Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
Note: Please read Part 1 before reading this — this is a continuation of that essay (a rather long continuation….)
The last point I made in Part 1 of this essay was this:
The IPCC in their synthesis report for policy makers says that human emissions of greenhouse gases [“atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide”] and “other anthropogenic drivers,” are “extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
So far, I agree with all the facts [the facts being basically: Global Warming is happening and Human activity causes [some of] it.] but don’t agree with the assertion that CO2 and other anthropogenic emissions are “the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” — I agree neither with the attribution or the effect size.
Why? For the simple reason that real scientific evidence for this view is very weak. The IPCC in AR5 SPM offers only this:
“The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.” — AR5 SPM 1.1
That’s the sum total of the evidence, though the IPCC AR5 is hundreds of pages in four booklets, they are just additional verbiage on these basic points.
Readers will have heard the line “multiple lines of evidence” attached to the attribution of anthropogenic causes. However, that phrase is used only once in AR5 SPM as “Multiple lines of evidence indicate a strong, consistent, almost linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and projected global temperature change to the year 2100….” I’m sure I don’t need to point out that there is never ever evidence about the future…..They do not claim in the Summary for Policy Makers that there are multiple lines of evidence for the attribution statement that apply to the past-to-present.
That it has warmed is not in question, we covered this in Part 1. As for sea level, not yet touched on, we will look first at typical visuals offered, one from the IPCC AR5 SPM and then turn to the well-accepted Grinstead et al. 2009 paper: “Reconstructing sea level from paleo and projected temperatures 200 to 2100AD” which serves up the visual depiction on the left, IPCC on the right:
On the left is from Grinstead 2009 starting in 1850, and on the left right, from the IPCC’s AR5, incongruously starting abruptly in 1900 (I have not modified that image — that is how it is printed).
However, sea level does not begin its inexorable rise in 1850-1900, the beginning of the Modern Industrial Era as depicted in so many of the sea level graphs like those offered above. To see this we need to take a closer, deeper look at the data available in the literature:
Ignoring the projections of future sea level rise, let’s just look to see when sea levels started rising in these two “Modeled past sea level” reconstructions. The “Thick black line: reconstructed GSL [Global Sea Level] (Jevrejeva et al., 2006) extended to 1700 using Amsterdam sea level (van Veen, 1945).” All three data sets agree: Jones and Mann (2004), Moberg et al. (2005) and Jevrejeva et al. 2006. Sea level bottoms out at the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1650-1700 and begins a rise that continues to the present. PSMSL Reconsructions page has plenty of data sources.
That sea level has risen is not in question. The primary factor of both Temperature and Sea Level is that they have both been rising much longer than the IPCC’s posited cause — rising greenhouse gases — has existed. Let me put both temperature and sea level side-by-side:
Loehle’s temperature reconstruction on the left, a segment from Moberg’s 2005 sea level reconstruction from Grinstead 2009, and from the IPCC’s AR5, Chapter 13 on the right. Sea level bottoms out at a millennial low around 1650-1800. That’s 200-300 years of temperature and sea level rise — neither starts in 1850, 1880, 1890, or 1900.
So far, I have freely agreed that the Earth’s climate has warmed, that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen, and that sea level has risen. I will even let the Consensus have “the oceans have warmed” — even though I have extreme doubts that we have any real idea of the past temperatures of “the oceans”.
[ We have some clue about the skin temperature of the seas from satellite data and a tiny bit of data about the rest from free floating ARGO buoys — but nothing anywhere near enough to estimate the average temperature of the oceans or any changes to that average — in my opinion, that claim is not scientifically supportable at this time.]
I don’t have any special expertise on snow cover levels, glaciers, Arctic or Antarctic ice. But here is what Rutger’s Snow Lab has to say about Northern Hemisphere snow cover since 1967 (satellite era):
Surprisingly, Northern Hemisphere snow cover is increasing in the Fall and Winter seasons and decreasing only in the Spring, with the last couple of Springs being about normal. There seems to be more variation in the Fall and Spring seasons, with Winters being less variable.
Why Northern Hemisphere snow cover? Most of the planets snow is in the Northern Hemisphere with the majority of the rest being in Antarctica: [Arctic ice cap not represented.]
Glaciers, extent and growth/shrinkage of, is even more controversial than the rest of climate change — and I am happy to leave that others. Glacier growth is not primarily driven by temperature, but rather by precipitation at the high end of a glacier: “A glacier is a persistent body of dense ice that is constantly moving under its own weight; it forms where the accumulation of snow exceeds its ablation (melting and sublimation) over many years, often centuries.” So, even if glaciers are generally shrinking (some are shrinking and some are growing), it has no particular bearing on warming. Regionally, changes in glacier size and movement can be considered due to changes in regional climate, changes in precipitation being the main factor.
As for Antarctica? Again, too much controversy to say. On 10 July 2017, a NASA study done in 2015 by Jay Zwally was published online in the Journal of Glaciology and was highlighted in this press release: “NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses”, It says “A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.” Scientific American beat the original study to press by four days, running a rebuttal on 6 July 2017, written by Shannon Hall, a news report, not a scientific study. Just in case anyone might misconstrue the purpose of the article, they subtly titled it “What to Believe in Antarctica’s Great Ice Debate”. Four days before the original study is published — now that is what I call Rapid Response!
There is no doubt about Arctic sea ice extent — it has been declining:
The left graph shows the last eight years against 1979-2017 mean — the right graph shows those same eight years (plus 2018) as daily values. The red trace with + marks is 2018 through July.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center offers this:
So, it is obvious (from satellite data) that Winter NH Sea Ice Extent is down about ½ million miles2 (roughly a million km2) and Summer Extent is down, on average, about a million mi2. Changes in Arctic sea ice conditions can affect weather and climate elsewhere. These graphs start in 1976 or so because that is the start of the satellite era.
Again, as with almost all climate issues, there is a controversy. Arctic Sea Ice has been declining — sorry for the lack of originality here — 300 years. Many historical records show that there was a similar decline in the 1930s.
Polyak et al., 2010 shows this controversy in action:
In the Nordic Seas we see in the black boxes low sea ice extents which last just two or three years in the mid-1600s and mid-1700s, and, as expected, in the very warm 1920-1940 period, as per Macias-Fauria et al., 2009 (black trace). The red trace is Arctic max sea ice per Kinnard et al., 2008 which shows the effect of Nordic ice on overall Arctic ice with a dip in the same 1920-1940 period.
Polyakov et al. says “The discrepancy between the two records in the early 20th century corresponds to an increase in the Atlantic inflow to the Nordic Seas,” which I would translate as “Nordic sea ice was low during the 1920-1940 period due to a change in Atlantic circulation.” Previous historic low extents in the 1600s and 1700s are not associated with known warm periods. Using Nordic Sea Ice as a proxy (the Danes have kept very good records, being responsible for Iceland and Greenland and points north), we see that Arctic Sea Ice decline can reasonably be said to start in the early 1700s or the late-1700s — definitely not the late 1800s — not 1850-1880-1890 — not the beginning of the Industrial Era.
We should note that Arctic Sea Ice has only been tracked with any scientific accuracy since the beginning of the satellite era, like many other global metrics.
But, still, no denial here, Artic Sea Ice is at historic lows, having reached a high point at the depth of the Little Ice Age and falling since then coincident with subsequent warming.
In Part 1 and the above, I have agreed with all the posited physical facts and the evidence presented by the IPCC for its global warming/climate change position.
There remains one issue that has yet to be addressed, as we can’t assess the IPCC’s position without it.
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Can, and does, increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases cause warming?
Of course it is and of course it can and of course it may have.
Some readers will find this admission offensive, but again there is no reason to deny the physical facts — the Australians explain it like this:
“Greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earth’s surface. When the Sun’s energy reaches the Earth’s atmosphere, some of it is reflected back to space and the rest is absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases include water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and some artificial chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
The absorbed energy warms the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. This process maintains the Earth’s temperature at around 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would otherwise be, allowing life on Earth to exist.”
Why would anyone deny that? It is simply a fact of chemical and energy physics.
I acknowledge that the name “Greenhouse Effect” is a misnomer — Alistair B. Fraser, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University gives a thorough explanation as to why and how it is a misnomer on his Bad Greenhouse page and has a very interesting discussion at Bad Greenhouse FAQ.
The mis-naming of the effect doesn’t change its reality and doesn’t change the absorption of outgoing energy by water vapor, CO2 and the other greenhouse gases. Because energy is absorbed by these gases, the atmospheric temperature is raised. The atmosphere radiates energy, like all physical material, based on its temperature. Some of that radiated energy is absorbed by the Earth itself, the oceans, the plants, the animals — well, everything that it touches. That’s how the system works. It is not correct to say that everything that absorbs this radiation of energy from the atmosphere “heats up”. It is correct to say that it has absorbed energy.
But many insist that we are talking about heat — that is not physically correct — we are really speaking about the conservation of energy. Energy absorbed by the Earth as a “system” takes many forms. Plants absorb energy from the Sun and thorough through chemical processing store it as chemical energy in sugars and as chemical energy stored in the tissues of the plant itself. Water molecules absorb energy from the sun and atmosphere and store it as kinetic and potential energy in the water vapor moved higher into the atmosphere which we experience as the energy of water high in the atmosphere falling to Earth: hydroelectric power is derived from that stored energy, flash floods and mudslides are caused by the release of this potential energy. Through life processes, energy is both stored and used by all animals (and humans) to keep their bodies warm and perform work (both internal and external). And, as we are all aware, fossil fuels are fuels because they are that energy stored over geological time spans.
My point in all the above is that not all energy retained in the Earth system is retained as heat measurable by thermometers. The general consensus view sweeps all this energy storing into the statement “the missing heat goes into the oceans”. The energy is not missing, it is being stored in myriad ways. How much energy stored in what forms? We have no idea really. We did recently find out that photosynthesis has increased by >30% due to atmospheric CO2 enhancement — which means >30% more energy being converted by plants
There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth about this, I’m sure. Some will point to the experiments that “prove” that the atmosphere is radiating more energy back to Earth than some time earlier — this is not in question. Yes, of course they do. That is the physical science of so-called “greenhouse gases” and this phenomena is responsible for the Earth being a livable planet.
So what is left?
Now, I have accepted the two basic premises of the Global Warming movement — the two points on which the so-called “97% agree” (so count me among them) — that “Global Warming is happening” and “Human activity causes [some of] it.”
I have accepted the lines of evidence that the IPCC offers in support of their hypothesis: “The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.” I have even agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it is at an historic high.
Why am I still a skeptic?
I am still a skeptic because all of those things, freely accepted more-or-less as claimed, do not add up to anything even near a “proof” of the IPCC hypothesis:
CO2 and other anthropogenic emissions are “the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
I would even go as far as to say that the evidence offered up by the IPCC, in their hundreds of pages of painstakingly reviewed and re-reviewed reports does nothing more than present a case for the possibility that the hypothesis could be true.
The IPCC and the Climate Science community have, so far, failed to rule out the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis — nothing more. They have, however, shown in their historical reconstructions that the main bodies of evidence their hypothesis relies on — surface air temperature, sea level rise, snow and ice cover — all started changing long before CO2 concentrations could possibly [have] had any appreciable effect.
It is an accepted tenet of modern science that an Effect cannot precede its Cause. So here I find myself accepting the major offered data as more-or-less valid (close enough for my purposes) and the evidences offered as more-or-less true, yet I find that proposed CO2-driven Global Warming Hypothesis, in order to be true, would require retrocausality, or, in other words, that the Effects have preceded the Cause.
I am a firm proponent of the idea that time flows in one direction only and that the arrow of cause always points forward (past-to-present, present-to-future). That leaves me to reject the CO2-driven Global Warming Hypothesis as generally presented.
I am not the first to notice this, of course. The IPCC has thus been forced to alter its original hypothesis and modify it to read that CO2 and other anthropogenic emissions are “the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
That means that CO2 as a driver of climate only became dominate over Factor X since 1950.
“Factor X?” you may ask. Yes, Factor X is just a place-marker for whatever was causing Global Temperature to rise since the mid-1600s, Global Sea Level to rise since 1650-1700, Arctic Sea Ice to start declining in either the early 1700s, or in 1800 (your choice, either could be supported by the data).
If this sounds fanciful to you, then your critical thinking skills are working properly. There is simply no evidence whatever that the unknown Factor X was responsible for 250 years of rising temperature, rising seas, and declining Arctic ice — only to be superseded by CO2-driven Global Warming in 1950.
The IPCC Consensus view is that Factor X is “natural variability” — which can be translated into “things that change the climate that we do not recognize as causative and do not understand”. The IPCC modified CO2-driven Global Warming Hypothesis thus depends on unknown/not-understood climate forcings (lumped into a basket called “natural variability”) which are then, for unknown reasons, overshadowed by CO2 induced warming (the effect size of which is still unknown and controversial) around 1950.
As for me and mine, we will wait in the bleachers for evidence to be produced that supports such as an hypothesis — something stronger than that offered by so many CAGW apologists in the form “well, what else could it be?”
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
Please, try and stay on topic and discuss this essay — it is certainly broad enough to satisfy most readers. Oh, and please, pretty please, Don’t Feed The Trolls — like feral cats, feeding just encourages them to breed there under the bridge and become real pests.
I hope that I have not trounced your favorite talking points — remember, this is just my view of a very complex, very young and immature science field. I am patiently waiting for it to grow up.
While I am perfectly willing to explain my viewpoint — I do not argue with others.
If speaking to me, please begin you comment with “Kip…” and I’ll be sure to see it. I do read every single comment that appear under essays I write, but in the wild west world of blog comment threads, it is often difficult to figure out who is speaking to who about exactly what. Leading your comments with the name of the person you are speaking to makes this easier for all.
Keep the conversation collegial and try to understand the other person’s point before replying.
Thanks for contributing.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you for good balanced articles. I do think this is the only way to win the battle against the almost religious alarmists. Facts, facts, facts.
Jan ==> Yes, I quite agree. I have tried to stick to simple facts that are acceptable to both sides of the Climate Divide — avoiding tricky or controversial interpretations, overly massaged data, krigged or smeared time series, etc. The simple, we all agree about this, facts make the case on their own.
Kip: an excellent, reasoned approach to the problem. I would suggest that AGW does not rank as a hypothesis, because it is not testable or falsifiable using the scientific method. Hence, it is merely a conjecture.
Trebla ==> In a response to previous comment, I have mentioned that the IPCC “hypothesis” is really more like a proposed hypothetical scenario. Very hard to falsify because it is vague-ish and soft.
Actually, feeding trolls is like feeding gremlins after midnight—it spawns more and more angry, vulgar trolls which sadly are not shut down immediately in some venues (even those with “values”—methinks humans love nastiness nowadays….)
I do realize in reading this article (apologies to Kip for my concentrating on his graphs and not his writing) that all the fear could be taken out of global warming with a simple modification to numbering scheme used on the Y-axis of graphs.
Sheri ==> Part of the graph problem is computerized graphing software, in which the software decides the scale based on the variance in the data. I use an online graphing software — which I recommend to all — at ploy.ly.
Their software has this “feature” which I consider a “bug”.
Software is good — but it is (pardon the language) STUPID.
If you don’t understand this point, you’ll have to take my professional word for it. Software can only pretend to make intelligent decisions — even advanced IA — it can only make decisions envisioned by the programmer that wrote the code.
Graphing Average Global Surface Air Temperature with a scale that covers only 1 degree C top-to-bottom is silly for the general public — propaganda if done intentionally. Rather, for the general public, it should be graphed against something they are familiar with, such as the annual temperature range of their city, or even the temperature annual range of the average home (without HVAC regulation) — maybe a ten degree spread.
Kip: “Software can only pretend to make intelligent decisions — even advanced IA — it can only make decisions envisioned by the programmer that wrote the code.”
As a computer programmer for over 40 years, I concur with this observation. It reminds me of a SciFi novel (its name escapes me at the moment) that called their AI devices “Artificial Stupids”.
RicDre ==> I fought this battle at IBM for years while working on their sponsored mega-sports web sites.
Kip: ” I fought this battle at IBM for years…”
IBM should have realized that your statement about computer programs is true as a result of their work on the “Deep Blue” chess playing computer and its associated software. Though it did eventually beat world champion Chess Master Garry Kasparov in a chess tournament in 1997, it did so partly because IBM programmers were allowed to “upgrade” the software after each game, so in a sense the computer software was optimized to play against Mr. Kasparov. Also, it really didn’t utilize AI but instead played Chess by brute force, and was able to evaluate 200 million positions per second.
RicDre ==> One of my sons, as a teen, programmed our Commodore 64 to play the game “15” and learn from each game. after playing the game ten times or so, it was impossible to beat the computer — the best one could do was a draw.
[Was that not also the problem with “Global Thermonuclear War”? /1980’s bad movie plots .mod]
Well, KIP, per the Nordic sea ice chart, if you look at the LOWEST levels indicated (in those boxes), it appears that the lowest sea ice level has been reached, which means that the process should reverse itself (according to that chart) and the extent of sea ice should show an increase from now on. The Nordic chart indicates that a reversal should be taking place, or will do so very soon.
Personally, I think it is already underway and only needs observations and records to show its progress.
If that is the case, then the trolls will have nothing, not a leg to stand on, and yet, they will still insist it ain’t gonna happen. You will still have to fight them off because they will be unwilling to admit that they might be wrong.
Oh – almost forgot: good morning, KIP!!! 🙂
Sara ==> And Good Morning to you. Arctic sea ice is one of the non-linear features of the global climate — being both a cause and an effect, on scales from local to global.
We really only have a very vague idea of what causes its fluctuations.
Kip, this is a link to a 2011 article in “Live Science” in which the author discusses the discovery of a previously unknown, and very deep, cold water current flowing between Iceland and Canada.
https://www.livescience.com/15690-deep-ocean-current-climate-change.html
I would have brought this up earlier, but I couldn’t remember when I first saw it, and it was long before this whole business became a political football. You might want to take a good hard look at it, because if any measurements are being taken now, well. where are they?
There’s a good shot of some disc ice in that article. Disc ice is a separate form of pancake ice, both of which require specific temperature and current conditions to form.
Sara ==> Thanks for the interesting link. I don’t recall seeing anything more about it in the last five years or so.
Maybe an analogy would be a very large glass (or pitcher) of iced tea. Pour the tea into the glass/pitcher leaving about an inch of room between the surface and the rim, then add as many ice cubes as you can crowd into that and watch them melt. They always melt from underneath – always – even with cold (fridge overnight) tea, and the ice always stays afloat, because it has some air in it. Warm air above the ice will make it melt faster, too. This occurred many, many times in July this year when my fridge’s freezer quit working properly and needed the repairman.
However – and I’ve done this many, many times, too – putting it back into the fridge will slow the melt rate but the ice will stay ice and the water, as it gets colder, will come close to freezing (depending on how low you have the fridge temp set).
So whether or not there is a heat source that affects the on/off switch in the Arctic isn’t clear, no, but the Gakkel Ridge formation became active a few years back, and was releasing warm water into the area that runs under the North Pole. It may have stopped. Don’t know yet. I keep checking for news on that. It may have had something to do with ice thinning up there, too. However, if the activity stopped, then maybe THAT should be looked into as a factor in Arctic ice fluctuations.
Sara ==> Sea bottom volcanic activity may well be affecting both the arctic and Antarctic ice.
Lots more science to be done.
Agreed.
Sara,
You said, ” it appears that the lowest sea ice level has been reached,…” Well, it is snowing in Europe right now. Time will tell if it is an aberration, or the start of something different.
Noted. And Accuweather has finally acknowledged the summer snows in the Western US states.
Normal Midwestern summer heat had been disrupted several times in Illinois and is about to be disrupted again by cold air. 50s at night here are not normal for even the end of August. More like late September. I have notebooks full of data, and photos with the files date stamped for time, day and month. Not sure if it is an anomaly, and snow in mid-October in northern Illinois is not unusual, but simply rare. Just keeping track, that’s all.
Consistent and repeated patterns are what I look for, rather than anomalies.
Absolutely, the suggestion that whatever caused the planet to go into, and out of, such large temperature swings in the past, suddenly stopped, around 1900 to 1940, is ridiculous! There is no physics, science, or evidence for such an arrest.
MattS ==> The Consensus doesn’t actually claim that Factor X stopped…just that it was somehow overwhelmed or superseded by CO2-driven warming circa 1950. Admittedly, that may be a distinction without a difference.
The first step will be for someone to whip out their calculator and determine the past average and standard deviation and see if we are outside the bounds of past behavior.
Kip…When you say “I Don’t Deny”, you are mistaken…let me explain…in today’s world, you and everyone else knows that when someone asks “Why do you deny climate change?” or “Do you believe in climate change?”, they are asking “Do you believe that C02 is a pollutant that is causing damage to the earth?” Everyone knows this is the main point of debate.
So when you say you “… don’t agree with the assertion that CO2 and other anthropogenic emissions are ‘the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.'” you are denying “climate change.” Please stop being a politician who purposely misunderstands what someone is asking and deflects or redefines the question so that you don’t have to directly say you disagree.
When someone asks you “Why do you deny climate change?” the correct response is “Because I don’t believe that C02 is pollution.” Make the real point crystal clear at the beginning and show them you know what they are really asking, and then if they want details, you can go into all the scientific details.
Dan ==> I understand your point, but it is not my point.
You are quite correct that positioning (and it is propagandistic positioning) CO2 as a “pollutant” is scientifically false.
Dan: “…you and everyone else knows that when someone asks ‘Why do you deny climate change?’ or ‘Do you believe in climate change?’, they are asking ‘Do you believe that C02 is a pollutant that is causing damage to the earth?'”.
I don’t disagree with the what you are saying but my take is that one should answer the question being asked, “Why do you deny climate change?” not the one that should have been asked “Do you believe that C02 is a pollutant that is causing damage to the earth?”. If someone is unable to say what they mean I don’t think I have an obligation to try to figure what they meant to say.
“they are asking “Do you believe that C02 is a pollutant that is causing damage to the earth?” Everyone knows this is the main point of debate.”
No, the real point of the debate is How Much damage. IOW, one can accept AGW and deny CAGW, if the How Much answer is low.
Roger ==> You are mostly right. The real questions are all in the attribution and effect size realms.
TY for enlightening and prompting people to think.
I write to suggest a future topic. What is anthropogenic CO2’s share of total atmospheric CO2? How has the share changed in recent decades? A Google search on the topic produced nada. When climate change advocates avoid an issue, the issue frequently challenges their cause.
Data for 20 or 30 years should be available. Anthropogenic CO2 supposedly differs from natural CO2. Instruments can detect the various forms of CO2, and such instruments have been sniffing the atmosphere for 30+ years.
Man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 should be revealed by the ratio between the forms of CO2 released by man and the forms released by natural processes. For example, burning fossil fuels releases isotopes that differ from those released by other CO2 sources. If climate change advocates are correct that man caused the entire increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 or so, then the isotopes linked to man should account for about 30% of atmospheric CO2. Such a large share should be easily detected by today’s instrumentation.
The arithmetic behind the 30% figure is:
(today’s atmospheric CO2 concentration – pre-Industrial concentration) / today’s concentration
(410 ppm – 280 ppm) / 410 ppm
Our understanding of man’s influence may be refined by studying how the ratio has changed (presumably increased) over the past 30+ years.
David M ==> There have been studies on that issue — I don’t have handy links for them, but they are out there. There are scientists that believe that this can all be determined by the isotopes of Carbon — I am not among them — I think it is too far a reach.
Kip,
You remarked, ” There are scientists that believe that this can all be determined by the isotopes of Carbon — I am not among them…” I agree with you. I haven’t quite got my head around the isotope arguments yet. However, I noted recently that apparently Ferdinand Englebeen believes that upwelling deep ocean water reflects the isotopic composition of water that sank in the polar regions a millennium ago. However, he overlooks the fact that organic detritus raining down through the water column for the last millennium has been adding 12C-enriched CO2 to the water, changing the ratio.
Clyde ==> I am aware that there are C isotopes — that the ratio changes over time (from the creation of Earth?), that some fossil fuel materials have no 14C, only 12C. An explanatory paper here. I too think that there is much too much leeway in the Earth system for this to work on a worldwide, total atmosphere basis.
Deja vu! We do not understand what effect the power of the Sun has on Earth’s Climate, but whatever it is, it’s already been overtaken by Manmade Global Warming! = We don’t know the affect of element ‘ A’, on Element ‘B’, but whatever it is, it’s already been overpowered by Element ‘C’! Simples!
Or as I’ve been told by a number of alarmists:
We don’t know what caused the previous warm periods and it doesn’t matter. Because the current warming is caused by CO2, the models have proven it.
Good article. There are a fair number of examples of the “cut-off-graph” trick used by advocates, mostly due to the coincidence of record sets starting at about the same time as a trend started. If one uses less reliable data, mostly proxies or incomplete reports, many of the trends go away.
When a person advocates that the climate is changing, I say, well, yes, the climate is always changing. Indeed something would be wrong if it didn’t stop changing. It is a dynamical system that by its very nature cannot be static, especially given variations in solar output. Why monitor the climate? At the very least because we all depend upon a healthy biosphere in order to grow our food, both livestock and grain crops. We also depend upon other plants for clothing like cotton. Having a healthy biosphere is a matter of life and death for humanity.
But I don’t hear these concerns from the advocates of “climate change”. They loudly fret about many things, but never about our corn crop. In fact, on a different day, in a different context, they demand that we devote even more millions of acres of farmland to growing corn. The US presently commits over 30% of it corn harvest to making ethanol to blend with gasoline.
More broadly, the main effect of the policy changes being advocated converge far more on socialistic government policy than to improve the biosphere.
When the meaning of words is malleable and plastic they become tools of dishonest ideology. Then those who see through this are hampered in making an effective response. If I say that I am a “climate denier”, while that is not literally, scientifically correct, it is ideologically true. I don’t deny that the climate was so cold about 25,000 years ago that where Chicago presently sits was covered by a mile of glacial ice. I don’t deny that many Mammoths have been pried out of the Siberian tundra. I don’t deny they were flash frozen with green plant matter still in their stomachs. I don’t deny that from 1408 to 1814 Londoners were able to hold large Frost Fairs on the frozen River Thames. Not during a few winters, but during 24 different winters.
But these things don’t count to the advocates of “climate change”, even as they are hard proof of climate change. I see though the ideological agenda. That makes me a “climate denier” as they define the phrase. I publicly admit it. Hang a sign around my neck and stand me on the street corner just like Mao’s Red Guards did during public shaming. That is what “climate change” really is. A public shame.
oops — wrong thread.
(Partial) Proof that it might – under specific current conditions that always change.
Commendable and nicely done— though I am not willing to concede that the historic temperature record is accurate and reliable prior to the advent of satellite-based measurement in 1979.
I don’t think climate “science” really knows what global temperatures were previous to that time.
Do you really believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1917-1950 are reliable? I’m not ready to believe that people were making accurate daily observations all over Russia during the Revolution or the Civil War or during the Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad.
I don’t believe that Chinese temperature records from, say, 1913-1980 are reliable. I don’t think that accurate daily temperatures were recorded during the upheaval and chaos of the warlord period or WWII or the Revolution or “The Great Leap Forward.”
Nor do I believe that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say, 1850-1975 or oceanic temperatures from prehistory ’til 1979 are accurate. Do I think daily temperature observations were made in the Bering Sea or the Weddell Sea or in the middle of the Pacific at any time before the advent of satellite observations in 1979? Of course not.
John ==> Thank you — and the temperature record is problematic but for the purposes of “it is warmer now than in 1750?” we can accept the reconstructions as “more-or-less correct”. It is a foolishness to think that any of the contemporary “Global Averages” are accurate to tenth and hundredths of a degree C.
For what its worth, the Bering sea *was* regularly monitored for temperature in the 1970’s and 1980’s, maybe earlier, as it impacts submarine detection (speed of sound in water depends partly on temperature). Not only surface temperature but bathythermal profiles pretty much daily. These surveys, conducted by US Navy P3’s, also included occasional ice edge reconnaissance flights.
But these bathy records were manually transcribed with a precision of about 1 degree F. Over a very large number of samples its probably reliable and useful.
Michael 2 ==> Thank you for the reminder of Cold War science. There is a lot of it, much of it may still be being withheld as “official secrets”.
Your comment brings up “usefulness for purpose” issues (sometimes called “fitness for purpose”). Temperature data that is originally rounded to the nearest full degree is useful for producing a data set accurate to 1 degree. (+/- 0.5 — 1 degree wide). Any other attempted use is a mis-use.
Often though, 1 degree is “good enough”.
In science we trust. Just not the scientists-
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/its-not-science-i-dont-trust-its-the-scientists/
This is directed to no one person in particular, but please do feel free to respond, critique, etc:
Whatever state of maturity CliSci might be in, it is still making the attempt to tie global climate change to a single cause; viz, the change in atmospheric CO2; carbon dioxide as a ‘control knob’ for climate, etc.
The skeptic side (which is what I consider myself) is, in a sense, equally guilty of seeking a singular cause. Obviously, it is possible, but not likely, that there is some singular cause, and we often see some work in the realm of ocean circulation, Milankovich cycles, solar influences, and the sort.
Which is fine, but I have a very hard time accepting that there is a “singular” cause for any climate change, regardless of the direction or magnitude. Geologists are now working with the idea that transitions (both directions) into-and-out-of glacial episodes are taking place within a time span measured in decades (some will even argue that it could be less than a decade). If this hypothesis proves to be valid, then we have established that the skeptical “causes” (above) are much too tardy to cause such a drastic change within such a short time span.
Mr. Hansen refers to this “Force X”, which, on the surface, I have no problem with. I think that some natural variation is more than adequate to explain any and all changes in global surface temperatures, since the 17th Century. If, as it appears, Nature is able to change average global temperatures more than five or six Celsius degrees (in a few decades), then it could also be changing whatever the present-day average global temperature is today.
But I also think that it is misguided to continue to think, or argue, or research, that global climate is modified by a single “factor” or “force”. It would be much more appropriate to seek, and understand “ForceS X” or “Force X’s”, which act on a continuum, and which, at times, act in concert to each other (constructive interference), and in opposition to each other (destructive interference).
That we do NOT know what “Force X’s” are, is the reason we have research in the first place. Our efforts should not be directed towards measuring or “proving” that one, single, all-encompassing factor changes global climates, but should be directed at finding what variables are interacting with each other, on what time-scales, with what magnitudes, and what durations. Climate ‘science” has been hijacked into a dead-end, is FAR from settled, and has a singular focus and purpose in the 21st Century. Please drop the idea that some innocuous trace-gas in the atmosphere has all these amazing properties, abilities, powers, and attributes, to change a complex, coupled, non-linear, dynamic system, all by itself. No system as complicated as the Earth’s global climate system ever has been, or ever will be, changed/modified/controlled by a single factor.
My half-pfennig,
Vlad
Vald ==> Thank you for your comment about “proving our hypothesis:. That’s poor science — and usually can’t be done — the best one gets is “supporting evidence” and that is often only supporting if you already believe the hypothesis is correct.
As for Factor X — that is, of course, just a literary fiction invented for the purpose of discussing the problem of causality/retrocausality.
Javier feels the “Truth is out there” and promises to enlighten us.
I think that we just don;t understand the climate system as a whole yet (and that is a vast understatement).
For a wider view, see my essays on Chaos & Climate.
Also, don’t forget that a chaotic system generates its own wobbles by chasing an ever-elusive attractor.
Roger ==> Then there are the Chaotic systems that don’t ever settled down into an attractor….
Count me in Denial until someone can locate/measure/describe ‘climate’ as something other than a subjective abstraction or purely statistical concoction.
Andrew
Excellent article worth reading. Pretty much sums up my thoughts on this issue. I shared both part 1 and part 2 with my many non skeptical friends and relatives with the hope that at least some will read it, maybe even start the skeptical thinking process instead of the status quo.
Chris ==> Thank you for the compliment of sharing my essays!
Thanks Kip. A very good read.
One question I have had on the topic in general, is how reliable / accurate is the historical proxy temperature reconstructions with modern temperature readings. If I recall correctly (approximately), we have only had (somewhat) reliable thermometer readings for perhaps 100-150 years, during which one could overlap that data with proxy temperature methods. In some of those charts, the proxies have seen to diverge from thermometer readings within the last 100 years, so not perfect alignment, as one might expect given different factors other than temperature which might affect the proxy reading.
It seems that the charts the public often are provided, showing the very rapid rise in surface temperature over the last 50 years, is giving equal weight to the proxy reconstructions and very accurate modern readings. Is that the correct scientific approach? We are talking in many cases around decimals of 1’C, so is it not possible that temperatures, for example, in the medieval warming period could have been a bit higher (of course could be lower) than the proxy reconstructions?
I think it is great that people of science work to provide a view into the past, but I just haven’t been able to wrap my head around the confidence (degree of accuracy) that is often attributed to some ice core data as though it is as the same as the modern time with satellites and thousands of thermometers.
Appreciate your thoughts and those from others.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/SICE_combine_extent_SM_EN_20180827.png
As of yesterday Arctic sea ice extent is greater than the last 3 years for that date. The Arctic is not melting because
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180826.png
shows that ice volume is 5th highest in decades. Thank goodness the Danish government is not corrupt in global warming data like the American agencies are.
Kip says: These graphs start in 1976 or so because that is the start of the satellite era.
The first IPCC report in 1995 had a satellite graph going back to 1974. Below link shows ice is about the same as 1971.
Our side is forced into a defensive posture by the other side’s ongoing lowest-common-denominator type argument currently being echo-chambered, that ‘skeptics deny climate change (warming)’.
They don’t have to answer to anything while they and the media parrot this brainwashing device.
Its simple school-yard level taunting and political messaging that appeals to the left, a device that is now used by the internet giants to censor our views. They have people reacting to their strawman arguments.
I’m not pessimistic. In time the solar influence will prevail over such nonsense.
Typo: “However, sea level does not begin is inexorable rise in 1850-1900, …”
Need a t’
Sam ==> Marvelous! Thank you for reading so closely and carefully. You found an error still existing after my professional proofreader had given it a review!
Pardon my ignorance. Seems like we/re doing an energy balance on the earth, but temperature varies linearly with energy absorbed (forget phase change) while energy radiated away depends on T^4. So a 1% increase in temp, caused by a 1% increase in energy absorbed, (~3K) means a 4% increase in energy radiated away. Don’t we have an automatic negative feedback?
Kip, While I agree that the climate is warming I agree with very little that the UN-IPCC , the government technocrats and supposed scientists preaching gloom and doom are saying. I have long believe the climate has been warming since the last glaciation but not a steady rate. Periods of substantial cooling have taken place besides the Little Ice Age and periods of warming to levels warmer than today, Medieval Warming Period. Most of what I read from the UN-IPCC and the “climatologists” appears to be based solely on computer model outputs. Back when I was reviewing models, assumptions, data, etc I saw significant problems in the climate models I reviewed. At the time it appeared that all the models started with the primary assumption that CO2 was THE primary driver, not just another greenhouse gas. They also did not model the ocean influence well at all. A few all but ignore the oceans. I understand they now have at least attempted to model the oceans better but since I no longer desired to review models any more I cannot say.
Then we have the data inputs. Gee, how the data has been twisted, spun, improperly re-arranged, etc, etc is in my book criminal. And the best data that hasn’t faced adulteration we have is proxy data from satellites.
I then became to look at the players. I asked myself why were supposed scientists acting as they were; what happened to Scientific Method? Why were environmental groups, like Audubon, a group in which I was once heavily involved, ignoring the environmental damage being done by the solutions put forth to “fix CAGW?” Why was the MSM running every gloom and doom story no matter how bizarre? Why were the international political Left so fully backing CAGW? Why were all the solutions being put forth have to do with the USA and western democracies paying for it? I have part of the answer. When AGW hit the mainstream the socioeconomic left and the environmental community finally had cause they both could rally behind. Before that while both were politically liberal they just couldn’t quite see eye to eye. There were those in Leftist organizations that went around to environmental groups in the late 1980s preaching the orthodoxy, the coming apocalypse if they didn’t join efforts. I know; I was there at the time. I never found out who was funding them.
Edwin ==> I don’t agree with the projected Doom and Gloom either. Thanks for participating today.
Kip, I love this website both the humor and the scientific debate. Yet most of the time I believe we are all in a bit of denial and not just about AGW. I have little doubt that the Earth’s climate has been generally warming since the last glaciation. While I have no real idea why it occasionally cooled, e.g., Little Ice Age, I believe that it would have continued warming at the same general rate and without such periods of cooling would be even warmer today. The question becomes why did a group of people decide that human use of fossil fuel, beginning at the end of LIA and coincidental to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, suddenly become the cause of warming? The best data over the past 30 years certainly doesn’t match the computer model predictions but is more inline with what we might have expected based on historical trends. We have read the statements of past UN-IPCC committee chairs which certainly indicates they see CAGW not so to much a danger to the Earth’s climate but far more of a tool to cause dramatic socioeconomic change in the world. I often compare it to radical Islamists. They declared war on the West we ignored them. Iran has rallies shouting death to America after Friday prayers and until recently our leaders continued to ignore them. So when people in positions of power tell you they want to use AGW as the reason to change the world’s economic system then they must be taken at their word.
Edwin ==> There are several theories bout how and why AGW become such a strong political rallying cry. Whole books have been written about it. I haven’t read any of them, but a search at Amazon or B&N will turn them up.
Kip, I most probably could write one. My perspective is knowing many of the leading players and organizations well that got on the CAGW bandwagon. While some of the whys are knowable, many are not. Still it all comes down to a “game” of power.
Kip
did not read part 1
what is missing from you is your own particular measurements that convinced you that man made warming even does exist, [since you admit believing in it]
My measurements showed that there is no AGW – or it is so small that it falls into next to nothing compared to the natural factors at work.
Click on my name to read my final report on that.
And ask me if you want to try and figure out how I obtained my results, e.g. on global minimum T
henryp ==> I did not do personal measurements — I use only widely accepted, publicly available, non-controversial data sets on each topic I touch on. These data sets alone are enough to make my point.
Your link is certainly a rather unique view on all this.
Kip,
You nailed it, especially when you point out that one of their biggest arguments is “we don’t know what else it could be, so this must be right”. The dustbin of history is full of such arguments, all proven to be laughing wrong, as this one will be some day.
Paul ==> Thank you, Paul. Time is on our side –as there will be no climate disaster — wisdom will finally win out.
Unfortunately by then, the doomsters will be on to the next catastrophe.