Guest essay by John McLean
In his role as a property developer, Donald Trump was unlikely to sign a contract with key information missing so why did most of the leaders of the developed world commit to the Paris Climate Agreement?
Article 2.1(a) of the agreement sets out its aim –
“holding the increase in the global average temperature to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels …”
But there’s something missing … what was that global average temperature and how was it determined? For that matter, when exactly was “pre-industrial”?
Addressing the last question first, some climate scientists have been known to use data from 1850, the start of modern temperature records, as the “pre-industrial” benchmark.
The IPCC takes a different position according to the text in the glossaries to its third to fifth climate assessment reports. In each of those glossaries, under the definitions of “Industrial Age”, we find “In this report the terms pre-industrial and industrial refer, somewhat arbitrarily, to the periods before and after 1750, respectively”. Even the IPCC is inconsistent because 5AR chapter 7 says that it uses data from 1750 to represent pre-industrial times.
Hawkins et al (2017), which we’ll return to shortly, argues instead for a time span from 1720 to 1800.
Okay, we don’t know when but what was the average global temperature and how was it calculated?
According to data from the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) only three observation stations reported temperature data in 1750 – Berlin (Germany), De Bilt (Netherlands) and Uppsala (Sweden). St Petersburg (Russia) reported data in earlier years but none 1750. The three reporting stations are all in Europe, which covers less than 10% of the Northern Hemisphere and at that time was in the grip of a Little Ice Age.
The ICOADS database provides information about temperatures recorded at sea that year. Only 136 temperature observations are recorded and all appear to be from a single ship travelling from near Kristiansand, Norway, to Britain and then to Mumbai, India, from April 10 to September 18. What’s more a single observation was made each day at midday Greenwich (UK) time, which at various points in the voyage was on the hour but varied from 7am to 1pm.
No meaningful and credible global average temperature can be determined from the 1750 data.
Year 1800 is hardly much better for temperature data. Station data from the CRU data indicates 37 observation stations were in operation, two on the east coast of the USA, one in Greenland and the remaining 34 all in Europe, which was still under the influence of the Little Ice Age.
There were more temperature measurements at sea that year, some 5438 of them, but almost all were along trade routes from Europe, particularly around the southern tip of Africa to European territories or trading ports in India, Singapore, Indonesia and China, again not a wide coverage of Earth’s surface.
Hawkins et al (2017) “Estimating changes in Global Temperature since the Pre-Industrial Period” (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0007.1 ) uses a number of models to try to estimate pre-industrial average global temperature.
Firstly this paper was published about 18 months after the first commitments to the Paris Climate Agreement, so even if the paper could provide the information it was a bit late. Secondly IPCC 5AR, specifically text box 9.2 on page 769, says that 111 climate model runs estimated greater warming for the period from 1998 to 2012 than the temperature observations indicated and the credibility of climate models is approximately zero.
There is no base global average temperature for the Paris Climate Agreement, no credible means of calculating one and not even a clear definition of exactly when “pre-industrial” refers to.
Committing to such an agreement was foolhardy in the extreme or at least political posturing at the expense of common sense.
If the UNFCCC declared tomorrow that 2°C – or even 1.5°C – of warming had been reached and that more money was required from developed countries not one of those countries would be able to present any counterargument.
And if you think this wouldn’t happen then take a look at the IPCC first climate assessment report. It declared that global temperatures were already 1°C above those of pre-industrial times, although it provided no detail about how it reached that conclusion.
Saying that the governments in the developed world, those who are supposed to pay money to the less developed world, have taken leave of their senses would only address part of the problem. In most cases other political parties share the same beliefs about temperature and would also have committed to that agreement.
Let’s just hope that playwright Howard Koch was wrong and that we won’t always have Paris.
The Super Volcano spewing molten rock and dust under Antarctica live as we speak is being debated by the Science community. The first picture I saw a month ago revealed the ash inside the edges of the circular sink hole with yesterday’s showing a light yellowish dust on the snow beside the ice chasm. Nature is a Freak Show beyond out control.
Bruce Cobb mentioned Climate Cash earlier up in the Comments. A perfect decrip. Although there are many Industrial Emitters without the latest in Electrostatic Precipitat ors, Dust Cyclones, Bag houses, Wet Stack Scrubbers, Nox SCR Scrubbers etc adding to Black Carbon on Mountain Glaciers and Ice Caps causing premature thaw like a Runaway train.
If we must choose a start date as to when humans really starting affecting natural processes on Earth like large scale industrialization and major land use change and albedo, then why don’t we split the difference between 1850 when things really first got started on a regional scale in parts of Europe and North America, and 1950 when we could say the entire planet was on its way to industrialization and significant land development.
That would be 1900, when the age of the automobile and the airplane were about to make a debut. 1900 is generous, because we did not really ramp up major industrialization until somewhat later. It also negates some natural warming that may face been happening out of the depths of the LIA. So maybe .6 to .7 of a degree of total warming, which maybe 1/3 of a degree C could be maybe attributed to humans. Me thinks we quibble about next to nothing in this context, except that warming is better than cooling.
I think you can add to it, that “global average temperature” isn´t even defined in the Paris agreement.
As measurement is about quantifying a well defined physical quantity that can be characterized by an essential unique value. I think it is fair to ask about the definition.
Is it the average 2 m above surface, the average of the troposphere, a combination of sea surface and land surface… What is the definition of ´global average temperature´?
And, as the industrial age started as the Little Ice Age came to an end, what on earth makes that a reasonable reference point?
… and add that a ‘global average temperature’ is itself a meaningless concept. Just ask any CAGW ™ fear-monger what that actually means, and knock down every attempt at definition. It’s fun!
John McLean
An excellent article, one that should stay as a top post for a month or more.
The IPCC is like the con man with three inverted cups and one ball.
The core of global climate alarmism is rotten, supported by faked statistics, cooked numbers, misdirection and plain lies. Everything else is moot.
For more thoughts on the 1.5 C tipping point, see my earlier article here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/26/hadcrut-adjustments-and-the-1-5c-tipping-point-now-includes-september-data-except-for-hadcrut/
Why would a government sign this? Simply because it’s an avenue to new sources of taxation. Witness my land of the true north, strong and free – we contribute minimally to any atmospheric issues as it is and those that we do contribute are largely as a result of a very low density population in a very large and cold land. But gosh, we can tell the sheeple we’re saving the planet and relieve them of their money at the same time. Excellent, where do I sign?
You are an Inuit?
‘Committing to such an agreement was foolhardy in the extreme or at least political posturing at the expense of common sense.’
And let me guess – the moment all these countries start to feel the pain, they will turn around and demand bail-out money from the one country not stupid enough to get involved.
Grasshopper/Ant. Nuff said.
Let me add that there is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. The initial radiametric calculations came up with a climate sensivity of CO2 of 1.2 degrees C not factoring in feedbacks. One researcher has found that these calculations failed to take into consideration that a doubling of CO2 will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. The reduction in the dry lapse rate will decrease the climate sensivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20, reducing the climate sensivity of CO2 to less than .06 degrees C.
An important part of the AGW conjecture is that CO2 based warming will increase the amount of H2O in the atmosphere which will cause even more warming because H2O is really the primary greenhouse gas and molecule per molecule is a stronger absorber of IR than is CO2. Those that believe in the AGW conjecture like to assume an amplification factor associated with H2O of 3. However, the AGW conjecture completely ignores that H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. According to some energy balance models more heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. The cooling effect of more H2O is also evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate which indicates that more H2O has a net cooling effect. So instesd of an amplification factor of 3 we should use an amplification factor of 1/3 which would yield a climate sensivity of CO2 of less than .02 degrees C which is a trivial amount.
The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. The AGW conjecture completely ignores the fact that good absorbers are also good radiators and what ever LWIR photons are absorbed are eventually radiated away. The so called greenhouse gases do not trap heat any more than any other gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. In fact the non-greenhouse gases will tend too hold onto heat energy longer than the so called greenhouse gases because the non-greenhouse gases are such poor LWIR radiators to space. Since heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposhere, the fact that the so called greenhouse gases absorb LWIR radiation makes little difference.
A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of IR absorbiing greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. There is no radiant greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. So too with the Earth’s climate system. Gravity along with the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the depth of the troposphere provide a convective greenhouse effect. Derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect keeps the Earth’s surface on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the amount derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been measured. There is no additional warming caused by a radiative greenhouse effect. A radiative greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or anywhere else in the solar system for that mater. The radiative greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction. This is all a matter of science.
From an analysis of paleoclimate date and the results of work with models one can conclude that the climate change we are experieicnig today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. So far mankind has not been able to change weather events let alone global climate. Until we find a way to control climate there is no basis for a climate agreement.
Is not pre-industrial the Holocene Optimum?
if not there uis a good case for arguing that it is the height of the Minoan Warm Period or the height of the Roman Warm Period, before the industry of war took hold in earnest.
I am not a scientist or professional but an everyday person who is a good believer in god and a keen reader of the bible. In my opinion climate change is the greatest fraud the devil has used through mans nativity to gain control over more people and to draw people’s away from believing and knowing that god is nature and has provided for us a way through all situations, in wjich we should be embracing him for the answers to his awesome creation of mankind animals the earth the universe and how we can navigate our way through all things good or bad and prosper, instead of giving to leftists elitist who exist to control those that a weak or think they are weak.
I recommend the book “Inventing Temperature”, by Hasok Chang. It is the history of not only the science, but the philosophy of science, of temperature measurement. No temperature measurement prior to the 1850s could be regarded as useful for climatological purposes, and even then the accuracy was outside of the bounds of the “anomaly” we now regard as sacrosanct.