Update To Andy Revkin’s Question In 2005: “Is Most Of The Observed Warming Over The Last 50 Years Likely To Have Been Due To The Increase In Greenhouse Gas Concentrations”?

By Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
In 2005, I posted an answer to Andy Revkin’s question on climate change;
Response to Andy Revkin’s Science Question of August 26, 2005
“Is most of the observed warming over the last 50 years likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”?
My answer in 2005 started with the text
On Global Warming:
There are natural explanations for global warming of which a change in the output of solar energy is a candidate. However, none of the published work has convinced me that this can explain much of the observed global warming over the last several decades. Volcanic emissions are another natural global forcing, and it is well known that they produce cooling, such as after the eruption of Mount Pintatubo, where in August of 1991 it was estimated as -4 Watts per meter squared. There have not been eruptions of that magnitude since, such that the absence of such major eruptions might permit greater absorbed solar radiation in the climate system than otherwise would occur. However, this absence of eruptions resulting in any positive radiative imbalance for a period of time well after a major volcanic emission has also not been shown to occur. This leaves anthropogenic emissions as a source for global warming.
There is new information, however, that prompts me to update my answer.
This is based on insight provided by Roy Spencer, as summarized in his post of April 20 2010 titled
The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists
where he presented his new book with the same title published by Encounter Books.
The text in his April 20th post that provides this perspective of the natural climate system is
“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.
How could the experts have missed such a simple explanation? Because they have convinced themselves that only a temperature change can cause a cloud cover change, and not the other way around. The issue is one of causation. They have not accounted for cloud changes causing temperature changes.”
Other colleagues whose studies, in combination, have convinced me of a larger natural variability with respect to global warming and cooling, include as examples, the following papers, blogs and presentations
Baldwin, Mark P. and Timothy J. Dunkerton, 2001: Stratospheric Harbingers of Anomalous Weather Regimes. Science 19 October 2001:Vol. 294. no. 5542, pp. 581 – 584 DOI: 10.1126/science.1063315
Posts by Joseph D’Aleo on http://www.icecap.us/ [see http://icecap.us/index.php/go/about-climate-change]
Compo, G. P., and P. D. Sardeshmukh, 2009: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate Dynamics, 32,333-342. [see my post on this paper in 2008]
R.S. Lindzen, M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2001) Does the Earth have an adaptive infrared iris? Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 82, 417-432
W. M. Gray, 2009: Climate change: Driven by the ocean – not humans. The Steamboat Institute Conference, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, August 29, 2009.
Stephens, Graeme at the August 2009 GEWEX meeting in Melbourne Australia in a talk titled “Earth observations and moist processes”.
Sun, D.-Z., Y. Yu, and T. Zhang, 2007: Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models: A Further Assessment Using Coupled Simulations. J. Climate [a powerpoint talk of this research was completed for my class in 2007 Human Impacts on Weather and Climate(see Validating and Understanding Feedbacks in Climate Models).
Thompson, D. W. J. and J. M. Wallace, 1998: The Arctic Oscillation signature in the wintertime geopotential height and temperature fields. Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 1297-1300.
Trenberth, K. E., D. P. Stepaniak, and J. M. Caron 2002: Interannual variations in the atmospheric heat budget J. Geophys. Res., 107, D8, 10.1029/2000JD000297.
A.A. Tsonis, K.L. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov, 2007: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/ 2007GL030288.
A.A. Tsonis and K.L. Swanson, 2006: What do networks have to do with climate? Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. doi:10.1175/BAMS-87-5-585.
Marcia Wyatt, Ocean Heat, April 27 & May 4, 2007 in my class on Human Impacts on Weather and Climate [natural climate variability is currently her Ph.d. dissertation topic working with A. Tsonis and S. Kravtsov].
I am also further convinced based on the recognition that there is “missing heat” in the climate system (e.g. see the recent set of posts on this topic starting with this one). The long term variations in atmospheric and ocean circulation features, with resulting global average changes in radiative forcing, can explain at least part of the reason for this “missing heat”.
In 2005 I wrote a post
What is the Importance to Climate of Heterogeneous Spatial Trends in Tropospheric Temperatures?.
Roy’s perspective, bolstered by such colleagues as listed above, provides convincing further evidence that such variations in regional heating and cooling can alter significantly the global average heating more than has been indicated by the IPCC-type multi-decadal global climate model simulations.
The solar influence also appears to be larger than was understood in 2005, as illiustrated by these papers
Scafetta N., R. C. Willson (2009), ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L05701, doi:10.1029/2008GL036307.
Lean, J. L., and D. H. Rind (2009): How Will Earth’s Surface Temperature Change in Future Decades?,
Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2009GL038932, in press. (accepted 9 July 2009).
The 2010 answer to the question by Andy Revkin
“Is most of the observed warming over the last 50 years likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”?
remains NO.
The added greenhouse gases from human activity clearly have a role in increasing the heat content of the climate system from what it otherwise would be. However, there are other equally or even more important significant human climate forcings, as I summarized in my 2005 post and in the 2009 article
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union.
We now know, however, that the natural variations of atmospheric and ocean circulation features within the climate system produces global average heat changes that are substantially larger than what was known in 2005. The IPCC models have failed to adequately simulate this effect.
The answer to Andy’s question from 2005 is an even more clearly No. That is a signficant fraction of the observed warming over the last 50 years is NOT due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”?
“The answer to Andy’s question from 2005 is an even more clearly No. That is a signficant fraction of the observed warming over the last 50 years is NOT due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”?” Pielke Sr
The bottom line (above) says it all.
_____________________
Ref – Leif Svalgaard says:
May 6, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Gail Combs says:
May 6, 2010 at 1:37 pm
GC- “Lief it is not the Internet to blame but an educational system that produces “team players” with just enough education to be useful as factory drones… well maybe.”
LS- “Well, of course, it is primarily the education system [and the US is probably one of the worst among the richer nations]. but afterwards those kids find the Internet and WUWT and find the easier-to-understand [and therefore seductive: “Hey, guess what, even I can understand this stuff, must be right”] pseudo-science as a substitute for the much harder to grasp real science, to wit many posts on this very blog [most of us here know who they are – even if they themselves don’t].”
I believe we have a global pandemic and no one seems to care. Alas, when people get to this point they tend to compound the errors they make in daily decision making; radicals proliferate; depression is epidemic; the state assumes more and more control; taxes rise; the value of money falls; industries fail; unemployment skyrockets; colleges and universities cater more to the masses and fail; religion is attacked; divorce rates rise; murders increase; terror becomes more frequent; politicians become more inept; discontent is universal.
Well, at least, thanks to Pielke Sr. and a few other true scientists, we have something for a few more of the masses to put their teeth into, “It ain’t the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” But this is small potatoes. It will only save a few of the lemmings from running over the cliffs. I guess it really doesn’t matter what infected crazy people yell about, they’re actually driven by something else altogether. Its a crying shame that so many of the ‘elite’ among us have caught this bug before the common folk. Who will save us now?
PS: The first sign of infection is the claim to be just one of the common folk and screaming “WHO WILL SAVE US NOW?”
cba says:
May 7, 2010 at 5:24 am
Also, do the free electrons play a significant role or only after they are captured into an H- ion?
There is also a [smaller] contribution from free electrons when they pass by a ‘free’ hydrogen atom. The net result of all this is an opacity that is almost independent of wavelength. This is characteristic of a graybody, which the Sun thus seems to be.
One has the problem in astronomy of the term metals
In this connection, what is important is whether the ‘metal’ has a low ionization potential [as real metals have].
Seriously OT sorry
If Roger Pielke is reading this. There seems to be a huge error in
Recent Variations In Upper Ocean Heat Content – Information From Phil Klotzbach
“decrease in upper ocean heat content from March to April was 1C”
the spreadsheet doesn’t indicate that.
Phil. says:
May 6, 2010 at 10:16 pm
“If he did he’d be wrong, but I think you’re the one who’s wrong in this case.”
Of course. What the hell did Bohr and Pauli know about quantum mechanics, anyway?
That is a mind-boggling stupid statement. Stop digging.
Bart says:
May 7, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Phil. says:
May 6, 2010 at 10:16 pm
“If he did he’d be wrong, but I think you’re the one who’s wrong in this case.”
Of course. What the hell did Bohr and Pauli know about quantum mechanics, anyway?
Plenty, what’s in dispute is your knowledge of quantum mechanics.
“…if a ground state CO2 molecule absorbs a 667cm^-1 photon it’s promoted to the 010 state, there’s nothing to stop that molecule absorbing another 667cm^-1 photon and being promoted to the 020 state, and so on.”
That is a mind-boggling stupid statement. Stop digging.
Really, so exactly how do you think the upper vibrational levels get populated?
Phil, the levels are not infinite, and they are not linear. Quit arguing something you know nothing about. I’m embarrassed on your behalf. Here’s a little discussion of the subject. Pay special attention to pages 3 and 16.
Until you show even a rudimentary understanding of the issue, you will merit no more input from me, so make whatever ignorant follow-up comment you like. I’m done with this thread.
Bart says:
May 8, 2010 at 11:23 am
Phil, the levels are not infinite, and they are not linear. Quit arguing something you know nothing about. I’m embarrassed on your behalf. Here’s a little discussion of the subject. Pay special attention to pages 3 and 16.
The only embarrassing part is your demonstrated lack of knowledge on the subject. Your lecture notes from your class are quite basic but don’t refute anything I said. As for “the levels are not infinite, and they are not linear”, I assume that you mean that there aren’t an infinite number of vibrational levels, if so what does that have to do with my statement? Similarly what is meant by “they are not linear” in the context of my remarks? All you have done in this thread is make a couple of remarks which have little relevance to what I posted and without any substantiation!
Phil. says:
May 8, 2010 at 8:19 pm
“Your lecture notes from your class are quite basic…”
But, apparently, beyond your level.
“…don’t refute anything I said.”
From the link:“If there are no available quantized energy levels matching the quantum energy of the incident radiation, then the material will be transparent to that radiation.”
The next energy level corresponds to a 2326cm^-1 wave number. You cannot absorb another 667cm^-1 photon until the associated energy state is free again.
“…don’t refute anything I said.”
You have no clue. Typical of AGW supporters, you make up the physics to match what you want them to be, and expect to be taken seriously.