Guest post by Ira Glickstein
Some people claim that there’s a woman to blame,
But I know, it’s my own damn fault..
The original Jimmy Buffet lyrics say “woman to blame” but I changed it to “human” in the title of this post. Perhaps I should have left it as “woman” since, without their civilizing influence, we men would still be huddled in caves, wearing bearskins, and human-caused global warming would not be an issue. In 1880, WS Gilbert said women were the really civilized humans, while Darwinian Man, even when well-behaved, was nothing more than a Monkey Shaved :^)
This is the fourth of my Tale of the Global Warming Tiger series where I allocate the supposed 0.8ºC warming since 1880 to: (1) Data Bias, (2) Natural Cycles, and (3) AGW (human-caused global warming), the subject of this posting. Click Tiger’s Tale and Tail :^) to see my allocation and read the original story.
ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (AGW)
This posting is about how human activities, particularly burning of fossil fuels and land use changes have contributed to the global warming experienced since 1880. According to Willis Eschenbach’s excellent WUWT posting (with the same title as mine – great minds think alike :^);
I think that the preponderance of evidence shows that humans are the main cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2. It is unlikely that the change in CO2 is from the overall temperature increase. During the ice age to interglacial transitions, on average a change of 7°C led to a doubling of CO2. We have seen about a tenth of that change (0.7°C) since 1850, so we’d expect a CO2 change from temperature alone of only about 20 ppmv.
Thus, about 80% of the CO2 rise from about 280 ppmv to 390 ppmv since 1880 is due to human activities.
I estimate that 0.1ºC of the supposed 0.8ºC warming is AGW, where we humans are to “blame” (assuming that that tiny amount of warming will make much of a difference, or, even if it does, that it will turn out to be bad).
In comments to my previous postings in this series, some WUWT readers have suggested that the entire supposed 0.8ºC warming since 1880 is data bias. In other words, there has actually been no net warming at all. I disagree. Even if the terrestrial temperature record since 1880 is questionable, particularly in light of repeated “adjustments” by the official climate Team that appear to overstate the warming, it seems to me the satellite data, available since 1979, clearly proves there has been considerable net warming since that date.
Other WUWT readers agree we are in a warming cycle but claim that natural processes are responsible for ALL the warming. Their main argument is that rising CO2 and other carbon gas levels do not cause much if any warming, and, even that amount of warming is counteracted by additional clouds that raise the Earth’s albedo. I agree the great majority of warming is natural, but I think it is clear that human activities are responsible for some of it. Yes, clouds almost certainly have a net negative feedback (despite virtually all the official climate Team models to the contrary), but, for the negative cloud feedback to work, temperatures must rise at least a little bit to generate the additional clouds.
DESCRIPTION OF MY GRAPHIC
The above graphic traces my estimate of the actual warming since 1880, and my projection several decades into the future. To liven it up I have drawn the curves atop a photo of some white-roofed houses in Greece and quoted from The Independent, 27 May 2009, under the headline Obama’s climate guru: Paint your roof white! they say:
Some people believe that nuclear power is the answer to climate change, others have proposed green technologies such as wind or solar power, but Barack Obama’s top man on global warming has suggested something far simpler – painting your roof white.
At the time, Anthony posted the news on WUWT, suggesting:
Maybe now NOAA will get rid of all remaining rooftop climate monitoring stations or stations sited over asphalt …
An alert reader, E.M. Smith, went further and wrote:
Lets start a surface stations project to paint the black roofs and asphalt under temperature stations white. We can do it to “save the planet from global warming and offset carbon”… and it would actually work to get the global temperature record down too ….
Undoubtedly, land use changes such as clearing forests and paving large areas with asphalt and erecting buildings have generally reduced the albedo of the Earth and thus increased warming. I don’t think Secretary Chu’s white roof idea will have much effect, but, any effect it does have will be in the direction of reducing warming, and I doubt it could ever be so successful that it pushes us into catastrophic global cooling!
Natural Cycles: The green line represents net warming not under human control or effect, and it shows a rise of about 0.4ºC since 1880.
The lighter green line is my projection of Natural Cycles assuming that Solar Cycle #24 will have a low Sunspot peak of 60 or less in 2013 or later, and that the following SC #25 and SC #26 will be similarly low and long. It is virtually certain SC #24 will be low, but pure speculation regarding SC #25 and SC #26. Of course, the varying strengths of ocean oscillations and volcanic eruptions and other hard to predict events may affect natural processes in either direction from my projections.
I have sketched a thin green line that indicates what may happen if we get a series of particularly strong events, similar to the El Niño that caused global temperatures to peak in 1999, and/or if subsequent Solar Cycles return to their previously high Sunspot levels.
AGW The violet line represents the sum of Natural Cycles and AGW and it shows an additional net rise of about 0.1ºC since 1880.
The lighter violet line is my projection assuming human activities will continue more or less as they have in the past, with minimal reductions in human-generated carbon gases and land use patterns, showing an additional nearly 0.1ºC rise between 2011 and 2050, for a total AGW since 1880 approaching 0.2ºC.
I have sketched a thin violet line indicating what may happen if Natural Cycles follow the thin green line projection and if, in addition, humans accelerate emissions of carbon gases and land use patterns that reduce the Earth’s albedo.
WHY AGW IS REAL
According to Roy Spencer, PhD:
Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthening the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.
Absent the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, the Earth would be cooler by about 33ºC, and 1% of that is 0.33ºC, which is more than the 0.1ºC I have allocated to AGW and that does not even include land use effects. But, again according to Spencer:
Net feedbacks in the real climate system — on both short and long time scales — are probably negative. A misinterpretation of cloud behavior has led climate modelers to build models in which cloud feedbacks are instead positive, which has led the models to predict too much global warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
He explains that IPCC climate models assume a feedback of from 0.9 to 1.9 W m-2 K-1, and that any value below 3.3 represents positive feedback, while any level above that is negative feedback. He concludes from his study of satellite data that:
the line slopes diagnosed from the satellite data … might actually be an UNDERESTIMATE of the true feedback occurring, which could be 7 W m-2 K-1 or more.
If that turns out to be true, then the actual sensitivity to CO2 doubling would be far less than the 2ºC to 5ºC or more projected by the IPCC. Indeed it could be 0.5ºC, or even less. As current CO2 levels are about 390 ppmv we are about 40% to a doubling from historic 280 ppmv levels, the actual temperature rise due to the human component of AGW could be 0.2ºC.
In addition, burning of fossil fuels has a side effect of increasing light-colored aerosols that reflect Sunlight and thus prevent some of it from reaching the surface, counteracting some of the warming due to atmospheric CO2. Efforts to clean the air are said to have reduced such aerosols and, inadvertently, caused more warming.
Please note that I have low-balled my AGW value by about half because I discount the approximately 20% of rise in CO2 levels as due to the temperature rise itself causing less CO2 to be absorbed by the polar and winter temperate oceans and more to be emitted by the equatorial and summer temperate oceans and I also believe there are other negative feedback components yet to be exposed. I expect some WUWT readers will challenge even my low estimate and I request you back your challenges up with science-based reasoning, which I would love to hear.
CONCLUSIONS AND REQUESTS
If readers have additional information or corrections to what I said about AGW, or if there are other related factors I missed, I would appreciate detailed comments to improve my summary.
It seems to me that my estimate of 0.1ºC for AGW is justified, and perhaps a bit understated. I am open to hearing the opinions of WUWT readers who may think I have over- (or under-) estimated this component of the supposed 0.8ºC rise in global temperatures since 1880.
In my first and second and third postings in this Tale of the Global Warming Tiger series, I asked for comments on my allocations: to: (1) Data Bias 0.3ºC, (2) Natural Cycles 0.4ºC, and (3) AGW 0.1ºC. Quite a few readers were kind enough to comment, either expressing general agreement or offering their own estimates.
What do you think? I have been keeping a spreadsheet record of WUWT reader’s opinions, which I appreciate and value greatly, along with their screen names, and I plan to report the results in the next posting of this series:
Is the Global Warming Tiger a Pussy Cat? – If, as many of us expect, natural processes lead to stabilization of global temperatures over the coming decades, and perhaps a bit of cooling, we will realize the whole Global Warming uproar was like the boy who saw a pussy cat and cried tiger.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If we want to determine how much of the temperature record is unjustified adjustments (and how much the global warming theory is off), we can look at the Tropics Troposphere.
The Tropics Troposphere is supposed to be the infamous hotspot – it should be increasing by about 0.24C per decade in the recent past.
The satellites (unaffected by NCDC adjustments) shows it is increasing at only 0.083C per decade since 1979. This is also a period when natural cycles have intensified the warming trend (versus 1942 to 1976 for example).
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/2696/uahdailytropics.png
I can put up about 2 dozen other examples if someone wants (P Solar for example).
The IPCC climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is their estimate of how much temperatures will rise due to a doubling of CO2. They claim CO2 rise causes TEMP rise, and CO2 fall causes TEMP fall. Right?
The neat graph you linked to shows that, from about 123,000 to 113,000 years before present, a period of about 10,000 years, TEMP dropped first, by about 0.5º. During the same 10,000 year period of time, CO2 levels remained near 270 ppm (+/- 8 ppm).
Only then, starting around 113,000 years before present to about 106,000, a period of about 7,000 years, did CO2 levels begin their 40 ppm drop to around 230 ppm. During that 7,000 year period, TEMP had stabilized or was rising. What does this tell us about the warming effect of CO2?
It seems to me it tells us that CO2 may be relatively stable while TEMP falls, and that CO2 may fall and TEMP may remain relatively stable or rise! Which drives which according to the graphic you linked? Does CO2 cause TEMP or is it the other way around, or neither?
How do you draw the conclusion that “40ppm fall [in CO2] should cause about 1C cooling”? Seems to me that 0.5º cooling caused the 40 ppm drop in CO2. Please let me know how CO2 that changed after TEMP could cause TEMP to change? Isn’t it he other way around, at least according to the graphic to which you linked?
I based that on Willis Eschenbach’s analysis see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/some-people-claim-that-theres-a-human-to-blame/ which I linked to and quoted as saying “During the ice age to interglacial transitions, on average a change of 7°C led to a doubling of CO2. We have seen about a tenth of that change (0.7°C) since 1850, so we’d expect a CO2 change from temperature alone of only about 20 ppmv.”
20 ppmv, during the ice age to interglacial transitions before humans were a factor, is less than 20% of the 110 ppmv rise in CO2 we’ve experienced since the 1800’s. Therefore, according to Eschenbach, over 80% of the rise in CO2 is probably due to human activities since the industrial revolution, most of which occured over the past half century of increased burning of fossil fuels, also detailed in his excellent posting. The remaining CO2 rise is due to the warming itself, most of which I attribute to natural processes and cycles.
For your excel sheet:
1) Data Bias: 0.2K
2) Natural Processes: 0.4K
3) Human Activity: 0.2K, with another 0.2K to come in the future even without continuing to increase CO2 levels.
For the following 30 years, I expect global temperatures to drop only 0.1K compared to current global temperatures, divided in:
1) Data Bias: 0.0K.
2) Natural Processes: -0.3K. I’m considering a low SC24 and normal SC25 and SC26 (a little lower than 20th century average), but negative PDO and ENSO phases.
3) Human Activity: +0.2K (there will be increasing emissions, yet the atmospheric CO2 increase ratio will remain roughly the same (+2ppmv/y) due to increased ocean absorption because of its lower temperature and growing CO2 imbalance between ocean and atmosphere, and also because of increased photosinthesis due to higher CO2. So I expect CO2 levels to be about 425 ppmv by then). There would be another +0.3K to come in the future should CO2 emissions stop at that point.
I disagree with the ocean being partly to blame for the increase of atmospheric CO2. I agree that, without other sources, the current warming would have led to the oceans outgassing about 20 ppmv. But the oceanic outgassing depends on its temperature and also on the concentrations of CO2 in the ocean and in the atmosphere. If CO2 concentrations, comming from any source, hadn’t yet increased those 20 ppmv, the oceans would be outgassing CO2. But since it has increased about +100 ppmv, the oceans are now absorbing CO2, and quite a lot. I think that without the oceans absorbing CO2 we would now have between 30 to 50 ppmv more.
Thanks Wayne, I’ve recorded your estimates in my spreadsheet.
ALL: Please add your estimates. I will report all the estimates and the averages inmy next posting in this series.
Dear Ira Glickstein
You write many things in your article that I quite frankly do not understand. Therefore as you say “I expect some WUWT readers will challenge even my low estimate and I request you back your challenges up with science-based reasoning, which I would love to hear”
Let’s have a look at the (your) first one:
“I estimate that 0.1ºC of the supposed 0.8ºC warming is AGW, where we humans are to “blame” (assuming that that tiny amount of warming will make much of a difference, or, even if it does, that it will turn out to be bad).
As I cannot immediately find where you back your estimate up with science-based reasoning I can only draw the conclusion that science-based reasoning is very hard to come by when it comes to AGW. – Never mind how small the percentage is.
Next you say that “some WUWT readers have suggested that the entire supposed 0.8ºC warming since 1880 is data bias” which, if you say so, probably is true, but there again I cannot understand why they should suggest that. I for one do not know how much it has warmed so I cannot argue against 0.8ºC of warming. And quite frankly I don’t care. What I do care about and will say though is that I can find no scientific proof anywhere that says that CO2 is definitely the cause of that entire warming, or even of any small percentage part of it. – But you must have found it so please share —-.
Please note I am (we are I hope) just talking about the extra 80 or 100 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 which stand for the A in AGW. So please bear with me until I have worked this out in percentages, as we can all probably recognize percentages better than “per milleages.” – In 1880 atmospheric CO2 = 280ppm= 0.028%. By 2010 atmospheric CO2 has risen by, say 34.5% to 390 ppm (or maybe a bit more) which = 0.039%. That means the atmospheric proportional rise is 0.039 minus 0.029 = 0.01%.
I shall come back to this 0.01% later.
I shall not comment much on the “white paint theory” as I do not quite believe that you really support that one. However you do talk about albedo which is, at least, in my opinion, a very important point. I do however get the impression that “climate scientists” shut their eyes and ears to anything other than changed albedo through loss of reflection by snow and ice lost due to AGW.
Sir William Herschel and Ben Franklin are just two of the best known men of old who experimented with colors and their different temperature absorption rates, and I find it very strange that scientists in general and climate scientists in particular ignore this. Well, ignore may not exactly be the right word as they do acknowledge that Sir William discovered IR radiation. – Well, he may well have done that, but what he actually discovered was that there “must be another color in the spectrum, next to red (I have by now forgotten what he called it) which carried more heat than the red and other colors.
The important thing about this is that every square km. of the 30% of the planet which is landmasses (148 000 000 km²) on which the Sun shines may have incalculable variation in colors alone, never mind the differences in textures as well, that all add up to make it impossible to determine how much solar energy is absorbed and how much is reflected. (Trenberth 2008 = 168 & 23 W/m²????) And colors are changing throughout the whole year.
Neither must we be forgetting about the other 70% of the globe called oceans. The reflection and absorption rates here are also forever changing depending on the state of the seascape.
A long time ago when at school I learnt that when the Sun’s rays struck the Earth, some rays would be partly absorbed and some would be partly reflected. Those parts that were absorbed would “excite” the surface molecules thus increasing their motion and therefore also their temperature. In those days the bottom of the atmosphere was in contact with the top of the surface and the air molecules would therefore be excited by the surface molecules. In other words heat was transferred from the surface to the air by conduction.
All was correct in accordance with “The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics” which was in vogue with my science teachers at the time.
The thought in those days was that the Zeroth Law was a necessary and fundamental principle upon which the rest of thermodynamics was based. Without it, one cannot be sure that temperature means anything, and temperature or heat was in those days fundamental to thermodynamics.
In fact all throughout my life as a mechanical engineer the correct name for most of the things we call “radiators” were in fact “heat exchangers”
These days however radiation, without which AGW cannot take place, is all the rage. Yet, only greenhouse-gases can receive and therefore also emit long wave radiation (in the case of AGW one should only concentrate on radiation to and from CO2 as I just said, only greenhouse gases can do this radiation thing.)
So what is the scientific explanation for how 0.01% of the atmosphere warms up the other 99.99% a bit extra?
I do recognize that Dr. Spencer, who you give a mention, is a well educated and clever man and I respect all of his work except his “Defense of The Greenhouse Effect”
No person who likens the greenhouse effect to what happens to a pot of water warming on a stove and has to turn the heat up on the stove to raise the water temperature is going to convince me that it is “back-radiation” from the rising water vapor (steam) that does it.
Neither the pot, it’s steam nor that stove is going to bring the water to the boiling point or even a little bit towards it, unless more energy is transformed into heat first!
However in your clip Dr. Spencer says: “As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthening the Earth’s greenhouse effect.”
I notice that on this occasion he uses the term energy instead of the usual radiation. But how can a small part of a trace gas trap infrared energy in the atmosphere as long as there is something called convection?
He also says “As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.
Are the words “it is believed that” scientific substitution for “only God knows if” ?
Oh well, this comment has gotten long enough. But I would like to ask in closing: “What is the scientific proof for the natural greenhouse effect? And what would happen to Earth’s temperature if you leave all the “Greenhouse gases” but take away all the other gases?”
I agree totally (except when you call me “Ian” I am “Ira” :^). In the real world we often need to make decisions based on missing or uncertain data. That was often the case in my work as a System Engineer on advanced military avionics systems when we had to choose between different approaches and different products and so on, and estimate the system performance and cost consquences of those choices, and fit them into the budget and schedule we knew our Customer Set had available. I had conflicting estimates from various domain engineers and potential sub-contractors, etc. We had to develop our conceptual designs and write our proposal in a few months, based on that mess of incomplete data. The only way to do that I know to make those decisions is to allocate and quantify, even if only approximately, causes and effects to determine which decision areas are the “heavy hitters” and to concentrate efforts in those areas.
For the present issue of climate change, if we can come up with a convincing science-based case that the “heavy hitters” are natural cycles, that much of the official climate Team data and analysis is biased to show more warming and therefore more CO2 sensitivity than justified, and therefore that human burning of fossil fuels is a relatively minor issue, we will be better able to counteract the warmists and alarmists.
They have convinced themselves that AGW is Catastrophic. They say CAGW is an imminent “tipping point” runaway warming disaster that will occur in a few decades if we continues burning fossil fuels at current rates.
That would be OK if it was a mere scientific issue. But it is not. The warmist camp has been more politically-connected than we skeptics, with more support from the mainstream media and scientific publications and they have thus convinced governments to consider strong action to cut carbon emissions.
IMHO, we cannot just wait until the science is settled, because, by that time, decisions will have been made that will wreck our economies and not contribute one bit to the betterment of society.
The 33ºC (or 30ºC) warming due to the “greenhouse” effect (GHE) of the atmosphere includes the effect of water vapor, carbon gases, and other gas constituents of the atmosphere. I do not know of any reasonable scientist, skeptical or not, who doubts that GHE gases absorb longwave IR radiation emitted from the Sun-warmed Earth and re-emit about half of it back towards the Earth, causing the Earth to be warmer than it would be absent those GHE gases.
As you know, water vapor condenses to liquid (rain) and solid (snow) form when it cools and that causes it to precipitate out of the atmosphere and fall to Earth. If water vapor was the only GHE gas in the atmosphere, cooling could cause all the water vapor to precipitate out leaving only the inert gases. An atmosphere without any GHE gases would cool further and that would be the end of life on Earth.
CO2 also condenses when it cools, but only at much lower temperatures than water vapor. Therefore, we need CO2 in the atmosphere to keep it warm enough for there to be water vapor.
Roy Spencer, PhD has a very readable description at http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/. Please have a look at it.
I’ll add your estimates to my spreadsheet. Thanks.
Thanks, I’ll add those to my spreadsheet. I appreciate your projections to the future, but, for now, I am only tracking the 1880 to present.
You are correct that higher atmospheric CO2 increases net absorption of CO2 by the cooler oceans and reduces the net outgassing by the warmer oceans. So, the 20 ppmv may be an over-estimate of the effect of warming on net ocean absorption and emission. On the other hand, based on the increase in ocean surface temperature, it seems to me there must be a net increase in outgassing by the equatorial and summer temperate oceans and a net decrease in the absorption by the polar and winter temperate oceans. You may be correct that, net net, the oceans have absorbed 30-50 ppmv of the CO2 due to human activities, but they would have absorbed even more had they not warmed due to the effects of natural cycles.
Help please on Pink Noise statistics
Can anyone out there help? How do you determine the probability of a signal rising by 0.8C given that it has a 1/f noise function?
I’ve created a simulation using an audio generator program (audacity) and there’s no doubt that similar swings happen regularly, but I’ve no way to put that formally and so come up with a figure such as “the 20th century temperature swing was within the 70% confidence level”.
This is very important, because if done right (using the proper scientifically verifiable procedure), it will blow a hole in their “95% confident it is human” and so potentially bring this whole thing to an end within months
” If water vapor was the only GHE gas in the atmosphere, cooling could cause all the water vapor to precipitate out leaving only the inert gases.”
Can you expand on the above please ?
Solar shortwave would still be entering the oceans much as now.
The warmth of the oceans would warm the inert gases above.
So the air might have a different vertical temperature profile but it would still be above freezing and still with a water cycle would it not ?
This is opinion or science?
Erm you asked “I would appreciate detailed comments to improve my summary.”
I can’t make it detailed but I suggest you delete it all and start again. I’m not invested in the IPCC process but this is horrible. Sorry this is so harsh but what you present is unconvincing to me. Lose the vagueness and common-sense and hit us with something challenging.
Ira said: I do not know of any reasonable scientist, skeptical or not, who doubts that GHE gases absorb longwave IR radiation emitted from the Sun-warmed Earth and re-emit about half of it back towards the Earth, causing the Earth to be warmer than it would be absent those GHE gases.
Assuming that’s true, it also means that they re-emit half the IR radiation away from Earth making the Earth cooler than it would be absent those GHE gases.
What is this saying then? That greenhouse gases act to both warm and cool the atmosphere.
The assumption that greenhouse gases only go to warm the Earth is falsified by the very assumption made about IR which includes radiating half into space given to ‘prove’ this only goes to make the Earth warmer. Clearly, to me, it’s gobbledegook. If it isn’t also gobbledegook to “any reasonable scientist, skeptical or not,”, then I wouldn’t call them reasonable.
The statement that ‘without greenhouse gases the Earth would be around 30°C cooler’ is without foundation, hoist by its own petard.
From your link to Spencer: Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature,
This assumption is falsified by tons of empirical evidence showing the Earth is in a constant state of temperature flux, from seasons and local weather differences around the globe, which doesn’t take a ‘scientist’ to appreciate when planning holidays, to the vast time scale knowledge we have from geological record etc. that the Earth is subject to massive variations in temperature. In our current Ice Age alone, we have huge changes to the Earth every 100,000 years or so when coming out of this into considerably hotter Interglacials for some 10,000 years before descending back into our Ice Age; a cyclical pattern graphically depicted by Vostok shows even the non-scientist that this assumption that the Earth maintains a constant average temperature is gobbledegook.
GIGO. Just these two AGW assumptions show its claims do not relate to the real world we live and breathe in, but to an imaginary world created by the assumptions.
Much of what I see in these like analyses to the one you present here suffers from this basic disjunct, you are arguing against already falsified assumptions.
Again from Spencer: Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement.. it is well understood by climate scientists.
It is a controversial statement.
Based on the unproven assumption that IR ‘trapped’ by greenhouses gases is even capable of heating the Earth’s surface by this ‘back radiation’ and then by ignoring half the assumption anyway, that greenhouse gases are cooling the Earth by constant radiation into space.
And that’s before starting on other ‘assumptions’ produced by AGW about CO2, that it can stay up in the atmosphere accumulating for the hundreds and thousands of years and is ‘well-mixed’ in the atmosphere…
These assumptions by AGW cannot be taken seriously. Shouldn’t be taken seriously by any thinking themselves scientists.
Are you familiar with Nir Shaviv’s (Jerusalem University) research into Earth’s ice ages and the correlation of the ice ages with the solar system crossing galactic spiral arms? He postulates GRC flux (galactic cosmic rays) as the driver of the ice ages and imputes about 0.15 degrees Celsius as the maximum anthropogenic contribution to GW.
The GRC as a climate driver concept is also supported by research by Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Technical University of Copenhagen, and Dr. Jan Veizer late of Toronto University (retired?).
See http://sciencebits.com/myresearch for the links to Shaviv’s work and http://dsri.dk/~hsv for pdf’s of his and Nigel Marsh’s research.
Svensmark is indirectly responsible for the Cern LHC Cloud experiment which is underway at the moment … see http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html and the cloud experiment’s website: http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/
WattsUpWithThat also quoted Svensmark in a piece: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/
All this may be worth including in your “Tiger” article series…
I still think there are good grounds for upping your estimate of data problems, Ira. But thanks for your contribution.
The point that irritates me most in discussions such as the above is the freqent references to models and the modelers and the almost absurd faith by this person or that in some particular model or other. Without an absolutely reliable set of real-world observations from terra firma on which we live, a ‘gold standard’ of land-based data in which mankind can invest trust and belief beyond a shadow of a doubt, the use of the output from models seems a sort of ‘sorcerer’s aprentice’ approach – it all looks grand and portentious, it keeps a small army of grant-monkeys in excellent employment but means little in reality. I see no governments doing the groundwork to establish such a network of data-gathering stations; what is in place is often so woefully inadequate as to be ridiculous. Myriad photographs of ancient stained and battered Stephenson Screens perched above black tarmac and warmed frequently by hot gasses from aircraft exhausts, air conditioning units or passing traffic have convinced me that the sorcerer’s aprentice became a statistician who long ago lost contact with the world of accurate and pristine unblemished environmental data.
Or have I missed some great truth?
Ira, in a previous post I noted that summer TMax is not increasing. In fact, in Canada, summer heat waves are DROPPING, the highest being in the mid 1920-1930’s. Other locations around the world also shows no increase in Summer TMax either. The highly proclaimed evidence of AGW, the French 2003 heat wave, was in fact a very local event. At the same time Paris was sweltering in 40C daily high temps, beating the 1947 record by 0.2C, Berlin was having a perfectly normal summer. In fact, 1947 Paris had 10 more of days above 30C than 2003 making 1947’s heat wave “worse” than 2003.
What is driving up the average temperature is winters are getting less cold, and with that spring is coming sooner, and fall is arriving later (that is the number of days between the last frost of spring and the first frost of winter is increasing).
This means that the magnitude of the difference between summer temps and winter temps is narrowing. The range of swing of temps is converging. That means at some point that converging must stop (winter can’t be warmer than summer), and must reverse and start to diverge again, regardless of how much CO2 there is.
That means this ‘warming’ is part of a natural cycle.
“Absent the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, the Earth would be cooler by about 33ºC ”
Actually, there is no experimental evidence that actually backs this up, and never has been. The theory was developed from an observation that CO2 and water vapour was good at absorbing and re-radiating infra-red and certain specific wavelengths. It subsequently was proposed that Venus was “warmer than expected” due to this CO2. However, no real experimental evidence has ever backed this up, partly because no scientist can actually demonstrate that Venus really is “warmer than expected”. Furthermore, all the experiments conducted on CO2 were on more or less 100% concentrations of CO2, and not in circumstances where the CO2 was merely a trace gas amongst other powerful absorbers of infra red. Water vapour is a much more powerful absorber of infra red and acts over a wider bandwidth. Furthermore, it is unclear why infra-red absorbtion in the high atmosphere (rather than at ground level) should have much impact on ground level temperature. Eventually the energy balance must be maintained – the CO2 can only delay the departure of the heat, and since it acts to delay that departure in the upper atmosphere primarily, it is unclear why temperatures at ground level would be much affected. The fact that CO2 is a trace gas ensures that any departing IR wavelet is unlikely to be absorbed close to the surface and more likely to be absorbed at some point in the high atmosphere, where it is no clear it can do any real harm. Meanwhile water vapour remains equally good at keeping heat from reaching the ground as it does from leaving the ground – as anyone that has experienced a cloudy British summer could tell you – one would expect CO2 to do the same, since any energy absorbed by the CO2 must eventually be re-emitted. It is unclear that more CO2 (or indeed any gas in the atmosphere) does anything more than moderate the extremes of temperature that we normally see from day to night, just as it does now.
Not in my house! She wants it OFF! 😉
P. Solar says:
January 31, 2011 at 2:30 pm ……..
That makes sense to me, however:
Unfortunately, the warming and increase in CO2 are comingled and can not be separated. Isotope numbers are no good unless you can measure all of the sink isotopes, ALL of them, Vegetation uptake, adsorption, shell and bone mass etc…
A mild increase caused by Anthropogenic sources in CO2 and temperature are obvious and intuitive. That does not make them true. It is pure foolishness to try to put a number on it.
Ira
I am sorry that I mis-spelt your name. I also regret the length of this response but hopefully it adds something to the debate. I understand the points that you make and I do not violently disagree with the thrust of your comments.
However, I like many other posters have not done the underlying research but have read many papers on the subject (and visited numerous sites both pro and sceptical). The starting point to this debate (leaving aside the important issue as to whether the measurement of temperature is the correct metric since this does not fully show energy) is: has there been any warming since the late 1800s and if so, how much? The truthful answer to this is that given measurement errors, no one knows for sure but it is probable that there has been some warming. The satellite data shows some recent warming but of course if temperatures were higher in the 1930s or 1880s (which they may have been if one considers the error bars and downwards adjustments) perhaps there has been no (or little) warming.
The data record suggests 0.8C. I doubt that this is correct. I have seen first hand the effects of UHI. I have little doubt that the recent temperature record has been corrupted by UHI and station drop out, such that the recent warming is exaggerated. I also feel that it is probable, that revisions of past temperatures (always downwards never up) has also exaggerated the true extent of the warming during the past century. However, whilst I understand that there are reasons to consider that this may have resulted in 0.2 or 0.3 or even perhaps 0.4C of bias, I am not certain. Thus in summary on this point, I am not certain that there has been any warming during the past 100 years or so, but I accept that it is probable that there has been some warming and in which case it is almost certain that the amount of warming has been exaggerated in the various temperature sets probably by somewhere between 0.1 to 0.3C. The problem I have is that it would be mere conjecture for me to place a figure on this exaggeration (albeit I consider a figure of 0.2 or 0.3C to be entirely reasonable for this exaggeration such that perhaps the true warming since the late 1800s is 0.6C or perhaps only 0.5C).
The next stage is what is the cause behind this warming? If one examines the temperature record over the past century, pre the 1940s when manmade CO2 emissions began to increase substantially, one can see that natural variation at that time was capable of making temperature changes of 0.4C (and arguably up to about 0.6C). The problem is we do not know whether in 2000 those same natural processes are still at work, and if so to what extend. We do not know whether new natural processes have been added or some natural processes switched off. The upshot of all of this is that I can see that natural variation could be responsible for between 0.3 and 0.6C of the true warming that has actually occurred from the late 1800s to date. However, once aging, I have a problem. It would be a matter of conjecture for me to place any figure on it since the processes behind natural variation have not been fully identified still less fully understood.
The further stage is to consider whether man has had any role in this. If the apparent recent warming detailed in the temperature record is largely due to UHI, the answer is both yes and no. I have little doubt that mans engineering of his habitat could have some slight effect on local temperatures. If nothing else, over the area where UHI measurements can be detected. But in truth short of substantial deforestation, mans effect on the global landscape is small. Over 70% of the Earth is covered by water and the amount of land occupied by Cities/urban development is a relatively small percentage of the land mass. Whilst there has been quite some deforestation, it is generally considered that notwithstanding this, total biomass has increased over the last 50 years. So I accept that there could be some effect here, but it is modest.
As regards the effect of CO2 emissions, I have a real problem with this. When one looks at the geological record (there are times when the Earth was warm but CO2 levels were relatively low, times when the Earth was cool and yet CO2 levels were relatively high, there were times when CO2 levels were rising but the temperature was falling, and times when CO2 levels were falling but the temperature was rising) there is no sound correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. The same is so if one examines the temperature record since the LIA. There are too many points when temperatures are not responding in accordance with a correlation with CO2. Whilst correlation does not prove causation, a lack of correlation without proper explanation invariably disproves causation. Thus even at this basic level it is less than encouraging for the AGW theory.
But on a scientific level, I have real problems with the theory. I share many of the views expressed by O H Dahlsveen at January 31, 2011 at 9:25 pm and as outlined in the recent post by EM Smith (Frostbite Falls Posted on January 23, 2011 by Anthony Watts Guest post by E.M.Smith) which contained a practical real life example of how little warming effect CO2 possesses. Further given the wavelength of the back radiation emitted by CO2, it can only penetrate the oceans by microns (90% of the energy is absorbed within 10 microns and probably the remaining 10% within a further 5 or 6 microns). Given this, there is no effective way that energy from back radiation from CO2 can effectively warm the oceans and since these account for 70% of the surface area of the Earth and (ignoring the core/mantle) some 99% of the retained energy of the Earth, if the oceans cannot be effectively heated by CO2, then CO2 is not capable of global warming. I have never seen a convincing explanation as to how CO2 back radiation effectively heats the oceans, nor an experiment demonstration how CO2 heats the oceans. It would appear that the warming of the oceans is due to changes in cloud albedo and/or geothermal energy.
The upshot is that I have seen no empirical evidence supporting the contention that recent CO2 emissions has had any effect on current temperatures. Presently, I have seen no evidence to suggest that the increase in these emissions has caused even a 0.1C increase in temperature but I could be persuaded by proper valid and accurate empirical observational data showing an increase in temperatures caused by CO2 emissions and/or if those proposing the theory could actually demonstrate the science involved in a real world experiment.
Regrettably, we do not have the required data to make a proper shot at any of this. In particularly, it is fundamental to have a proper understanding of clouds and precisely how cloudy, the type of cloud involved and where these clouds were formed to see whether the observed warming is due to nothing more than changes in cloud albedo.
This leads to the final point: is it necessary to take any action at this stage? I am of the firm view that the answer to this is NO. If manmade CO2 emissions are not causative, any steps in mitigation will be a waste of time and expense. If warming is beneficial (as I believe would be the case), it would be counter productive to take steps which may prevent that beneficial warming occurring. Further, if global warming is truly occurring and if global warming is truly a problem and if this warming is not due to CO2 emissions, if we spend trillions of dollars unsuccessfully mitigating because we have aimed at the wrong culprit, we may bankrupt ourselves such that we may no longer have the money or indeed the resources to make such adaption as may prove necessary. It is clear that adaption is the best policy since adaption works irrespective as to whether the warming is or is not due to manmade CO2 emissions AND one only incurs the expense if warming turns out to be harmful. So my suggestion is to simply monitor the situation and try and gain a better understanding of what is going on but lets spend money on more worthwhile projects rather than to waste money on what is probably no more than a pussycat.
The problem we all have is how to we engage with proponents of the AGW theory. Your views sound reasonable and reasonableness usually always helps engagement. However, we are not dealing with people who value reasonableness and regretfully, no matter how reasonable you are, given the data problem, you are not able to prove your position and will be criticised for the lack of scientific rigour. It is difficult to win with these people as plainly demonstrated by their proposed reversal of the burden of proof. It is not sufficient for you to point out problems with their data, their theory, that different interpretations of data are equally as valid etc. They expect you to prove that they are wrong. Whilst I have enjoyed reading all your series of articles (and whilst I share your view that in the end this is likely to turn out to be a pussycat), regretfully I feel that this falls short of proving them wrong.
I’ve been thinking about this for a long time now and I don’t see how anyone can conclude anything! It started out as global cooling then became global warming. Then it morphed to climate change and now its climate whatever. Not only can’t the warmists settle on exactly what the problems is they can’t even tell us what they are measuring. What exactly is “global warming” ? Does that mean the air temp is increasing, the earths surface temp is increasing, or is the entire globe getting hotter? Nobody can really tell us what that means. Al Gore says that it means that everywhere we look the avg temp is going up. I might accept that if the temps were taken at points well distributed around the globe but we all know they are not.
There are entire continents with almost no data whatsoever! Most of the “Data” comes from thermometers measuring air temp. Then they thro[w] in some sea temp data. Well which are we measuring? Sea temp or air temp? Then there is satellite data. So, which are are we going to go by?
Let’s just look at land based thermometers. What exactly does avg temp mean? Does it mean the average of the hi and low temp of the day? how often are the readings taken? Is it twice a day, every hour, every minute? The less often it is taken the less accurate it is. There might be some control over the methods now but what about 30 years ago or 100 years ago? Did the people doing the reading do it accurately. The answer to that is obviously NO. Otherwise the climate scientists would not need to be adjusting the data. And if you have to adjust the data then what good is it? You might as well make up the numbers from whole clothe and be done with it. And why do they keep readjusting the data? As far as I can tell the entire historical climate data set is worthless. Anytime you pick and choose and adjust, the data it is worthless.
So if we can’t tell what the earths temp was and we can’t decide what we are going to use for present day data, How can we possibly know what the future will do, be it weather, climate or anything else.
In the entire history of man kind NO ONE has ever been able to successfully predict the future and that is still the case.
@HR says:
February 1, 2011 at 1:01 am “This is opinion or science?”
I think Ira is just trying to find a consensus.
Reading your long and thoughtful posting, it is clear you have given considerable attention to the area of climate science. You are using the knowledge you gained in preparing for and being a mechanical engineer. I too am an engineer, with a Bachelors in electrical engineering but, when I took the test to get my Professional Engineer license, I actually did the mechanical and civil engineering problems because I found them easier to understand than the EE questions.
Please have a look at and read the Spencer Global Warming 101 that I linked to and quoted. It appears you have not followed that link. An engineer should find that material easy to understand. But, here is a short version by an engineer and for an engineer:
I know that many sincere and well-educated people do not accept the idea that so-called “greenhouse” gases (GHG), like CO2 which comprises such a small percentage of the atmosphere, can be responsible for the Earth being at an average temperature of around +15ºC (59ºF, suitable for life) instead of around – 15ºC (5ºF, too cold for life), but I am convinced it is true.
First of all, we need to understand that a physical greenhouse works a different way than GHG in the atmosphere. I (and probably you, if you are near my age) was taught that a greenhouse works because the glass passes shortwave light (UV, visible and near IR) which heats up the earth and stone in the greenhouse and then they emit longwave IR which cannot get through the glass and remains trapped in the greenhouse which is why it warms up. Well, that is true about glass, but it turns out the major reason a greenhouse warms up is the fact it is sealed on the sides as well as the top which keeps the warmed air inside. It turns out you can construct a greenhouse out of plastic that passes longwave IR and it still works.
When climate scientists talk about the “greenhouse” effect warming the Earth, they are, to some extent, analogizing the atmosphere, with its “greenhouse” gases (GHG), to the way I (and probably you) were taught physical greenhouses work. CO2, water vapor, and other gases in the atmosphere pass shortwave light but absorb and re-emit much of the longwave IR radiation. While the Earth’s “greenhouse” lacks sides, it does include GHGs that absorb longwave IR fom the Sun-warmed Earth and re-emit about half of it back towards Earth, further warming it (analogous to the glass roof of a physical greenhouse that does not pass IR). Complicating matters, the Earth’s atmosphere also hosts clouds that block Sunlight, reducing the net warming of the surface by day. But the clouds also act as a GHG to warm the surface, so nighttime clouds have a net warming effect. The warm surface of the Earth loses energy when water evaporates. The rising water condenses to rain and snow high in the atmosphere, releasing the energy where it may more easily radiate out to space, and the falling rain and snow tend to cool the surface. Thunderstorms mix the atmosphere as do winds, etc.
It is that complication that leads scientists to different conclusions about the so-called “CO2-sensitivity” of the atmosphere, with the official climate Team saying that doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv will raise average temperatures by 2ºC to 5ºC, and others, saying it may be as low as 0.5ºC or even as low as 0.24ºC (see The Inconvenient Skeptic).
I tend to accept the lower estimates because, unlike all the IPCC models which use scientific arguments to conclude that clouds have a net positive feedback (warming influence), I accept the scientific arguments of Spencer and The Inconvenient Skeptic. Please read the links and make up your own mind!
In any case, I arrive at my 0.1ºC AGW allocation by accepting low climate sensitivity, and assuming there are other, currently unknown factors, that tend to reduce the effects of rising CO2 levels. So, the actual AGW allocation may be 0.2ºC – I do not claim my allocations are more than 50% accurate. By comparison, the IPCC believes AGW is responsible for the majority of the supposed 0.8ºC warming since 1880, which would put their allocation at at least 0.5ºC for AGW.
Again, you are free to choose my allocation of theirs or make your own, and you may be correct. However, if you assume it is less than my 0.1ºC, I doubt very much you will turn out to be correct.