by Syun-Ichi Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
The purpose of this note is to point out that the method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion:
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Contrary to this statement on page 10 of the IPCC “Summary for Policy Makers� (2007), there is so far no definitive evidence that “most� of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. I believe that this baseless conclusion results from the scientific composition of the IPCC study group.
The IPCC study of the present global warming has fallen into a scientific gap between the meteorological approach and the climatological approach. A study of climate change, including a study of the present warming, should belong to climatology, as the name of the IPCC indicates.
One of the most important research areas for climatologists is past climate changes, from the time of the Earth’s beginning. Geologists are also interested in past climate change. Climatology has an element of archeology that is naturally not the main concern of most meteorologists, who are basically physicists. Thus, there is a fundamental difference in how meteorologists and climatologists seek to understand the present global warming, even if both are concerned about it.
Although the media often reports that the IPCC conclusion is based on the “consensus of 2500 world experts,� there are perhaps not more than a few hundred genuine climatologists in the world. A large number of the participating IPCC scientists are basically meteorologists, whose study areas are physical processes of weather phenomena, not necessarily weather forecasting; their main scientific interests do not include understanding climate change that has occurred in the past. There is also a large group of scientists in the IPCC study group whose primary expertise is in computer modeling.
Meteorologists identify and provide to the modeling groups the presently known climate forcing functions, such as the greenhouse effect, effects of solar output changes, and volcanic effects. Based on this input, modelers attempt to simulate climate change during the last 100 years. They simulate climate change based on the known forcing functions under the assumption that the computer is programmed to accommodate all the basic elements of weather/climate processes. For this particular reason, they also run their models without the known forcing functions and interpret what the computer output gives as “natural change�. However, this interpretation of the computer output is doubtful and is perhaps incorrect.
Following this methodology, since none of the known forcing functions are able to accurately reproduce the observed temperature rise (0.6°-0.7°C/100 years), the modelers “tune� parameters associated with the greenhouse effect (with some justification) and claim that their models can reproduce reasonably well the observed temperature rise of about 0.6°-0.7°C during the last 100 years in terms of the greenhouse effect. An important point here is that the answer (0.6°-0.7°C/100 years) is given at the start. In the past, much of the criticism of climate modeling has focused on this “tuning� procedure.
However, there is a more fundamental problem inherent in the IPCC approach. If natural changes with unknown causes are occurring, they obviously cannot be included among the known forcing functions in the modeling. This is a more serious problem than the “tuning.�
In the present modeling, natural changes of unknown causes, including the Big Ice Ages, the interglacial periods, Medieval warming, the Little Ice Age and some multi-decadal changes, are mostly beyond the consideration of many participating meteorologists and modelers. Even if they knew all the forcing functions, their positive or negative feedback processes may be too complex to comprehend in applying them to the Earth system.
I am aware that many climatologists and geologists are deeply concerned about the present trend in the study of global warming, since they are aware of many known climate changes with unknown causes. However, they can contribute little to the discussion of present warming, because they cannot offer concrete forcing functions, other than changes in the Earth’s orbital path around the sun, so that many remain as a silent minority. Further, their main interests seem to be focused on climate change that occurred before the present interglacial period, such as the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and the Younger Dryas period.
As mentioned earlier, it is important to recognize that studying any period of climate change, including the present warming, belongs to climatology, more than meteorology. A serious defect of the present IPCC approach is that it does not pay much attention to the possible presence of natural changes, which are so obvious as one examines climate changes even during the last several hundred years. This is simply because, by training, the participating meteorologists do not know how to deal with forcing functions of unknown natural causes; some of them may believe that all the forcing functions are well understood. Nature is far more complex than they seem to be willing to admit.
Unfortunately, most meteorologists and modelers tend to concentrate only on details of the known forcing functions. Indeed, most of them are concerned only with the greenhouse effect during the last 100 years, since the physics of the greenhouse effect is well established and aerosol effects may be dealt with. As a result, they do not examine previous climate change, even as recently as during the last several hundred years. They are also afraid of dealing with ‘low quality’ data in the past or of taking too much effort to gather them (compared with satellite data). However, these are what climatologists have to face. This is why I mentioned earlier that climatology has an element of archeology. In some sense, ‘low quality’ data are more valuable in studying the present climate change than accurate satellite data of the last 20-30 years.
If the IPCC had paid careful attention to the view of genuine climatologists about climate change during the last several hundred years, they should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term “most� in their conclusion is baseless. Actually, it seems that the IPCC report attempts to make the case that the present warming is extremely unusual. It seems that the IPCC is still influenced by the so-called “hockey stick� figure that was prominently displayed in their 2001 report, even though it was discredited and is not in the 2007 report.
Even a casual study of climate change during the last few hundred years, based on the well-known literature, shows that there is a possibility that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. This recovery may explain much warming due to unknown causes that has occurred even during the present interglacial period; the warming rate of this recovery may be as much as 0.5°C/100 years from about 1700 to the present*. This is comparable with the rate of 0.6°-0.7°C/100 years, which the IPCC claims to be due to the greenhouse effect. The cause of the Little Ice Age is not known; in consequence, the cause of the temperature rebound is also not known. Therefore, it cannot be included as a forcing function. Nevertheless, it exists. Many glaciers in the world began to recede starting about 1700, and sea ice in the Arctic Ocean began to recede starting in 1800, so these phenomena began long before 1940 when CO2 began to increase rapidly.
Thus, it seems that the IPCC study of the present global warming has fallen into the gap between the meteorological approach and the climatological approach.
In addition, there was one obvious temperature rise from 1920 to 1940, and even a decrease from 1940 to 1975, at the same time as CO2 began to increase rapidly. It is inconceivable that the IPCC did not carefully examine the rise between 1920 and 1940. The rate and magnitude of the increase was similar to those after 1975; note that there is the superposed linear increase associated with the rebounding from the Little Ice Age and others, two together making the temperature rise highest in recent years. Their conclusion “most� should be very tentative until the causes of the 1920-1940 rise can be identified. There is no conclusive evidence that the rise after 1975 is different from the 1920-1940 rise.
The computers are “taught� that the temperature rise during the last hundred years is due mostly to the greenhouse effect. If the truth is that only about 10% of the present warming is caused by the greenhouse effect*, the computer code must be rewritten. If the rebounding from the Little Ice Age should continue during the next hundred years, it will contribute a temperature rise of about 0.5°C by 2100. In addition, the greenhouse effect may contribute an additional rise of about 0.5°C by 2100, so the expected temperature rise is about 1°C by 2100. In addition, the multi-decadal oscillation might be either positive or negative in 2100. For these reasons, it may be said that the present state of global warming study is not advanced enough to become the basis of global policy-making based on the temperature rise by 2100 that is predicted by the IPCC.
There are many clear and serious reasons to reduce the usage of energy in the future, completely aside from the IPCC’s incomplete and alarming reasons. It is also very curious that so little has been done to reduce the release of CO2, in spite of the great outcry about global warming and the countless numbers of national and international conferences and negotiations.
A good summary of some of the genuine concerns about the IPCC. Of course, the ‘greenhouse effect’ is well established, but it is the climate sensitivity to the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ that we are concerned with now, which is most likey a maximmum 1C to 1.5C for the iconic doubling (all things being equal, which they aren’t).
There are better correlations/explanations for the recovery from the LIA, termed ‘global warming,’ then rebranded as ‘climate change,’including the 1940’s to 1970’s cooling:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth
Nir Shaviv isn’t impressed with the IPCC ’science’
http://www.sciencebits.com/IPCCbias
http://www.sciencebits.com/FittingElephants
Comment by Paul Biggs — June 15, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Now *this* is some serious scientific handwaving (from page 12):
“The fact that an almost linear change has been progressing, without a distinct change of slope, from as early as 1800 or even earlier (about 1660, even before the Industrial Revolution), suggests that the linear change is a natural change. As shown at the top graph of Figure 1 and also Figure 2, a rapid increase of CO2 began only after 1940.
“As far as the gradient of the linear change is oncerned, it can roughly be estimated to be about 0.5°C/100 years based on Figures 3a, 3b, 4, 5, 6, and 7. It is very interesting to recognize that this gradient is almost comparable with the IPCC’s estimate of 0.6°C - 0.7°C/100 years. Since the maximum decrease of temperature during the Little Ice Age is estimated to be about 0.5°C
(Wilson et al., 2000) – 1.5°C (Crowley and North, 1991; Grove, 2005), it is worthwhile to speculate that the Earth is still recovering from it. Another possibility is that the Earth is experiencing a new warming trend of unknown causes. Yet, another possible additional cause
may be changes in solar output (cf. Soon, 2005; Scafetta and West, 2006), which we did not investigate in this note.
“Therefore, the linear change, which is likely to be a natural change, should be subtracted from the top graph of Figure 1 in order to identify and estimate the greenhouse effect. However, it is not intended here to make an accurate estimate of the gradient of the linear
change. It is beyond the scope of this note. It is a task of climatologists. There is a great uncertainty in obtaining early data corresponding to the accuracy of the top graph of Figure 1 in terms of the geographic distribution of the stations, seasons, etc. Here, I emphasize only that a significant part of the 0.6°C - 0.7°C increase during the last 100 years includes natural changes, contrary to the statement by the IPCC Report (2007), so that natural changes must be subtracted before estimating manmade effects.”
OTOH he at least admits that he’s unqualified to nake a scientific case for any of this.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 15, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Highlighting this passage: “Yet, another possible additional cause may be changes in solar output (cf. Soon, 2005; Scafetta and West, 2006), which we did not investigate in this note.”
Having looked at Dr. Akasofu’s CV, I will just note that solar trends are the one aspect of all of this that he would be qualified to analyze. Why didn’t he?
RealClimate has taken a close look at various aspects of the solar issue, e.g. here regarding the Scafetta and West paper cited by Akasofu, and found it all rather wanting.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 15, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Talk about handwaving, that’s pretty much what the temperature reconstructionists over at Realclimate (uh huh) are pro’s at. Bristle cones anybody?
Sheesh. The measurement of a global mean temperature based on meteorlogical station data is…um…wanting. And then to use these data sets as a basis for policy making is…um…wanting.
Comment by tom — June 15, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Basically a claim that forcings have no validity. Basicall wrong. They may not be a perfect metric, but for large changes they are more than enough.
Oh yeah, tom, go read MBH 99, they did an analysis with and without the bristlecone pines.
Comment by Eli Rabett — June 15, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
I find the statement “the cause of the little ice age is unknown” very strange as the major forcing causing the ice age and most of temperature changes in Earth’s past is very clear - variations in solar activity. Sami Solanki at the Max Planck Insitute compared solar activity & temperatures over the past 1150 years and found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity. When sunspot activity was low during the Maunder Minimum in the 1600’s or the Dalton Minimum in the 1800’s, the earth went through ’small ice ages’. The sun has been unusually hot in the last century - solar output rose dramatically in the early 20th century accompanied by a sharp rise in global temperatures.
However, Solanki also found the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures started rising while solar activity stayed level. This led him to conclude “during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”
This is confirmed by direct satellite measurements that find no rising trend since 1978, sunspot numbers which have leveled out since 1950, the Max Planck Institute reconstruction that shows irradience has been steady since 1950 and solar radio flux or flare activity which shows no rising trend over the past 30 years.
The sun has been the primary driver of Earth’s climate in the past but solar variations are conspicuous in their absence over the last 30 years of long term global warming.
Comment by John Cook — June 15, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
There’s a big problem here. I may be wrong but the main two criticisms I see with the IPCC is that it’s: 1) Political and 2) That their models don’t match reality.
Now the first is inherent, and is a problem. The design of the IPCC seems to have been flawed or manipulated or both but probably can be solved. The second is interesting as a lot of time is devoted to demonstrating the ‘real’ data is flawed (biased due to landform changes).
I don’t understand how on one hand the IPCC models are demonstrated to be flawed when the ‘real’ data they’re compared to is flawed. This seems to be mutually exclusive event. If the ‘real’ data is so bad how can we judge the model? This is a big problem, any ideas how to appropriately judge the merits of a model?
Comment by Nathan — June 15, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
John, if you look carefully at the sunspot record and the temperature change in Europe, the temperature decline starts before the sunspot decline by about (~20-30 years), but there were some god almighty volcanic eruptions just about at the time temperature went down, FWIW.
Comment by Eli Rabett — June 15, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
Re 6:
I think you are right John, that solar changes can not account for the temperature changes since 1978 + a X years time lag. The remaing term must then be explained by e.g. green house gases, land use changes & industrialisation, measurement errors etc. Doing this analysis should give us a reasonable estimate of climate sensitivity and the maximum response to a CO2 increase. When I do back-of-the-envelope calculations lambda ends up in the 0,17 to 0,4 region.
Please be aware that I am a layman, the only climate models I’ve done is for the interior of buildings
Comment by Lars Berg — June 16, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
‘Oh yeah, tom, go read MBH 99, they did an analysis with and without the bristlecone pines.’
Their reconstrution(s) have been sufficiently debunked by the NAS and bristlecones were scorned in their report. The hockey stick is not alive and well in the latest IPCC report. Temperature reconstruction leaves much to be desired…their methodology, their data, their reluctance to share data.
Comment by tom — June 16, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Re 6 & 9,
I just checked the data from ion chambers (measuring high energy cosmic rays rather than cosmic rays in general or solar variation) and it turns out that the actual recieved amount of high energy cosmic rays decreased substantially from 1975 to the end of the century (1,5 percetage points). It is also interesting that the levels increased from 1950 to 1975, probably explaining major parts of the cooling during these years. This gives further restrictions upwards on the climate sensitivity.
Comment by Lars Berg — June 16, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Re #3
Steve Bloom,
You may want to read a little deep into Dr. Akasofu’s CV Steve, as it is much broader than your simple ’solar trends’.
For starters:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL017996.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2002EO000379.shtml
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=sakasofu
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=on&q=author%3As-akasofu&btnG=Search
http://info.alaska.edu/opa/eNews/index.xml?IssueID=126&Year=1976-01-28%2000:00:00
It’s interesting how a research career rich in the study of arctic climate, the ionosphere, geomagnetism, aurora, and solar-terrestrial physics is boiled boiled down to ’solar trends’. What pray tell must be in the CV of a blogosphere gadfly to qualify one to make such pronouncements?
Comment by Earle Williams — June 16, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
Eli, you say:
Actually, no, they didn’t do any such thing. What they did was remove what they called the “residual” from the bristlecone pine series … however, their “residual” was quite different from the residual as determined by Graybill et. al. There’s details of the difference here. and here.
This, of course, is very different from doing an analysis with and without bristlecones … to quote my favorite Lagomorph, “oh, yeah, Eli, go read MBH 99″ …
w.
Comment by Willis Eschenbach — June 16, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Re #12: Learn to read, Earle. The point was that, based on his CV, he was qualified to expertly analyze one aspect of the article (the solar trends) but did not do so. I found that to be a curious lapse.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 16, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
Here are the results of analysis of the temperature records from the lighthouse at Quatsino, BC, which is located on the West Coast of Vancouver Island
Sample Interval : March 16-26
Sample Temperature : Daily Minimum
Sample El Nino Years: 1900 and 1998
Sample La Nina Years: 1899 and 1999
Results:
Mean Minimum +/- SD Deg K, EN/LN Index
El Nino Year: 1900: 276.4 +/- 2.5 EN Index=+1.8
El Nino Year: 1998: 277.3 +/- 1.7 EN Index=+3.3
La Nina Year: 1899: 273.3 +/- 1.0 LN Index=-0.5
La Nina Year: 1999: 275.5 +/- 1.8 LN Index=-0.8
These data speak for themselves, as they always do, and they say: No change in the mean daily minimum temperature
at and around the Spring Equinox for a century.
Note: The effect of the El Nino and La Nina on the mean temperaturea in 1998 and 1999. Note also that the El Nino index for 1998 was the largest since record keeping began. Truth has been sitting in lighthouses of the world for over a century.
I acknowledge the insight of Kirsten Byrnes for providing motivation for undertaking this study.
Comment by Harold Pierce, Jr — June 16, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
For maps showing the locations of the lighthouses of British Columbia go: wwww.fogwhistle.ca/bclights.
All of you must to Kirsten Byrnes’ website:
http://wwww.home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.htm
A 15 year-old high school student, she has great courage and foritude (i.e., guts!) to post such scathing attacks on Al Gore and Jim Hansen.
Comment by Harold Pierce, Jr — June 16, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
Re #14
Steve Bloom,
My reading comprehension is more than adequate, but thanks for you concern. Your assessment of his qualifications is flawed, and the point about solar trends is irrelevant. The article describes evidence that indicate the planet is still coming out of the Little Ice Age. It doesn’t pose theories as to why or assess forcings. Yet you feel the absence of a section analyzing solar trends is a lapse. Curious, indeed.
Comment by Earle Williams — June 16, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
Re #17
Every 4 years the earth receives 1 extra day of sunlight.
After 100 years, the earth has received 25 extra days of sunlight. The earth slowly heats up. Imagine the earth as a spicy meatball on a skewer and the sun as red glowing charcoal sphere. The first rotisserie heating is the earth going around the sun. The second rotisserie cooking
is the skewer rotating so that the meatball receives uniform cooking. This phenomena is termed “the double rotisserie effect”! To seal in the meatball juices the charcoal sphere ocassionally flames the meatball with solar flares!
Comment by Harold Pierce, Jr — June 17, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Harold - The Earth does not receive extra Sunlight each 4 years. The calendar that we use just adds a day each 4 years since our orbit around the Sun takes nearly 1/4 day longer than 365 days each year.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 17, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Re #17: Well, that was content-free. “Evidence” indeed. If you’re so confident that there’s a recovery form the LIA, maybe you could explain to us the stable state toward which it is recovering. If there isn’t one… IT MIGHT NEVER STOP!
Anyway, thanks for the cloud o’ ink.
Re #19: Roger, considering all the other stuff you let pass here without comment, don’t we need to see a cite in support of that? I mean, anybody can just make assertions…
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 17, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Steve B. - I cannot comment on every statement made on the weblog. This is why the input of everyone, in a scientifically constructive manner, is encouraged. Peer reviewed citations certainly add to the rigor of anyone’s statements.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 17, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
Re 20: Steve are you implying that their is a stable state in relation to the climate? If you are what is the definition of the stable state?
I view the history of the earths climate as chaotic at best with the appearance of nontrivial localized stable states/patterns in which nature has manage to prosper. We (human society) exist with in one of these nontrivial localized stable states/patterns now but the kicker is their is no true climate stable state! So I agree with Dr. Pielke Sr., climate research will be far more meaningful to humans if we use the information to improve our societies adaptability to climate change.
/Bob T.
Comment by Bob T. — June 17, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
RE #19
That is not how I understand the orbital mechanics of the earth. It always takes the same amount of time for the earth to travel from any spot in its orbit and back again as measured by an external observer located on the moon for example, and in accordance with Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. Since the earth rotates a little too fast, it has rotated 1/4 of day when it returns to exact spot from which it started as measured by the external observer. After 4 orbits around the sun the external observer would have counted one extra day of rotation.
If the earth rotated a little slower so that a day was exactly 24 hr 0 min and 0 sec., then the year would be exactly 365 days. Let us suppose that rotation speed of the earth was 12hr 0 min and 0 sec. After one orbital period, we would have seen the sun rise and set 730 times and count the year as having 730 days. And we would be one very well done meatball!
Due friction with oceans the speed of rotation slows a few milli seconds per year.
Comment by Harold Pierce, Jr — June 18, 2007 @ 4:54 am
IMHO it would be a great advancement of science if all comments by peer reviewers were published in an appendix together with the paper.
Comment by Hans Erren — June 18, 2007 @ 5:36 am
A while back over on RC, I had an interesting exhange with Ray Pierrehumbert on deep time climate change. He seemed to be making the remarkable claim that GHG concentrations through geologic time were “the” suspect forcing driving significant global-scale climate change across geologic time. He further indicated that since the geological sciences fail to offer physical equations governing the workings of less well-understood forcings such as 1) the evolution of vegetation and landforms, 2)natural aerosol emmissions,3) changes in the geometry, volume and biogeochemistry of the ocean basins,4) solar changes, 5) unquantified unknowns., that we must necessarily cede (his word was fold) the entire climate research endeavour to the more enlighted physicist and climate scientist, such as himself, equipped with a set of equations and the ever-sophisticated AOGCM.
His argument is the height of arrogance and obsurdity. Somewhere it has been said that pride goes before a fall.
Enlighted and learned scientists trying to pass current understanding of climate science off as a “done deal” harken back to the days of Ptolemy and Aristotle. It took over 1000 years for Copernicus and Galileo to come along and debunk the geocentric theory. Hopefully it does not take 1000 years to shovel C02centric theory onto the asheap of history. My hunch is that this facination with the vaunted AOGCM is a “fad” in the geosciences, and will pass from the scene quickly, along with many a present-day young researcher, who will wake up one morning in 20-30 years with a severe scientific hangover.
Comment by Bryan — June 18, 2007 @ 8:38 am
Hi Guys,
Well I think land use and deforestation contribute more to regional and local climate change than other forgings than climate as a whole. If you read Dr Pielke, Sr. paper on this blog about land use forcing. Our focus should be on this instead of throwing funds at the Global Warming Money Pit. According to the “green house effect� the models say that 1) near surface temperatures will rise as CO2 increases. 2) The troposphere will increase in temperature by about 1.5 times as fast as the near surface temperatures. 3) The stratosphere will decrease in temperature (heat being absorbed by the lower atmosphere. Actually what is happening. 1) Near surface temperatures are rising. 2) troposphere temperatures are rising much slower than surface temperatures or not rising at all. 3) The stratosphere is warming. So 2 out three of the predicted out comes of the green house effect are not happening and this is way so many doubt AGW because the science does not fit. The climate is not a cut and dry and the debate is far from over. You can’t say CO2 is the problem when it has never drove climate in the past even when CO2 was ten times higher the climate still cooled. Well there are many thing that influence climate. Just don’t think it is CO2, but CO2 may play a very small role in the warming. When you look at green house gases CO2 is only responsible for 2% to 3% with water vapor accounting for 95%.
These graphs illustrate other things to consider such as the ocean current oscillations. I have linked to show CO2 at Mauna Loa compared to temp. and the solar output compared to temp.
Here are the links and some data sets from many sources including the IPCC and Government agencies. The Junkscience.com graphics have listed the data source in case you would like to look them up.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/aerosol.gif
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/CRUglobalan.png
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
Here is a set of charts and graphs that illustrate the PDO and AMO or ocean oscillations.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Ocean_Multidecadal_Cycles.pdf
If you wish to refute these then please do with real links and facts not some one sided website or just start calling names.
Comment by Jim Arndt — June 18, 2007 @ 11:09 am
Not a good idea. This would start a contest among reviewers to show off their egos and “superior intellectual powers of analysis”, etc. The editors would waste a lot time copy editing the reviews for the printers and publishing reviews would consume space that would be better used for publishing papers disclosing new results of the investigatiors
Comment by Harold Pierce, Jr — June 18, 2007 @ 11:28 am
Re #20
Steve Bloom,
You should take your own advice to heart (first sentence in #14). I was discussing the content of Dr. Akasofu’s article, which you fabricated into an argument regarding my presumed belief in stable climate states. Wow, now that is some creative crafting from whole cloth.
As far as the evidence provided by Dr. Akasofu, yes it is proper to call it evidence. I have not passed judgement on the accuracy, veracity, or completeness of the evidence, merely observed that is the majority of what is in the article. To help you understand the meaning of the word, consider this:
ev·i·dence 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment
(citation http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence )
Comment by Earle Williams — June 18, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Let’s get serious about scenarios. More serious even than the IPCC. In order to bound the scenarios, I look back over the past 10 million years, and to the best of modern paleo capabilities, consider the likely ranges experienced. I consider also, the increasing evidence that some past changes have been very dramatic in terms of their derivative values. What are our contingency plans? Currently there are none. There should be as much or even more effort put into this as there is being put into NEOs.
Comment by Steve Sadlov — June 18, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
“What are our contingency plans [in dealing with abrupt natural change]?
Surely you jest. I experienced one hurricane [Ewa] on the Island of Kauii. The first radio station to go off the air was the local civil defence emergency network station. That was a good thing because everything they were advising was dead wrong.
Heres sound advice. Rely on your own common sense when things go to H in a handbasket. Trust no expert advice from government.
Planners cannot even deal with common events such as hurricanes, it would be a total waste of taxpayer resouces to spend public money on dealing with “scenarios” from a limitless set of possibilities.
I’m all for contingency plans, just not any ones developed by government planners.
Do we need more welfare programs for “planners”
Comment by Bruce Frykman — June 18, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Re #21: My point was more along the lines of wondering if you had a citation to back your statement. As #23 clearly demonstrates, your reasoning is not enough by itself.
Re #22: Bob T., use of the term “recovery” implies such a stable state. I agree that it’s nonsense. The climate moves because it’s pushed. Always.
Re #25: I remember that exchange. It made me wonder whether there’s some sort of secret society where when they join members get told they know everything they need to know about deep time paleoclimate based just on the knowledge needed to prospect for oil.
Re #26: Real guys know (among many other things) that the stratosphere is cooling. Apparently not being able to keep this stuff straight is some sort of wannabe guy thing. Sites like Junkscience and Icecap exist to confuse and mislead wannabe guys, and apparently they’re very effective.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 18, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Re #28: Try “scientific evidence,” Earle. This is a discussion about the science, after all.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 18, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
Steve B. Regarding #31 and #32, you are not offering scientific comments. Your contribution to the weblog is much less when you slip into motives and personal attacks.
Please refrain as I am going to become stricter on this policy for everyone. Websites such as Junkscience, IceCap, Climate Audit, Climate Science, Real Climate and others provide climate information. Webloggers should provide comments based soley on science to support or refute presented perspectives.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 18, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
Instead of saying that the last 30 years of temperature rise cannot be explained by solar activity so it therefore must be man-made, we could also entertain the alternative scientific notion that perhaps the last 30 years of average temperature measurements might actually be a little wrong. Oddly there is some evidence to support his notion, some even advanced by Dr Pielke himself. If we had a solar fixation rather than a CO2 fixation then this would have been the first thought that occurred to us. The climate modelers at Realclimate.org of course dismiss any idea of solar sunspot mapping, regardless of the last 30 years of non-correlation - perhaps because this would mean that the models must therefore be wrong pre 1980 and so are unlikely to be correct post 1980.
Comment by JamesG — June 18, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
So is the Stratosphere cooling? I see repeated claims of the opposite. Someone metioned three things that need to happen. Heating of the lower and upper troposhpere and cooling of the stratosphere. Is there any info on this because I can’t find any easily.
Comment by Nathan — June 18, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
Re #34,
But, if they fixated on solar instead of CO2, then Original Sin wouldn’t work…
Comment by Steve Hemphill — June 18, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
In #31, Steve Bloom stated: “..use of the term “recoveryâ€? implies such a stable state. I agree that it’s nonsense.”
Maybe you need to remind us, readers, of your definition of climate, Steve, before we can evaluate whether a recovery to a stable state is nonsense or not. Under some broader definitions, there might be a “stable state”, but not in the form I suspect you think of (and likely are only familiar with). And the “recovery” to this state can be very well defined. So, where do you see the nonsense?
Then you say: “The climate moves because it’s pushed. Always.”
It sure sounds like “The Earth is flat. Always”. Some people here might have a broader view on what moves and who is pushing that.
Comment by Al Tekhasski — June 19, 2007 @ 1:11 am
Re 34:
if you look at high energy cosmic rays the correlation between cosmic rays, clouds and temperature do not break down around 1980. In fact it keeps being well correlated for the entire period of measurements. A striking feature is the rapid decline when temperatures started to increase in the late 70’s. You can read out ion chamber data from this link:
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/ionChamber.png
More data is available in this paper:
http://www.agu.org/journals/ja/ja9711/97JA02371.pdf?high
Comment by Lars Berg — June 19, 2007 @ 5:53 am
Re #35,
I think it is pretty obvious that the stratosphere has cooled (”is cooling” might be a different matter since the trend the last years has been flat according to the info I have, but that doesn’t matter to this issue).
Jim Clark put together a map that compares Nasas model to real world measurements. It can be viewed at:
http://climatewatcher.blogspot.com/index.html#Errors
I think it is obvious that the models aren’t doing a good job, since the over all idea behind the green house effect is that the troposhere is supposed to warm the surface (some of the trapped heat reradiates back). If the troposhere hasn’t warmed as much as the surface something else than green house gases are in play, at least for large parts of the warming observed.
Comment by Lars Berg — June 19, 2007 @ 7:11 am
#34, #38,
Please see this graphic which show a good correlation between solar activity and temperature. While it is not a perfect match is does shows that the solar output does effect climate.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/CRUglobalan.png
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
Comment by Jim Arndt — June 19, 2007 @ 11:06 am
Re #35,
Nathan, the latest on stratospheric temperature trends (observation) is in the May 07 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Pages 620-621 has a brief summary (Randel et al) of a talk presented the 19th Conference on Climate Variability and change, San Antonio, Texas, 15-18 January 2007.
Robb
Comment by Robb Randall — June 19, 2007 @ 11:14 am
Re #41,
Robb, could you summarize the summary for those of us who don’t have access to AMS papers?
Comment by Aaron Wells — June 19, 2007 @ 11:56 am
Re #42,
The article highlights “An updated assessment of stratospheric temperature trends taking place within the World Climate Research Program/Stratospheric Processes and Their Role in Climate WCRP/SPARC program, seeking to improve understanding of past trends and quantify uncertainties�
“The new analysis show good agreement between satellite and radiosonde datasets for cooling trends in the lower stratosphere, but weaker-than-expected cooling in the middle stratosphere (where only satellite data are available)”
Lower stratosphere temperature trends (MSU Ch4, SSU (not sure of the channel) and Radiosonde) is ~ -0.5K/decade for a time period of 1979-2005 and agree with shown model calculations (Indicated as “an average of recent model calculations”)
Middle stratosphere trends are shown to be ~ -1.0 to -1.5K/decade and not as strong as model indicates
They continue to try to understand the differences.
References:
Randel, W. J., et al. (2007), Long-Term Cooling of the Stratosphere, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 88, 161-162.
I included the below reference as it discusses biases found in radiosonde data. Radiosonde sites found to have cooling biases were omited, bringing MSU(Ch4) and Radiosonde observations into better agreement(variability and trend).
Randel, W. J., and F. Wu (2006), Biases in stratospheric and tropospheric temperature trends derived from historical radiosonde data, Journal of Climate, 19, 2094-2104.
Robb
Comment by Robb Randall — June 19, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
Sorry,
The reference should have read(corrected page numbers):
Randel, W. J., et al. (2007), Long-Term Cooling of the Stratosphere, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 88, 620-621.
Robb
Comment by Robb Randall — June 19, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
This didn’t go through yesterday, so I’m trying again:
Re #35: Er, that was my comment, but since Roger stated it had no scientific content there must not be any scientific question to follow up on. /snark But I do seem to recall some such discussion in this post, in the comments to which the four walls, ceiling and floor of Roger’s carefully structured argument were one by one demolished. To avoid the anthropological experience and cut to the stratospheric temp chase, though, just see here and in particular the ESPERE article linked in the update.
Nathan, one of the problems with Roger approving material from sites like Icecap and Junskscience is that they are just the sort of places where people get strange ideas like the claim that the stratosphere isn’t cooling. There is *some* legitimate info on those sites, but you have to have a pretty good grounding in climate science to be able to tell the difference.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 19, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
#39 #41 #43 #45
This should make some good reading.
Stratosphere trends.
Just the facts no .com no .org just .gov
See figure 5.2
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf
See Table#1
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
Comment by Jim Arndt — June 19, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Re #45: WOW, Talk about ego and miss information. I have Read and re-read the post you point to that supposedly demolished Rogers statement in that post. It lead to good discussion on the subject in which you make way to much of the first comment by John Nielsen-Gammon, to which Roger agreed with and reiterated the main point of the post.
You attempted to redirect the discussion and even attempted to redefine his argument to a smaller subset to which you felt you could make points. All of this is typical debate methodology. You also excelled at debasing the Roger and others with which you where in discussion with. I also hope everyone reads the post and the current last comment by Roger. The result will be one in which the only thing demolished is your [deleted].
and I see noting
Comment by Bob T. — June 19, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
Thanks for the info. Strangely enough my workplace decided to show “An Inconvient Truth” - strange in itself - but even stranger when my boss (The Director of the Geological Survey of Western Australia) claimed it was “lies”… Hmmm Strange times we live in. I hope, in the end reasoned debate will win the day. Have looked in dismay at this post as it has dissolved into personal attacks. They are probably the least convincing of any argument.
Not really the right place to post this, but I know that Murdoch University here in Western Australia is doing studies on the effect of land clearance on rainfall. Western Australia has lost over 80% of it’s original forests and woodlands and the same areas that have been cleared have had a reduction in winter rain (we generally get rain in the winter) of over 20%.
https://wwwforms.murdoch.edu.au/pls/news/NEWSQITNITEM.QueryView?P_UNIQUE_KEY1=3991
Comment by Nathan — June 20, 2007 @ 5:41 am
RE: #48 - The enterprise I hail from doesn’t even bother with showing “An Inconvenient Truth” - instead, we have an Executive VP level “emissary” who spouts the IPCC view world wide. There are overt goals to foment AGW hysteria. As you might have guessed, the business I am in will benefit from people believing in “killer AGW.” And yet, at the personal level, obviously, I disagree with all this. But what am I to do - I’m only a lone voice.
Comment by Steve Sadlov — June 20, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Re #49
Yes, sadly most businesses and orginastions get corrupted by their own attempts at self-preservation. My work demanded everyone do a half day training on ‘ethical behaviour in the workplace’ - which in the end was that while you’re at work you need to ‘tow the work line’. In this case basically the opposite of what you experience. Like the Federal Australian Govt deciding that it will suddenly (in about March this year) decide AGW is real and use it to make Australia go nuclear. Strange thing for Australia to do seeing as we have been struggling to put water through our coal power plants! If we keep bashing at the political wall maybe we will discover some real truth about AGW.
So far for me the most convincing argument either way comes from the physics of CO2, it tends to heat up.
Comment by Nathan — June 20, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
Re #7 - my very delayed comment to Nathan sorry about that I just saw. Nathan says he does not see how one can criticize models of being bad if they are being judged based on output that comes from bad input. And this is the kind of hubris that just continues to cloud the whole issue and a Scientist would not say this. That is wholly incorrect and illogical. If the model output is bad it can be from bad input data or bad model or both. Can discriminate unless you have more information. If the output is good likely both are good but that is not 100%. Bad data and bad model can bd made to fit output if you have enough variables and data. That is not modeling that is curve fitting and statistical regreswsion in defining parameters can not determine causation but is only curve fitting. An 8 degree polynomial will fit about any set of data. Or a deterministic model even wrong if it has enough variables may able to forecast even if the scientific “logic” is scientifically incomplete or wrong wrong.
In many ways trying to model the climate is more difficult than particle physics and you don’t seen “non scientists” debating particle physics. Climate change cannot be specified by equations of state, there are too many processes to develop closed form solutions and changes that are attempted to be “forecast” over decades involve many different physical systems and processes therefore requiring linked sub models with finite difference models involving time element increments. How do you measure convergence, how do you judge “correct.”
#3 Bloom makes personal attacks on Syun-Ichi Akasofu - instead of arguing facts he says look at his CV… trying to discredit credentials is a common tactic used flip side is referring to an expert in support of your side evenif the link is weak or totally absent such as “9 out of 10 doctors say that …” As an educated society we have moved beyond that … so its the internet that is what is enabling all of the noise, what a blessing what a curse.
Look up 1) cognitive process, 2) biases 3) motivators 4) communication tactics. e.g., Wikipedia. So clean all of this noise out of the process. I recommend to get professional mediators to manage the process with ability to question and object to the proceedings.
Oxford historian Norman Davis outlined five basic rules of propaganda in “Europe – a History,� Oxford Press, 1996, pp 500-501):
Simplification - reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foes’, etc.
Disfiguration - discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies
Transfusion - manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own end
Unanimity - presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people; drawing the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of “star- performers,â€? by social pressure, and by ‘psychological contagion’
Orchestration - endlessly repeating the same message in different variations
Comment by david becher — June 21, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
Enjoyed reading the comments on this site, since, because of the energy generated by egos conflicting, people have felt and acted on the need to put forth arguments defending their positions. In the toing and froing, a list has been compiled (pretty complete I suspect albeit haphazardly assembled), of the major variables most likely responsible for affecting in a large way our climate. Very convenient for a science buff like myself who has limited time to keep up on this sort of thing. So, even though each of you may feel from time to time that you are attempting to maneuver at a distance a thick-headed numbskull through a complex maze, a frustrating exercise at best, take heart in the fact that others are benefitting from the exchange.
That having been said, I think I’d like to contribute to the discussion in a small way, by way of asking a few questions. In order to make crystal clear the thrust of my questions, I’m going to (very briefly) summarize my understanding of the variables that affect climate. The basic model is simple. We have climate on earth. Our climate is a product of dynamic processes that occur here that are also affected by objects and events that exist or originate other than on earth, among which are prominent references in some of the comments to the sun [obviously] and to cosmic radiation. My first two questions concern these two astronomic phenomena. Specifically I would like to focus on the effects of the heliomagnetosphere, and its relation to cosmic radiation. When the sun reverses its poles every 11 years (approximately), the heliomagnetosphere undergoes magnetopause. It is my understanding that the heliomagnetosphere affords some protection against cosmic radiation, in that it forms a sort of barrier that largely shields earth from the amount that it could receive if it wasn’t there. If this is true, then the amount of time spent in heliomagnetopause would directly correlate with the increased amount of cosmic radiation with which we were bombarded during its occurrence. Question number one: Does anyone know if this is true? The implicit (and I am sure understood) assumption is that amount, type, and concentration of cosmic radiation impacts the formation of different types of cloud, with attendant different properties of solar radiation reflection and/or retention, etc., etc.
One other aspect of the heliomagnetosphere that could interact with cosmic radiation is its form. Usally, when the solar poles are actually at the poles, the overall form of the heliomagnetosphere is the same as the geomagnetosphere, i.e. sort of like an apple (of course the heliomagnetosphere is layered like an onion, even if it is shaped like an apple). However, as the sun’s poles are in the process of switching, they can sometimes have the same magnetic polarity. For instance, for a brief period in the last switch (in 2000) there were two south poles, and one of them was located pretty close to the solar equator. According to one report I read (and I can probably locate it if requested, it’s just that I don’t usually do this sort of thing), the shape of the heliomagnetosphere changed significantly. If I recall correctly, its overall shape was like a fat croissant with straight ends, and a continuous flat outward roll. Whatever the shape actually was, it stands to reason that, if the heliomagnetosphere acts as a partial shield to cosmic radiation, the characteristics of its ability to shield us would change with its shape change.
It is worth mentioning that it was about the same time as the heliomagnetopause that a build-up in a certain type of solar-radiation-retaining-cloud (assertion of another article I read circa 2005 — I will gladly go to the trouble of looking it up if anyone thinks this line of thinking is worth pursuing, otherwise not). This certain type of cloud (the name of which eludes me at this moment) occupied, as you might expect, a particular stratum in the atmosphere, somewhere in the upper levels. The semi-transparent nature of the cloud allowed sunlight in but restricted it from bouncing back out. The article’s authors were attributing the record setting temperatures we have been experiencing lately to the formation and duration of this layer of cloud. I thought the timing of its appearance with respect to the timing of the heliomagnetopause was pretty interesting. Question number two: Does anyone know if anyone has looked into, or is looking into the possible relationship between form of heliomagnetosphere and amount, type, and concentration of cosmic radiation we receive?
Two questions down and two to go.
My next two questions relate to tectonics. I will start with an observation. Whatever else can be said about tectonics, it must be true that this is a system that is at once in flux and largely stable. The stress produced by geophysical forces is regularly and frequently relieved by a series of adjustments (earthquakes, tremors, volcanic activity, etc.). So the system is in flux. However, major events are relatively rare, so it is also largely stable. It was posited (and supposedly determined) a few years ago that one of the mechanisms that serves as a brake for tectonic motion is sheets of ice (glaciers) - the more ice, the less motion. Assuming that this is true, could there not be a connection between the Pacific Ocean cycle (El Nin~o - La Nin~a) and tectonic shifts? It could happen like this. At some point in the regular tectonic shift adjustment cycle, caused by fluctuations in the ice sheets and the internal pressure that causes typical tectonic movement, the volcanic vents along the eastern part of the Pacific ring of fire would open up. This could produce the effect of not only changing the temperature in this locale (bringing cold water upwell from the depths as a result of the volcanic vents opening significantly), but also affecting the flow of the Humboldt Current, thereby impacting cloud formation (through the altered temperature gradient). Question number 3: Does anyone know if someone is looking into or has looked into the question of whether or not the activity of the volcanic vents along the eastern swing of the Pacific ring of fire affects the Pacific weather cycle?
Finally, once in awhile in the news, there will be an article connecting the presence of a full moon to a volcanic eruption. It makes sense given that the moon is always closest to the earth when it is full, and that because of that proximity its gravitational pull is strongest at the time. The assumption of course is that the increased gravitational pull on the tectonic plates (perhaps in addition to the increased effect on the tides) stresses the equilibrium of the tectonic plates to the point where they lurch a bit. Question 4: Does anyone know if anyone has seriously looked at the effect of the moon (and any other non solar celestial body for that matter) on tectonic events?
The implication is that if we haven’t even taken a look at the possibility that celestial bodies may have recently (through a random walk process) allowed a greater release of heat from the earth’s interior and other geologic event byproducts than usual, how can we rule out that they may be producing the appearance of a warming trend? If we haven’t even considered this issue, then how can we rationally assign heat rise to one source or another?
Of course articles are published on an almost daily basis that bear on global warming. Two that are worth mentioning recently came out on YAHOO! News. The first was published on 7-5-07. The title is ‘Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green’. I won’t go into detail except to say that the scientists quoted by the article’s author made a pretty good argument that Greenland between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago was significantly warmer than it is today. Naturally the ice ages prove that there is natural climate variation (see any work on or by Milankovitch for why), but the large difference in Greenland between then and now addresses the issue of how climates can vary between non-glacial times.
The other article was published on 7-9-07, and was entitled ‘Global Warming Could Fuel War’. The thrust of the article is that global warming is bad because it could cause wars. Granted, wars caused by global warming would be bad. However, the idea that humans cause the global warming that causes the wars was undercut in the third and fourth paragraphs, which I here reproduce in full.
‘Changes in climate such as temperature and rainfall, can significantly alter the availability of crops, livestock and drinking water. Resource shortages could, in turn, prompt people to turn to war to get what they need to survive, several experts have warned.
A new study, detailed in the August 2007 of the journal Human Ecology, suggests this was the case in the past. The authors reviewd 899 wars fought in China between 1000 and 1911 and found a correlation between the frequency of warfare and records of temperature changes.’
I haven’t read the Human Ecology article, but assume for a moment that the authors have found a trove of accurate data. A bunch of wars were fought between 899 and 1911 because of environmental resource shifts due to frequent and significant temperature changes. Well, a very large perentage of this time frame occurred in the pre-industrial period. Read lower CO2 levels. Thank you Chinese dynasties for keeping accurate records of significant events.
My major point is that our climate is to say the least the product of complex forces. Before we think about causing large scale disruptions of economies based on any climatologic models, shouldn’t we wait until we at least have given climatology a chance to mature a little bit more as a science? We’re virtually in its infancy. For instance, it’s only been within the last decade we’ve discovered that the sun’s poles shift in a regular cycle. Do we know what that means, if anything, for our climate? If we don’t know that, how can we even begin to think that we have enough of a handle on climate change to suggest one course of action over another?
I welcome any responses/comments.
Bob Thomas
Comment by bob thomas — July 14, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Well, the problem with this is that the writer seems to ignore the facts produced by the ICCP, for example, stating that the little ice age is not a force is holy wrong to do, the temperature change from it must be taken into consideration. I sense a bias. I feel that I have to ask; what else are you willing to ignore to get you point across?
Comment by Alexander — August 10, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
Use a little common sense and think about this will you? Every year for the last ten years Ford motor company has produced between 15 and 17 million vehicles each year. Thats 150 million vehicles producing both heat and pollution just for the last ten years alone.And that is just one company, and doesn’t account for the thousands of other things humans do every day to pollute our environment and atmospere. And there are billions of us doing it everyday. While there may be many contributing factors to our current warming, any reasonably intelligent individual who does not conclude that humans are overwhelmingly responsible, is in my opinion not reasonably intelligent, but is rather intensely moronic.
Comment by Dave Stearns — August 26, 2007 @ 5:36 am
#54:
I am certainly convinced that we are great polluters and that “things need to change”. However, the leap of logic required to claim that the earth is warming overwhelmingly because of CO2 produced by man and little if anything else is…
Comment by Rejean Gagnon — August 26, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
Nonetheless, a leap is required.
We explain things because we are logical beings. It seems to be an intrinsic characteristic of humans to expend a lot of energy on their big brains observing and hypothesising about the world. Sir Isaac Newton was ridiculed when he first published his ideas on Universal Gravitation, which he put forward as “laws” (describing the very motions of heavenly bodies) because that is what he believed he had uncovered. We know today that, for objects and observers moving at a smallish fraction of the speed of light, his equations describe their behaviour very closely. We also know that they are an approximation, thanks to Einstein.
A curious “fact” about palaeontology is that no-one has ever observed the process of fossilization, where bone is eventually replaced with minerals. So the whole science is based on an assumption that this process indeed occurs, despite no recorded experiment or observation (it takes too long). Of course, it is accepted wisdom, simply because it is the only logical conclusion. We know enough about chemistry and geological processes to explain how it is these things survive for millions of years.
The evidence is that there is nothing else to explain the current warming trend, the one that started in the ’70s. It’s not the sun, it’s not cosmic radiation, or water vapour, or any of the other culprits that some scientists hold up as evidence. That leaves the 200 billion tonnes of CO2.
Comment by Derek Easte — August 29, 2007 @ 12:23 am
56: Derek,
Your argument falls flat at the end. There are alternative or parrallel theories for global warming (ie- new article on troposhperic ozone, or cosmic radiation nucleation of clouds, to name but two). The problem is that the atmosphere about climate science (pardon the pun) has become so polarized that camps have developed that ridicule each other’s work. These vocal camps are a detriment to climate science and the remaining climatologists trying to do serious, objective work (CO2 centric or otherwise).
Did you know that connective tissue has been found in the “fossilized bones” of a T-Rex? Noth the end of fossilization as such, but this shows that we have to keep an open mind about the process!
Comment by Rejean Gagnon — August 29, 2007 @ 8:39 am
Come on, there’s 6.5 people breathing and walking around at 98.7F. Bingo! There’s your AGW.
I still agree with Roger, we need to know the energy content of the system to really figure out what’s going on. Take for example “the ocean”. What does measuring the surface tell us about the system? What’s the temperature at “the bottom” Depends on where you look, correct? Same thing with “the air” or “the ground” This is not one thing.
And even if we determine the energy content of the system, what do we know about “the temperature” of the Earth’s core? Or “the strength” of the Earth’s magnetic field. Or how the magnetic field is interacting with cosmic rays. Add in the sun, some water vapor, some co2, a carbon cycle, cities, cars, people, farm animals. Forest fires, volcanoes, clouds. Lions, tigers and bears. But figuring out the energy content of the system lets us track what it’s doing better than sampling air or sea or glaciers and then modeling that together with things we can’t really know what are doing.
Comment by Mike Nee — August 29, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Climate science is probably the single most important subject on the planet right now. We should be spending as much time and effort (and money) on this as possible. If there is a POTENTIAL danger to the entire (future) human race isn’t it something we should be a WHOLE LOT more concerned about?
The politics, is I guess what can be expected of our current political set-up, which retains a lot of medieval-era superstition-about-science and feudal-era beliefs in the necessity of a strong military, so governments spend near-obscene amounts on bullets and bombs, but next-to-nothing on basic science (unless that science has a potential military benefit). And we’re in the Post-Renaissance, right, the end of the Enlightenment or something?
Comment by Derek Easte — August 29, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
RE: #58 - AGW is all those people, their equipment, and, the combined effects of both locally extreme and globally elevated GHG concentrations, certain airborne particles, plus other albedo mods and other man made changes. AGW is something between 20 - 40% of the total positive radiative forcing. At least, that’s how I see it, YMMV.
Comment by SteveSadlov — August 30, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
#59 The reason politicians aren’t doing anything is because there’s not a rational discussion going on, it’s just a bunch of people yelling at each other. And a bunch of hype about this that and the other. See comment #60 for my take on it all, otherwise. I’m concerned, interested and thoughtful, but not alarmed. We’ve been supposed to run out of oil and food, have nuclear wars and so on over and over and over, and there’s still 6.5 billion people living breathing and eating. Go read the entire IPCC 4AR with a critical eye and think about what everything says (and how the summary parts look compared to the entire report) and how it says it. Things might be a bit more clear about everything.
Oh, and we have wars for the same reasons we have police. Some people want to take things from other people.
#60 Agree!
Comment by Mike Nee — August 30, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Frankly I don’t think that I have reason to be alarmed, at least about my own welfare, because there is a very good chance that I won’t be around when, or if, things start going pear-shaped. I also am fairly cynical about any political will - if there was any there would be a lot more funding for climate studies, for instance.
The IPCC report is supposedly conservative, in that only unequivocal results were allowed, and anything contentious was deliberately left out. In other words the scary stuff didn’t make it. There is some fairly scary stuff, I hear. Like just how stable the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets really are, for instance. There are some pretty big piles of b.s. around, though. The continued assertion being made by some that “there is no consensus” is one of the biggest.
Comment by Derek Easte — August 31, 2007 @ 12:03 am