By Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
There is an article
Global warming lull down to China’s coal growth by Richard Black of the BBC which perpetuate an inappropriately narrow view of climate science. The article headlines with the text
“The lull in global warming from 1998 to 2008 was mainly caused by a sharp rise in China’s coal use, a study suggests.”
This article makes the common major erroneous statement that global warming from CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases is climate change. This is NOT true. As we document in our 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
“Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and involve a diverse range of first-order climate forcings, including, but not limited to, the human input of carbon dioxide (CO2). Most, if not all, of these human influences on regional and global climate will continue to be of concern during the coming decades.”
The claim that CO2 dominates climate change in the multi-decadal time period has been clearly FALSIFIED.
The end of the Richard Black article reads
“The last two years’ data suggest temperatures are once more beginning to rise; but how fast this happens depends on a number of factors.
One is how quickly the rapidly industrialising countries mandate the fitting of equipment that removes sulphate particles.
Another is solar activity. Recently, it showed signs of picking up as the Sun enters a new cycle of activity, although recent research raises the possibility of a new lull.
Other research groups, meanwhile, have produced evidence showing that natural cycles of ocean temperature, such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, may restrain temperatures for another decade or so.
Uncertainties over aspects of the Earth’s immensely complex climate system, such as melting ice and the behaviour of clouds, could also skew the overall picture.
But Robert Kaufmann is in no doubt that temperatures will pick up if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.
“People can choose not to believe in [man-made] climate change – but the correct term here is ‘belief’ – believing is an act of faith, whereas science is a testing of hypotheses and seeing whether they hold up against real world data.
‘Even before this paper there wasn’t much scientific evidence for denying climate change, and now I don’t see any credible scientific contradiction – if people don’t believe it, it’ll be because they choose not to believe it.’”
Robert Kaufmann is correct that
“….science is a testing of hypotheses and seeing whether they hold up against real world data.”
We have performed such a test on the hypothesis that CO2 and a few other greenhouse dominates climate change and have clearly shown this to be a falsified hypothesis. The human role in climate change is much more than the positive radiative effect from added CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Now that we know pollution, especially Chinese pollution, stops global warming…….
…can we go back to having fun now
It’s no coincidence that they like to start their temperature graphs right after the first clean air act…
…now we know it was the clean air act that caused temperatures to rise
//////snarkysnark
Now that we know pollution, especially Chinese pollution, stops global warming…….
…can we go back to having fun now
It’s no coincidence that they like to start their temperature graphs right after the first clean air act…
…now we know it was the clean air act that caused temperatures to rise
/snark
“The claim that CO2 dominates climate change in the multi-decadal time period has been clearly FALSIFIED.”
I think this is the first time I’ve seen him say this so clearly and adamantly (sure, I might have missed it). I wonder if he’ll update his “Main Conclusions” page to reflect this. That would be pretty remarkable.
In the 70s burning coal was blamed for global cooling.
In the 90s burning coal was blamed for global warming
in the 10s burning coal was blamed for global warming and hiding global warming at the same time.
Clearly the problem is burning coal and the science is settled!
Not to mention that SO2 is a short-lived local agent. And emitted in the wrong hemisphere to explain the bulk of the cooling.
Land use change has been proven to not be cause of current Global warming as the Stratosphere is cooling, it would be warming if land use was driving warming.
Well yes, Dr Pielke, but when human causes of global warming are added to the other forcings, we get a cumulative problem which causes great concern. The resulting heat has to be absorbed somewhere, doesn’t it? How much additional heat can the oceans absorb? What are the consequences of present, not to mention future absorption?
So what “first-order climate forcings” other than CO2 are we talking about here?
I can think of a few candidates:
1. Deforestation (e.g. shrinking snow cover on Mt. Kilimanjaro);
2. Agriculture (change albedo from the “natural” state; more H2O vapor from via irrigation & evaporation — as I recall Anthony attributed a temp rise in one well-sited California surface station to increased local irrigation & H20 “greenhouse” effect)
3. Soot on glaciers and arctic ice
4. Aerosols, both as direct sunlight blockers and as cloud nucleation enhancers (e.g. contrails)
5. Urban heat islands
What others?
Pielke Sr. for Time magazine Man of the Year! It’s deserved!
It is hard to think of anything more bizarre than the claim that China has single handedly caused a slow down in the rate of global warming. The phrase “clutching at a straw” comes to mind.
The Pielke article is simply loaded with common sense.
” The human role in climate change is much more than the positive radiative effect from added CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases.”
I do not disagree with this approach including the looking at land-use changes as possible forms of changes in the climate, but lets not forget that natural variation might indeed be the culprit for “most” of the observed changes. This means that until we find out where natural variation ends and human impacts begin, we are hopelessly lost in this tug of war of finding the truth (the goal of science obviously.)
Do not think this is a let-down to studying a hypothesis which is not popular. I by all means think that we need to study the possibilities to the letter, but until we find out the true range of natural variation (which we are getting closer to) we are lost when it comes to estimating what humans are actually doing to the planet in actuality.
Regardless, it never hurts to be cautious and to try our best to live with the planet as an environmentalist, but lets never forget that we need to live here too and that it might be a selfish desire, but I don’t care. Humans need to be the number one resources and the number one species as far as humans are concerned. This has to be realized, and if we can better our planet and other species with that in mind, lets do it…as long as we figure out potential pit-falls as well before we act.
That being said, I predict we will seriously see the imprint of man from something other then CO2 long before we find the CO2 fingerprint. Until then, I still highly recommend finding where natural variation ends and man’s impact begins…until then, all we are doing is guessing about the actual effects of our impacts on the planet. Guesses are fine for most applications, but when you want to re-work society….yea its just not even feasible.
But please do not take this as a slight, I realize how difficult of a science this can be with sceptics such as me on one side and warmists on the other who all tend to get political nowadays….
So we are doomed, but not from CO2, right?
It’s Richard Black, what could anybody pretend? He’s got his “narrative” and nothing, nothing, nothing will make him change his mind.
It’s all quaint stuff from the BBC, unless you’re interested in the reality of the world that is.
Translation: Now moot is the gun barrel enforced religious symbolic act of mercurially sacrificing Edison bulbs while churningly turning remaining pristine windy hills and mountains and oceans too into power line and access path fouled support networks for monstrous bird-chopping industrial towers, the shadow-casting bat lung blasting icons of the Church of Climatology, the swinging knives of The Green Bank Authority.
The stolen armor of science falls down before it, yet inertia of the fall itself of this giant now carries the power grab along, re-energizing it in crucial moment, impossibly, birthing toothy clawed green babes. Up until one century ago there lived, in the Zi Duang province of eastern country, a glass-like spider. Having devoured its prey it would drape the skeletons over its web, creating a macabre shrine of remains. Its web was also unique in that it had many layers, like floors of a building. At the top of this palace-like place, assembled with almost apparent care, were tiny shining objects, glass, beads, dew-drops. One could almost call it an altar. When the breeze blew thru this construction, it produced sounds of wailing, crying.
Tiny wails, tiny cries.
The baby spiders would get scared and search frantically for their mother. But the Glass Spider would have long gone, having known that the babies would survive somehow on their own.
Now the fast track light bulb ban has garnered fleeting attention, it’s up for normal track vote, likely tomorrow, one that needs only majority instead of super majority support, attached to another bill, in the usual way. Here is a site for you that automatically determines who your representative is and allows you send an e-mail to them, specifically about the sacrifice of greatness to the false gods of falsified science:
http://www.capwiz.com/freedomaction/issues/alert/?alertid=51427566&type=CO
It’s not likely to pass easily into Mr. Bill Becomes A Law, but this will make the GINO (“Green In Name Only”) Demagogues now adopt the prematurely birthed Bush Jr. bulb ban, after Climagegate and various IPCCgates have revealed that all was not right in the state of Denmark, centered around Copenhagen, wherein Man deemed fit to control the weather.
We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget.
-=Xenon=-
Hugh Pepper – Thanks for reading my post. On your comment, ss we wrote in our EOS paper and I have posted on extensively, global warming and cooling is only a part of what constitues climate variability and change. Please see my post
The Terms “Global Warming” And “Climate Change” – What Do They Mean?
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/the-terms-global-warming-and-climate-change-what-do-they-mean/
I give up. The article makes no sense. I can’t even figure out where the author stands. Could we have some plain English, please, where who said what is clearly identified and claims are backed up by logic?
Gary Hladik – Please see
Pielke Sr., Roger A., 2008: A Broader View of the Role of Humans in the Climate System is Required In the Assessment of Costs and Benefits of Effective Climate Policy. Written Testimony for the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Hearing “Climate Change: Costs of Inaction” – Honorable Rick Boucher, Chairman. June 26, 2008, Washington, DC., 52 pp.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/testimony-written.pdf
P Sr: “The claim that CO2 dominates climate change in the multi-decadal time period has been clearly FALSIFIED.”
Your article you reference is merely an essay arguing that other human activities are also contributing to climate change. It is just an opinion piece. You can’t cite your own opinion as proof your opinion is correct. The essay ignores the obvious fact that CO2 builds up in the atmosphere and thus will likely dominate other human activities in causing climate change.
jcrabb says:
July 14, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Please show us a graph that is consistent with ghg increases cooling the stratosphere.
An overlay of tropospheric CO2 content with stratospheric temperature would be informative.
DCC,
The article was clear to me.
“Carbon” has been demonized by self-serving grant hogs. Whatever effect CO2 may have is negligible compared with all the other forcings, both anthropogenic and, especially, natural variability. The climate has been much colder prior to the industrial revolution, and much warmer at various times. And the only correlation between T and CO2 is that CO2 follows temperature, not vice-versa.
DCC says: (July 14, 2011 at 5:59 pm)
“I can’t even figure out where the author stands”
But this very question is the problem with climate science.
Ask rather; “What new evidence does the author provide?”
That way we can cease to stand and start to move forward.
John M says:
“Please show us a graph that is consistent with ghg increases cooling the stratosphere.”
The original climate alarmist prediction was that the “fingerprint of global warming” would be a rapidly warming Troposphere. But that prediction has been decisively falsified:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/mckitrick-models-observations-rss-msu-uah-radiosondes-flat.jpg
So the response from the alarmist crowd was to start arm-waving and pointing to the stratosphere [“Look! A kitten!”], and to ignore the fact that the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to appear as predicted has falsified their CAGW conjecture.
The only verifiable, empirical observations regarding the rise in CO2 are that it has caused no global harm or damage, indicating that it is simply a harmless trace gas, and that it has increased agricultural production – certainly a beneficial outcome.
Thus, CO2 is harmless and beneficial. QED
RobJM says “Clearly the problem is burning coal and the science is settled!”
Well, I’m a believer! We have a consensus. Now, where’s Al? We need us a global salesman to pitch this disaster to the IPCC!
Black notes three MAJOR variables, the sun, the AMO and clouds yet Kaufmann is still convinced the temperature will continue to rise.
Unfreaking believable!
the biggest revelations since Climategate are presently up on CA and Bishop Hill covering the fact that UEA hired a big PR company, Outside Organisation, and specifically Neil Wallis, who was arrested in the UK yesterday in the NoW hacking scandal, to do damage control for CRU when Climategate broke.
Wallis was also working with the Met Police at the same time he was with Outside, it would appear, tho he had left NoW a few months prior to the contract with the Police.
for all the alarmist crowd, who have claimed Rupert Murdoch’s media has been on the side of the sceptics, which i have constantly argued against, this is explosive. will the BBC, NYT, Guardian etc who are out for Murdoch’s head report any of this, only time will tell:
“Covert” Operations by East Anglia’s CRU
http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/14/covert-operations-by-east-anglias-cru/
Bishop Hill News of the World and UEA
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/7/14/news-of-the-world-and-uea.html