared from the face of the earth. There is not enough information to know this. There is enough information to know that the 1degree Celcius that might come by 2100 is not disastrous and people and the biosphere can adapt to the consequences, better than if a little ice age were to come.
So we do not panic, but say there is enough time, centuries, to learn about the cycles better and to create real models that can have predictive power before we start claiming control of the climate, either involuntarily or by terraforming.
Keep cool, and have a merry Christmas
Les – Actually, the trend is negative over the last 11 years, since May, 1997. The UAH trend is positive only if the la Nina years (1999-2000) are your start point. Like you did.
If you take out the ENSO years, and the start point is 2001, the trend is negative. If you put in the ENSO years (1998-2000), the trend is negative.
Nice cherry pickin’.
If I had chosen the timescale you might have a point, if you re-read the thread you will discover that I did not. It seems unsurprising that a trend that includes the most powerful El Nino event of the last century towards the beginning shows a negative slope, but given that absolutely nobody expects such natural variation to disappear in an AGW scenario I fear the relevance to the thread escapes me.
Les Johnson (09:14:44),
Careful with your reading! Ramanathan has identified black carbon as a nett positive contribution to warming with the overall aerosol load being nett negative.. If you look at the data extracted from Ramanathan and Carmichael’s review in Nature Geosciences last year reproduced below you can see the point (see table at bottom of this post)..
Black carbon has a net warming contribution that is particularly high in the atmosphere (like other aerosols it cools the surface). The overall aerosolic contribution to the earth’s “energy budget” is a nett cooling, as a large amount of previous measurement has already established.
Ramanathan has pointed out in at least one of his papers [Nature (2007) 575-578)] that regionally, and in the lower atmosphere 2-5 km above surface, the atmospheric warming contribution of local black carbon can be as large as the enhanced greenhouse warming. So he suggests that high altitude Himalayan-Hindu-Kush, for example, where particularly fast warming has occurred, may have a significant contribution from black carbon.
But outside high altitude regional effects, the overall aerosolic forcing is a negative one. Ramanathan considers this to be a dilemma, since he would like to take steps to greatly reduce specifically the black carbon component of aerosolic emissions. He recognises that this can’t be done by reducing aerosolic emissions overall since this will enhance global warming:
e.g. Ramanathan: “The logical deduction from Fig 2a,c,d is that elimination of present day ABCs through emission strategies would intensify surface warming by 0.4 to 2.4 oC.” (ABC being atmospheric brown cloud).”
Clearly there are some large uncertainties in these numbers, since that’s a large range! Hopefully with the NASA Glory satellite scheduled for 2009 designed (partly) to assess atmospheric aerosols, this uncertainty will come down in the coming years…
[*****] Forcings extracted from Figure 2 of V Ramanathan and G. Carmichael (2008) Nature Geosciences 1, 221-227.
black carbon (BC):
atmosphere +2.6
surface -1.7
total +0.9
non BC man-made aerosols:
atmosphere +0.4
surface -2.7
total -2.3
all GHG’s (CO2, methane, N20, halons, ozone):
atmosphere +1.4
surface +1.6
total +3.0 (W/m2 presumably)
CO2:
atmosphere +1.0
surface +0.6
total +1.6
(this data is also in the Ramanathan’s Wegman testimony submission that you can access I believe.)
Foinavon,
When the issue is the imputation of climate system energy amplification via water vapor, nitpicking the difference between the terms “feedback” and “strength of feedback,” or the paper’s own “magnitude, ” just doesn’t cut it in any serious physical discourse.
What makes Dessler et al’s entire excercise not a proper experimental study from the start is their premise that “water vapor feedback is one of the most important in our climate system, with the capacity to about double the direct warming from greenhouse gas increases.” And their Eq. 1, by which that strength is computed from field data, incorporates a partial differential term for radiative flux term “precomputed” by models. The ensuing results in their Table 1 scatter by a factor of more than two, depending on which year’s January is used relative to January 2008, the coldest of the decade. All of this scarcely inspires confidence that anything resembling an intrinsic response characteristic of the climate system has been established. When you have concomittant variables, all sorts of fanciful relationships can be derived empirically. The object of bona fide experimental science is to test premises–not to simply use the premise to bolster an argument that flies in the face of physical laws.
“Climate science” would take a positive step toward credibility by acquiring a thorough grasp of the Second Law of Thermodynmamics and a proper understanding of feedback and stabilty in dynamic systems. Meanwhile, I’m off to re-read “Alice in Wonderland.” It offers fantasy that is far more amusing. Cheers!
Joel Shore: It hardly seems miniscule when we have already raised the level of CO2 over 35% and will likely more than double it by the end of the century.
Sigh.
You really don’t get this.
“WE” have raised the level of CO2? WE??? Can you actually prove this? Can you demonstrate how human activity has DEFINITELY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY raised CO2 levels? Not a theory, now, and not a model, but proof?
See, you can’t. Our contribution to the carbon cycle is not enough. And this is one of the most basic parts of the whole thing.
Almost everything else is moot. “WE” are not the sole cause of increased CO2. CO2 follows temperature. The cart goes BEHIND the horse. The sinks are not static, and grow as required (keyword: GROW) for the available CO2.
–the evidence from the ice age – interglacial cycles (and basic reasoning) suggests that ice sheets can break up and sea levels can rise much faster than such ice sheets can build up and sea levels fall.–
Joel, that was not a catastrophe, it was a enormous boon and blessing. As Martha Stewart says, “It was a Very Good Thing.” Before the Big Melt life was cold, brutish, and short. Afterwards civilization rose and flourished. You wouldn’t be here today if not for the Big Melt.
Try not to freak out about the climate. The seas are NOT going to boil. Your boy Hansen is wrong about that, as wrong as wrong could be. Quell your panic attack. Irrational paranoia doesn’t suit you.
–the rainforests aren’t experiencing ‘die-back’ they’re experiencing ‘cut-back’.–
Syl, this is going to blow your mind so hang on to your chair, but people have been living in rain forest for thousands of years, and burning them, and deforesting them, and farming them. Humanity has had a huge impact on the Amazon and and all the other rainforests on Earth for millennia, and yet the rain forests are still there and the oceans have not boiled away! Imagine that! Creation still exists!!!
The galloping doomsday paranoia expressed by the Chicken Little cacklers is NOT supported by science, not by good science anyway. The End is Not Near. We do not need to huddle in the cold and dark for fear the seas will boil and all life will be extinguished. That’s nutty nutbar talk.
Alarmists, this is Earth calling. Please take some valium. Have a timeout. Seek professional help for your problem, which is psychological on your end, and not real in the sense of reality.
Hey Foinavon,
Thanks for your responses. I know I’m not an expert on climate and I may never know enough to really understand all of the science (then again does anyone) but I’m just not convinced we are heading towards some sort of crisis. I live in New Zealand and we try to represent our country as clean and green, it is but not as idealistically as we think. I almost feel NZ has jumped on this issue and accepted any and all catastrophic messages just to maintain our clean & green image in the international public eye. In some sense we are trying to out-green other countries. Our previous government passed an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) which included livestock emssions (e.g) methane. No other country in the world has done this. I would say for good reason because I believe livestock are carbon sinks not carbon sources. Methane has to come from somewhere and I would argue our livestock obtain the carbon in CH4 from the grass which in turn gets it from the atmosphere via photosynthesis. It’s a natural carbon cycle. Further not all carbon taken in is converted by livestock into methane, they also produce offspring and non-perishable goods, such as wool, leather etc. If we were to calculate the carbon out – carbon in (I know carbon is not representative of CO2 but then why am I to reduce my carbon footprint 🙂 ) I’m pretty sure we would get a negative number.
I like your statement:
“The main thing is to address the science in a relaxed, skeptical, and most-importantly, an honest manner.”
I am all for doing that but it seems to me that only one side appears, as in the media and the public eye, to be doing that, the “skeptics”. My workmates are constantly talking about the oceans turning purple with jellyfish dominating the water and the sky turning green. They talk about runaway tipping points and sea levels rising amounts that don’t seem plausible. They talk about the thermohaline conveyor belt shutting down and Europe freezing over. They talk about epic droughts, massive floods, destructive storms and the icecaps/Greenland melting completely. They basically paint a picture of hell on earth. To me it just seems bizarre. We’re playing a game of who can scare who the most by coming up with some highly improbable though “possible” scientific scenario.
My workmates are good but they don’t hold a candle to our media. We’re constantly bombarded in the media with catastrophic messages and doom and gloom. Neither seems to have done much research themselves into the science but base their views on things like “An Inconvenient Truth”. I hardly see how that film is addressing the science in a relaxed, skeptical, and most-importantly, an honest manner. Yet our government is listening to people like Al Gore.
I pity our politicians as it seems that the scientists that are shouting the most shrilly are the ones being listened to and, lets be real here, the politicians usually are the least capable to decide on the science, yet they will determine our future for better or worse.
Will Nitschke (19:29:01) :
It is my understanding that given sufficient time CO2 dissipates from the atmosphere. It is absorbed by the oceans and animal and plant life. That’s why so much carbon is locked up in the crust. So this is a nonsense argument. [snip, use of this as a pejorative will not be tolerated ~ charles the moderator]
“Perjorative aside”. Will – What I’m trying to get at here is that some prominent members of the AGW Camp have stated that the world will pass a tipping point in the near future (say within 10 years) where global warming will become a run-a-way process due to positive feedbacks.
Given a growth rate for CO2 of approx 2PPM per year and a current base of 385 PPM. That suggests that the tipping point is approx 400PPM.
Hence what was stopping run-a-way global warming when CO2 was well in excess of 1000PPM – i.e during the Ordovician?
Also once a run-a-way global warming has occurred – what could possibly get the system out of of the global warming state as CO2 will still be present and the “other factors” post tipping point such as the proposed increased humidity would also mitigate any change?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
@Will Nitschke (21:41:19) : Specifically.
Here are some questions for you – if you would please consider them, I would like to know what the answers are.
The Troposphere hot spot is the “specific” signature for CO2 Global Warming as espoused by the IPCC – the hot spot does not exist (i.e can’t be found after years of looking for it).
Hence the underlying theory of CO2 Global Warming is wrong – is this correct?
Have you got any real causation evidence of,
1. That CO2 will cause measurable Global Warming? I.e a signal for CO2 induced warming can in fact be determined for the last 30 years, and the data that is used for that signal can be independently verified as correct. (i.e not fudged, obscured, manipulated or an artefact of a poorly sited measuring device).
2. That Man Made emissions of CO2 will cause measurable Global Warming? I.e. that the component of CO2 attributable to human activity can be measured as a distinct signal for warming in the last 30 years. Same data caveats as the previous question.
3. That Global Warming is – in fact – Catastrophic? I.e. Cold kills more people than heat. Crops do better in the warm, than in the cold, etc.
4. That Increases in CO2 will not allow for a Global Cooling? I.e. that CO2 is a contributer to Global Warming – or are you trying to have CO2 increases force all weather events? If so, please refer to later questions, re Pseudo-science.
Some more questions for you.
1. What is the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration for plant life?
2. What is the optimal temperature for Planet Earth?
3. What is the optimal method for measuring Planet Earth’s temperature?
4. What is the optimal method for data management for the temperature data used in climate science? Specifically, wrt the surface temperature data?
5. What is the value of openness and transparency with regards to publishing the raw data and methods in science. Specifically wrt the surface temperature data?
6. What are the ,strong>specific falsification criteria for the hypothesis that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Warming”.
7. If there are no falsification criteria for the hypothesis that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Warming” – how do you
(a) distinguish that hypothesis from the following one.
… The world, and all in it was created 10 minutes ago. All memories are fake… — Which also has no falsification criteria as it explains all phenomena.
(b) Avoid the charge that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Warming” is a pseudo-scientific belief.
8. If “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause both Global Warming and (now) Global Cooling” as some our now beginning to suggest. Is it still science, as per previous questions.
NOTE: I accept that CO2 is a Global Greenhouse Gas, and it has a warming impact. My principle concerns are as follows.
1. That climate science has been throughly politicised and is no longer objective.
2. The lack of transparency and openness of both data and methods by prominent Climate Scientists is a blight on the practice of science and at the very least raises a suspicion of fraud.
3. That the impact on climate of human emissions of CO2 has not been effectively distinguished from natural variation of the climate.
4. That proposed mitigations, such as CAP and Trade will do nothing more than institute a regressive tax on human activity will creating a fake market for a fake product that will allow those who can participate in that market to profit at everyone elses expense.
5. That the growing calls for dissenting voices against the AGW Orthodoxy be silenced is nothing more than an assault on western civilization, free speech and human liberty.
Thanks
As the temperatures tumble and the CO2 levels fall, I fear that it will be attributed to the world-wide recession. Meanwhile mankind suffers, while the elite continue to collect the CO2 taxes.
Will anyone know what really happened, or will the media be in lockstep by then because of the Internet/Radio Fairness Act.
Here is a graph of the skyrocketing CO2 levels:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/gorebot/co2-2000.gif
Joel,
WE have done this? Why must YOU remain a part of this evil collaboration?
Soon, I hope, you will tell me that you are off-grid, you only use human powered or solar/wind/electric propulsion for your transportation, and you buy all your food (vegetarian only) from local sources. In that way you can begin to say that you are not even a tiny part of the problem. Sorry, I missed one. You also must stop breathing.
I suppose what you really want is to have these measures forced upon you.
@Will Nitschke (21:41:19) : Specifically.
Could you please try an answer the following questions.
1. Would you hold that a well formed scientific theory would have clearly defined falsification criteria?
2. If you hold that the theory that “Man made emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Global Warming”, is a well formed scientific theory – what are the specific falsification criteria for the above theory?
Also – there is something that has deeply troubled me about the basis of the “evidence” for “Man made emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Global Warming” which is encapsulated in the following posts on Climate Audit.
Well, well. Look what the cat dragged in.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3393
Bishop Hill: Caspar and the Jesus Paper
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427
These two posts and the attendent comments outline a set of practices by the purveyors of the “Hockey Stick” that could well be argued to be fraud.
Will – could you please outline what your POV is with regards to the content of the above posts.
Will – if the content of the above linked posts is valid – what do you have to say with regards to such practices occuring in science?
Thanks. G