Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
How should responsible Global Warming Skeptics respond to opinions from intelligent members of the general public who have been perplexed by the Warmists and Alarmists?
We should reply in a strictly fact-based way, using official sources — being careful not to speculate or over-complicate the matter. Here is my shot at it.
At a recent meeting of a local discussion group a well-spoken retired teacher presented a list of important issues that, in his opinion, have received less coverage by the media than they deserve. “Climate Change” was on his list.
He said it was unfortunate that the main proponent of human-caused “Global Warning” was a prominent Democrat (former VP Al Gore), because that led to the issue becoming politicized, with his fellow Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other. He speculated that had a leading Republican promoted the same issue, the reaction would probably be the reverse.
He then raised several points, citing the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other expert sources. He said that Global Warming is really happening, with a rise of over 0.7⁰C, and we humans are the main cause due to our massive use of fossil fuels that generate atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas that warms the Earth.
During the discussion period I agreed that global warming is real, that atmospheric CO2 undoubtedly causes some warming, and that some of the increased CO2 is certainly due to human actions. However, I pointed out that, although atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise, and at an accelerating rate, global temperatures have not statistically increased for at least 15 years. Therefore, while CO2 levels have definitely caused some of the warming, and rising CO2 is mostly caused by human activities, CO2 cannot be the main cause.
The presenter assured me that he respected my opinions, but, while he was not a scientist, he was relying on scientists and scientific organizations that had studied the issue. He then read a few quotes, including one that said human actions were likely to lead to a “tipping point” where the ice caps melt and there is runaway warming on a catastrophic scale.
I have prepared the following strictly fact-based response, using sources the presenter himself mentioned and being careful not to speculate or over-complicate the matter.
1- It is undoubtedly true that average surface temperatures have increased significantly since 1880. Human activities are responsible for some portion of that warming. [The image below is the latest GISS Global Temperature Index anomaly. The black squares indicate the mean temperature anomaly for each 12-month calendar year. The thick red line indicates the mean temperature anomaly smoothed over 60 months (five years). This graphic shows a net increase of about 0.8⁰C (about 1.5⁰F) since 1880. While I think “data adjustments” have increased the apparent warming by a few tenths of a degree, I accept that warming since 1880 is at least 0.5⁰C (about 1⁰F)]
2- Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen steadily, and the rate of increase has doubled since reliable CO2 data from Mauna Loa became available around 1959. [The image below is the latest NOAA ESRL Atmospheric CO2 showing an increase of about 1 ppm/year in the 1960’s and about 2 ppm/year in the 2000’s. The current rise is approaching 3 ppm/year as the current level is approaches 400 ppm. The pre-industrial level is estimated to have been about 280 ppm.]
3- When compared to actual polar satellite temperature observations, the IPCC climate models have predicted way too much warming, particularly after 1998. [The image below is the latest RSS Global temperature anomaly since about 1979 when good global temperature data from polar orbiting satellites became available. Note how, from 1999 to the present, the actual observations of temperature (thick black line) consistently fall below the yellow band (IPCC climate model prediction range with supposed 5% to 95% probability).]
|
Original Caption (Verbatim) “Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Again, after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.“] (my bold)
|
Please note that, according to the actual RSS polar satellite temperature observations (thick black line), there has been absolutely no net warming after 1998. Indeed, 2013 is about 0.6⁰C (more than 1⁰F) cooler than the middle of the predicted range, and even 0.3⁰C (more than 0.5⁰F) cooler than the lower edge of the predicted range. Also note that the thick black line falls well below the yellow band, which indicates that the statistical 5% to 95% confidence level claimed for the IPCC climate models is not valid. Over the most recent 15-year period, actual satellite temperature observations have consistently been cooler than the central prediction of the IPCC climate models, by from 0.2⁰C to 0.8⁰C (about 0.4⁰F to 1.5⁰F).
4- According to the NASA GISS Global Temperature Index, when smoothed over a calendar year, there has been no net warming for 15 years. Even when smoothed over a longer period of five years, there has been no net warming for seven years. [The image below is a close-up of the upper right corner of the first image in this posting.]
|
[The black squares represent the temperature anomaly for each given calendar year (12 month average). Note that 1998 is warmer than 2013, indicating no net warming for 15 years. The thick red line represents the 5-year running mean (smoothed over 5 years which is 60 months). Note that 2003 is at the same temperature as 2010, indicating no net warming for at least seven years using the most conservative smoothing period.]
|
CONCLUSIONS
All of the above facts and data come directly from official, government-sponsored climate research organizations. I have provide web links so anyone can check them his- or herself. If any reader thinks I have distorted or misrepresented any of the above material I will appreciate it if he or she posts a comment to this blog detailing any objections.
The following conclusions involve some speculation on my part.
a- Politicization of the issue. I agree that “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” have been way over-politicized. Had the main proponent been a Republican, positions might have been reversed. However, I cannot imagine any Republican of similar national prominence to a former VP falling for the idea that we humans are responsible for the majority of the warming we have experienced, or that the warming process is likely to lead to global catastrophe. And, even if he or she, in a weak moment years ago, went along with the initial dire predictions, any reasonable and responsible politician (of either party) would understand that the absolute disconnect between actual temperature observations and predictions of IPCC climate models invalidates the idea of human-caused catastrophic climate change, and reverse their positions.
b- Activists in the catastrophic climate change industry purposely misrepresent the views of responsible Skeptics by making a number of false claims:
- FALSE CLAIM – Skeptics do not believe the basic science of the Atmospheric “greenhouse” effect.
- RESPONSE – We do accept that water vapor, CO2, and other ‘greenhouse” gases are responsible for the Earth being around 33⁰C (60⁰F) warmer than it would be if there were no “greenhouse”gases in the Atmosphere. However, based on the failure of the IPCC climate models to comport with actual temperature observations for at least 15 years, we question the IPCC position that doubling of CO2 will warm the Earth surface by 1.5⁰C to 4.5⁰C (3⁰F to 8⁰F). For example, I believe the true value (called “climate sensitivity”) is only a half or a third of what the IPCC claims. Therefore, if Atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise, which is most likely given the rapid development of China, India and other countries, that will not result in any catastrophic “tipping point”. As a Global Community, we have quite a bit to worry about, and Global Warming (aka Climate Change) is nowhere near the top ranks.
- FALSE CLAIM – Skeptics do not believe the Earth surface has warmed significantly since 1880.
- RESPONSE – We do accept that average global surface temperatures have increased by at least 0.5⁰C (1⁰F) since pre-industrial times. Many of us think that the thermometer record is somewhat unreliable. It is a matter of official record that, in recent decades, old temperature data prior to the 1970’s have been adjusted down by as much as 0.3⁰C (0.5⁰F) and data after the 1970’s adjusted up, which has increased claimed net warming by a few tenths of a degree. NASA GISS and other official record-keepers say these “data adjustments” are valid, but many of us think they are self-serving. However, we could be wrong, and the net warming since 1880 might be as much as 0.8⁰C (1.5⁰F).
- FALSE CLAIM – Skeptics do not believe that human activities have any part in causing the warming.
- RESPONSE – We do accept that unprecedented burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, and some changes in land use, are responsible for a significant fraction of the actual warming. However, based on comparison of actual temperature observations with IPCC climate models, I am convinced that the majority of warming is due to natural causes and processes not under human control or influence.
PS: When I sent a draft of this posting to my retired teacher friend, he courteously thanked me for my thoughtful and considerate message, and admitted he did not completely understand climate change. However, he said he still trusts what he believes are the overwhelming number of scientists who have examined the evidence and reached a conclusion.
Nice article. Re your retired teacher friend: he doesn’t understand the science behind climate change, it’s too much for him, he’s math-challenged, he doesn’t have the time or inclination to dig deeper, but he is going to trust the experts. Your friend is a fool. Even a child knows by now that experts have agendas. Your friend seems to think scientists are above the fray. Ask him to read The Double Helix, or any book about Carlo Rubbia. And while he may be nice, and marginally informed on the climate issue, his refusal to take a more serious look after he has been presented with evidence that ought to prompt such a look marks him as a dogmatist, and a fairly simple-minded one at that. I’m way past tired of people who when you present them with ineluctable evidence that all isn’t well with the climate change business, they say, oh, that’s nice, but I’m still going to believe what I believe. Logic is lost on them.
“However, he said he still trusts what he believes are the overwhelming number of scientists who have examined the evidence and reached a conclusion.”
Typical. Most Teachers have a hard time with critical thinking. Their standard way of thinking is based on the authority of the curriculum and text books. It is the rare teacher that encourages the development of rational, critical and creative thought processes.
The simplest argument against catastrophe is that if natural variation is capable of suppressing global warming for 15 years, then natural climate variation must be at least as strong as human climate forcing.
Therefore models calibrated when natural forcings were reinforcing anthropogenic warming predict at least twice as much warming as we are likely to see.
This is what you tell them Ira:
The cause of the pause was the cause before the pause.
The higher solar activity during SC17-23 (overcoming lower SC20) caused the global warming phase that ended at least a decade ago. The Earth’s temperatures have on average leveled off as the ocean heat content accumulation from all those years of the Modern Maximum in solar activity, from 1936-2003 from my calculations, using both Svalgaard’s new GSN and the SIDC numbers (they give the exact same result!), has been mitigated by the cooling effect of lower solar activity periods during all the solar minimums since 1936, and the SC23 declining phase through SC24.
The Sun warms and cools the Earth by emitting more or less photon flux. Earth cools off with insufficient incoming photon flux. A good proxy for the solar spectrum (total photon flux) is F10.7cm radio flux, a small slice of TSI on the sun’s frequency spectrum. The solar flux and sunspot number track very closely.
When the Sun is “hot”, we’re hot, when it’s not, we’re not. Over the course of a single rotation, or over the course of a whole cycle or series of cycles. The warming/cooling effect works in short time frames and long time frames.
For example, when we were in the “solar all-quiet” earlier this summer, the sunspot number dropped to zero for a day for the first time since the last solar minimum, with a corresponding drop in solar flux down to 89 sfu. That week was the coldest week all summer. The farside at that time had a lot of spots. In early July, SSN was 256, solar flux was 201, and it was hot. I have US temperature map data to back this up.
Solar cycle #24 had a daily average solar flux of 100 sfu/day as of July 10 (when I last did the calculation), and will be slightly higher now after a more active summer of mostly over 120 sfu/day,
Comparing cycles, in order of cycle, in sfu/day (F10.7cm measurements started in 1947):
#19@139
#20@113
#21@135
#22@123
#23@122
#24@100.
For cycles before #19, we rely on SSNs.
This analysis, extended to both the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum (among any others), explains the temperature drops experienced here on Earth result from deep, sustained solar slowdowns, especially during the Maunder, when the SSN was nonexistent quite a while, decades.
During the Dalton Minimum, SSN was zero for the whole year of 1810, when the depth of cold measured in at an almost 2C drop over the previous 9 years. The average SSN didn’t rise high enough to raise temperatures back again to where they previously were for almost two decades after 1810.
As long as solar flux is above 120, it’ll stay warm and very slightly build more heat into the system. When SC24 winds down, and daily SSNs are down and solar flux drops below 120 every day for the duration of the minimum and into the next cycle #25 (expected to be a low cycle), we will experience a noticable temperature drop (on average), as has happened during every solar minimum, whether it be between cycles as in 2008-10, as in 1810, or during a sequence of low cycles, as during the Maunder.
To make a long story short, a “hotter” Sun from 1936-2003, when solar activity as measured by sunspot number was 31% higher for 68 years than the annual average SSN for the previous 183 years, caused global warming.
A less “hot” Sun since then caused the “pause” – a misnomer – and in due time, an even “cooler” Sun, however small a variation in total magnitude, will cause global cooling.
Further analysis indicates the Sun causes extreme weather effects – but that’s for another day…
The Sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme weather effects. The Sun did it – it always has, it always will. It will do it again and again until the end of time.
CO2 increased from solar warmed ocean outgassing and fossil fuel use, but it does not, cannot, and will not be the driver of weather or climate on Earth. The Sun is.
Has there been good research done on the increase in atmospheric water vapor contributed by man during the last century? Consider the increase in water vapor from large-scale agricultural sprinkling; the man-made increase in acre feet of surface water; and bringing to surface aquifers that have been sequestered for millennia.
Would a back of a napkin calculation show any warming from this to be comparable to the conjectured contribution from anthropogenic CO2 or not?
On the other hand, we did have a Republican administration that fell for the idea that a certain Middle East country was harboring WMD, and this might lead to a global catastrophe.
Politicians will first identify their objective, and then form a strategy that will lead to that objective. In the case of the Democrats and other leftists, this seems to be radical wealth distribution, statutory limits on fossil fuel consumption and other pipe dreams. Right-wing elements have their pipe dreams as well, so we should all be wary of these types. Won’t get fooled again, we hope. Remember 9/11.
1. The earth is in the grip of a brutal ice age…has been for several million years.
2. AGW is a conspiracy theory.
3. The proposed cure for AGW will condemn millions of children to misery and death.
Sad, is it not? You took the time to present a well-reasoned argument, yet your friend still fell back on an appeal to authority. That in a nutshell describes the problem all of us face. No matter what we provide as evidence, it is disregarded. Few people want to think for themselves.
Ira,
This is exactly the kind of article and information the public (and the politicians) need. I have recently expanded a course requirement for the World Bank’s Coursera course “Turn Down the Heat…” into a critique of that course and explanation of climate sensitivity, inexplicably not even mentioned in the World Bank course.
I find journalists and talking heads almost never mention climate sensitivity and maybe don’t even know the concept. Without referencing climate sensitivity, almost all such journalism and commentary is superficial or worse. And the endless arguments and ugly attacks are mostly the result of this ignorance. I hope your “Guide for the Perplexed..” is widely read. While still a work in progress, I’ve tried to explain climate sensitivity and its importance to a lay audience here-
http://climatesensitivity.blogspot.com/
Thanks, Dr. Glickstein. Very good article; short, very clear, and straight to the point.
“gases are responsible for the Earth being around 33⁰C (60⁰F) warmer than it would be if there were no “greenhouse”gases in the Atmosphere.”
Actually, the earth is warmer due to having an atmosphere, the GHE is only partially responsible for this.
Your retired teacher is relying on nothing more than his belief.There is an important difference between relying on a mere belief that because some are labeled experts, they must be correct, and a thorough and competent analysis of relevant facts, data and level of uncertainty.
Indeed,would the teacher not have relied on Nobel Prize winner Antonio Egas Moniz, who was described at the time, 1949, as having given psychology it’s greatest advancement in history, the prefrontal lobotomy. There are numerous such examples. Why does your teacher reject the morej obvious option: “I don’t know”?
Refer your teacher friend to the American Meteorological Society’s survey of its members that showed that only a very slim majority (52%) believe that most of the warming has been human caused. I don’t have the link at the moment, but it was posted here on WUWT a year or so ago.
This article points out the power of the appeal to authority argument. Yet, we know there are lots of examples of authority that is critical of AGW. The OSIM, therightclimatestuff web site, Burt Rutan, Nobel winning physicists, etc. Maybe a reference page with references to all these authorities would a useful addition.
Here’s the link I just mentioned:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ams%20global%20warming%20survey&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CDgQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climatechangecommunication.org%2Fimages%2Ffiles%2FAMS_CICCC_Survey_Preliminary_Findings-Final.pdf&ei=uQ4RVOSmLI6pyAS1woCQDw&usg=AFQjCNGJrdCmDBS7LUt5pZAlduHCvmtHPg&sig2=GEj1COIBeaBpapcAgdTxNg&bvm=bv.74894050,d.aWw
The amount of scientific consensus on global warming and the value of that consensus are both overhyped.
It is mostly politics, Ira, and only tangentially related to science. No amount of argument will change the mind of someone who thinks fossil fuel use should be reduced because ‘it is the right thing to do’.
Point 1 needs to make a much stronger the case about the adjustments. Showing the chart with just the adjusted data just burns in the falsehood. It would be better to plot or sketch in a dashed line offset by the amount of the adjustments to illustrate your point in the same scale as the chart. Even shade grey the gap between these line as “adjustement uncertainty — it matters.”
A minor point. Plot the Y axis with leading zero.
Not as good: ,8 .6 .4 .2 0 -.2 -.4 -.6 (easy to overlook the decimal point)
Better: 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 (these look smaller)
Excellent even-handed write-up Ira. Skeptics don’t need to be shrill or argumentative. As you’ve shown, truth wins by focusing relentlessly on facts from the alarmist’s own data sets.
The only change necessary for your post to reflect my own views exactly would be adding the word “probably” to your final sentence. Uncertainty cuts both ways and the issue of attribution is still so data-less I’m not ready to go all the way to a definitive assertion quite yet. However, the weight of existing evidence, as well as Occam’s Razor, strongly favor the null hypothesis.
Another “False Claim” that irks me is that some alarmists continue to characterize skeptics as anti-science, anti-evolution religious zealots. While there are certainly a few of those, it’s simply another group ad hominem attack that is grossly inaccurate. Being pro science doesn’t mean trusting what some scientists say, it means following the data – wherever it leads.
I try to be an optimist on matters such as this. You were respectful, laid out a concise yet detailed case and kept your emotions in check. The only thing I may have added was a brief explanation of where the “97 % consensus” originated and that many, many credentialed scientist are not in sync with the AGW theory. You planted some seeds of truth in his mind. They may germinate down the road or not, but you handled it the right way in my opinion. My take away, if we control our emotions and stay fact oriented we will gain much more ground.
@noaaprogrammer I’m sure that whatever change man has wrought to the quantity of water vapor is completely overwhelmed by the primary source: Evaporation from the oceans. I doubt we can make much difference at all.
The CO2 vs time plot is not a smooth exponential. During the past ~15 years, the increase in CO2 has been very linear. The rate is only accelerating if you go back to around 1989 and earlier. Interesting that the linear portion of the CO2 curve corresponds closely to The Halt.
Just reply to the perplexed: “Global Warming is apocryphal.” (from the Oxford: of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.)
In spite of having followed the CAGW/warmist story for 5 years, I remain confused about what is claimed about CO2 warming the planet:
Is it necessary for the atmosphere to warm first, and then do the oceans warm as a consequence of atmospheric warming?
That is how it looks to me, however the warmists seem to have the atmosphere not warming and the oceans warming. Doesn’t some law of themodynamics say the air has to warm first? Since the oceans are cooler than the atmosphere, doesn’t heat flow into the water mean heat flow out of the atmosphere, and an increase in oceanic thermal energy require an increase, at least initially, in thermal gradient? FIRST, not at the same time or afterwards, but first?
I am a retired teacher. I am capable of critical thinking. I have been skeptical of global warming from the beginning. I read this website at least 100 days per year. I started on the old John L.Daly site, Still Waiting for Greenhouse. And if you want to share something with your retired teacher friend, have him take the Al Gore Unabomber Quiz which you can find via a google search on the words Al Gore Unabomber.