Guest essay by Christopher Monckton
The American Geophysical Union, after three previous attempts at a policy statement on climate change, has just published yet a fourth. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley redrafts it to say what it should have said if the AGU’s objective had been the honest scientific truth.
Anthropogenic climate change requires no action
Our influence on the climate is minor but beneficial
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate, but – as the AGU must now concede – not by much. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 0.03% before the Industrial Revolution to 0.04% today. Much of this alteration of 1 part in 10,000 of the atmospheric composition may have been caused by burning fossil fuels.
The world has warmed by 0.8 Cº over the past 140 years, but a recent survey of the abstracts of 11,944 scientific papers on global climate change showed only 43 abstracts, or 0.3% of the sample, endorsing the notion that humans were responsible for most of that warming. The mean residence time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is 7 years, so the AGU must recognize that its earlier fears that anthropogenic emissions will influence the climate system for millennia have proven unfounded.
Observations show that recent modest increases in air and sea temperatures and in sea level have been well within natural variability. Atmospheric water vapor may or may not have increased: we lack the capacity to measure it accurately. Some (but not all) mountain glaciers have receded, and earlier claims that all ice in the Himalayas would be gone in 25 years have been withdrawn. Most of the world’s 160,000 glaciers are in the Antarctic, nearly all of which has cooled in the past 30 years.
Snow cover extent in the northern hemisphere reached a record high December value in 2012. There is no global measurement of permafrost, but its extent has probably changed little. Arctic sea ice has declined since 1979, but Antarctic sea ice has increased, and the AGU must apologize for having given only half the story before. These changes are within natural variability and need no further explanation, though humans may have had some small influence. The changes are consistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences but allow for some human contribution.
Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions; that higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming and greater risks to society and ecosystems; and that some additional warming is unavoidable owing to past emissions. Yet the models have consistently over-predicted global atmospheric and oceanic warming. According to satellite measurements, for 16 years 8 months, or 200 months, there has been no global warming at all.
And, though some 0.2 Cº warming should have occurred since January 2005 according to the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the satellite records show no global warming at all since that date.
Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer-term effects (both adverse and, as we now acknowledge, beneficial) on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human-induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, but our influence cannot readily be distinguished from historical patterns of natural variability and storminess and is as likely to be beneficial as harmful, particularly in the short to medium term.
In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counter-intuitive ways – some areas may experience cooling, for instance. Indeed, taking the mean of the monthly surface or lower-troposphere global mean surface temperature anomalies from all five principal datasets, the cooling has been global throughout the 150 months since January 2001, representing one-eighth of the present century.
Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water, are currently no more frequent or intense than usual, and are unlikely to increase for as long as global temperatures continue to fail to rise as the AGU had formerly but erroneously predicted. Other projected outcomes, such threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low-latitude developing countries), coastal infrastructure, and biodiversity, are also unlikely in the circumstances. The AGU must now agree that previous talk of ocean “acidification” was incorrect, since the oceans are and must remain pronouncedly alkaline for as long as they are buffered by the rocks in the basins where they lie. Benefits of a warmer world (if and when warming resumes) will include increased availability of agricultural land formerly under permafrost in northern latitudes; reduced storminess as temperature differentials diminish; and greater crop yields thanks to a general growth in the net primary productivity of the world’s trees and plants owing to CO2 fertilization.
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, the AGU must now accept that no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of anthropogenic climate change significantly damaging. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic advantages than anticipated. Trans-polar navigation and mineral exploration will be facilitated. However, it is known that much of the loss of Arctic sea ice is attributable to natural influences, and half of that loss since 1979 has been compensated by increases in Antarctic sea ice.
Actions that could diminish the benefits posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include the substantial emissions cuts the AGU once advocated in a futile attempt to reduce the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming, which has proven to be remarkably poorly correlated with increases in CO2 emissions. The community of scientists must learn to recognize that it has no responsibility to promote a particular negative viewpoint on climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand why the predicted climate change is not occurring, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying results to decision makers and to the general public clearly, accurately, honestly, and without the previous negative prejudice for which the AGU must now humbly apologize.
Erroneous versions of the above statement were adopted by the American Geophysical Union in December 2003 and were revised and republished in December 2007, February 2012, and August 2013. In the face of the evidence, the AGU must now accept that its previous statements were inadequate.
I’ve noticed the sinusoidal variation in CO2 concentration measurements in Hawaii, both on a diurnal and seasonal time frame. The changes are significant when compared to the trend rate for increasing CO2 concentrations. I believe that these oscillations in CO2 concentrations shout: IT’S THE OCEANS, STUPID!
Based on the CO2 and temperature data at the HI measurement site, someone should be able to calculate what percentage of the CO2 concentration change over the past 150 years (or since 1950) is due to fossil fuel consumption and what is due to the warming of the oceans. My guess is less than 10% due to our burning of fossil fuels. Willis, this should be in your power house. (pun intended)
Any takers?
Bill
It does make you wonder how much Antarctic ice it would take for the AGU to notice—double, triple, or everything below the equator?
Mike Jonas says:
August 7, 2013 at 3:49 am
[residence time not important, half-life is]
============================
I thought that half-life = residence-time * ln(2). A half-life of 14 years implies a mean residence time of around 20 years. Is the half-life of the excess different than the half-life of “that which is not the excess”, or is the mean residence time of 7 years incorrect? A mean residence time of 7 years implies a half-life of around 5 years.
A very thoughtful statement! If only the statement of the AGU panel were so well considered.
Lord Moncton states:
“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate, but – as the AGU must now concede – not by much. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 0.03% before the Industrial Revolution to 0.04% today. Much of this alteration of 1 part in 10,000 of the atmospheric composition may have been caused by burning fossil fuels.”
The reported atmospheric concentrations of CO2 represents dry air as sampled at a relatively few locations over the past several decades. Preindustrial [CO2] is measured differently and the samples are from other locations (ice cores and sediments). Stitching these datasets together is statistically unjustified and difficult to interpret.
Before determining [CO2] in air, all water vapor is removed from a sample. The amount of water in sampled air is variable and usually much greater than the amount of carbon dioxide in the sample. The concentration of water vapor in hot humid air is more than 100 times the concentration of carbon dioxide in that air. Even in the coldest driest air, the concentration of water vapor may be 10 times the concentration of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, water vapor absorbs IR over a broader spectrum than carbon dioxide.
In warm humid environments, such as over the tropical and subtropical oceans, carbon dioxide does not contribute significantly to the GHE. The relative contribution of carbon dioxide to the GHE generally increases at higher latitudes and in colder and dryer environments. Near the poles during winter the [CO2] is relatively high, but little atmospheric heat is absorbed because of the lack of daytime warming.
Of all the human contributions to climate change, adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere may be one of the least for our concern. We don’t even know how much is added to the oceans and the atmosphere from natural sources.
I’m not too clear on the need for an organization to have a “climate policy statement” . What is the business driver? Keep the troops in line?
Here is an environmentalist that has his priorities right. Many of the others have lost their way and are chasing a phantom gases in the night.
http://societymatters.org/2009/07/13/befriending-thugs-who-love-the-planet/
Mike N says:
August 7, 2013 at 11:01 am
I thought that half-life = residence-time * ln(2). A half-life of 14 years implies a mean residence time of around 20 years. Is the half-life of the excess different than the half-life of “that which is not the excess”, or is the mean residence time of 7 years incorrect? A mean residence time of 7 years implies a half-life of around 5 years.
The usual confusion between residence time and “excess decay time” at work…
The average residence time for any CO2 molecule (whatever its origin) is slightly over 5 years as ~150 GtC is exchanged between the atmosphere and other reservoirs. That gives a residence time for 800 GtC in the atmosphere of 800/150 = 5.33 years.
The residence time only shows how long any CO2 molecule in average resides in the atmosphere before being catched by a tree or the oceans, but that says next to nothing about what happens with any excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium. At this moment the CO2 levels are about 100 ppmv (212 GtC) above the temperature dictated (pre-industrial) equilibrium. The extra atmospheric pressure makes that the oceans and vegetation sink some 4 GtC extra CO2/year. That gives an e-fold time for extra CO2 of 212/4 = 53 years or a half life tine of ~40 years…
Excellent, thank you so much, Ferdinand, for clearing that up for me. I didn’t think hard enough about “excess over equilibrium”.
docstephens says:
August 7, 2013 at 11:33 am
Stitching these datasets together is statistically unjustified and difficult to interpret.
Much depends of the resolution. Fortunately, ice cores have a broad range of resolutions, where the shortest (2 out of 3 Law Dome cores) are less than a decade. Moreover these have an overlap of ~20 years (1960-1980) with the direct measurements at the South Pole:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_sp_co2.jpg
The drawback of a good resolution (as result of a high accumulation rate) is that one could go only 150 years back in time, before bedrock was reached. But as several ice cores with increasing worse resolution, but longer periods of time, overlap each other, the total picture could be extended to 800 kyr back in time with a resolution for the oldest part of ~560 years.
Does the AGU have statements on any other scientific field of study?
@Owen says: “Marvel should make a movie about Lord Monckton. He’s a genuine superhero !!
I think its already being done. SkepticalScience already released some early publicity shots honoring his valor and unrelenting commitment to the struggle. Didn’t you see his pictures?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/weareskeptics.jpg
Logical analysis reveals grounds for denial of superhero status to either Monckton or the AGU. In logical form, Monckton’s argument resembles the AGU’s in the respect that it contains the polysemic terms “model” and “predict.” By the definition of terms, Monckton’s argument and the AGU’s are both equivocations. Further, when Monckton and the AGU draw conclusions from their respective arguments, both parties are guilty of the same deceptive argument, known as the equivocation fallacy. It would be inappropriate to award superhero status to a person or organization who convinced us that a policy on CO2 emissions was right via a deceptive argument, wouldn’t it?
The equivocation fallacy can be avoided through disambiguation of the terms in which the respective arguments are made. When this is done ( http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 ), the 200 billion US$ investigation of global warming to which the AGU and Monckton have been a party is revealed to have failed in its purpose of supporting public policy on CO2 emissions. This sorry state of affairs has, however, been obscured through applications of the equivocation fallacy that include the position statements of the AGU and Monckton.
Beautifully done and, as we’ve seen before, your words do have wide influence. I thank you for your most wonderful tenacity.
Honestly — Can Lourde Monckton even see straight?
He’s so damned googly-eyed, I honestly can’t tell.
And if he can’t see straight, how can he think straight?
I can’t wait for the Potholer version.
The AGW industry is about money. You have it and they want it .AGW more appropriately links to Al Gore’s Wallet and the rest of this rent seeking traveling scam. What happened to the Chicago Climate Exchange ? Who funded it ? Who made a ton of money from it before it tanked?
Lord Monckton is a hero but even hero’s need help .I’m in.
Just sent a link to this post to the “contact us” general mail box of the AGU. The comment I attached in part was “it is my hope that someone in your organization will grow some ethical backbone and use the “FACTS” presented.”
Thank you Mr Monckton! Excellent post!
Stan says:
August 7, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Honestly — Can Lourde Monckton even see straight?
He’s so damned googly-eyed, I honestly can’t tell.
And if he can’t see straight, how can he think straight?
=============================
The Trolls have come out.. No facts so they must attack the poster and not the facts..
Try reading the facts he presents and refute them rather than acting like a two year old…
@Robert Orme at 8:29 am
I cringe when I see the comment that carbon dioxide is a plant fertilizer; it is not.
How do you feel about the term “carbon pollution“?
If “plant fertilizer” is a cringe worthy word for carbon dioxide, what is a better word when higher levels of carbon dioxide lead to higher rates of photosynthesis and higher rates of plant growth?
@terry Oldberg says 5:56 pm
… the 200 billion US$ investigation of global warming to which the AGU and Monckton have been a party is revealed to have failed in its purpose of supporting public policy on CO2 emissions.
the AGU and Monckton have been a party ?????
It is obvious to me who here is the one equivocating.
Stephen Rasey:
I challenge you to prove your contentions that: a) Monckton and the AGU have not jointly been guilty of using the equivocation fallacy and b) I have been guilty of this offence.
@Jimbo at 1:03 pm
Here is an environmentalist [Mike Fey] that has his priorities right.
Seems to me his priorities are to find the right authoritarian. I wonder how he might feel about EPA administrators (/sarc).
Mike Jonas Aug 7 3:49 am, Canman Aug 7 6:30 am, Mike N. Aug 7 11:01 am:
A strict reaction kinetic discussion of the concepts underlying terms such as “residence time” and “excess residence time” can be found in Paper 1 at the site http://www.False-alarm.net.
Mike N – I see the Ferdinand Engelbeen has already answered your question, but I was preparing mine in parallel so I’ll post it anyway. It’s basically the same answer. You ask about residence time vs half-life. This is how I understand it, but note I don’t claim to be an expert:-The major absorber of CO2 from the atmosphere is the ocean, and it is the ocean-atmosphere interface that largely determines the half-life of excess atmospheric CO2 [‘excess’ refers to CO2 partial pressure difference between ocean and atmosphere]. The biosphere is absorbing and re-emitting large quantities of CO2 annually while having little overall effect on multi-year time scales. Thanks to the biosphere, the mean residence time of an individual CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is quite short. ie, for CO2, the ‘standard’ relationship between half-life and mean residence time doesn’t apply.
Gösta Pettersson – Thanks for those links. Somehow I’ll have to find time to read them. I have done some work on this, however, and my findings tally pretty well with the IPCC’s. The picture is of excess atmospheric CO2 (see definition in above para) having a half-life of about 12 years, but of the ocean CO2 concentration changing too, so that equilibrium is a moving target. The whole thing gets very messy if you start to get caught up in chemical reactions in the ocean, but the essential point is that CO2 is absorbed much more quickly into the upper ocean than it is transported from there to the deeper ocean. Maybe I’m missing something, of course.
Typo – “I see that Ferdinand …..”.
I do disagree with Ferdinand on the half-life. I put it at 12-13 years, not his 40 years. But I would have to check we are talking about the exact same thing.
Gösta Pettersson @1:46pm,
Thanks for the link, but I’m afraid it’s a bit over my head. Richard Alley says high atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are lowered over thousands of years by the weathering of rocks. This makes a residence time of 7 years seem rather surprising, although I don’t have a good enough understanding of it to rule it out. Richard Alley is a very good speaker with a coherent description of CO2 over geological time. I haven’t found much criticism of him on blogs.
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-38.shtml
“”The newly approved statement will be reported to the AGU membership in the 20 August 2013 issue of Eos, the source of record for all AGU proceedings.
The 15-person panel that reviewed and updated the position statement included the following:
Amy Clement, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami (approve)
John Farrington, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (approve)
Susan Joy Hassol, Climate Communication (approve)
Robert Hirsch, U.S. Geological Survey (approve)
Peter Huybers, Harvard University (approve)
Peter Lemke, Alfred Wegener Institute (approve)
Gerald North, Texas A&M University (approve, panel chair)
Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University (approve)
Roger Pielke Sr., University of Colorado Boulder (dissent)
Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (approve)
Gavin Schmidt, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA (approve)
Leonard A. Smith, London School of Economics (approve)
Eric Sundquist, U.S. Geological Survey (approve)
Pieter Tans, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (approve)
Learn more about the revised statement, the previous statement, and all AGU position statements.””